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

OP

Original post by Magnus Taylor

It blows Manchester out of the water on most national rankings. Considering the contemporary nature of Warwick compared to Manchester, it has done incredibly well to break into the top 50. I do believe Warwick will overtake Manchester and the reason Manchester is so research intensive is just because it is a dench uni lol.

And we all know how good the national rankings are?!? Student satisfaction gives universities a rise in those rankings by about 10-15 places, which is pathetic. REF scores only take into account the GPA score, and not research power. Also, on graduate prospects, who is to say most of these graduates aren't doing glorified telesales jobs that are billed as graduate jobs? I could go on and on, but it should be very obvious that the national rankings are deeply flawed, and most Russell Group universities concentrate on World rankings these days.

Reply 102

Magnus Taylor

15

Original post by King of the Ring

And we all know how good the national rankings are?!? Student satisfaction gives universities a rise in those rankings by about 10-15 places, which is pathetic. REF scores only take into account the GPA score, and not research power. Also, on graduate prospects, who is to say most of these graduates aren't doing glorified telesales jobs that are billed as graduate jobs? I could go on and on, but it should be very obvious that the national rankings are deeply flawed, and most Russell Group universities concentrate on World rankings these days.

I do agree to an extent. I do not see how some universities get such a high ranking such as Heriot Watt lol. But a sophisticated critical perception would encompass both set of rankings to give a true reflective picture. My course at Warwick (History) is ranked 5th in the UK and 15th in the world, thus I can safely argue that Warwick is better than Manchester for myself with Manchester being 24th on UK rankings and 38th in the world.

Reply 103

OP

Original post by Magnus Taylor

It blows Manchester out of the water on most national rankings. Considering the contemporary nature of Warwick compared to Manchester, it has done incredibly well to break into the top 50. I do believe Warwick will overtake Manchester and the reason Manchester is so research intensive is just because it is a dench uni lol. Manchester is not even in the top 20 on national overall rankings now lol

For added value, Manchester is about to invest £1 billion over the next 10 years, and they are also about to transform their teaching standards to a whole new level. If any university is going to go places, with their huge resources, it is Manchester.

Reply 104

El Salvador

21

Original post by King of the Ring

The THES World ranking is out next month, so it will be interesting to see how universities perform in this table, which uses 10 different criteria to rank universities.

They are always very different, though QS has now started to really recognise CalTech.

Reply 105

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.

Brilliant comparison, and I'm delighted the UK holds its own weight against the giant, USA. Except that, and I hate to admit this, this ranking is a piece of crap, and does not in any way reflect the reality.

Imperial and UCL are not top 10 universities worldwide. I can name 10 US schools that are far superior to Imperial/UCL as an academic institution.
1.-5. HYPSM
6. Caltech
7. Berkeley
8. Columbia
9. Chicago
10. Duke

And then you have UPenn, Cornell, JHU, Northwestern, Michigan, UVa and UCLA, which are all more regarded, better funded, employ better faculty members, attract better students, etc than Imperial/UCL. Imperial/UCL aren't even superior to either Cambridge or Oxford in the UK and yet they're ranked higher worldwide. It's totally absurd.

Reply 106

OP

Original post by jameslaparan

Brilliant comparison, and I'm delighted the UK holds its own weight against the giant, USA. Except that, and I hate to admit this, this ranking is a piece of crap, and does not in any way reflect the reality.

Imperial and UCL are not top 10 universities worldwide. I can name 10 US schools that are far superior to Imperial/UCL as an academic institution.
1.-5. HYPSM
6. Caltech
7. Berkeley
8. Columbia
9. Chicago
10. Duke

And then you have UPenn, Cornell, JHU, Northwestern, Michigan, UVa and UCLA, which are all more regarded, better funded, employ better faculty members, attract better students, etc than Imperial/UCL. Imperial/UCL aren't even superior to either Cambridge or Oxford in the UK and yet they're ranked higher worldwide. It's totally absurd.

The QS World rankings don't reward universities on volume of research output, otherwise the Ivy League universities would be miles ahead. But otherwise the ranking is fair, and UCL and Imperial deserve their top 10 status.

Reply 107

Original post by King of the Ring

An unfounded statement. Warwick enjoys a slightly better UK reputation, but Manchester has the stronger international reputation, and is the stronger and richer research intensive university.

I seriously think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Manchester doesn't have a stronger reputation than Warwick outside of UK. International students attending Warwick are far more accomplished than those applying and attending Manchester.

I have yet to meet an international student who is much willing to attend Manchester over Warwick. Warwick is definitely viewed and regarded higher than Manchester worldwide. Though I have to admit neither uni enjoys a household name internationally. Only Oxford, and to a minor extent, Cambridge, can lay such claim.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 108

Original post by King of the Ring

For added value, Manchester is about to invest £1 billion over the next 10 years, and they are also about to transform their teaching standards to a whole new level. If any university is going to go places, with their huge resources, it is Manchester.

I wonder how huge Manchester's resources are that you seem to have hinged your faith on it.

Reply 109

Original post by King of the Ring

The QS World rankings don't reward universities on volume of research output, otherwise the Ivy League universities would be miles ahead.

What made you think the Ivies would rule the international league tables using a high quantity of research output as one of the metrics?

