I like that there is a greater emphasis on student satisfaction. Hopefully, the table will be a better reflection of the top universities this year. I know it's all subjective, but I like the tables as without them I would feel slightly lost among all the marketing and glossiness of the various prospectuses!
I really hate it when universities become too commercial. It's fair to say that's what put me off a lot of them-particularly an English talk I went to at Lancaster university. However, I prefer just talking to people on here about their unis and experiences than the tables-although they are fun to look at.
"St Andrews’ recent rise to become the top university in Scotland, for example, came largely from outstanding results in the NSS. Having satisfied 93 per cent of its students – only a marginal decline on the previous year – that position should be safe, together with its place in the UK top five. "
I guess St Andrews really is a top 5 now then, and will remain so at least for the time being, despite what a lot of people on here seem to think.
I like that there is a greater emphasis on student satisfaction. Hopefully, the table will be a better reflection of the top universities this year. I know it's all subjective, but I like the tables as without them I would feel slightly lost among all the marketing and glossiness of the various prospectuses!
To quote some stuff PUSH emailed to me in reply to a question:
There used to be departmental inspections by a Government body which gave marks out of 24, but they only assessed each place once every 5 years at best and they've stopped scoring them altogether now. They just get satisfactory or unsatisfactory now.
There are all sorts of problems with the NSSS. For example, let's imagine students at Manchester expect a lot from their university, while student from Exeter hardly expect them to do anything. The standard of provision could be exactly the same, but the satisfaction levels are going to be completely different. In fact, this is why one of the top-scoring unis in the NSSS most years is the Open University, which provides next to nothing in terms of the provisions and amenities most students would want, but because Open Uni students don't want more than they get, they're very satisfied.
Another problem with the NSSS is that it's easily rigged by the unis if they want to. They can point out to their students that so-called 'league tables' in the media use the NSSS to create their rankings and so if they want employers to respect their degree more, they ought to be generous when responding to the Survey.
Having said that, the NSSS isn't completely worthless. For a start, it's just about all we've got in terms of a national survey of students' opinions of their unis. Also, it does tell you something about how successfully the uni matches the students expectations and whether those expectations are high or low. What the NSSS is NOT, is a genuine objective measure of performance.
These rankings have lost all credibility now, just because students like their university it is now going to jump up in league tables for the next 10 years. MIT students have the highest suicide rate in the world, by that logic they would rank outside the top 50 in rankings.
Also St Andrews is good, but does it really deserve to be a top 5 university now solely on the back of satisfaction?
Get ready for a lot of traditionally good universities like Bristol, Nottingham and Edinburgh dropping back a lot because of poor satisfaction ratings, even though they are no worse in measures that actually make sense, whilst some new fangled ones all of a sudden become ''top tens'' because of great scores in the NSS (possibly rigged) despite being worse in all other measures. Rankings should have consistency with the best 15 or so universities always at the top. That used to be the case with the Times rankings but not any more. I dont understand why they dont use perception surveys like they do in the states, asking employers and academics what they think the best/most prestigious unis are, that would be a good and interesting guide (although the Sunday Times do, still the best ranking IMHO)
Hopefully students will start to realise how flawed and useless the rankings have become in recent years and take no notice
I agree, I am much more concerned about standard of student at the Uni and the standard of academics. Along with employer ratings and proportion gaining good honours.
To quote some stuff PUSH emailed to me in reply to a question:
There used to be departmental inspections by a Government body which gave marks out of 24, but they only assessed each place once every 5 years at best and they've stopped scoring them altogether now. They just get satisfactory or unsatisfactory now.
There are all sorts of problems with the NSSS. For example, let's imagine students at Manchester expect a lot from their university, while student from Exeter hardly expect them to do anything. The standard of provision could be exactly the same, but the satisfaction levels are going to be completely different. In fact, this is why one of the top-scoring unis in the NSSS most years is the Open University, which provides next to nothing in terms of the provisions and amenities most students would want, but because Open Uni students don't want more than they get, they're very satisfied.
Another problem with the NSSS is that it's easily rigged by the unis if they want to. They can point out to their students that so-called 'league tables' in the media use the NSSS to create their rankings and so if they want employers to respect their degree more, they ought to be generous when responding to the Survey.
