Is it wrong to measure the quality of a university by their entry requirements?

Some of the unis with highest percentage of international students are LSE (40% :O), Imperial, UCL, St Andrews, City and Essex, so their "true" average UCAS score would be lower than what what you see on the league tables.

I do the same, and to be fair, they correspond with the 2015 League Tables, Cambridge generally having higher entry requirements on all its subjects than say, Manchester is also higher up. But this is just for general measure, there are definitely universities that shouldn't be measured by their entry requirements such as KCL/UCL.

Sidenote: incase people get the wrong idea about my statement on KCL and UCL, I was referring to the fact that despite KCL being a little more prestigious and harder to get into than UCL, its lower ranked in the league tables.

I do the same, and to be fair, they correspond with the 2015 League Tables, Cambridge generally having higher entry requirements on all its subjects than say, Manchester is also higher up. But this is just for general measure, there are definitely universities that shouldn't be measured by their entry requirements such as KCL/UCL.

Sidenote: incase people get the wrong idea about my statement on KCL and UCL, I was referring to the fact that despite KCL being a little more prestigious and harder to get into than UCL, its lower ranked in the league tables.

To be honest, that's how I measure it. I look at the entry requirements, the higher they are, the better the university. Although I'm starting to think that's not such a good thing, but why? Anybody else out there uses the same method? What affects the entry requirements of a certain university? Just popularity?

To be honest, that's how I measure it. I look at the entry requirements, the higher they are, the better the university. Although I'm starting to think that's not such a good thing, but why? Anybody else out there uses the same method? What affects the entry requirements of a certain university? Just popularity?

It's a useful rule of thumb and actually probably more accurate than scrutinising league tables. It's an indicator of demand for the course and importantly it's an indicator of the calibre of students that will be on your course. That is important in its own right as having better and more motivated students around you is a better work environment, but it also means that the university can make the curriculum a bit more advanced when they know they have high calibre students. And most important of all, they will send high quality graduates out in to the job market.

When people talk about 'what universities appeal to employers' really the employers are not bothered about league tables or research ratings but the calibre of graduate those universities churn out. The reason some fields have 'target universities' is this is a safe bet for recruiters that cuts down on risk. If someone comes out of Oxbridge with a 1st or 2:1 then you can make a few assumptions about them: they were good enough to get in, they could handle the workload and a pressurised environment.

When I went to Leeds they were wanting AAA for economics which raised a few eyebrows on TSR at the time, I remember always having to put up with people moaning on the economics forum about Leeds being overrated and so on, but the by product of this was we had a strong cohort of students and a lot of my peers have gone on and done well working in various different jobs. Now it's been 8 years since we graduated you can see some have gone on to pretty impressive senior positions, they aren't riding off the name of Leeds they are just good calibre people. Over time that is going to inflate the reputation of Leeds in employers' minds because they will be familiar with seeing good graduates who have come out of Leeds and done well with them before.

It's a useful rule of thumb and actually probably more accurate than scrutinising league tables. It's an indicator of demand for the course and importantly it's an indicator of the calibre of students that will be on your course. That is important in its own right as having better and more motivated students around you is a better work environment, but it also means that the university can make the curriculum a bit more advanced when they know they have high calibre students. And most important of all, they will send high quality graduates out in to the job market.

When people talk about 'what universities appeal to employers' really the employers are not bothered about league tables or research ratings but the calibre of graduate those universities churn out. The reason some fields have 'target universities' is this is a safe bet for recruiters that cuts down on risk. If someone comes out of Oxbridge with a 1st or 2:1 then you can make a few assumptions about them: they were good enough to get in, they could handle the workload and a pressurised environment.

When I went to Leeds they were wanting AAA for economics which raised a few eyebrows on TSR at the time, I remember always having to put up with people moaning on the economics forum about Leeds being overrated and so on, but the by product of this was we had a strong cohort of students and a lot of my peers have gone on and done well working in various different jobs. Now it's been 8 years since we graduated you can see some have gone on to pretty impressive senior positions, they aren't riding off the name of Leeds they are just good calibre people. Over time that is going to inflate the reputation of Leeds in employers' minds because they will be familiar with seeing good graduates who have come out of Leeds and done well with them before.