This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- Criminology at loughborough
- Why do people insult my looks in my relationship?
- Why do my girlfriends friends call me ugly?
- Applying for a masters degree
- How do I balance league tables vs course content when choosing a uni?
- UK student in the ivy leauge
- Official Queen Mary University of London freshers 2023 chat
- Cambridge, Durham or UCL?
- firm choice?
- Warwick CS satisfaction rate... what the hell
- Year 13s: What are the main reasons you picked the uni you're starting in September?
- Need advice from ivy students!
- For those applying for Graphic Design, Illustration, Vis Com courses
- Disappointed
- Studying space
- bristol, exeter or nottingham for law?
- Oxford Brookes vs. Anglia Ruskin Uni
- University of Dundee (please drop in your experience)
- Royal Navy FATs
The final say on university leauge tables
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible. All these people ranking tier 1,2,3,3,5 as if there are big differences.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Tier 1
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)
Tier 2
York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.
Tier 3
The rest of the universities, not prestigious or world leading but some have good departments.
Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.
Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.
Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.
Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible. All these people ranking tier 1,2,3,3,5 as if there are big differences.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Tier 1
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)
Tier 2
York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.
Tier 3
The rest of the universities, not prestigious or world leading but some have good departments.
Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.
Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.
Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.
Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
(edited 10 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Words fail me.
Original post by cant_think_of_name
Words fail me.
Well you managed to type 3 words.
Here have a neg, it is one me!
Switch Edinburgh with Warwick
Original post by ssxx
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Tier 1
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Edinburgh.
Tier 2
York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.
Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.
Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.
Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.
Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Tier 1
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Edinburgh.
Tier 2
York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.
Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.
Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.
Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.
Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
You forgot to say "UK unis" league tables....
psht this hasn't got **** on Harvard and MIT or close to the other Ivy league unis
Original post by ssxx
Well you managed to type 3 words.
Here have a neg, it is one me!
Here have a neg, it is one me!
Thanks for the neg
My point was simply that this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.. why would you rank a university higher because of its history? What sort of (detailed) research have you done into these universities and their research? More money does not mean better research.
As well as this, these are not subject specific - Loughborough, Leicester for Engineering, Lancaster for Maths and Social Sciences, King's College for quite a few subjects, etc.
Not to mention that UCAS points on entry is less important than the quality of graduates on leaving
Original post by cant_think_of_name
Thanks for the neg
History plays an important roles in reputation!
People invest and have confidence because of history.
You need to learn a lot, mr school boy.
Original post by ssxx
History plays an important roles in reputation!
People invest and have confidence because of history.
You need to learn a lot, mr school boy.
People invest and have confidence because of history.
You need to learn a lot, mr school boy.
Reputation means nothing towards quality of teaching
EDIT: should have made it clear I meant historical reputation, rather than current reputation
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by cant_think_of_name
Reputation means nothing towards quality of teaching
What are you on about? You would have a bad reputation if your teaching was so bad!
Your still at school.
I am done with you.
I'd love to see a 'quality of teaching', 'quality of course' and 'quality of facilities' league table. History, research, Nobel prizes, entry tariff and number of horses in the university stable block is all very interesting, but I wouldn't mind seeing something that's actually relevant to the quality of undergraduate education one day.
Even research quality is more concerned with postgraduate study (aside from module choice being based on researchers' interests), given that it's unlikely you'll find many undergraduates involved in complex world-leading research, or even learning more than the basics about it.
Even research quality is more concerned with postgraduate study (aside from module choice being based on researchers' interests), given that it's unlikely you'll find many undergraduates involved in complex world-leading research, or even learning more than the basics about it.
Original post by russellsteapot
I'd love to see a 'quality of teaching', 'quality of course' and 'quality of facilities' league table. History, research, Nobel prizes, entry tariff and number of horses in the university stable block is all very interesting, but I wouldn't mind seeing something that's actually relevant to the quality of undergraduate education one day.
Even research quality is more concerned with postgraduate study (aside from module choice being based on researchers' interests), given that it's unlikely you'll find many undergraduates involved in complex world-leading research, or even learning more than the basics about it.
Even research quality is more concerned with postgraduate study (aside from module choice being based on researchers' interests), given that it's unlikely you'll find many undergraduates involved in complex world-leading research, or even learning more than the basics about it.
Undergraduates go onto postgraduate,
I rather be lead by the man who wrote the boom than one who read the book.
Original post by ssxx
What are you on about? You would have a bad reputation if your teaching was so bad!
Your still at school.
I am done with you.
Your still at school.
I am done with you.
It's fine, I'm done with you too
you're*
[the reputation I was referring to was historical reputation. how good a university was 50 years ago has little, if anything, to do with quality of teaching now]
Nice talking to you
Original post by ssxx
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Tier 1
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)
Tier 2
York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.
Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.
Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.
Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.
Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Tier 1
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)
Tier 2
York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.
Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.
Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.
Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.
Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
Edinburgh, Tier 1 no way. can I take it you go there?