Having said that, the NSSS isn't completely worthless. For a start, it's just about all we've got in terms of a national survey of students' opinions of their unis. Also, it does tell you something about how successfully the uni matches the students expectations and whether those expectations are high or low. What the NSSS is NOT, is a genuine objective measure of performance.
This.
I stopped reading the article after, "The biggest influence will be the National Student Survey (NSS), the results of which carry the highest weighting in our table." Ugh.
The biggest influence will be the National Student Survey (NSS), the results of which carry the highest weighting in our table. The other important contributor will be the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which was reported in detail in The Times a week before Christmas.
I think those are quite good measures. I don't think league tables are worthwhile though. I mean, Leicester was placed above Durham for law last year or something bizzaire, and above Manchester and Edinbrough on the whole; and we all know that allthough Leicester is very good, it carries much less of a tradition of excellence than the two aforementioned institutions...
for example, if Cambridge students give a 98% satisfaction rating this is likely to be based on THEIR standards; a very eccentric professor, with a string of PHDs offering one hour tutoring a week may satisfy their expectations, however, at Leicester I would assume the emphasis would be on things more to do with cost of living and facilities, and they may well assume the education is fine as they got there, and had they not it would be worse - lower standards. perhaps more weighting should be given to universities with higher entry standards, and in this case, less weighting to things like cost of living, and satisfaction - because the students who tend to get 5As and want to study something like law in London generally won't care much about the cost to live there, as they will be graduating with a good 2.1 (Well it's about 80% 2.1 and above at the three top London law schools), and that basically entitles them of a earning potential, after two year's training, of £80 000.
in other words, I doubt the Times really have it covered. everyone knows that Durham is a league above Leicester for law, it's been a tradition of excellence for 200 years there, the course is more flexible, the average student has much better grades, the teachers are mostly ex-oxbridge, etc... where the price of beer or sport facilities here is relavent I don't know...
they should get an actuary to it, not some editor who takes an interest in universities or whatever... the RAE is a good measure, but employers are looking for more than the standard of teaching at an institution, they are looking for the type of people that go there, the overall attitude - however, again, only big firms make big generalisations
Haha. I can't believe that people are complaining that there's something wrong with them changing student satisfaction to play a higher role. You know that the raw scores will remain unchanged and that the ranking itself is entirely subjective? It's being changed from someone's personal opinion to... someone's personal opinion.
Also St Andrews is good, but does it really deserve to be a top 5 university now solely on the back of satisfaction?
I don't really want to get in to a university-specific discussion with you, because I know everyone is loyal to their own university. However, I would not say StAs place is "solely on the back of [student] satisfaction".
St Andrews is the third oldest university in the English speaking world.
The entry standards and research quality scores are also very high - something further validated by StAs success in the 2009 RAE (research assessment exercise). For my subject (Physics) we came 2nd in the UK for this - behind only Lancaster, who have done loads of great research into astronomy in the last year, and full deserve first place.
To imply that the only reason StAs is considered one of the strongest unis in the UK is because its excellent student satisfaction scores is not a view I subscribe to. Hopefully now you too can see some of the other reasons why it is an all-round good university.
St. A's kicks ass. I was gonna apply there for philosophy, went up and had a look, and wow, it really is amazing. Apart from being a bit isolated, is in every way just as good as Oxbridge, from my short experience there. I don't know whether the league tables can really do an institution justice.
I like that there is a greater emphasis on student satisfaction. Hopefully, the table will be a better reflection of the top universities this year. I know it's all subjective, but I like the tables as without them I would feel slightly lost among all the marketing and glossiness of the various prospectuses!
RAE score, teaching quality (QAA), information and opinions from current students, course content? You really don't need league tables. People managed less the 20 years ago.
Why do you find student satisfaction so important? It's often inflated, because the university and students know it will help league table positions, and there's no basis for relative comparison (most students can't really compare their experience with those at other universities).
Originally Posted by M_E_X
[i]
I guess St Andrews really is a top 5 now then, and will remain so at least for the time being, despite what a lot of people on here seem to think.
The new Independent ranking, published on Thursday.
