The top 20:
1 Oxford
2 Cambridge
3 Imperial College
4 London School of Economics
5 Durham
6 Warwick
7 St Andrews
8 University College London
9 Bath
10 York
11 Edinburgh
12 Lancaster
13 Southampton
13 Aston
15 SOAS
16 Bristol
17 King's College London
18 Loughborough
19 Nottingham
20 Leicester
There are some very interesting movements in the above. The top four remain unchanged, and it's nice to see Loughborough slowly leaving the top twenty. I'm surprised at Nottingham, Bristol, and Aston though, as well as how UCL has dropped.
I was surprised that no one had posted about this before - this is the big league table really, it's the one that used to be published in conjuction with the Times.
You appear to have missed the point in the other thread, then created another one with exactly the same points. So, for the benefit of everyone else, I'll quote myself.
Originally Posted by 0404343m
Ach, at the end of the day, all it is is some numbers multiplied together, such as student satisfaction, ucas points and % in a graduate job (need not be economics). Since the first is dubious at the best of times (students really don't like getting bad marks and being worked hard, on the whole), the second can be swayed between an industrial working class city vs an affluent area (see Manchester vs St Andrews for evidence of this), as privately schooled students on the whole have more ucas points on average, and the third is down to sheer luck based on who responded to a survey, then you can see the problems.
As far as the 'quality' of education in an institution or course goes, league tables tell us nothing.
Now, we're back where we were in the other thread. I'd say universities with high proportions of privately schooled students (and some cities range from half to five times the national average) will be able to skew dropout, 1sts/2:1 % (assuming people aren't making degrees easier to award more), and UCAS score enough to be worth as much as 10 places in a table. Since you will be at university for three to five years, and institutions can jump 15 places per year- whats hot now means nothing in a decade or so- when your degree might well be required for something. It doesn't mean Loughborough has gotten worse between the 29th and the 30th of April, does it?
The expenditure thing is also a nonsense- it comes through in five and ten year plans. Glasgow and Nottingham among others finished massive investment programs a couple of years back- so the numbers dont appear on the figures, and low and behold, they plummet down the table. It tells you nothing, the sooner people ignore it, the better. Go read some Andrew Oswald, Prof at Warwick. He makes some very good points regarding them.
This league table is rubbish? Never even heard of it before. Think I will wait for the proper Times league table to come out. Anything with Southampton vaguely near the top 15 is a sick joke. All the losers with bad A-levels at my school went to Southampton. I think this is the first year they have even been in the top 25 lol!
This league table is rubbish? Never even heard of it before. Think I will wait for the proper Times league table to come out
Thing is fail@maths, this is effectively the 'proper' table because it's what used to be the Good University Guide - it used to be published in conjunction with the Times but the Indy took it over last year. The Times does its own table now (out in a few weeks, I understand) but it's not a long-established one.
This league table is rubbish? Never even heard of it before. Think I will wait for the proper Times league table to come out. Anything with Southampton vaguely near the top 15 is a sick joke. All the losers with bad A-levels at my school went to Southampton. I think this is the first year they have even been in the top 25 lol!
It's the 'main' one, the times table won't differ much.
I don't see your official league table. Until I do, Aston > Leeds, Sheffield and Brimingham.
Really. I can show you a number of (official) league tables which have those three redbricks placed above Aston. Does this mean that Sheffield > Aston but that Aston is still > Sheffield.
In fact, take that same table but ust ave a bit of a jiggle around with the weighting. Take away student satisfaction and place a greater weighting on research, prospects and a couple of other things and, lo and behold, Sheffield outranks Aston.
This isn't a criticism of Aston, just the silly league tables and how you can keep the same stats but fiddle around with the weighting and end up with different results. I've just jiggled it around again and Aston is in the top ten (above UCL and St Andrews and only just below Durham and Warwick).
Then you've also got to question things like student satisfaction, facilities spending (not every university needs to invest huge sums of money into their facilities and services, especially if they've just finished a decade long investment plan).
Then you've also got to question things like student satisfaction, facilities spending (not every university needs to invest huge sums of money into their facilities and services, especially if they've just finished a decade long investment plan).
A place for general questions and discussions about university.
Useful Resources:
The Complete University Guide 2010
But it hasn't. It was eigth last year (6. Durham, 7. St Andrews 8. UCL) and it has remained at eigth this year.