Original post by ssxx
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Tier 1
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)
Tier 2
York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.
Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.
Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.
Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.
Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Tier 1
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)
Tier 2
York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.
Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.
Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.
Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.
Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
Manchester has 25 Nobel winners...>Edinburgh. Should be Tier 1 in your methodology brah.
Original post by ssxx
Undergraduates go onto postgraduate,
I rather be lead by the man who wrote the boom than one who read the book.
I rather be lead by the man who wrote the boom than one who read the book.
Yes, and when they do so, they'll actually be doing research.
Of course, if they picked a university based on amazing research quality, history and Nobel prizes, but shockingly bad teaching and piecemeal course content at undergraduate level (many of the best researchers I've come into contact with view teaching as a distraction, so you're not guaranteed the best education from the best researcher), they'll be wholly unprepared for postgraduate research when they get into it.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by cant_think_of_name
Reputation means nothing towards quality of teaching
it means a lot.
look,
1. If reputation is high, then uni can attract very strong academics which leads to quality of teaching going to be high.
2. If reputation is high, uni attracts very strong students that focused on learning more, which leads to good graduates.
3. If reputation is high, but the quality is low, believe me, these students are not stupid, they won't stay there and in long term no one will go to that uni => reputation will fall.
Original post by ssxx
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.
This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Could you please explain your methodology in more detail? Have you used the traditional z-scoring method used by most league table compilers for combining metrics with different characteristics?
Also I'd be interested in what qualifies you to call THIS the "final say" on league tables? Are you a researcher in university prestige like the compilers of the ARWU? Have you compiled substantial perception surveys of academics and employers like the compilers of the THE and QS world rankings? Do you have decades of experience of university administration, management, quality assessment and data analysis like the compilers of the Times/Guardian/Complete rankings?
Or are you just trying to justify your own self importance/intelligence?
Original post by Makebelieve15
Manchester has 25 Nobel winners...>Edinburgh. Should be Tier 1 in your methodology brah.
Thats just one area, manchester fails in ucas points, teaching, ect
Original post by PQ
Could you please explain your methodology in more detail? Have you used the traditional z-scoring method used by most league table compilers for combining metrics with different characteristics?
Also I'd be interested in what qualifies you to call THIS the "final say" on league tables? Are you a researcher in university prestige like the compilers of the ARWU? Have you compiled substantial perception surveys of academics and employers like the compilers of the THE and QS world rankings? Do you have decades of experience of university administration, management, quality assessment and data analysis like the compilers of the Times/Guardian/Complete rankings?
Or are you just trying to justify your own self importance/intelligence?
Also I'd be interested in what qualifies you to call THIS the "final say" on league tables? Are you a researcher in university prestige like the compilers of the ARWU? Have you compiled substantial perception surveys of academics and employers like the compilers of the THE and QS world rankings? Do you have decades of experience of university administration, management, quality assessment and data analysis like the compilers of the Times/Guardian/Complete rankings?
Or are you just trying to justify your own self importance/intelligence?
Yes, to most of questions apart from the last.
Original post by lNurl
it means a lot.
look,
1. If reputation is high, then uni can attract very strong academics which leads to quality of teaching going to be high.
2. If reputation is high, uni attracts very strong students that focused on learning more, which leads to good graduates.
3. If reputation is high, but the quality is low, believe me, these students are not stupid, they won't stay there and in long term no one will go to that uni => reputation will fall.
look,
1. If reputation is high, then uni can attract very strong academics which leads to quality of teaching going to be high.
2. If reputation is high, uni attracts very strong students that focused on learning more, which leads to good graduates.
3. If reputation is high, but the quality is low, believe me, these students are not stupid, they won't stay there and in long term no one will go to that uni => reputation will fall.
Well said!
Related discussions
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- Criminology at loughborough
- Why do people insult my looks in my relationship?
- Why do my girlfriends friends call me ugly?
- Applying for a masters degree
- How do I balance league tables vs course content when choosing a uni?
- UK student in the ivy leauge
- Official Queen Mary University of London freshers 2023 chat
- Cambridge, Durham or UCL?
- firm choice?
- Warwick CS satisfaction rate... what the hell
- Year 13s: What are the main reasons you picked the uni you're starting in September?
- Need advice from ivy students!
- For those applying for Graphic Design, Illustration, Vis Com courses
- Disappointed
- Studying space
- bristol, exeter or nottingham for law?
- Oxford Brookes vs. Anglia Ruskin Uni
- University of Dundee (please drop in your experience)
- Royal Navy FATs
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of Portsmouth Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 5 minutes ago
LSE politics and Economics 2023/2024Last reply 6 minutes ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
PAD due tomorrow & forgot to sign practice assessor signature- what should I do?Last reply 10 minutes ago
Official University Offer Holder thread list (2024 entry)Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 12 minutes ago
LSE anthropology and law 2024Trending
Last reply 10 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 13 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 10 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 13 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