Not top five there. Because it is ranked in the top five by one or, at the most, two of the country's three major domestic league tables that doesn't make it "top five". Even if it was the top five across all tables, this doesn't make it any stronger than those slightly below it.
It's already been mentioned, although the point went over the heads of most people, but go to the Independent's ranking and fiddle around with the weightings (removed student satisfaction, place a great emphasis on research or grad prospects) and universities will move up or down quite significantly, just by filddling with exactly the same statistics, doesn't this tell you something? This was seen when student satisfaction was introtruduced and some universities leaped ahead of others. St Andrews climbed about 35 places in one table, in just one year and the fact tables vary often significantly from one to the next, you still take them seriously?
I'm not criticising St Andrews here, just the methodolgy of the league tables and this attitude that there's this top five or ten university, head and shoulders above the rest. There isn't.
There's Oxford and Cambridge. The there's the rest of the multi-faculty universities with not a great deal amongst the top 30 or so. Maybe there's a second elite of UCL, Durham, Warwick, St Andrews and a couple of others. But, really, what are these universities doing that a number of others aren't? What's Durham doing that Edinburgh isn't, Warwick doing that Manchester isn't? St Andrews doing that Nottingham isn't?
There's no definitive top five, top ten or top twenty.
I don't really want to get in to a university-specific discussion with you, because I know everyone is loyal to their own university. However, I would not say StAs place is "solely on the back of [student] satisfaction".
St Andrews is the third oldest university in the English speaking world.
The entry standards and research quality scores are also very high - something further validated by StAs success in the 2009 RAE (research assessment exercise). For my subject (Physics) we came 2nd in the UK for this - behind only Lancaster, who have done loads of great research into astronomy in the last year, and full deserve first place.
To imply that the only reason StAs is considered one of the strongest unis in the UK is because its excellent student satisfaction scores is not a view I subscribe to. Hopefully now you too can see some of the other reasons why it is an all-round good university.
Agreed, thats why I said it was good, and should definitely be in the top 10, but dont forget something. The year before student satisfaction was fully introduced st andrews was ranked 18th, then the year it was introduced it leaped up to 5th! If you took out student satisfaction then it would slip back to being borderline top ten again.
Thats the whole point about the NSS, it disadvantages large universities to an unfair degree because they are impersonal by nature with large class sizes, whilst small universities like st andrews always do amazingly well
RAE score, teaching quality (QAA), information and opinions from current students, course content? You really don't need league tables. People managed less the 20 years ago.
Why do you find student satisfaction so important? It's often inflated, because the university and students know it will help league table positions, and there's no basis for relative comparison (most students can't really compare their experience with those at other universities).
Not top five there. Because it is ranked in the top five by one or, at the most, two of the country's three major domestic league tables that doesn't make it "top five". Even if it was the top five across all tables, this doesn't make it any stronger than those slightly below it.
It's already been mentioned, although the point went over the heads of most people, but go to the Independent's ranking and fiddle around with the weightings (removed student satisfaction, place a great emphasis on research or grad prospects) and universities will move up or down quite significantly, just by filddling with exactly the same statistics, doesn't this tell you something? This was seen when student satisfaction was introtruduced and some universities leaped ahead of others. St Andrews climbed about 35 places in one table, in just one year and the fact tables vary often significantly from one to the next, you still take them seriously?
I'm not criticising St Andrews here, just the methodolgy of the league tables and this attitude that there's this top five or ten university, head and shoulders above the rest. There isn't.
There's Oxford and Cambridge. The there's the rest of the multi-faculty universities with not a great deal amongst the top 30 or so. Maybe there's a second elite of UCL, Durham, Warwick, St Andrews and a couple of others. But, really, what are these universities doing that a number of others aren't? What's Durham doing that Edinburgh isn't, Warwick doing that Manchester isn't? St Andrews doing that Nottingham isn't?
There's no definitive top five, top ten or top twenty.
I welcome debate on this issue . Especially from someone who can *gasp* string a few paragraphs together!
I agree with your idea of there being a top 'tier' of Oxbridge.
I think there is then a next 'tier' 5, 6 or 7 more unviersities: LSE, Warwick, all the ones you mentioned really. As for specifically what Warwick is doing that Manchester isn't - I don't know. What is Oxford doing that Warwick isn't? It's hard to be concrete on this.
