The QS World University Rankings® 2015/16 will be published on TopUniversities.com on
Scroll to see replies
I think it's a bit facile to attach so much interest in university league tables, but this is especially true of the QS one; very little of the ranking has anything to do with their undergraduate degrees (which I assume basically everyone on here is actually interested in), their methodology is
Academic Reputation: 40%
Faculty - Student Radio: 20%
Citations per Faculty: 20%
Employer Reputation: 10%
International Students: 5%
International Faculty: 5%
So only 30% of the actual ranking (ratio + employer) has anything to do with their undergraduate courses, and the faculty:student ratio is a rather crude way to determine the quality of education.
If you actually look at the individual scores you'll see that they gave pretty much everyone in the top 10 a score of 100 in academic reputation and employer reputation, presumably because it's difficult to really distinguish. So when you look at the exact ranking of each university, what it comes down to is mostly the citations per faculty and % of internationals, which is what varies the most.
Of course to most people this is pretty irrelevant - if anything you wouldn't want too high a % of international students if you're an undergraduate (e.g. I know about half the year at Imperial doing Maths are from East Asia - a lot don't bother socialising with people who speak english). This is also probably why the London universities seem to rank much higher here than on the UK tables which don't take this into account (I mean KCL 19th - what a joke; it's probably not even in the top 20 in the UK, for example you cover more Maths in a 3 year BSc degree at Warwick than a 4 years Masters at KCL, which everyone knows is a much better course, yet Warwick is far lower).
What this mostly measures is the research aspect of universities - if you're not interested in doing a PhD, this league table is pretty irrelevant.
Academic Reputation: 40%
Faculty - Student Radio: 20%
Citations per Faculty: 20%
Employer Reputation: 10%
International Students: 5%
International Faculty: 5%
So only 30% of the actual ranking (ratio + employer) has anything to do with their undergraduate courses, and the faculty:student ratio is a rather crude way to determine the quality of education.
If you actually look at the individual scores you'll see that they gave pretty much everyone in the top 10 a score of 100 in academic reputation and employer reputation, presumably because it's difficult to really distinguish. So when you look at the exact ranking of each university, what it comes down to is mostly the citations per faculty and % of internationals, which is what varies the most.
Of course to most people this is pretty irrelevant - if anything you wouldn't want too high a % of international students if you're an undergraduate (e.g. I know about half the year at Imperial doing Maths are from East Asia - a lot don't bother socialising with people who speak english). This is also probably why the London universities seem to rank much higher here than on the UK tables which don't take this into account (I mean KCL 19th - what a joke; it's probably not even in the top 20 in the UK, for example you cover more Maths in a 3 year BSc degree at Warwick than a 4 years Masters at KCL, which everyone knows is a much better course, yet Warwick is far lower).
What this mostly measures is the research aspect of universities - if you're not interested in doing a PhD, this league table is pretty irrelevant.
(edited 8 years ago)
Happy to see a ranking that values European universities. I am sick of seeing 80 American flags before I get to see an Union Jack, a French or a German flag. Do the guys that make other rankings really believe Penn State is better than Heidelberg, UCL or Pantheon-Sorbonne? It was nice seeing a French uni in the top 20s and a Swiss in the top 10 as well as many respectable British universities dominating a good portion of the rankings. Of course there are still flaws but hey, it is improving.
Original post by callum_law
Physics is the only subject it's very good at; for the rest, it's just an average RG. Ever for other natural sciences, it's an AAB uni. Not that that's bad before anyone gets on my case, but it's not spectacular. For arts and humanities, it's decidedly average.
Is it fair when Manchester accepts a lot more students though? Of course their entry tariff would be lower ever if they are equally 'good'.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Is it fair when Manchester accepts a lot more students though? Of course their entry tariff would be lower ever if they are equally 'good'.
Yeah it accepts a lot more students but that means that if you were to take a random Manchester student they probably aren't as good as a random student from a university with a higher entry tariff.
Original post by Okorange
Yeah it accepts a lot more students but that means that if you were to take a random Manchester student they probably aren't as good as a random student from a university with a higher entry tariff.
But I thought we're talking about the quality of the university? Ever if you take into account of current students, that'd just be one of the many factors, probably a less important one. The quality of students does not reflect its teaching or research standards, cultural or political influence.
Original post by Okorange
Yeah it accepts a lot more students but that means that if you were to take a random Manchester student they probably aren't as good as a random student from a university with a higher entry tariff.
