The Student Room Group

How are the guardian university league tables calculated?

How are the guardian university league tables calculated? Specifically for Law

http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2015/may/25/university-league-tables-2016#S300

I think The Guardian considers factors such as Employment rates and money spent on students more heavily, whilst CUG considers history and research more
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Not very well. Not being mean to Surrey and Bath, they're both great universities but it's not up there with the top ones.
The league tables (for all areas combined) put Surrey and Bath above Imperial, LSE, Durham and UCL
Reply 2
Avatar for zigglr
zigglr
OP
18
Original post by Sam280297
Not very well. Not being mean to Surrey and Bath, they're both great universities but it's not up there with the top ones.
The league tables (for all areas combined) put Surrey and Bath above Imperial, LSE, Durham and UCL


I think it is more accurate if you look at the subject specific tables, and I think they put more weight on student satisfaction and employment rates after graduating
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/25/methodology-behind-the-guardian-university-guide-2016
Original post by zigglr
I think it is more accurate if you look at the subject specific tables, and I think they put more weight on student satisfaction and employment rates after graduating


Even at subject level they're not that accurate. For my subject (physics), Lancaster is 2nd, and Leicester and Hertfordshire are above Durham, Imperial, UCL, Manchester and Edinburgh.

They base a lot of it off the student experience as well as the academic side, so some of the higher ones with lower reputation perform very well. It makes sense as Surrey and Lancaster were two of my choices and they seemed to be very good for student life and had high student satisfaction
Reply 5
Avatar for zigglr
zigglr
OP
18
Original post by Sam280297
Even at subject level they're not that accurate. For my subject (physics), Lancaster is 2nd, and Leicester and Hertfordshire are above Durham, Imperial, UCL, Manchester and Edinburgh.

They base a lot of it off the student experience as well as the academic side, so some of the higher ones with lower reputation perform very well. It makes sense as Surrey and Lancaster were two of my choices and they seemed to be very good for student life and had high student satisfaction


Yeah I just read at how they calculate it:http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/25/methodology-behind-the-guardian-university-guide-2016

I think it is very heavy on career prospects / employment rates and money spent on students
(edited 8 years ago)
Reply 6
Avatar for sanz ali
sanz ali
1
Original post by zigglr
How are the guardian university league tables calculated? Specifically for Law

http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2015/may/25/university-league-tables-2016#S300


Tony Montana and Rick Ross decide.
Original post by Sam280297
Not very well. Not being mean to Surrey and Bath, they're both great universities but it's not up there with the top ones.
The league tables (for all areas combined) put Surrey and Bath above Imperial, LSE, Durham and UCL


No, I think it is quite accurate. You see, with these sources you have to compare them with other reliable sources. I looked at the completeuniversityguide and it seemed to be fairly similar. So I would say that is it accurate for looking at the best universities for a certain subject such as Law. Bath and St.Andrews are top for courses such as Business Management/Studies while Durham was 6th place. These change depending on the course to be honest.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=law
Reply 8
Avatar for NOONA.
NOONA.
19
Soz guys but students at Russell group universities are just not happy with what they've got. I think the league table is fair, why should heritage, history and research mean they (LSE, imperial and UCL) are higher than universities which are actually better in many other ways.
Reply 9
Avatar for zigglr
zigglr
OP
18
Original post by NOONA.
Soz guys but students at Russell group universities are just not happy with what they've got. I think the league table is fair, why should heritage, history and research mean they (LSE, imperial and UCL) are higher than universities which are actually better in many other ways.


Agreed, I think The Guardian considers other factors more heavily, such as employment rates and money spent on students, rather than history and research, which some people may find more important.
All league tables are estimates. I went to Surrey and would 100% say it deserves to be highly ranked, but as others have pointed out, its position relative to other big players seems a little suspicious.

I would simple say that it is hard to compare universities when each university has its own individual strengths. Apples and oranges as the saying goes. Also the league tables don't factor in prestige, but prestige may lower rankings due to students expecting or demanding more from the course they are on or from the university in general.

In my opinion the league tables are nothing more than a very rough guide and you should assess individual universities yourself. Just because a uni is highly ranked doesn't mean it will suit you. A few places or tens of places in the rankings doesn't mean much in the real world.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by NOONA.
Soz guys but students at Russell group universities are just not happy with what they've got. I think the league table is fair, why should heritage, history and research mean they (LSE, imperial and UCL) are higher than universities which are actually better in many other ways.


UCL, ICL and LSE are not better just because of their history. Lower ranked unis might be better in how they serve food in the on-campus restaurant, but for the things which matter UCL, ICL and LSE are better. They have the smarter students, they have the better career prospects for professional jobs, and the better academics (based on the quality of research). Part of the assessment by the Guardian is based on how a student's grades improve from entry to degree classification—this is absurdly unfair. If you have smart students already, it's a lot trickier to get them to higher grades than if you have someone with CCD get to a 2.1 at Loondon Met. It's also unfair if you have people at some universities rave about the quality of services provided, such as feedback, when they are actually dissatisfied with the services but are hesitant to criticise them because they know it affects the standing of their degree in the league tables.

