2016 University rankings

Ive had a look at the new updated university rankings for the next academic year. Have you? Where there any that surprised you? Any that moved up or down that you felt were unjustified/justified?

Maybe post it up so people can look at it and form an idea on it

I'm too lazy to find one, but I'd be interested to see where Imperial was at!

Maybe post it up so people can look at it and form an idea on it

I'm too lazy to find one, but I'd be interested to see where Imperial was at!

Maybe post it up so people can look at it and form an idea on it

I'm too lazy to find one, but I'd be interested to see where Imperial was at!

Well.... If you insist http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings
I think it was like 3rd or 4th I don't remember. I'm shocked at roehampton Uni they made an incredible jump from 93 to 66!

Ranking are c**p.

Take this from the Daily ToryGraph for example:

In the following two articles, the first is for first class degrees, the second for job prospects:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11589598/Top-10-universities-for-first-class-degrees.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11576097/Top-10-universities-for-job-prospects.html

Imperial College came TOP in both, yet the headline never mentioned them in either.

Moreover, the first featured a picture of St. Andrews, which came in at EIGTH and the second showed a picture of LSE, which was ranked SIXTH.

I have no doubt if Oxbridge came top, they'd feature in the headlines, like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11598097/Half-of-the-new-Cabinet-went-to-Oxbridge.html

Imperial beats LSE on EVERY metric (excluding Green score, which isn't used anyway according to the explanation), yet is still ranked below them.

Seems the compilers cannot follow logic.

Who cares

Imperial beats LSE on EVERY metric (excluding Green score, which isn't used anyway according to the explanation), yet is still ranked below them.

Seems the compilers cannot follow logic.

they apply a factor for subject mix to compensate for certain subjects skewing performance upwards.

Imperial beats LSE on EVERY metric (excluding Green score, which isn't used anyway according to the explanation), yet is still ranked below them.

Seems the compilers cannot follow logic.

Ranking are c**p.

Take this from the Daily ToryGraph for example:

In the following two articles, the first is for first class degrees, the second for job prospects:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11589598/Top-10-universities-for-first-class-degrees.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11576097/Top-10-universities-for-job-prospects.html

Imperial College came TOP in both, yet the headline never mentioned them in either.

Moreover, the first featured a picture of St. Andrews, which came in at EIGTH and the second showed a picture of LSE, which was ranked SIXTH.

I have no doubt if Oxbridge came top, they'd feature in the headlines, like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11598097/Half-of-the-new-Cabinet-went-to-Oxbridge.html

this is the magic of the Z-transform (see methodology)
more seriously, like you I can't figure out how they can seriously rank Imperial behind LSE when it beats LSE in all categories???!!!?

So Imperial prints out 1st's like print paper? I don't see how that shows its good, its most likely STEM degrees which usually have a high percentage of firsts particularly maths. To me it just devalues a 1st from Imperial.

B-transform sounds more appropriate - B for Bulls**t!

I haven't read the methodology but mathematically it doesn't make sense.

IF LSE beats Imperial by only one metric, you COULD argue that the rankings placed MASSIVE weighting to that single metric.

However, that is not the case here. Imperial beats LSE on EVERY single metric, so I can't see how any transformation / weighting algorithm can justify LSE ranked above Imperial.





Not too long ago, the modal average degree class was 2:2 for all universities, except Oxbridge, whose modal average was 2:1.

Nobody blinked.

Now the modal average for all universities is 2:1 and there are cries of dumbing down.

Imperial has more firsts than anyone else, (whether you accept it or not).

If it was Oxbridge, would you give it a second thought?

I would. If any uni gave out 41% firsts I would seriously begin to reconsider the value of a first. If literally almost half the students at a uni can get a first then how do you distinguish the top 10% from the top 39% who barely scrapped in?

Its unfortunate but I don't believe unis should be commended for just giving out a lot of 2:1s and 1sts, it doesn't mean anything if its not valued as much. The whole value of degree class is to distinguish between the top performers and average performers.