Guardian 2016 League Table - A Joke?

I'm having de ja vu...

I'm sure I've already said in a thread about this that the value added score column is pointless.
"10. The value-added score compares students’ individual degree results with their entry qualifications, to show how effective the teaching is. It is given as a rating out of 10"

Tfw your uni is 44th.

Value Add is a perfectly sensible measure. But you can always ask The Guardian about the method here:

University guide Q&A: put your questions to the compiler
http://gu.com/p/493dy

Edit to add info from their Q&A
"d - Value Added Scores

Based upon a sophisticated indexing methodology that tracks students from enrolment to graduation, qualifications upon entry are compared with the award that a student receives at the end of their studies. Each full time student is given a probability of achieving a 1st or 2:1, based on the qualifications that they enter with. If they manage to earn a good degree then they score points which reflect how difficult it was to do so (in fact, they score the reciprocal of the probability of getting a 1st or 2:1). Thus an institution that is adept at taking in students with low entry qualifications, which are generally more difficult to convert into a 1st or 2:1, will score highly in the value-added measure if the number of students getting a 1st or 2:1 exceeds expectations. At least 30 students must be in a subject for a meaningful Value Added score to be calculated using 2012/13 data alone. If there are more than 15 students in 2012/13 and the total number across 2011/12 and 2012/13 reaches 30, then a 2-year average is calculated. This option could only be exercised when the subjects were consistent in definition between the two years.

We always regard students who are awarded an integrated masters as having a positive outcome.

A variant of the Value Added score is used in the three medical subjects – Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Science. This is because medical degrees are often unclassified. For this reason, unclassified degrees in medical subjects are regarded as positive but the scope of the study population is broadened to encompass students who failed to complete their degree and who would count negatively in the Value Added score."

Posted from TSR Mobile

Student satisfaction makes up a lot of the ranking position factors so just because a uni has top researchers it does not make it more likely to be at the top. In fact, research quality is nowhere to be seen in these tables. Which makes sense because they are for undergrads. I assume you are a Maths student, you shouldn't be so shocked at the results. Check the metrics.

I guess I would probably rank universities on different criteria then... Although I agree research quality shouldn't effect tables for undergrads.

I would do away with value added score in an instant.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the relevance of value added score - does that mean that top maths universities (A*A*A+ entry requirements) can never get a proper value added score?

X

I just saw this table

How does Cambridge have the top rated Medicine course?? The rating for student satisfaction, teaching, and feedback are incredibly low... Only around 50% for the feedback rating.

Yes but they could "reduce" value if they take A*A*A students and they get a below average number of 1st/2.1s.

Oxbridge seem to getting a VA of 5 in mist subjects so they are taking in very good students and they leave with very good degrees. They are not "adding value", but not reducing value either.

If a uni accepts students with poor A-levels but they leave with a high number of 1st then they get a VA of 10.

If they accept good students but they leave with poor degrees they get a VA of 1.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But it's up to the uni what degree classification the students get.

I know it's extreme, but what's stopping a uni taking in say BBB students and giving them all a first?

The value added score would only make sense if exams were standardised across all universities, like how everyone sits the same a level exams.

I guess I would probably rank universities on different criteria then... Although I agree research quality shouldn't effect tables for undergrads.

I would do away with value added score in an instant.

External moderation. Although it's by no means a perfect system at the moment.

The point of external moderation is not really to make sure universities are awarding classifications that are in line with the standard of student. If it is, then it'd be interesting to know why the University of Portsmouth are awarding nearly 50% firsts to its mathematics students, when only 15% of them managed to get AAA+ at A-Level and Oxford/Cambridge only award 30% firsts when AAA wouldn't even get you in. That's not only an imperfect system, it's a broken one

Yes but they could "reduce" value if they take A*A*A students and they get a below average number of 1st/2.1s.

Oxbridge seem to getting a VA of 5 in mist subjects so they are taking in very good students and they leave with very good degrees. They are not "adding value", but not reducing value either.

If a uni accepts students with poor A-levels but they leave with a high number of 1st then they get a VA of 10.

If they accept good students but they leave with poor degrees they get a VA of 1.

Posted from TSR Mobile