The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 2620
I would like to hear some thoughts on the following:

What would be the response if I were to say that Oxbridge are NOT the two best unis in the UK?

Suppose for argument sake, they really are that much better than the rest. The reasons range from strong candidates, lecturers, funding, the tutorial system, etc., so at least it's not a mystery why they are so good.

Then why has nothing been done to emulate them? Either pump in more money, offer scholarships for strong candidates, lecturers, etc.

This has led me to believe Oxbridge has been hyped up by the media. One only has to look at films or headlines in newspapers for the number of times they are mentioned. They deliberately have to be different, eight week terms, matriculation dinners, MA (Oxon / Cantab) titles a few terms after graduating, .....

In fact other institutions, such as Imperial, actually produce equally good if not better graduates, since it has regularly been mentioned their teaching is not up to scratch, yet still consistently produce outstanding graduates.
Reply 2621
Original post by lotsofq
I would like to hear some thoughts on the following:

What would be the response if I were to say that Oxbridge are NOT the two best unis in the UK?

Suppose for argument sake, they really are that much better than the rest. The reasons range from strong candidates, lecturers, funding, the tutorial system, etc., so at least it's not a mystery why they are so good.

Then why has nothing been done to emulate them? Either pump in more money, offer scholarships for strong candidates, lecturers, etc.

This has led me to believe Oxbridge has been hyped up by the media. One only has to look at films or headlines in newspapers for the number of times they are mentioned. They deliberately have to be different, eight week terms, matriculation dinners, MA (Oxon / Cantab) titles a few terms after graduating, .....

In fact other institutions, such as Imperial, actually produce equally good if not better graduates, since it has regularly been mentioned their teaching is not up to scratch, yet still consistently produce outstanding graduates.


I dunno, you would really have to pump in a lot of money to get near it, and over a long, long time. I mean, they've had 800 odd years to get land/wealth/the prestige to attract the best people. It's a trend that helps them attract the best, which helps keep them the best.

And, in my experience, the standard/volume of Oxbridge work is some way above most other places.
Reply 2622
Original post by fnm
http://www.university-list.net/uk/rank/univ-9063.html



and remember, with entry standards you have to remember to take into account that a lot of the bigger unis (Nottingham, Bristol, Southampton) have massive nursing schools which really negatively affect their entry score.


Thanks, and wow my university (Sussex) climbed to 14th! Very pleased, however it probably shouldn't be higher than Edinburgh and Nottingham if i'm being honest.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 2623
Original post by Desertanium
Hey guys, just wondering - how ''prestigious'' would you classify Royal Holloway as? Could you say it is in the same league as Exeter, KCL, Bristol, Newcastle?


I would class it as prestigious - consistently top 30, part of the university of London, you can't really deny that it is a strong academic institution to study at.
Original post by Castorelo
I see that there is a lot of hype why Surrey is so high. I will share my view as Surrey BSc International Hospitality and Tourism Management 2011 graduate. I think everything will be reflected when they release subject tables. That's for the last year:
1st Tourism, Transport and Travel
3rd Electronic Engineering
4th Sociology
4th Mechanical Engineering
6th Civil Engineering
8th Psychology
8th Chemical Engineering
13th Modern Languages
14th Music
15th Nursing and Paramedic Practice
16th Computer Sciences
17th Economics
17th Drama and Dance
18th Biosciences

Surrey in last couple of years has made a lot of investment, both in facilities and academics. It has acquired Guildford School of Acting and build two new buildings for them: academic building with a lot of facilities to train, as well as new theatre for performance and some other extra stuff to practice. In the summer of 2011 they have also opened new resourcing and language centre, 13mln pounds investment (http://www.building.co.uk/pictures/458xAny/3/6/0/1706360_42news12.jpg - the building on the left). Furthermore year by year, the quality of teaching has been constantly improving, and that's an opinion of people from various courses that I have spoken to. In regards to the satisfaction, they have improved the feedback. There is also one important point that my lecturer has pointed as a comparison (he did PhD at LSE) that you can find hardly any other university when you can approach lecturers so easily. As long as they are in the office, you are free to discuss any issues or problems you have with the subject. Can't agree more, even at late times (i.e. midnight) the lecturers used to reply pretty much straight away (of course not all, and not all the time).

Whenever there were issues - they dealt with them promptly. Year by year the courses have been becoming more and more practical. Great facilities to study... Also for placements it has been the best university in the UK for (or one of the best) in last couple of years.

Sumarising, the improvement has been seen at every step.

PS. I think that student satisfaction is extremely important, at the end, you are going to spend at the university 3 or 4 years of your life, therefore even if there are many good things, but you are dissatisfied with many of them, you might hate your life during your degree.

PS.2 I am very objective and very demanding though, so I am not trying to praise Surrey just because I have studied there, but that it really deserves appraisal.


