Well, it's out. The Independent's latest league table, also known as The Complete University Guide, was released on April 30th. Here are the top twenty for economics:
1 Oxford
2 Cambridge
3 London School of Economics
4 Warwick
5 University College London
6 St Andrews
7 Durham
8 Nottingham
9 Bristol
10 Bath
11 Edinburgh
12 Southampton
13 Exeter
14 Birmingham
15 York
16 Surrey
17 Royal Holloway
18 Glasgow
19 Lancaster
20 Newcastle
The only thing I'm surprised by is the placement of Manchester, SOAS, Leeds, and City. Apart from that, it actually seems to be about right. What's everyone else's thoughts?
Well, it's out. The Independent's latest league table, also known as The Complete University Guide, was released on April 30th. Here are the top twenty for economics:
1 Oxford
2 Cambridge
3 London School of Economics
4 Warwick
5 University College London
6 St Andrews
7 Durham
8 Nottingham
9 Bristol
10 Bath
11 Edinburgh
12 Southampton
13 Exeter
14 Birmingham
15 York
16 Surrey
17 Royal Holloway
18 Glasgow
19 Lancaster
20 Newcastle
The only thing I'm surprised by is the placement of Manchester, SOAS, Leeds, and City. Apart from that, it actually seems to be about right. What's everyone else's thoughts?
Well it's nice to see Southampton high, but tables are pretty meaningless.
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.
The only thing I'm surprised by is the placement of Manchester, SOAS, Leeds, and City. Apart from that, it actually seems to be about right. What's everyone else's thoughts?
I would not complain about any of those being outside the top 20.
Originally Posted by biotoxic
SOAS-40th?! For a uni that has an AAA entry requirement, that is ridiculously low! =)
I think it is more like the other way round: it is ridiculous that SOAS are AAA when only a few years ago they were BBB.
Well, it's out. The Independent's latest league table, also known as The Complete University Guide, was released on April 30th. Here are the top twenty for economics:
1 Oxford
2 Cambridge
3 London School of Economics
4 Warwick
5 University College London
The only thing I'm surprised by is the placement of Manchester, SOAS, Leeds, and City. Apart from that, it actually seems to be about right. What's everyone else's thoughts?
Tariffs are higher this year (2009 figures in brackets):
1 Oxford 538 (519)
2 Cambridge 554 (540)
3 London School of Economics 523 (513)
4 Warwick 499 (477)
5 University College London 488 (465)
so that is about an A-level grade (20 tariff points) increase at each uni.
2009 table figures are from HESA data for 2006–07.
2010 table figures are from HESA data for 2007–08
Tariffs are higher this year (2009 figures in brackets):
1 Oxford 538 (519)
2 Cambridge 554 (540)
3 London School of Economics 523 (513)
4 Warwick 499 (477)
5 University College London 488 (465)
so that is about an A-level grade (20 tariff points) increase at each uni.
2009 table figures are from HESA data for 2006–07.
2010 table figures are from HESA data for 2007–08
Yeah, that's quite a jump, and the value for Cambridge points is huge. So now, AAAAa is actually (slightly) fewer UCAS points than the average successful applicant
Considering you have a fair few getting in with only three A-levels (no FM), seems there must be many more AAAAA/AAAAaa candidates than I expected, balancing out the average.
Actually this table is quite valid i'd say - reasearch, ucas points and graduate prospects are the most important imo. Only student satisfaction can be quite dubious...
Yeah, that's quite a jump, and the value for Cambridge points is huge. So now, AAAAa is actually (slightly) fewer UCAS points than the average successful applicant
Considering you have a fair few getting in with only three A-levels (no FM), seems there must be many more AAAAA/AAAAaa candidates than I expected, balancing out the average.
Yeah, that's quite a jump, and the value for Cambridge points is huge. So now, AAAAa is actually (slightly) fewer UCAS points than the average successful applicant
Considering you have a fair few getting in with only three A-levels (no FM), seems there must be many more AAAAA/AAAAaa candidates than I expected, balancing out the average.
There wont be many AAAAA/AAAAaa candidates youve got to realise the majority of people getting into the top 5 places places for economics only have 3 or 4 A-levels including further maths (the people i know who got in anyway). The reason why the UCAS points is so high is because of IB candidates who get a rediculous amount of UCAS points e.g 768 points for maximum marks and 605 points for 38 IB points which is the usual standard offer for the top 10 unis for economics. Therefore these people are pushing the average UCAS points up. I wouldnt be surprised if next year we see the average "entry requiremets" going down with the devaluing of IB points.
There wont be many AAAAA/AAAAaa candidates youve got to realise the majority of people getting into the top 5 places places for economics only have 3 or 4 A-levels including further maths (the people i know who got in anyway). The reason why the UCAS points is so high is because of IB candidates who get a rediculous amount of UCAS points e.g 768 points for maximum marks and 605 points for 38 IB points which is the usual standard offer for the top 10 unis for economics. Therefore these people are pushing the average UCAS points up. I wouldnt be surprised if next year we see the average "entry requiremets" going down with the devaluing of IB points.
I think the average tariffs are only for UK students. Hence not many IB students.
There wont be many AAAAA/AAAAaa candidates youve got to realise the majority of people getting into the top 5 places places for economics only have 3 or 4 A-levels including further maths (the people i know who got in anyway). The reason why the UCAS points is so high is because of IB candidates who get a rediculous amount of UCAS points e.g 768 points for maximum marks and 605 points for 38 IB points which is the usual standard offer for the top 10 unis for economics. Therefore these people are pushing the average UCAS points up. I wouldnt be surprised if next year we see the average "entry requiremets" going down with the devaluing of IB points.
Ah yeah, that's a fair point. Although next year (or the year after, whenever A* comes into force) average UCAS points will undoubtably rise as people get 140 points for the A*.
University course discussion for economics.
Useful Resources:
The Complete University Guide 2010
