Why has The University of Nottingham dropped down the league tables?

I'm currently juggling offers between Exeter, Warwick and Nottingham. Deep down I want to go to Nottingham, but is there really any point? I've analysed University data from the late 90's to present day and Nottingham has slid year on year in general rankings, although their research (Irrelevant to me as an undergrad) and their global standing still remain strong. The value of your degree is intrinsically linked to your university name, there's no denying this, and I don't want my degree to decrease in value in 10 years when Nottingham is ranked 50th.

I honestly want to know how a university with three campuses and an income of over £500m (12/13) have let go of themselves like this.

I know league tables don't really offer an insight into the quality of the university, and different metrics would change the results greatly, but that's not reason to disregard them as Nottingham seem to be doing. Hopeful college students still use them to decide where to go and do they prove useful sometimes when comparing Universities.

What gives? And would Warwick/ Exeter be a safer bet? Considering how things are going.

P.S - I may sound like a pretentious ****, but I'm really just concerned and stressed out about this.

Sorry forgot to mention, I'd be doing English. My concern isn't so much the course though, more the overall rep.

I'm currently juggling offers between Exeter, Warwick and Nottingham. Deep down I want to go to Nottingham, but is there really any point? I've analysed University data from the late 90's to present day and Nottingham has slid year on year in general rankings, although their research (Irrelevant to me as an undergrad) and their global standing still remain strong. The value of your degree is intrinsically linked to your university name, there's no denying this, and I don't want my degree to decrease in value in 10 years when Nottingham is ranked 50th.

I honestly want to know how a university with three campuses and an income of over £500m (12/13) have let go of themselves like this.

I know league tables don't really offer an insight into the quality of the university, and different metrics would change the results greatly, but that's not reason to disregard them as Nottingham seem to be doing. Hopeful college students still use them to decide where to go and do they prove useful sometimes when comparing Universities.

What gives? And would Warwick/ Exeter be a safer bet? Considering how things are going.

P.S - I may sound like a pretentious ****, but I'm really just concerned and stressed out about this.

Go for Warwick. It's soaring up the league tables and is the best one by far by reputation. Only downside is the campus and city, Exeter is better for that.

World league tables are mostly based on research which has pretty much nothing to do with your undergrad career so don't focus too much on them (unless you're applying for postgrad).

I agree that Warwick edges Nottingham in most areas, but Warwick suffers for being in the middle of knowhere, and for having a bland campus with very ordinary buildings.

Exeter is comfortably behind Warwick and Nottingham for overall prestige, at least according to employers, Research Power and World rankings.

This is CRichards99 isn't it?

I'm still in school so don't know much haha but the smartest people in the years above me chose Warwick over other unis like Nottingham so that's how I'm basing it. My uni counselor told me to look at unis in the Sutton 13 and Nottingham is in it so it's a good uni but I think Warwick edges it. I don't think that unis like Surrey are better than Nottingham just because it does better in the national league tables.

Who is CRichards?

Warwick edges Nottingham, but the gap is small. At this moment in time I'd probably firm Warwick, and insure Nottingham. Exeter isn't quite in their class, sorry.

I'm currently juggling offers between Exeter, Warwick and Nottingham. Deep down I want to go to Nottingham, but is there really any point? I've analysed University data from the late 90's to present day and Nottingham has slid year on year in general rankings, although their research (Irrelevant to me as an undergrad) and their global standing still remain strong. The value of your degree is intrinsically linked to your university name, there's no denying this, and I don't want my degree to decrease in value in 10 years when Nottingham is ranked 50th.

I honestly want to know how a university with three campuses and an income of over £500m (12/13) have let go of themselves like this.

I know league tables don't really offer an insight into the quality of the university, and different metrics would change the results greatly, but that's not reason to disregard them as Nottingham seem to be doing. Hopeful college students still use them to decide where to go and do they prove useful sometimes when comparing Universities.

What gives? And would Warwick/ Exeter be a safer bet? Considering how things are going.

P.S - I may sound like a pretentious ****, but I'm really just concerned and stressed out about this.

...decided to invest for the future by opening what is now the Jubilee Campus. This increased the total undergraduate student population gradually from 15,000 to 24,000...

Nottingham also decided to divert funds towards the building of expensive campuses in Malaysia and China, again as part of their long-term investment plan for self-sustainable income.

...have placed more emphasis on REF 2014 and on the QS World rankings.

But it isn't all doom and gloom for Nottingham. The heavy expansion of the university has lead it to become a £600 million a year institution, which is close to Imperial's £790 million income.

Nottingham ranks in at 77th in the QS World rankings, and 8th in REF 2014 by reserach power.

They also are the second most popular university in terms of student applications, and for the number of top 100 graduate employers coming onto campus to meet students.

They also have a Medical and Vet school, which always adds a bit of extra prestige to a university.

Expect Nottingham to be the talk of TSR in the next 5 years. It still enjoys a fine name with employers and older graduates.

To cut a long story short, it was down to Nottingham's ambition to raise their annual income (currently double that of Durham's) that lead to unprecendented expansion, which in turn had to be paid for. This had lead to Nottingham languishing behind second rank universities like Lancaster and Surrey in the UK league tables. The thing is though, Nottingham owns more assets and raises more income than Lancaster and Surrey combined.

How is that necessarily good for the future? Which top university in the world has a big undergraduate body?



But those funds would not have been used for research anyway, would they? Research income and administrative income don't tend to mix.



I don't know if you meant this to be a reason for the above, but I can't see overseas campuses could help with either.



The figures are all wrong.

In 2013, Imperial College London has a £822 million income, not 790. Presumably their income would've increased in 2014, not decreased. They have a 6.9% surplus, meaning they have a surplus of £57 million.

In 2013/4, Nottingham has a £571 million turnover. A £25 million surplus gives them a 4% surplus, which is OK but under normal targets (Oxford sets 5% as their target).



Weren't they Top 10 in the UK before all these? Is being No 8 supposedly an improvement? No 77 on QS, which makes it No 14 in the UK, behind Sheffield.

They seemed to have failed.



UCAS seems to have stopped publishing data by institution now, but in 2012, they had 49441 applicants (up from 49282 from the year prior), which actually made them the university with the largest number of applications. But does this mean anything? The universities with the largest applications included places like Manchester Metropolitan University, whilst both Oxbridge received significantly fewer applications.

It's true about the Top 100 employers, but that has nothing to do with their actual employment rate or graduate salary.



Were they new and a part of their decline on the league tables? I don't think so.



Are you hired by Nottingham to be their promoter? It seems your entire post was just a promotional material from them. You made up figures and ignored other figures to present Nottingham to be much better than it is.

In reality, its surplus is nowhere near as impressive as you've made it seems, neither is its turnover. Its number of applications doesn't make it prestigious or good in any way, and in fact top universities would rather have a smaller undergraduate population. You said they focused on QS and RAE/REF, yet they fell on QS (72-75-77 in the last three years) and did not deviate from being Top 10 on the latter (they did rise significantly on this, but they were considered a Top 10 university a decade ago, so being No 8 is not a shockingly good result).

Long story short, Nottingham was/is money-hungry and so they do whatever it takes to get that extra penny, even when it sacrifices their entry standards, position on all tables, and overall reputation.