Hi,
I am really interested in doing a hospitality management course there. How did you find it and what are you going to do with the degree in the future?
Also did you do a placement year?

Info would be great thanks!
Original post by dugdugdug
Yes I did but there were two, possibly three fields on the student's own satisfaction / teaching and only one for employment.

That employment column could be the ease of getting a job or how satisfied employers are with graduates of a particular university. Either way, it should be split into two separate fields.

How a student perceives one's instituion is less accurate and certainly more subjective than if it was evaluated by prospective employers, whom I hope, do interview and hire graduates from a wide range of institutions and therefore be in a better position to judge.


Okay I see what you mean now.

The employment column in league tables usually refers to the percentage of graduates from a university that either gain graduate employment or just any employment, depending on the table. I'm pretty sure that they also take those who pursue further study into account so that courses that produce a particularly high amount of graduates who go onto masters and PhDs aren't hammered.

Regarding seeking employer's views the graduates that universities produce, it would be hard to a) produce such data and b) quantify it. The simple percentage who get graduate level employment is much simpler to measure and quantify, and to be honest, if an employer doesn't like students from a particular university, they're not going to take them in the first place.
Reply 2626
Original post by Desertanium
Hey guys, just wondering - how ''prestigious'' would you classify Royal Holloway as? Could you say it is in the same league as Exeter, KCL, Bristol, Newcastle?


I'd put it around Reading, Cardiff, UEA, Kent
That said i think in the list you mentioned Bristol is above them all.
Original post by nulli tertius
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.


Nah it's still down to best bang for my results. Everywhere in UK there are good clubs, and UK is not huge at all. Warwick is not the best place to be, but it has similar tariffs to UCL, that has gotta say something. I still feel that tariffs reflect pretty accurately the longstanding prestige of a uni or course. The rest of the factors just cause the table to fluctuate violently. I guess all the drama does make the tables a must-watch from year to year. If its gotta sell, then its working.
So I've been looking through the Guardian's rankings, and I found that they were often completely different to what I expected, Physics http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2012/may/22/university-guide-physics being an example.


1 Oxford 100.0 93 90 79 9.4 9 621 6 77
2 Lancaster 96.5 96 96 91 7.6 9 440 8 66
3 St Andrews 92.1 99 96 72 9.8 8 563 3 81
4 Manchester 90.0 96 96 74 11.1 9 495 7 70
5 Birmingham 89.9 94 89 72 10.0 8 503 6 75
6 Liverpool 88.2 96 96 75 8.8 10 401 6 73
7 UCL 86.8 91 87 66 8.2 9 509 8 75
8 Sussex 84.8 96 95 87 8.9 3 409 9 65
9 Edinburgh 83.3 94 89 67 11.6 10 514 7 64
10 Durham 82.5 92 87 71 11.2 4 574 6 80
11 Leeds 82.3 93 90 77 12.3 4 435 4 89
12 Imperial College 81.8 87 82 52 10.2 8 588 7 78
13 Royal Holloway 80.0 92 90 77 8.2 6 352 6
14 Warwick 75.2 83 83 66 13.3 7 528 6 80

So apparently Lancaster, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sussex and Leeds are all better than Imperial?

I realised that the requirements for a high ranking have *nothing* to do with the quality of the university (as in, how good in terms of difficulty of content you are studying) - it's all rubbish like "satisfied with teaching", "satisfied with course" etc. How on earth can Imperial (a sciences university) be six places further down in the UK than it is worldwide?

Rankings all seem to be completely messed up - looking worldwide, apparently Leeds, KCL and Manchester outdo Durham and Warwick in the Times' reputation rankings.

How much attention do employers pay to rankings?

If, for example, I took Theoretical Physics at UCL, I would have thought that should be considered as one of the top 4-5 in the country, and top 10-20 in the world. A quick peek at rankings, however, tells me otherwise, with what I thought to be 'lesser' universities coming higher up.

If I've said anything stupid, please don't neg, just explain it to me as this is a serious question.
You've got it spot on apart from the UCL bit. Their Physics department is not very strong.
Student satisfaction is a criminally underrated stat. Why would you apply for a course if you're not going to be satisfied?
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
Student satisfaction is a criminally underrated stat. Why would you apply for a course if you're not going to be satisfied?


You should make your decision on whether or not you like the course/uni rather than what other people think of the course/uni.

Student satisfaction distorts the rankings as weaker uni's are bolstered by such a stat.

<3 x
Original post by LETSJaM
You should make your decision on whether or not you like the course/uni rather than what other people think of the course/uni.

Student satisfaction distorts the rankings as weaker uni's are bolstered by such a stat.

