I used them as a very very rough guide but thats it, just becasue they change so much each year. TBH I always looked at rankings over a periodof say 5 years as thats more reliable IMO as a uni going from 10th to 15th in one year means diddly squat whatever anyone says. Nevertheless, going to a uni thats suits you socially, location, course etc is more important than the odd place in a table. Besides, I think most laymen/employers have a rough idea of the best names in HE, so a famously 'good' uni ranking badly means nothing to most people
(Original post by Capitalism)
I take them very seriously. Last month when the 2009 rankings came out and my university dropped a spot, I threw myself down a gorge. My body was eventually eaten by bears and never to be found again.
The following day a different ranking came out and my uni actually went up, whereupon Jesus himself (who also subscribes to Newsweek and the Times) descended on to my putrid, mangled corpse and gave me a douse of what-the-hell Lazarus had and, well, here I am.
Sorry but if you're going for the humourous satire effect you might aswell be consistent
(Original post by River85)
The world tables are just as bad as the Guardian, with just as biased a view. Favouring the large unis, particularly those with high numbers of international staff and students. How does that affect my education?
what about subject league tables, I used this, sheffield chemistry is high up in the times (and I applied o york)
(Original post by Sick Puppy)
I looked up my couse on UCAS, ignored the ones that I knew I didn't want to go to and had a look at the rest on their websites. Ordered a bunch of prospectuses and went to open days.
I didn't just see one and liked it, though at the open day of the uni I applied to I did just know. And no it's not a poor way of going about it.
I would think it better to use subject league tables to look for good departments though, rather than spending hours roaming through prospectuses (I did know what subject I was looking for though)