The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

The QS World University Rankings® 2015/16 will be published on TopUniversities.com on

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Little Toy Gun
Is it fair when Manchester accepts a lot more students though? Of course their entry tariff would be lower ever if they are equally 'good'.


Life isn't fair.
So much for Exeter and Surrey being elite universities . . .
Original post by King of the Ring
So much for Exeter and Surrey being elite universities . . .


Yeah. They'll never be part of Noxbridge will they!?
Original post by King of the Ring
So much for Exeter and Surrey being elite universities . . .


You say repeatedly in your other posts that rankings should be not viewed in isolation and then make claims like this. You're either a troll or bone ****ing idle.
Original post by King of the Ring
They have gone up from 77th to 70th you twit. That marks a successful year in these rankings, their best ever infact. When small-group teaching comes on board from next year, the ranking should go up further still.

St Andrews and Durham have jumped up 20-30 places from last year, so the tables should be viewed over a number of years (i.e. performance of the last 3-5 years), and not one year in isolation.


20-30 places increase is more than a 7 place increase :h: Now pretty much all the league tables say that Durham and St Andrews are superior to Nottingham. :colondollar:

I'm just happy that you'll no longer use the QS as a source to bash other universities :smile:
Original post by callum_law
You say repeatedly in your other posts that rankings should be not viewed in isolation and then make claims like this. You're either a troll or bone ****ing idle.


Exeter and Surrey fail in all international rankings.
Original post by C_Richards99
20-30 places increase is more than a 7 place increase :h: Now pretty much all the league tables say that Durham and St Andrews are superior to Nottingham. :colondollar:

I'm just happy that you'll no longer use the QS as a source to bash other universities :smile:


All coming from a twit who said Durham was much more prestigious than Nottingham. Durham may have a small edge in reputation, but they still don't offer medical education fulltime, and as long as that continues they will never be seen as prestigious as KCL and Edinburgh.
Original post by xenophile
Yeah. They'll never be part of Noxbridge will they!?


Exeter + £1 billion more in investment
= Eoxbridge
Original post by callum_law
Life isn't fair.


The comparison isn't fair = the comparison is flawed.

Your analogy also fails here. At least you're being consistent.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
The comparison isn't fair = the comparison is flawed.

Your analogy also fails here. At least you're being consistent.


Thank you.
Original post by Broscientist
To be fair, I do not think anything ranking in the top 200 is a fail. Especially if we are talking about the UK, which is dwarfed by the US when it comes to population and wealth. Even when we take all of these factors in account, the UK still manages to maintain a strong presence in the international rankings. The UK demonstrates incredible performance for its size and wealth when it comes to higher education.

Sometimes I get the impression that UK citizens take this for granted.


It wouldn't be so bad for them if they just accepted that they aren't UK top 10 universities overall, which clearly they are not.
Good result for Warwick in History, 15th
Original post by callum_law
Thank you.


You're welcome.
Original post by Broscientist
To be fair, I do not think anything ranking in the top 200 is a fail. Especially if we are talking about the UK, which is dwarfed by the US when it comes to population and wealth. Even when we take all of these factors in account, the UK still manages to maintain a strong presence in the international rankings. The UK demonstrates incredible performance for its size and wealth when it comes to higher education.

Sometimes I get the impression that UK citizens take this for granted.


I don't know where people get this idea from. Most of our elite universities come from the time when we had the world's largest global empire and were by far the world's richest country. Oxbridge, University of London colleges, the Scottish ancient universities and even the redbricks are all the products of the British empire and enjoyed unmatched prestige in the world until WW2: the only universities that compared were the US Ivy leaguers and a couple of German and French insitututions. It would be truly appalling bad management for British universities' reputations to have fallen by very much after just 60 years without the empire. English has become the indisputable lingua franca of academia so we have a huge advantage there too. Oh, and the UK is not a small country nor a poor country, we're the 4th most populous developed country (soon to be 3rd) and perhaps the most powerful country in the world as far as our image and soft power is concerned.

And to be honest our universities outside of London are really not peforming 'incredibly'. In the early years of the 20th Century KCL was second only to Oxbridge in Europe for science and medicine, and you don't have to go too far back to see that Edinburgh and Glasgow have been royally screwed over by the anglo-centric course that British education has taken.

Yes, there are some success stories of postwar British universities like Warwick and Exeter, but Oxford is faltering, KCL is failing to achieve potential domestically despite some progress in the international sphere, and even Edinburgh and Manchester are rather static.
(edited 8 years ago)
They have more Research simply because they have more money(which is fine, by the way). Also these rankings can be quite subjective if you consider that some parametres are made by anglophones for anglophones. Continental European universities have different teaching philosophies(which I personally like better than being taught by a MA student like in America). Yet, I am glad some continental unis are doing well even in these biased parametres. Lastly, it doesnt really inflate my ego if that is what you implied. I'm not even European, but I know they have quality education that sometimes does not fit the biased anglophone rankings.
Original post by Broscientist
So let us examine the main leader when it comes to HE (sharing the same benefits of English being the language of academia) - The United States of America.

US: ~18 trillion GDP, ~320 million population
UK: ~3 trillion GDP, ~65 million population

Let's use the QS World Rankings as this is the topic of the thread:
US: 5 universities in the top 10, 30 universities in the top 100
UK: 4 universities in the top 10, 18 universities in the top 100

Seems like a very solid "pound-for-pound performance" in my opinion. It is even more impressive if you consider the ridiculous amounts of endowment US universities are getting. Just my two cents.


It's worth remembering however that US universities are often bigger than their UK counterparts. Some of the state colleges that make the top 100 are bigger by orders of magnitude: the likes of Penn State is more like the University of London, several universities in one. If you split them up a bit then the UK might not seem to be doing so well in comparison.
Original post by Gabrielxucram
better than being taught by a MA student like in America.


Going off topic a bit now but I have to ask... where did you get this idea?

One of the biggest difference between postgrad education in the US and UK is that PhD programmes in the US incorporate learning how to teach and supervise students; in the UK it's all about research. That's one reason PhDs in the US last so much longer, and the difference in teaching quality by academics trained in each country is readily appartent.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by xenophile
Going off topic a bit now but I have to ask... where did you get this idea?

One of the biggest difference between postgrad education in the US and UK is that PhD programmes in the US incorporate learning how to teach and supervise students; in the UK it's all about research. That's one reason PhDs in the US last so much longer, and the difference in teaching quality by academics trained in each country is readily appartent.


I was refering to undergrad teaching
Original post by Gabrielxucram
I was refering to undergrad teaching


Yeah, I got that.

I've been a student at three unis in the US and have never heard of undergrads being taught by Masters students. Have you had a different experience?

I was explaining the difference in PhD training because I think it's a big part of why teaching quality in the US is, in general, higher than in the UK.

[Yes, I know this a massive generalisation and there are lots of great profs in the UK, terrible ones in the US, etc.]
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Little Toy Gun
No, what I'm trying to say is that if say University of Blah created a cure for cancer (research success), then employers will also see the general reputation highly, undergrad or postgrad, in whatever field.


Yes but also not really, i'm sure most employers don't know what Oxford, Cambridge or any good university is famous for and i'm sure most don't care. They are looking at the candidate in front of them not whether the candidate is distantly associated with a research discovery through their university...

For example, if I went to an interview and then mentioned that my medical school invented problem based learning, evidence based medicine and the multiple mini interview, would that make the employer think, wow this guy is a great hire, or would they think that i'm crazy.. Unless I was involved in these research accomplishments it doesn't reflect on me at all.
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you