The bumper thread of University League Tables discussion - includes an info post

'Student Satisfaction' as a measure (of teaching, feedback etc) is subject to a lot of variables, even things like time of day, whether the student just got back a good / bad essay, but also the student's perception of the university before they arrived.

For a student attending one of the higher ranked universities they may expect, say "10/10" teaching quality; if they ended up receiving "8/10" quality they would be dissatisfied and the NSS would show this as low satisfaction and consequently a lower overall score. For a student attending a lower ranked university, they may not expect just the same high quality of teaching, but if they receive the same "8/10" teaching quality they will be (perhaps more than) satisfied, and so their university receives a high NSS score and consequently a higher overall score.

Cheers. Realised that I missed out Sheffield but that's firmly in Tier 2 anyway, most people would agree I'm sure.

I think the thing about the Guardian's table is that it's inherently biased toward Universities with smaller intakes - smaller, campus universities often have higher student satisfaction (probably because they can sleep a bit longer before lectures), and the Guardian also tweeted me (hah) saying that another heavy basis for the rankings is 'face time' (face-to-face interaction with academics i'm assuming? not sure how they'd work that out exactly, apart from timetabled allotments) which is also biased to universities whose intakes are smaller and have a smaller student/staff ratio.

Neither is a solid methodology for ranking - clearly there's a lot of mitigating factors.

The biases you are identifying are biases that can reasonably (but not necessarily) be described as making a university "better". It is a bit like saying that we shouldn't count Connolly leather and walnut trim in deciding which are the best cars.

I think there is a non-sequitur there.

Why should someone at a lower ranked university necessarily expect a lower quality of teaching? This has got nothing to do with the complexity of the subject matter. This is about turning up, explaining concepts coherently, being available when one is supposed to be available, marking the work timeously, delivering feedback and delivering constructive feedback.

Furthermore, why should someone who was basically paid to deliver elementary instruction to undergraduates be expected to be worse at doing so than someone who was basically hired because of their research capability but is nevertheless required to deliver elementary instruction to undergraduates?

No
Warwick is ranked within the top 200 - around 150
Even if it did not, there is no reason why it should because it depends on the quality of universities worldwide in terms of the criteria - and since there are only 20-25 universities from the UK in the top 200, UK universities are still is a relatively good position, i.e. Bath is ranked around 225-250.

I think you are missing my point; I am not commenting on the standard of undergraduate teaching being proportional to university ranking. Students attending higher ranked unis will in general have greater expectations of the teaching quality. They most likely have used the league tables and believe that the teaching they receive should be of a high standard due to the difficulty in receiving and meeting the offer; high demand for the course would suggest it.

This is not as much about students going to lower ranked unis expecting less as it is about students going to higher ranked unis expecting more. They have high, perhaps unrealistic expectations, and if these are not met then they are likely to speak up about it.

Fair enough, but it's not what makes a University better; rather it's what makes the university 'experience' better. There's a difference in my opinion. You could have had an awful experience at Oxford or Cambridge but does that detract from the quality of those universities? Not one bit.

Valid point, and I tend to agree with you. That is, until you realise that the THE rankings don't actually correlate at all well with the actual proven quality of the research at each university, or the proven quality in other areas such as teaching. This is what makes these rankings retarded.

I just use the ave tariff column on the tables (you can click on it to rank unis based on it alone), the rest of it either doesnt hold much weight or is complete BS.

Out of curiosity if everyone were to compile their own top 20 - based purely on opinion of prestige, job prospects and academic research what would they be?

I'd go for (and bare in mind this is an extremely rough list not intended to insult anyone's institution)

1) Cambridge/Oxford
2)
3) UCL
4) Durham
5) LSE
6) Imperial
7) Edinburgh
8) St Andrews
9) Bristol
10) Warwick
11) Kings
12) Nottingham
13) Manchester
14) Leeds
15) York
16) Sheffield
17) Exeter
18) Newcastle
19) Lancaster
20) Bath

Again many could go up one or two places but what would everyone else's be - purely out of curiosity. Don't get upset by this if your uni isn't mention, just correct me.

Somewhere, someone always returns to this.

Teenagers with good A level scores want everything in life to be ranked by A level score.

I am afraid the real world isn't like that and tariff is directly proportional to geographical convenience and quality of the local nightclubs.

a uni is only as good as its students though?

Given the Guardian's guide is supposed to help students choose universities, surely it's important to plan to few years ahead to work out what one might do upon graduating, ie postgraduate studies / research or work outside academia?

Therefore, instead of having so much bearing on student satisfaction alone, there ought to have been a category illustrating employers' perception / satisfaction of graduates.

Out of curiosity if everyone were to compile their own top 20 - based purely on opinion of prestige, job prospects and academic research what would they be?

I'd go for (and bare in mind this is an extremely rough list not intended to insult anyone's institution)

1) Cambridge/Oxford
2)
3) UCL
4) Durham
5) LSE
6) Imperial
7) Edinburgh
8) St Andrews
9) Bristol
10) Warwick
11) Kings
12) Nottingham
13) Manchester
14) Leeds
15) York
16) Sheffield
17) Exeter
18) Newcastle
19) Lancaster
20) Bath

Again many could go up one or two places but what would everyone else's be - purely out of curiosity. Don't get upset by this if your uni isn't mention, just correct me.

Out of curiosity if everyone were to compile their own top 20 - based purely on opinion of prestige, job prospects and academic research what would they be?

I'd go for (and bare in mind this is an extremely rough list not intended to insult anyone's institution)

1) Cambridge/Oxford
2)
3) UCL
4) Durham
5) LSE
6) Imperial
7) Edinburgh
8) St Andrews
9) Bristol
10) Warwick
11) Kings
12) Nottingham
13) Manchester
14) Leeds
15) York
16) Sheffield
17) Exeter
18) Newcastle
19) Lancaster
20) Bath

Again many could go up one or two places but what would everyone else's be - purely out of curiosity. Don't get upset by this if your uni isn't mention, just correct me.