<3 x

But, the thing is, are they "weak" if you are going to enjoy being there?
Original post by Junaid96
So I've been looking through the Guardian's rankings, and I found that they were often completely different to what I expected, Physics http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2012/may/22/university-guide-physics being an example.


1 Oxford 100.0 93 90 79 9.4 9 621 6 77
2 Lancaster 96.5 96 96 91 7.6 9 440 8 66
3 St Andrews 92.1 99 96 72 9.8 8 563 3 81
4 Manchester 90.0 96 96 74 11.1 9 495 7 70
5 Birmingham 89.9 94 89 72 10.0 8 503 6 75
6 Liverpool 88.2 96 96 75 8.8 10 401 6 73
7 UCL 86.8 91 87 66 8.2 9 509 8 75
8 Sussex 84.8 96 95 87 8.9 3 409 9 65
9 Edinburgh 83.3 94 89 67 11.6 10 514 7 64
10 Durham 82.5 92 87 71 11.2 4 574 6 80
11 Leeds 82.3 93 90 77 12.3 4 435 4 89
12 Imperial College 81.8 87 82 52 10.2 8 588 7 78
13 Royal Holloway 80.0 92 90 77 8.2 6 352 6
14 Warwick 75.2 83 83 66 13.3 7 528 6 80

So apparently Lancaster, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sussex and Leeds are all better than Imperial?

I realised that the requirements for a high ranking have *nothing* to do with the quality of the university (as in, how good in terms of difficulty of content you are studying) - it's all rubbish like "satisfied with teaching", "satisfied with course" etc. How on earth can Imperial (a sciences university) be six places further down in the UK than it is worldwide?

Rankings all seem to be completely messed up - looking worldwide, apparently Leeds, KCL and Manchester outdo Durham and Warwick in the Times' reputation rankings.

How much attention do employers pay to rankings?

If, for example, I took Theoretical Physics at UCL, I would have thought that should be considered as one of the top 4-5 in the country, and top 10-20 in the world. A quick peek at rankings, however, tells me otherwise, with what I thought to be 'lesser' universities coming higher up.

If I've said anything stupid, please don't neg, just explain it to me as this is a serious question.


nothing to do with the teaching but liverpool has the British office of the lhc
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
Student satisfaction is a criminally underrated stat. Why would you apply for a course if you're not going to be satisfied?



Original post by Mr Dangermouse
But, the thing is, are they "weak" if you are going to enjoy being there?


Yes. I'd mostly ignore student satisfaction, as they often have little to do with the academic side of a university. Note how the top unis for satisfaction are almost never the top academic universities (enter Loughborough, Bath etc.).

My main question is how employers see the unis.
Original post by I'mBadAtMaths
You've got it spot on apart from the UCL bit. Their Physics department is not very strong.


Could you say a bit more on that? Cheers :smile:
Original post by Junaid96
Could you say a bit more on that? Cheers :smile:


I've heard that their lab facilities are poor in comparison to other top Universities. Also their entrance requirements of AAB (for 2011 at least) are pretty low compared to other top Universities (Imperial is A*AA, for example). In the CUG's league table, a pretty reliable league table, its Physics department ranked 19th in 2012 and 13th in 2013.
Original post by Junaid96
Yes. I'd mostly ignore student satisfaction, as they often have little to do with the academic side of a university. Note how the top unis for satisfaction are almost never the top academic universities (enter Loughborough, Bath etc.).

My main question is how employers see the unis.



But surely a good university should be enjoyable to attend. Given how little institution actually matters when it comes to getting a job, I'd advise against putting yourself through 3 years of hell to have a 3% better chance at being in a graduate job after 6 months. In my opinion these rankings to a great job at factoring in all the different factors and crunching the numbers into a great measure of university v university.
Original post by I'mBadAtMaths
I've heard that their lab facilities are poor in comparison to other top Universities. Also their entrance requirements of AAB (for 2011 at least) are pretty low compared to other top Universities (Imperial is A*AA, for example). In the CUG's league table, a pretty reliable league table, its Physics department ranked 19th in 2012 and 13th in 2013.


Entry requirements are a poor measure as they measure popularity of application as opposed to academic prowess. For example, Aberdeen has notoriously low entry requirements because not many people apply there due to its location.
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
Entry requirements are a poor measure as they measure popularity of application as opposed to academic prowess. For example, Aberdeen has notoriously low entry requirements because not many people apply there due to its location.


The entry requirement was going past it on the bus a few years ago. May have risen due to grade inflation.
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
Entry requirements are a poor measure as they measure popularity of application as opposed to academic prowess. For example, Aberdeen has notoriously low entry requirements because not many people apply there due to its location.


Physics is also a very popular course to study.
A lot of UCL's courses demand high entry requirements, but not Physics.
This is UCL, one of the most famous and prestigious universities in the UK.
UCL is in London.