If we define good as privately schooled
The VC at Manchester is called Nancy Rothwell and I heard her talking on the radio about how she takes pride in exceeding the requirements of the access agreement* because she thinks it's the right thing to do... you can't take it as read that people working in HE think their only purpose in life is to optimise the unis league table position - they may have strange and incomprehensible (to many on TSR) ideas about having a role to play in increasing fairness and social mobility.
* in effect letting more people in with low grades/non conventional prior academic careers
Original post by King of the Ring
QS World rankings are a usual source of information for universities to measure their progress, as well as for students to see how universities are doing globally.
QS are the least consistent of the big world rankings. If I cared about rankings I would give more weight to the THE, ARWU or even the US News world rankings.
Would you really trust a ranking system that last year decided Imperial was the 2nd best uni in the world?? As a current Imperial student who has been to other unis in the UK and US, this is beyond ridiculous.
Original post by Gabrielxucram
Happy to see a ranking that values European universities. I am sick of seeing 80 American flags before I get to see an Union Jack, a French or a German flag.
I'm glad you're happy but rankings are supposed to be objective and not there to satisfy nationalist preferences. Have you considered that US universities dominate world rankings because they have better research output, are more innovative and have far superior teaching quality? The QS and the Times rankings are both UK institutions so it's not surprising that they might be biased towards UK unis. Despite inflating certain egos, I don't think that should be encouraged.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by xenophile
QS are the least consistent of the big world rankings. If I cared about rankings I would give more weight to the THE, ARWU or even the US News world rankings.
Would you really trust a ranking system that last year decided Imperial was the 2nd best uni in the world?? As a current Imperial student who has been to other unis in the UK and US, this is beyond ridiculous.
I'm glad your happy but rankings are supposed to be objective and not there to satisfy nationalist preferences. Have you considered that US universities dominate world rankings because they have better research output, are more innovative and have far superior teaching quality? The QS and the Times rankings are both UK institutions so it's not surprising that they might be biased towards UK unis. Despite inflating certain egos, I don't think that should be encouraged.
Would you really trust a ranking system that last year decided Imperial was the 2nd best uni in the world?? As a current Imperial student who has been to other unis in the UK and US, this is beyond ridiculous.
I'm glad your happy but rankings are supposed to be objective and not there to satisfy nationalist preferences. Have you considered that US universities dominate world rankings because they have better research output, are more innovative and have far superior teaching quality? The QS and the Times rankings are both UK institutions so it's not surprising that they might be biased towards UK unis. Despite inflating certain egos, I don't think that should be encouraged.
As has been said before, QS World rankings are one source of information, and should not be viewed in isolation. There is no league table in the World that exists to prove that one university is better than the other, as they are all so different.
Durham's rise is down to the methodology being adjusted to give equal weight to subjects across all areas, and not just to STEM.
Original post by King of the Ring
Durham's rise is down to the methodology being adjusted to give equal weight to subjects across all areas, and not just to STEM.
This is only partly true. They have lowered the influences of medicine and certain sciences, but engineering have become a lot more influential. Look at how HKU destroys HKUST in four of the five faculties (mostly Top 15/20 globally) but HKUST comes out two spots above (No 28 v 30) with just good performance in Engineering & Technology.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
This is only partly true. They have lowered the influences of medicine and certain sciences, but engineering have become a lot more influential. Look at how HKU destroys HKUST in four of the five faculties (mostly Top 15/20 globally) but HKUST comes out two spots above (No 28 v 30) with just good performance in Engineering & Technology.
That definitely explains why McMaster fell so much in the world rankings this year compared to last, as the medical school is definitely what kept it so high in the world rankings previously.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
But I thought we're talking about the quality of the university? Ever if you take into account of current students, that'd just be one of the many factors, probably a less important one. The quality of students does not reflect its teaching or research standards, cultural or political influence.
But apart from teaching and for the research inclined, research, the rest don't really matter to an undergraduate student.
What does matter is if your university name will open doors that may otherwise be closed, and that is where selectivity comes into play. The most selective schools are likely to have highly quality average students which increases the reputation of the school and rubs off on all students who go to the school.
Original post by Okorange
That definitely explains why McMaster fell so much in the world rankings this year compared to last, as the medical school is definitely what kept it so high in the world rankings previously.
That's what QS said when people asked about HKU losing its top spot anyway (RE: medical research count for less).
Original post by Okorange
But apart from teaching and for the research inclined, research, the rest don't really matter to an undergraduate student.
What does matter is if your university name will open doors that may otherwise be closed, and that is where selectivity comes into play. The most selective schools are likely to have highly quality average students which increases the reputation of the school and rubs off on all students who go to the school.
