Why is a prestigious UNI like Bristol so low in rankings?

Original post by anonwinner

You have like 40 posts in the Manchester uni accommodation thread dude, you either go there or you're starting there this year.

No one but a Manchester student would put it in the same tier as LSE and ICL.

Okay.

Reply 43

Original post by *Stefan*

In what way are Warwick/St Andrews/Durham above KCL/Nottingham/Bristol/Edinburgh though (especially Warwick and St Andrews)?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Warwick is a target university, St Andrews is really old and has a lot of prestige because of it, and Durham again as a typical public school outpost has just naturally accumulated a lot of prestige over the years and is a semi-target. As I said, individual rankings are of course debatable, particularly for specific courses (Warwick is very strong in maths/economics but less so than others).

Nottingham and Bristol are both semi-targets and Nottingham in particular has a good rep with employers, but they lack the prestige that the above three have and aren't outstanding for any particular course but are good for a few, like Medicine/Economics (Notts) and Maths (Bristol). Edinburgh has a lot of prestige due to it being old (I didn't put the / in any particular order btw) and KCL gets good rep for being in London, but again are just not outstanding for any particular course (off the top of my head, feel free to correct me) like those above are.

Reply 44

_Fergo

19

Original post by Wired_1800

Hi, that is a fair estimate.

However, based on the QS World Rankings, which I have filtered it to only include UK Universities.

Here is the link:
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2015#sorting=rank+region=140+country=208+faculty=+stars=false+search=

According to the ranking, the top 10 in UK are:

1. Cambridge (rank on table: 3)
2. Oxford (rank on table: 6)
3. UCL (rank on table: 7)
4. Imperial (rank on table: 8)
5. KCL (rank on table: 19)
6. Edinburgh (rank on table: 21)
7. Manchester (rank on table: 33)
8. LSE (rank on table: 35)
9. Warwick (rank on table: 48)
10. Durham (rank on table: 61)

On you list, LSE is Tier 2 with Manchester in Tier 4. Even Warwick is one tier higher than Manchester.

If you translate this to a standard UK ranking, there will be outrage because Manchester is higher than LSE, Warwick and Durham.

You're forgetting no. 37 :wink:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 45

Original post by *Stefan*

You're forgetting no. 37 :wink:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Haha, sorry. My bad. Now, people will assume that I am biased against Bristol.

I do like Bristol and I have been there on many occasions.

Reply 46

Original post by Wired_1800

Hi, that is a fair estimate.

However, based on the QS World Rankings, which I have filtered it to only include UK Universities.

Here is the link:
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2015#sorting=rank+region=140+country=208+faculty=+stars=false+search=

According to the ranking, the top 10 in UK are:

1. Cambridge (rank on table: 3)
2. Oxford (rank on table: 6)
3. UCL (rank on table: 7)
4. Imperial (rank on table: 8)
5. KCL (rank on table: 19)
6. Edinburgh (rank on table: 21)
7. Manchester (rank on table: 33)
8. LSE (rank on table: 35)
9. Warwick (rank on table: 48)
10. Durham (rank on table: 61)

On you list, LSE is Tier 2 with Manchester in Tier 4. Even Warwick is one tier higher than Manchester.

If you translate this to a standard UK ranking, there will be outrage because Manchester is higher than LSE, Warwick and Durham.

World league tables are biased towards those universities in well-known places, hence why the London ones dominate (and Manchester...)

And they're biased against LSE because it doesn't offer medicine or any science for that matter. They don't really take into account domestic 'prestige'. In general, if you wanted to get a job abroad then they're a useful guide but domestically the world rankings aren't as significant. The idea that Manchester is ranked above LSE, Warwick and Durham is proof of that. And KCL, Edinburgh and UCL above LSE - what a joke! Note the former three all offer medicine whilst LSE only teach social sciences.

Reply 47

stratagems

9

Original post by JRKinder

In my opinion, the prestige/'good' uni rankings are something along the lines of:

Tier 1:
Oxbridge

Tier 2:
LSE/Imperial (depending on whether you are doing science or social sciences)

Tier 3:
UCL
Durham
/Bristol/KCL/maybe Notts/Manchester/

Tier 4:
York
Exeter
Warwick

Tier 5:
Bath
et al

Fixed it for you. (I don't know/care about Scottish unis.)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 48

Original post by stratagems

Fixed it for you. (I don't know/care about Scottish unis.)

Warwick and Bath are higher than that, at least on par (if not better than the Notts group), and Manchester doesn't belong with Bristol. I know you said you don't know a lot about Scottish unis, but St Andrews is definitely higher than that (a boring place to live but that has no bearing on its research quality) and how can you remove Edinburgh completely? Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree.

Reply 49

stratagems

9

Original post by JRKinder

Warwick and Bath are higher than that, at least on par (if not better than the Notts group), and Manchester doesn't belong with Bristol. I know you said you don't know a lot about Scottish unis, but St Andrews is definitely higher than that (a boring place to live but that has no bearing on its research quality) and how can you remove Edinburgh completely? Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree.

I meant to remove all of the Scottish ones, as I couldn't place them - I can't rank even the Scottish ones in order - I'd hazard a guess that Edinburgh is higher with St Andrews second based on reputation/prestige, but in terms of how it's regarded for certain subjects or by employers, I don't know.

Bath is NOT higher. I think Manchester are lower than Bristol, but I'm not sure whether it warrants a lower tier - I'd say it's more to the bottom of that grouping, but still decent.