In short, there is a reason people with A*AA go to UCL and why people with AAB go to Surrey.
Reply 12
Avatar for NOONA.
NOONA.
19
Original post by callum_law
UCL, ICL and LSE are not better just because of their history. Lower ranked unis might be better in how they serve food in the on-campus restaurant, but for the things which matter UCL, ICL and LSE are better. They have the smarter students, they have the better career prospects for professional jobs, and the better academics (based on the quality of research). Part of the assessment by the Guardian is based on how a student's grades improve from entry to degree classification—this is absurdly unfair. If you have smart students already, it's a lot trickier to get them to higher grades than if you have someone with CCD get to a 2.1 at Loondon Met. It's also unfair if you have people at some universities rave about the quality of services provided, such as feedback, when they are actually dissatisfied with the services but are hesitant to criticise them because they know it affects the standing of their degree in the league tables.

In short, there is a reason people with A*AA go to UCL and why people with AAB go to Surrey.


Lol Surrey has better career propects though and no its not just about restaurant food it's about facilities and other services.
As for the researchers they may be good at what they do, but they are absolutely s*** when it comes to lecturing. I know many people who have left universities like UCL and Kings, and prefer non Russell group unis.
Original post by NOONA.
Lol Surrey has better career propects though and no its not just about restaurant food it's about facilities and other services.
As for the researchers they may be good at what they do, but they are absolutely s*** when it comes to lecturing. I know many people who have left universities like UCL and Kings, and prefer non Russell group unis.


Agreed. My sister originally got Manchester to do Pharmacy but transfered in the first year due to the teaching style and now goes to Leicester and prefers this.
Original post by NOONA.
Lol Surrey has better career propects though and no its not just about restaurant food it's about facilities and other services.
As for the researchers they may be good at what they do, but they are absolutely s*** when it comes to lecturing. I know many people who have left universities like UCL and Kings, and prefer non Russell group unis.


It's about how people attest to the quality of services provided. I just looked at my course on Unistats and 100% said they are overall satisfied with the course—I can tell you that a fair few of them are not actually overall satisfied with the course and are rather annoyed. It begs the question why they said they lied (which is what they did). I put it to you that some universities just have more people lie than others, and this is what the tables are assessing with regard to overall student satisfaction. As for the percentage employed, it matters more about where the people ended up working than the absolute number in work. For example, my uni and Surrey have around the same absolute number employed but mine has more in professional or managerial roles whereas Surrey has more people in sales roles (a quite large 10% working in sales).

I see you study at Surrey and it's quite normal to not want to accept your university is not as good as you hope it is. At the same time, you do have to open your eyes a little bit. Listen to the Surrey grad in the thread who admits the uni is decent but doesn't deserve to be ahead some of the unis it is ahead of.
Original post by alexp98
Agreed. My sister originally got Manchester to do Pharmacy but transfered in the first year due to the teaching style and now goes to Leicester and prefers this.


MPharm is a more vocational degree. Studying it at a highly ranked university is arguably less important than if you are studying history or something along those lines.
Reply 16
Avatar for NOONA.
NOONA.
19
Original post by callum_law
It's about how people attest to the quality of services provided. I just looked at my course on Unistats and 100% said they are overall satisfied with the course—I can tell you that a fair few of them are not actually overall satisfied with the course and are rather annoyed. It begs the question why they said they lied (which is what they did). I put it to you that some universities just have more people lie than others, and this is what the tables are assessing with regard to overall student satisfaction. As for the percentage employed, it matters more about where the people ended up working than the absolute number in work. For example, my uni and Surrey have around the same absolute number employed but mine has more in professional or managerial roles whereas Surrey has more people in sales roles (a quite large 10% working in sales).

I see you study at Surrey and it's quite normal to not want to accept your university is not as good as you hope it is. At the same time, you do have to open your eyes a little bit. Listen to the Surrey grad in the thread who admits the uni is decent but doesn't deserve to be ahead some of the unis it is ahead of.

Tbh I'm not defending the guardian league table as all I've always thought it was dodgy but the complete university guide is pretty much accurate
Reply 17
Avatar for 2071067
2071067
2
Original post by callum_law
UCL, ICL and LSE are not better just because of their history. Lower ranked unis might be better in how they serve food in the on-campus restaurant, but for the things which matter UCL, ICL and LSE are better. They have the smarter students, they have the better career prospects for professional jobs, and the better academics (based on the quality of research). Part of the assessment by the Guardian is based on how a student's grades improve from entry to degree classification—this is absurdly unfair. If you have smart students already, it's a lot trickier to get them to higher grades than if you have someone with CCD get to a 2.1 at Loondon Met. It's also unfair if you have people at some universities rave about the quality of services provided, such as feedback, when they are actually dissatisfied with the services but are hesitant to criticise them because they know it affects the standing of their degree in the league tables.

In short, there is a reason people with A*AA go to UCL and why people with AAB go to Surrey.


I beg to differ, they just have richer students. When I went to UCL most people I met were either public school, international or at least selective posh suburb grammar school. Of course these people will have higher grades because they got a better education.
As for employment prospects some recruiter at Arup told me that nobody cares where you went, they just care what modules you did and what you got, and research output is a bad thing for undergraduates because it means they spend less time on you. Just putting it out there that top ranked universities are not some utopia.
Original post by NOONA.
Tbh I'm not defending the guardian league table as all I've always thought it was dodgy but the complete university guide is pretty much accurate


UCL in 13th and Surrey in 8th. Nope, I don't agree with that. CUG is certainly better than the Guardian rankings but they are not accurate.
Original post by zigglr
I think it is more accurate if you look at the subject specific tables, and I think they put more weight on student satisfaction and employment rates after graduating


Does ANYONE actually care for student satisfaction?

I would be much more satisfied with dominoes over a salad... Yet it's 100x worse for my health and future.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you