FYI, the Ivies are composed of 8 schools. Of those 8, two (Dartmouth & Brown) are LAC-type which have far more concentration on providing the best education for their undergrad students. Columbia, Penn and Cornell are another LAC-type but which have, at the same time, superior graduate programs. HYP are Ivies known to be superior to all the 5.

But otherwise the ranking is fair, and UCL and Imperial deserve their top 10 status.

Do you seriously believe that Imperial and UCL are superior to Princeton, Yale, Caltech and Berkeley? Really?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 110

ubisoft

3

UCL is definitely not a top 10 uni. Even Imperial I'd say top 20, not 10.

Reply 111

OP

Original post by jameslaparan

I seriously think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Manchester doesn't have a stronger reputation than Warwick outside of UK. International students attending Warwick are far more accomplished than those applying and attending Manchester.

I have yet to meet an international student who is much willing to attend Manchester over Warwick. Warwick is definitely viewed and regarded higher than Manchester worldwide. Though I have to admit neither uni enjoys a household name internationally. Only Oxford, and to a minor extent, Cambridge, can lay such claim.

You don't know who you are talking to, and if you did, you would revise that foolish statement quicker than you made it. I'd like to think it is down to your inexperience and naivety, but that will come in time. I don't need to be lectured by anyone other than those who are lecturers and professors at universities.

Manchester features in the top 50 of the three main World rankings (QS, THES and ARWU). Does Warwick?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 112

OP

Original post by jameslaparan

I wonder how huge Manchester's resources are that you seem to have hinged your faith on it.

They are in the top 5 for being the richest of the UK universities based on annual income, far ahead of Warwick.

Reply 113

OP

Original post by jameslaparan

What made you think the Ivies would rule the international league tables using a high quantity of research output as one of the metrics?

FYI, the Ivies are composed of 8 schools. Of those 8, two (Dartmouth & Brown) are LAC-type which have far more concentration on providing the best education for their undergrad students. Columbia, Penn and Cornell are another LAC-type but which have, at the same time, superior graduate programs. HYP are Ivies knwo to be superior of all the former 5.

Do you seriously believe that Imperial and UCL are superior to Princeton, Yale, Caltech and Berkeley? Really?

QS World rankings are one league table. They couldn't possibly tell us which is the best university, or which ones are top 10, it would be like devising a solitary league table to tell us which is the best captial city. But the rankings, such as they are devised, are fair and accurate for all participating universities, and they do have their place.

Reply 114

OP

Original post by ubisoft

UCL is definitely not a top 10 uni. Even Imperial I'd say top 20, not 10.

They may not produce the same volume of research as the very top US colleges, but in terms of the quality of research they actually do, and the standard of teaching they deliver, and on offering top class facilities, why cannot they be seen as top 10 universities?

Reply 115

Okorange

17

Original post by King of the Ring

Not if you actually wake up and realise that not every professor that is involved in medical teaching and research in hospitals is a doctor in the first place. It is possible to be a professor in a medical field without ever having studied Medicine.

Yes but they won't be professors of medicine, they will be professors of whatever medically related field they are in and believe me to get into professorship in any field is incredibly difficult. I wouldn't think a professor of medicine is any better than a professor in any other field because the competition from medic to professor is not as harsh as the competition from undergrad student in any other field to professor.

Reply 116

Okorange

17

Original post by jameslaparan

Brilliant comparison, and I'm delighted the UK holds its own weight against the giant, USA. Except that, and I hate to admit this, this ranking is a piece of crap, and does not in any way reflect the reality.

Imperial and UCL are not top 10 universities worldwide. I can name 10 US schools that are far superior to Imperial/UCL as an academic institution.
1.-5. HYPSM
6. Caltech
7. Berkeley
8. Columbia
9. Chicago
10. Duke

And then you have UPenn, Cornell, JHU, Northwestern, Michigan, UVa and UCLA, which are all more regarded, better funded, employ better faculty members, attract better students, etc than Imperial/UCL. Imperial/UCL aren't even superior to either Cambridge or Oxford in the UK and yet they're ranked higher worldwide. It's totally absurd.

You are right, US unis are far superior just based on the population numbers, the amount of competition for US unis is such that you can be a perfect candidate and have all but a random chance at the top unis. Getting into HYPSM as an undergrad is literally a crapshoot even if you have absolutely perfect scores, the only thing that can more or less guarantee you is if you have a national/international award like an Intel award or a Olympiad medal or you are an athlete/legacy/urm.

Reply 117

Original post by King of the Ring

QS World rankings are one league table. They couldn't possibly tell us which is the best university, or which ones are top 10, it would be like devising a solitary league table to tell us which is the best captial city. But the rankings, such as they are devised, are fair and accurate for all participating universities, and they do have their place.

The simple fact that your minute brain cannot contain is these international league tables' criteria are mainly for graduate level concerns. Noticed how LBS, UCS, ULSH and several other purely grad schools made it to the rankings whilst the best LACs in America haven't?

If we would conduct a worldwide poll today asking the people which one is the better uni between Warwick and Manchester, I would wager half my wealth that Warwick would win in the poll, hands-down. And, between Manchester and Brown, Brown would win, hands down.

Reply 118

Original post by King of the Ring

They are in the top 5 for being the richest of the UK universities based on annual income, far ahead of Warwick.

My question was how rich is Manchester?

I know it's in the top 5 in the UK, but there's a huge gap between Oxbridge and the rest of the unis in this country. You speak like Manchester is in the league of Oxbridge. No, it isn't.

Reply 119

OP