Why is Manchester University so Low in the League Tables??

It's true that the University fares badly in satisfaction surveys, and that's understandable given the size and it's staff/student ratio. However, I know from the History and Politics courses that there is a certain initiative to improve feedback, and I've found lecturers and tutors on the whole engaging, friendly, extremely knowledgeable and approachable.

The University's problem-based approach to learning makes it one of the best for research and entrepreneurship in the world, and this is reflected in its world league table rankings, and indeed in the recent publishing of this: http://www2.skandia.co.uk/Media-Centre/2011-press-releases/August-2011/INCREASED-UNIVERSITY-FEES-MAY-MEAN-FEWER-BRITISH-MILLIONAIRES/ claiming that the University produces the 5th most millionaires of any in the country.

In regards to the UK newspaper preoccupation with with student satisfaction, it's worth noting that in terms of methodology, the idea is relatively sound. However, the reality is that many students have an unrealistic expectation of the amount of help they will receive on university courses - many expect a similar amount of help/feedback to their secondary school days - and tend to be disappointed. In my case, I was told to expect a vastly more independent learning experience, and that's what I've received, and how I've tended to learn throughout my school career in any case.

The University's VC Nancy Rothwell has recently announced plans to invest in new lecturers and professors/professorships, many of which were in the department of Humanities and several were directly related to my areas of study. History students were invited to attend lectures by those academics who were being considered for the positions, making students' opinions the locus of decision-making on behalf of the department. I also believe the university has an initiative to attract 100 of the most attractive PHD candidates, which will also naturally contribute to the undergraduate experience.

In my opinion, the general feedback could be improved in terms of setting more practice questions/essays throughout the semester, but apart from that, the feedback given via BlackBoard/e-mail/upon approaching the tutors, I have found to be pretty comprehensive.

Another interesting thing to note: http://mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/15032704-university-manchester-bucks-uk-trend-latest-reputation-world-rankings

Oh, and not to mention the University of Manchester recently won University Challenge... Again

Not, THAT is the the definitive indication of academic prowess

As a former student I would not recommend it, the attitude most of the staff members have (both academic and non-academic) is absolutely disgusting. They don't care about their students, they just see you as an income.

Absolute rubbish.

It's true that the University fares badly in satisfaction surveys, and that's understandable given the size and it's staff/student ratio. However, I know from the History and Politics courses that there is a certain initiative to improve feedback, and I've found lecturers and tutors on the whole engaging, friendly, extremely knowledgeable and approachable.

When talking to second years it seems like the feedback they have given really helped because they changed so many things. They changed some exams completely and we have gotten much better grades. Last year there were really bad lecturers for 2 of my courses and now we have different ones which are a lot better then the ones last year's first year students had.
I feel like the uni is really trying to improve

Definately !

Unfortunately it's down to Manchester's student satisfaction ratings. To be honest though, it's much harder for a large university to have good satisfaction compared to a smaller one.

As stated before, universities such as Sussex and Loughborough rate in the top 20, even though their entry standards are a tad lower than the rest. I personally think it's good that satisfaction is taken into account - a university may have amazing lecturers, but if student needs aren't met it clearly isn't a brilliant place to be.

Unfortunately it's down to Manchester's student satisfaction ratings. To be honest though, it's much harder for a large university to have good satisfaction compared to a smaller one.

As stated before, universities such as Sussex and Loughborough rate in the top 20, even though their entry standards are a tad lower than the rest. I personally think it's good that satisfaction is taken into account - a university may have amazing lecturers, but if student needs aren't met it clearly isn't a brilliant place to be.

No doubt the University could do better in terms of student satisfaction, and would see it shooting up the tables in no time, and I do think it's a valid criterion for rankings systems, however I do believe an inordinate amount of weight is placed behind it. Watisfaction has a lot to do with the student themselves and how they take the initiative. At a large university, getting the contact time with academics people seem to strive for would require more effort.

Agreed, although I do think that Manchester need to step up their game in terms of student satisfaction. Nottingham are of a similar size, and their satisfaction ratings seem ok (though i'm not an expert on this)

Crap! didn't realise how big Nottingham was! But to be honest, city unis tend to be bigger than your country campus ones like St andrews and stuff. I'm not sure if it's good or bad to have thousands of other grads with the same uni name. st andrews grads are probably more 'special' in that sense.

But wow. Notts - 30,000 undergrads a year surely the most after open university

Yeah Notts is HUGE, but don't forget they do have another campus in the middle east (Malaysia I think?)

I think the size is half the reason i didn't apply to Nottingham - it's an ace university, but I just think i'd feel really insignificant :/

But Manchester has more students I don't think Malaysia is considered 'middle east'