The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Out of curiosity, could an ex-poly ever break into the top 30 of a 'Good University Guide'? A couple of them have been significantly moving up the rankings in recent years e.g. Hallam and Trent. Before anyone slates me, I'm not saying they will, I'm asking if it's possible....I come in peace.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 401
Original post by Mr. Confused
Out of curiosity, could an ex-poly ever break into the top 30 of a 'Good University Guide'? A couple of them have been significantly moving up the rankings in recent years e.g. Hallam and Trent. Before anyone slates me, I'm not saying they will, I'm asking if it's possible....I come in peace.


I think they will, yes.

I cannot speak for anywhere other than where i study (Plymouth) But 2010-2011 plymouth moved like 10-15 places in the tables, and one guide i have seen for 2011-2012 suggests a similar increase.

Lot's of these universities are fairly 'new' compared to the oldies, thus they should (in peoples eyes) be given time to shine ;D
in scotland

over rated: Edinburgh, St.Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen
under rated: Dundee, Abertay, Stirling.
Original post by Mr. Confused
Out of curiosity, could an ex-poly ever break into the top 30 of a 'Good University Guide'? A couple of them have been significantly moving up the rankings in recent years e.g. Hallam and Trent. Before anyone slates me, I'm not saying they will, I'm asking if it's possible....I come in peace.


It is virtually impossible and that shows one of the weaknesses of the league table.


18.75% of the points are for research quality and within research quality marks are not distributed evenly. There is a heavy bias towards departments with a 4* rating.

No points have been awarded in the last few years for teaching quality.

Therefore a university which concentrates on teaching and not on research finds it virtually impossible to score highly in this league table.

If you applied the same methodology to America's elite small liberal arts colleges, they would come out well below plenty of run of the mill public research universities.
Reply 404
Original post by visa
I'm at UCL, not sure if it makes it overrated but it's definitely more research than teaching led, in my subject at least they just put the lecture slides and recordings online. There's a surprisingly high number of people who don't seem that smart either.



Do you do a multi discipline subject ? or a self contained one ?

cause I think the MD courses are slightly worse with largish classes, though not all SC courses are great either - certainly was the case when I was there.
Original post by nulli tertius

Original post by nulli tertius
It is virtually impossible and that shows one of the weaknesses of the league table.


18.75% of the points are for research quality and within research quality marks are not distributed evenly. There is a heavy bias towards departments with a 4* rating.

No points have been awarded in the last few years for teaching quality.

Therefore a university which concentrates on teaching and not on research finds it virtually impossible to score highly in this league table.

If you applied the same methodology to America's elite small liberal arts colleges, they would come out well below plenty of run of the mill public research universities.


Excellent answer, cheers.
Reply 406
Aberystywth imo is very underrated


Long heritage
sizable alumni
Decent departments(not to mention their stellar politics department)
Happy students

yet often overlooked
Reply 407
Original post by Txi
Some people are thick as S***.

SOASS only does oriental and african studies.

In UK only a dozen of so Unis even offer these courses.

Thus what is so good about being 5/12 ?

SOASS needs to be compared to its real peers offering comparable courses.

That would be no contest.

A native uni studying its own culture is going to kick ASS anyday.

Nobody is going to convince me that ASS is better than say Taiwan national U or Beijing U for Chinese studies.

Same ASS vs Witts on I don't know ... Zulu culture.

That's why ASS is bogus and overrated.

Warwick is also bogus cause it is ' famous ' nothing more than a good hiring policy for maths and econs ( though this doubted as they are too far from the action to be really relevant ).

It also falsely implicates that the other 60s unis cannot do the same which is Bllxs, even an ex poly could hiring the best mathematicians around if it had the budget.

Too much hype and too little substance

Ans finally as if Durham is anything but a Oxbridge wannabe, with emphasis firmly on the wannabe, so much so in fact that is really in the bottom half of the 2nd tier.

Suck it trollers


Do your research first Sir.
I think Oxford Brookes is probably the most underrated. Despite being an ex-poly it seems to be almost on par with some of the plate-glass institutions.

I suppose being an ex-poly and being in proximity to one of the best universities in the world are why it's often overlooked.
Oh, this thread again.
Original post by Txi


SOASS only does oriental and african studies.


And as everyone knows, LSE only does economics and KCL only teaches kings.
Reply 411
overated: manchester
underrated: portsmouth
Reply 412
Original post by TurboCretin
And as everyone knows, LSE only does economics and KCL only teaches kings.


I like your sense of humour and sarcasm :smile:
Reply 413
Original post by liam1994
Oxbridge is certainly overreated... Let's face it.

Underraated is certainly Surrey!


Offcourse, you go/will be going there.
Original post by Txi
Some people are thick as S***.

SOASS only does oriental and african studies.


Ironic :giggle:
I reckon a good rule of thumb for the "overratedness" of a university, not so much in terms of how the university rates itself but how its own students and alumni overrate it, is how much its students and alumni have to engage in constant arguments to 'prove' that their institution is in fact great, showing league tables or some other stat that puts them on par with institutions which are generally regarded as above it, or showing that they are higher than others that might be considered as 'rivals' in the same league.

You never see Harvard grads trailing round the internets wanting to prove to everybody that Harvard is better than other institutions. You don't even really see the Oxbridge grads on here going round feeling the need to 'prove' Oxbridge's superiority to Leicester or Hull etc.

The SOAS haters are a good example. Whenever you see someone, at one of the London institutions, going on about "well my institution IS better than SOAS!" as evidence of how good their university is....seriously nobody outside of the University of London cares! But you see this a disproportionate amount of time on the internet, especially from students at UCL or KCL, they always want to tell you that their institution is better than SOAS lol.
Reply 416
Ah I see, so says a SOASS alumnus.

Oh what a surprise
Reply 417
Original post by TurboCretin
And as everyone knows, LSE only does economics and KCL only teaches kings.


Really, not from what I see on TSR.

the Ee SOASSers seem to want to promote the idea that they are an all service U.
Reply 418
Original post by ussumane
.


Justify your statement first Sir
Reply 419
Original post by Txi
Justify your statement first Sir


My good man, you said SOAS only teaches Oriental and African studies. That is incorrect, there are a number of other courses such has politics economics and blah blah.

Latest