How credible are university rankings?

How credible are they and which ranking is the most trustworthy? They are quite confusing e.g. UCL has been ranked top 10 in the world while Bath is around 350. But another ranking for uk universities (guardian?) placed Bath ahead of UCL (which wasn't even in the top 10!)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

King of the Ring

Original post by blitzchika

For prestige, use the World rankings.

For student experience, use the UK rankings.

Reply 2

Computer Geek

They're all newspaper biased, or marketing company biased, some have some sort of realism to them, but someone actually serious about universities would do their own research.

Reply 3

Fry_Cook_of_Doom

They are fine for gaining a very general impression of how universities stand relative to each other. They shouldn't be used as a basis for making absolute statements about a university's reputation, though, and definitely shouldn't decide which university you attend,

Reply 4

troubadour.

Original post by blitzchika

Well, it depends what you think is important about a university. They all use different criteria, hence the wildly different rankings. What's important to you? Student satisfaction? Research excellence? How hard it is to get in? And so on.

Reply 5

JustHolly

As credible as you want them to be. You have to bare in mind the different league tables assess different things. UCL have been established as a global university for many years mostly due to their large intake of International Students, whereas Bath - albeit international - doesn't match this. Also Russell Group universities tend to dominate league tables mostly as the quality and reputation of the university is considered higher (although this isn't always true), they tend to be older institutions and receive a lot more funding compared to non-Russell Group and ex-1994 Group universities. Universities such as Bath and Surrey which are currently quite high in League tables were part of the 1994 Group before they left (I think in 2012) and it disbanded in 2013 as a lot of universities moved over to Russell Group. :smile:

The only difference between the two types of uni is the size - Bath and Surrey are quite small compared to other larger institutions such as Warwick.

I prefer the Guardian League tables the most as I like seeing the detailed breakdown and assessments. Also they put the university I'm going to (Surrey) as 4th overall so it's definitely my favourite LOL!

Reply 6

callum_law

Original post by JustHolly

I prefer the Guardian League tables the most as I like seeing the detailed breakdown and assessments. Also they put the university I'm going to (Surrey) as 4th overall so it's definitely my favourite LOL!

The fact they put Surrey as 4th is very much why the Guardian ranking is the worst domestic table we have -- it's laughably bad.

Reply 7

thecatwithnohat

if you're going to look at league tables, only accept what they say with a pinch of salt.

Student satisfaction? I doubt they've asked every single student in the university what they thought. Also, different students' perceptions of rankings may differ; e.g. one may consider a 3 to be average whereas another may consider it to be above average/very good.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 8

King of the Ring

Original post by JustHolly

Bath is miles more prestigious than Surrey, sorry. Surrey is Lancaster material.

Reply 9

JustHolly

Original post by King of the Ring

Bath is miles more prestigious than Surrey, sorry. Surrey is Lancaster material.

Fair enough, that's your perception. Bath was my firm choice. I see Bath as being amazing, however of course I'm going to try to see the best in the university I'm going to.

Reply 10

JustHolly

Original post by callum_law

The fact they put Surrey as 4th is very much why the Guardian ranking is the worst domestic table we have -- it's laughably bad.

Quite frankly I think that's just a bit of bull****! It's actually a really good university and they've steadily climbed up all rankings over the last 10 years. They're fourth because they deserve to be, not because of the way the ranking has been done.

Reply 11

ubisoft

Original post by JustHolly

I think you'll find that what you've said is actually BS. You're saying Surrey is better than LSE?

Reply 12

snowman77

Original post by JustHolly

When people think of typically "good" universities in the UK, they think of places like Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL, LSE, Durham, Warwick, Bristol and perhaps one or two others. They certainly don't think of Surrey. :lol:

I guarantee if you asked 100 random people on the street to name their top 5 universities in the UK, not a single one of them would say Surrey.

Reply 13

Gridiron-Gangster

Original post by JustHolly

Whilst I don't know an awful lot about Surrey you cannot seriously claim it to be the 4th best university in the UK regardless of a newspaper ranking which emphasises criteria as inane as "student satisfaction" which can incorporate all manner of things like whether it be the ease of obtaining a book from the library, to the price of a pint etc.

Reply 14

h3110

Original post by King of the Ring

For prestige, use the World rankings.

For student experience, use the UK rankings.

But places like Bristol and Nottingham are above LSE on the world rankings

Reply 15

ubisoft

Original post by h3110

But places like Bristol and Nottingham are above LSE on the world rankings

Rankings don't matter unless you go to a relatively good uni. Anything in the RG should get you a decent job.

Reply 16

Okorange

People choose their uni for all sorts of reasons including cost of living, tuition, student satisfaction and location. Employers definitely are looking for the best and are definitely going to look at a broad range of unis, the best students at a lower ranked uni are certainly better than the average students at a high ranked uni.

Uni rankings should only be used as a guide but not as a rule.