I think there is a 'tier' system all the way down, from Oxbridge right down to the lowest universities. I think this is a better way of thinking about it than a concrete league table system, where x>y>z .
A big part of it, for me, is the impression the "man on the street" (someone who may well one day be your employer) gets from your university.
"I go to Oxford" - Wow.
"I go to ____ " (high tier university) - That's pretty cool
"I go to <bottom tier university>" ... *face palm" ...
This, however, is hard to put into a league table...
And then again, maybe it's really not that important anyway.
Another good measure, I think, is "applicants per place". This shows the demand of the university - but again, this doesn't seem to get used much.
Originally Posted by Broadsword
Agreed, thats why I said it was good, and should definitely be in the top 10, but dont forget something. The year before student satisfaction was fully introduced st andrews was ranked 18th, then the year it was introduced it leaped up to 5th! If you took out student satisfaction then it would slip back to being borderline top ten again.
Thats the whole point about the NSS, it disadvantages large universities to an unfair degree because they are impersonal by nature with large class sizes, whilst small universities like st andrews always do amazingly well
I think the points raised earlier in the thread about the open university doing so well in NSS are excellent ones. People don't expect much , they don't get much, they're satisfied. I think it is much harder for Oxbridge to satisfy the worlds top (student) minds than it is for the OpenUni to satisfy its own students.
"With Cambridge producing more top grades than Oxford, as well as slightly higher satisfaction rates, there may even be uncertainty over the top place that Oxford has occupied for the last six years."
"With Cambridge producing more top grades than Oxford, as well as slightly higher satisfaction rates, there may even be uncertainty over the top place that Oxford has occupied for the last six years."
I just had a play with the table and heavily weighted student satisfaction and research assessment, and the top ten barely changes. Top twenty look like this, with the ranking on the left being the customised one and the one on the right being the standard one -
1 1 Oxford
2 2 Cambridge
3 3 Imperial College
4 4 London School of Economics
5 5 Durham
6 6 Warwick
7 7 St Andrews
8 8 University College London
9 10 York
10 9 Bath
11 12 Lancaster
12 11 Edinburgh
13 13 Southampton
14 13 Aston
15 18 Loughborough
16 16 Bristol
17 15 SOAS
18 17 King's College London
18 21 Exeter
20 19 Nottingham
RAE score, teaching quality (QAA), information and opinions from current students, course content? You really don't need league tables. People managed less the 20 years ago.
Why do you find student satisfaction so important? It's often inflated, because the university and students know it will help league table positions, and there's no basis for relative comparison (most students can't really compare their experience with those at other universities).
The new Independent ranking, published on Thursday.
Not top five there. Because it is ranked in the top five by one or, at the most, two of the country's three major domestic league tables that doesn't make it "top five". Even if it was the top five across all tables, this doesn't make it any stronger than those slightly below it.
It's already been mentioned, although the point went over the heads of most people, but go to the Independent's ranking and fiddle around with the weightings (removed student satisfaction, place a great emphasis on research or grad prospects) and universities will move up or down quite significantly, just by filddling with exactly the same statistics, doesn't this tell you something? This was seen when student satisfaction was introtruduced and some universities leaped ahead of others. St Andrews climbed about 35 places in one table, in just one year and the fact tables vary often significantly from one to the next, you still take them seriously?
I'm not criticising St Andrews here, just the methodolgy of the league tables and this attitude that there's this top five or ten university, head and shoulders above the rest. There isn't.
There's Oxford and Cambridge. The there's the rest of the multi-faculty universities with not a great deal amongst the top 30 or so. Maybe there's a second elite of UCL, Durham, Warwick, St Andrews and a couple of others. But, really, what are these universities doing that a number of others aren't? What's Durham doing that Edinburgh isn't, Warwick doing that Manchester isn't? St Andrews doing that Nottingham isn't?
There's no definitive top five, top ten or top twenty.
Couldn't agree more. People put far too much emphasis upon them. I know friends who chose one university over another because it was a couple of places higher in some league table that they had seen.
A place for general questions and discussions about university.
Useful Resources:
The Times Good University Guide 2010
. Especially from someone who can *gasp* string a few paragraphs together!
