The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by HighestKungFu
And how is LSE better than Oxford? As strong as it is I doubt anyone could disagree that Oxford and Cambridge still hold the crowns for best universities in the UK.


The insane thing, that all over Twitter, people think that the tide has turned, and LSE is now superior to Oxford, all because of one measly table.
Reply 2241
Original post by y.yousef
Okay then, can you explain what Russel Group 'actually' is then? :smile:


Do you not have Google?!

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/about-russell-group/

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/our-universities/
Original post by y.yousef
Okay then, can you explain what Russel Group 'actually' is then? :smile:


Yes and have done many times.

It's a lobbying group comprised of larger research intensive universities. It currently has 20 members (the membership will be expanded with Durham, York, Queen Mary and Exeter, all members of the 1994 Group, joining soon). Ninteen of the current twenty members are in the top 20 of the country in terms of research income.

League tables are not meant to represent the membership of the Russell Group, which is not a selection of "the best 20 or so universities". League tables attempt to rank universities according to the criteria the compilers feel are important.

As league tables include things like graduate prospects, student satisfaction and entry standards, the membership of the Russell Group will not be identical (or near identical) to the top 20 in a league table, unless that league table looked at research power and income only. You will always have a large number of universities outside the Russell Group in that top 20, namely some universities from the 1994 Group - a lobbying group for smaller research intensive universities formally established in the same year that the Russell Group was formally/officially established.
Original post by Tsunami2011
LSE overtakes Oxford in latest university league table http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings

The end is nigh :gasp:


Im going to make an important point here before I do though ill give a disclaimer.

Disclaimer: I am in no way making any conclusions of universities based on this data, I have my own personal opinions which I will not disclose (they are irrelevant). The point I make is based purely on this league table, and does NOT reflect my opinions on the university.


If you look at the actual ppts of the rankings, you will see that the top 5 have all either risen, or stayed so high they have met a celing effect. For example Durham was 5th place in the 2012 tables, and 5th in the 2013 however it has risen from 890 to 912 ppts, a significant rise. The same is true of LSE and IC; Oxbridge doesnt have much hope of rising on this relative system due to the ceiling effect. My point is, there is evidence of an increase in quality (as measured by this league table) for all of the top 5 universities. This should be taken into account. Also when I say 'top 5' please See my disclaimer.
Reply 2244
Anyone else think the top 20 unis in the CUG are bang on? (Maybe except for a few interchangeable order positions)
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by *Hakz*
Do you even have any clue about what russell group is?

Anyway I think this new 2013 one is the worse I've seen so far from the complete university guide.

I mean who would go that far to rate Oxford economics higher than Cambridge's when Oxford don't even offer straight economics.
And I don't understand how LSE is ranked above Oxford overall?

Even the top 10 maths table is laughable. Oxford above Cambridge? St Andrews and Durham above Imperial?


Unfortunately league table uses rigorous methology while you are using vague prestige and word of mouth. Neither are ideal, but your opinion is irrelevant compared to a result derived scientifically.

The irony is you may even be right, but claiming it with no evidence (or even worse cherry picking which happens all the time here) wont convince me.

"League tables are ****, and inaccurate" provokes the response, "not half as inaccurate as your unjustified opinion based on prestige!"
I challenge you to make your own, using well defined and relevant criteria, i.e a quantitative study. If you can do this I applaud you, and I also expect you will get some suprises the reason for this is because different universities do better based on slightly different criteria, but if it was so simple t o weed out the criteria, then there would only be a need for one type of methology. NB: Oxbridge uniformally come out on top for all the league tables, so it is easy to justify these are the best two universities in the UK.

Disclaimer: I never claim League tables are perfect, in fact far from so. But they are better at gaining a rough idea of the quality of a university than going after a vauge ghost quantity like 'prestige'. Other valid methods include looking at individual criteria such as research quality.
I'd rank them on Male:Female ratio and pick the ones at which you are playing the best odds.
Reply 2248
Perhaps they are misleading because they are so glorified. There shouldn't be a "league table", there should be many league tables on different aspects i.e. student satisfaction, research, tutor:student ratio etc... so people can differentiate based on what they want out of a University.

Also, if there is an overall league table they should combine Universities i.e. this group of universities are ranked 1-5, these are ranked 6-10 etc... as there is always discrepancy between league tables from different sites, although the Universities are usually in a near position in both league tables.
Why would I make my own league table if said that they were 'crap'? :curious:
You're not in university yet are you? If not you probably have just started?

Yeah, once you graduate you will see how the league tables hardly have a meaning...
Original post by ifstatement
You're not in university yet are you? If not you probably have just started?

Yeah, once you graduate you will see how the league tables hardly have a meaning...


I am in university, but that doesnt matter so much to the point I am making. I never claimed either, that league tables matter hugely from an employability point of view (though I didn't argue the converse either), my argument was simply that a quantitative study such as the league tables are far better than trying to judge a university based on word of mouth and prestige.
I wouldn't say ALL league tables are absolute rubbish. International tables tend to use more important data to rank universities (rather than student:staff ratios...).

Some domestic tables are ridiculous though. On The Times' league table, Sheffield is ranked higher than Imperial for Physics. LOLWUT?
Original post by Onewingedangel
How no?
The only UK universities that have international renown are Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial college.
Nobody outside the UK recognizes UCL.


I did an american exchange to California in august 2011 and stayed with a family. The dad of the family worked at UC Berkeley in the medical department. I asked for his opinion as to the international recognition of UCL and he said that as far as the USA goes, UCL is well known in the states (and amongst the US universities) mainly for it's excellence in medicine and science.

He recommended I accept my offer there as it would put me in good stead for employment.

So your point is completely ignorant and you clearly have no real world examples of your claim that 'Nobody outside the UK knows UCL'.
Reply 2254
Isnt that the point though, that every league table is crap, not due to the incompetence of the people that make them, but due to the fact that there are too many variables that contribute to whether a uni is good or not to be able to realistically measure them all?

A rough guide is the best you can hope for!
I thought the whole reason we think league tables are crap is because they're trying to quantify something that is, inherently, qualitative?
I don't think league tables are rubbish, but there should be an easier way to compare different things easily eg student satisfaction, employment rate after graduating, staff:student, male:female ratio etc.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by TheWorldEndsWithMe
So basically, 'vocational' subjects are the best?



Anyway. I don't think league tables are rubbish, but there should be an easier way to compare different things easily eg student satisfaction, employment rate after graduating, staff:student, male:female ratio etc.


Pretty much, hardest to get in to, best job/earning prospects, most respected
Reply 2258
Original post by ifstatement
You're not in university yet are you? If not you probably have just started?

Yeah, once you graduate you will see how the league tables hardly have a meaning...


They don't matter at all for courses like medicine
Reply 2259
Original post by Architecture-er
I thought the whole reason we think league tables are crap is because they're trying to quantify something that is, inherently, qualitative?


This - great response. I'd +ve rep you but I've run out for the day :frown:

Latest