Time University Rankings 2009

TommehR

Oh dear, is it that time of year again?

This is nothing compared to the literal interpretations in this thread

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=610098

If I hear "Why is Manchester so low?" once more.... :mad:

Reply 22

Machiavelli the prince

Agreed. I used to have more respect for The Times' rankings, but these are ridiculous- almost on par with the Guardian. I certainly don't agree with Leicester or indeed Southampton being so high, nor do I agree with Manchester and Warwick being so low. Although league tables have no effect on how good a law school actually is, it's annoying when some ignorant individuals use them, as their sole source, to suggest that certain law schools are worse than others.

Yeah Warwick is a shock and just proves how useless these tables can be sometimes. And yes it is highly annoying when people think a university is amazing just because the Times did some number crunching. I think a good way to gauge how respected a uni is for law is to look at who turns up at Law Fairs.

Reply 23

TommehR

Are there other criteria that they've used, other than those listed in that table? The final scores seem to bear little resemblance to the research/etc. scores.

Reply 24

Tomber

Machiavelli the prince

Agreed. I used to have more respect for The Times' rankings, but these are ridiculous- almost on par with the Guardian. I certainly don't agree with Leicester or indeed Southampton being so high, nor do I agree with Manchester and Warwick being so low. Although league tables have no effect on how good a law school actually is, it's annoying when some ignorant individuals use them, as their sole source, to suggest that certain law schools are worse than others.

Based on what, exactly. Older league tables, or some universities just being 'better'?

Sometimes I think that people would only be happy with a league table that stayed static every year.

Reply 25

River85

Machiavelli the prince

it's annoying when some ignorant individuals use them, as their sole source, to suggest that certain law schools are worse than others.

Like, "Oh my god, my firm was eleventh when I applied, now it's nineteenth. My conditional has moved up to tenth! What have I done?" :rolleyes:

Reply 26

Tomber

Based on what, exactly. Older league tables, or some universities just being 'better'?

Sometimes I think that people would only be happy with a league table that stayed static every year.

To some extent i agree with you but a table that changes so much in a year is dubious to say the least. You cannot change a department around that quickly.

Reply 27

TommehR

Tomber

Sometimes I think that people would only be happy with a league table that stayed static every year.

One of the major problems with the league tables are that you commonly find rather wild fluctuations. There is no way that in a year a university should suddenly find itself ten places better than in the previous year.

Reply 28

TommehR

One of the major problems with the league tables are that you commonly find rather wild fluctuations. There is no way that in a year a university should suddenly find itself ten places better than in the previous year.

We're in the same wave length lol :biggrin:

Reply 29

Anyway i think anyone that picks a university based on tables doesnt deserve to get a place. Although they are good just to give you an indication, university choices should be based on personal preference such as whether you like the place, the course (some people think Law is Law but dont realise it is taught very differently at some places), and location because i didnt apply to Durham because i hated the distant from home.

Reply 30

Machiavelli the prince

Tomber

Based on what, exactly. Older league tables, or some universities just being 'better'?

Sometimes I think that people would only be happy with a league table that stayed static every year.

So you're suggesting that the only way to know whether a law school is good is by looking at league tables? Reputation with employers, students and governing bodies perhaps. Not some subjective, arguably unquantifiable values.

And yes, a more static league table would imo be much better: I can't see how a university can move down/up by 10 or more places in a single year, when all of the factors are still fixed ( i.e. same students, same tutors/lecturers etc).

Reply 31

River85

Machiavelli the prince

So you're suggesting that the only way to know whether a law school is good is by looking at league tables? Reputation with employers, students and governing bodies perhaps. Not some subjective, arguably unquantifiable values.

And yes, a more static league table would imo be much better: I can't see how a university can move down/up by 10 or more places in a single year, when all of the factors are still fixed ( i.e. same students, same tutors/lecturers etc).

There are going to be even bigger changes next year (is it next year that the new RAE gets included?) That may shake the table around a bit.

Reply 32

Tomber

Machiavelli the prince

So you're suggesting that the only way to know whether a law school is good is by looking at league tables? Reputation with employers, students and governing bodies perhaps. Not some subjective, arguably unquantifiable values

And yes, a more static league table would imo be much better: I can't see how a university can move down/up by 10 or more places in a single year, when all of the factors are still fixed ( i.e. same students, same tutors/lecturers etc).

No not at all, I think league tables are utterly farcical and should be scrapped, but in theory things like 'reputation with employers and students' are far more subjective and unquantifiable. I think the only way to judge the academic quality of universities accurately is to look at the publications of the staff who teach there and whether they are relevant to your area of interest, and to see whether the degree structure there suits you. Of course since these are so subjective it means that it is largely impossible to rank universities hierarchically, and league tables in attempting to do that are fundamentally flawed.

A vocational degree like law is rather different and more career focussed than my own area, but to rank a universities quality without regard to its actual academic quality i.e on the basis of its assumed reputation with employers or students, seems to rather miss the point.

Reply 33

Lewisy-boy

11

TommehR: if you read the criteria they have used the National Student Survey as I mentioned above ... a terrible source to be honest.

Reply 34

Cerulean

Tomber

No not at all, I think league tables are utterly farcical and should be scrapped, but in theory things like 'reputation with employers and students' are far more subjective and unquantifiable. I think the only way to judge the academic quality of universities accurately is to look at the publications of the staff who teach there and whether they are relevant to your area of interest, and to see whether the degree structure there suits you. Of course since these are so subjective it means that it is largely impossible to rank universities hierarchically, and league tables in attempting to do that are fundamentally flawed.

A vocational degree like law is rather different and more career focussed than my own area, but to rank a universities quality without regard to its actual academic quality i.e on the basis of its assumed reputation with employers or students, seems to rather miss the point.

In the Good Univeristy Guide last year they had academic and headmaster verdicts? I don't know whether this counted in contructing the overall league table, but to be honest, I'm not sure whether employers closely follow league tables. Would they have time to? Maybe they just 'group' unis - does anyone actually know besides the employer?

Reply 35

Lewisy-boy

11

I also think you're wrong to describe law as vocational.

Reply 36

tokyorose888

10

anyone know the website for a world uni league table? not just for UK?

thnx :smile:

Reply 37

foxo