What does matter is if your university name will open doors that may otherwise be closed, and that is where selectivity comes into play. The most selective schools are likely to have highly quality average students which increases the reputation of the school and rubs off on all students who go to the school.
The research output matters if you're talking the general reputation of the school - academics winning prizes, being reported by the papers, going on TV/radio, solving or finding out problems/solutions to anything all contribute to the reputation of the school. If a university successfully develops a vaccine against HIV/AIDS, it will not influence the quality of teaching or to individual undergraduate student, but the wider society will view it better. Scarcity only is one of the many factors affecting the general reputation/prestige of a school.
Also, just because people may have lower a-level grades, doesn't mean they'd be worse workers or necessarily less intelligent. Doors opening could be done by prestige alone, but to most people it has more to do with the alumni network, eg whether said university's alumni are in managerial positions in companies. Having a huge amount of graduates can help that.
Original post by Okorange
But apart from teaching and for the research inclined, research, the rest don't really matter to an undergraduate student.
What does matter is if your university name will open doors that may otherwise be closed, and that is where selectivity comes into play. The most selective schools are likely to have highly quality average students which increases the reputation of the school and rubs off on all students who go to the school.
What does matter is if your university name will open doors that may otherwise be closed, and that is where selectivity comes into play. The most selective schools are likely to have highly quality average students which increases the reputation of the school and rubs off on all students who go to the school.
The postgraduates, PhD students and post-docs might disagree with that. Universities are not ivory towers, they have a duty to their local area, and to the economy. Undergraduates are only one part of that, and many of those will go on to become postgraduates and beyond.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
That's what QS said when people asked about HKU losing its top spot anyway (RE: medical research count for less).
Yeah, probably true, I was a bit surprised as the university fell maybe 30 places but its medical ranking went up almost 20.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
The research output matters if you're talking the general reputation of the school - academics winning prizes, being reported by the papers, going on TV/radio, solving or finding out problems/solutions to anything all contribute to the reputation of the school. If a university successfully develops a vaccine against HIV/AIDS, it will not influence the quality of teaching or to individual undergraduate student, but the wider society will view it better. Scarcity only is one of the many factors affecting the general reputation/prestige of a school.
Also, just because people may have lower a-level grades, doesn't mean they'd be worse workers or necessarily less intelligent. Doors opening could be done by prestige alone, but to most people it has more to do with the alumni network, eg whether said university's alumni are in managerial positions in companies. Having a huge amount of graduates can help that.
Also, just because people may have lower a-level grades, doesn't mean they'd be worse workers or necessarily less intelligent. Doors opening could be done by prestige alone, but to most people it has more to do with the alumni network, eg whether said university's alumni are in managerial positions in companies. Having a huge amount of graduates can help that.
I agree with what you are saying, but someone's opinion of good unis for undergrad can be different from good unis for postgrad.
Original post by ubisoft
Manchester, Edinburgh, Kings too high.
Warwick, Durham, LSE too low.
Warwick, Durham, LSE too low.
Edinburgh, Durham and Warwick are in the right places. Manchester and Kings too high, LSE too low.
Original post by Okorange
I agree with what you are saying, but someone's opinion of good unis for undergrad can be different from good unis for postgrad.
No, what I'm trying to say is that if say University of Blah created a cure for cancer (research success), then employers will also see the general reputation highly, undergrad or postgrad, in whatever field.
Original post by TheTechN1304
Edinburgh, Durham and Warwick are in the right places. Manchester and Kings too high, LSE too low.
And all of these based on your personal subjective feelings?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Confused about uni for employability
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- Which offer should I take? Bristol or Warwick?
- Edinburgh vs KCL for English
- MSc management for UCL,Manchester,Bayes, Kings
- Cambridge with no scholarship Vs University of St Andrews with full scholarship
- is it bad i used chatgpt to write so many fanfics for my own enjoyment?
- Newcastle v Northumbria Uni’s for law
- Why is Bath ranked low in QS ranking for pharmacy?
- Bsc accounting and finance
- QS 2023 ranking Art Degrees
- Why Not to Study in the Netherlands
- Does it worth to choose Salford fashion business & promotion?
- Dundee or swansea
- Course Indecisiveness
- Edinburgh BEng course, Manchester BSc or Durham BSs programs for CompSci?
- Can someone help with these Mathsy/CR questions pls??
- Postgraduate Study, help, what should I do?
- Uni of Aberdeen
- Durham or ESCP?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