Warwick is higher than Exeter, but Exeter is on the up, and I still think Bath is below Exeter.

Nottingham is definitely better than Bath. Bath is a non-such university. I'm not just considering rankings, but also reputation.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 50

Original post by stratagems

I meant to remove all of the Scottish ones, as I couldn't place them - I can't rank even the Scottish ones in order - I'd hazard a guess that Edinburgh is higher, with St Andrews second based on reputation/prestige, but in terms of how it's regarded for certain subjects or by employers, I don't know.

Bath is NOT higher. I think Manchester are lower than Bristol, but I'm not sure whether it warrants a lower tier - I'd say it's more to the bottom of that grouping, but still decent.

Warwick is higher than Exeter, but Exeter is on the up, and I still think Bath is below Exeter.

Nottingham is definitely better than Bath. Bath is a non-such university.

Oh my tiers were arbitrary, you could quite easily place the top of one tier in the bottom of another lol, I just did that to make it a bit clearer.

Exeter is rising because of student satisfaction, but it does still remain popular as back-up choice for public schoolers and has some good departments, but its not on the same level as those I placed above it. Bath is somewhat of a rising star, I think a few years ago it may not have been so high but it's definitely increasing in popularity as a solid alternative to some of the more traditional top choices. Its good for Maths, Physics, Economics, Engineering, those types of things, not sure about other subjects though.

Reply 51

thatapanydude

14

Here is my list based on prestige and reputation :

Tier 1:
Oxbridge

Tier 2:
LSE /Imperial
UCL

Tier 3:
Warwick/Durham
KCL/Manchester
St Andrews

Tier 4:
Edinburgh/Bristol/Nottingham
Southampton

Tier 5:
York/ Birmingham
Exeter/Leeds/ Newcastle
Bath/ Cardiff

Tier 6:
Queen Mary/ Surrey/ Liverpool

Tier 7 and lower:
the rest

Reply 52

_Fergo

19

Original post by JRKinder

Warwick is a target university, St Andrews is really old and has a lot of prestige because of it, and Durham again as a typical public school outpost has just naturally accumulated a lot of prestige over the years and is a semi-target. As I said, individual rankings are of course debatable, particularly for specific courses (Warwick is very strong in maths/economics but less so than others).

Nottingham and Bristol are both semi-targets and Nottingham in particular has a good rep with employers, but they lack the prestige that the above three have and aren't outstanding for any particular course but are good for a few, like Medicine/Economics (Notts) and Maths (Bristol). Edinburgh has a lot of prestige due to it being old (I didn't put the / in any particular order btw) and KCL gets good rep for being in London, but again are just not outstanding for any particular course (off the top of my head, feel free to correct me) like those above are.

How does being a target for IBs make a university better than others? That's a common misconception.

St Andrews and Warwick are definitely not better than Bristol/Nottingham. Durham, could be argued so, but the other two not a single chance.

Warwick is very good for maths/econ etc, but nothing too good for everything else. St Andrews came to stardom when a certain prince went there - other than it's just like Warwick.

The thing is, Warwick, and possibly St Andrews, have been elevated to heaven for no reason at all.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 53

Original post by JRKinder

World league tables are biased towards those universities in well-known places, hence why the London ones dominate (and Manchester...)

And they're biased against LSE because it doesn't offer medicine or any science for that matter. They don't really take into account domestic 'prestige'. In general, if you wanted to get a job abroad then they're a useful guide but domestically the world rankings aren't as significant. The idea that Manchester is ranked above LSE, Warwick and Durham is proof of that. And KCL, Edinburgh and UCL above LSE - what a joke! Note the former three all offer medicine whilst LSE only teach social sciences.

Okay. That is a fair point.

You have brought it back to my original point that the rankings, whether local or international, have an inherent bias towards a particular group. They also seek to please a particular group over others.

In that way, Universities like Manchester are bashed locally and being labelled as mediocre, when it really isn't.

It is incredible that some students will calmly bash Manchester with their very average university that got a boost based on "student satisfaction" or "how green a university is"

I think that we can agree that Manchester is a really good university and does not deserve the bashing (like what we have already seen on this thread).

Reply 54

Original post by *Stefan*

How does being a target for IBs make a university better than others? That's a common misconception.

St Andrews and Warwick are definitely not better than Bristol/Nottingham. Durham, could be argued so, but the other two not a single chance.

Warwick is very good for maths/econ etc, but nothing too good for everything else. St Andrews came to stardom when a certain prince went there - other than it's just like Warwick.

The thing is, Warwick, and possibly St Andrews, have been elevated to heaven for no reason at all.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well if a prestigious bank considers a university to be good then surely you must agree that that is an indication that its alumni are just generally desirable? Obviously for some industries the university you attended doesn't matter, but unis like Warwick just tend to attract a lot of very intelligent individuals (usually Oxbridge rejects though lol), admittedly this is concentrated in Maths and Economics. But still, lets just compare it to Bristol/Nottingham. Warwick is undoubtedly better for the aforementioned Maths/Econ, but do Bristol/Notts stand above Warwick for any other particular course? (can't use medicine as Warwick doesn't offer it at undergrad level). I find Nottingham in particular could be a lot better if it just focused on the courses that it is actually good for, rather than being such a large uni that offers a bunch of other courses that drag it down. Its why places like Imperial and LSE shine aside from being in London, they've chosen to specialise and as a consequence are incredible at their respective courses. I'm not saying Notts should do so to the same extent as those, but focusing on a reduced number of courses could be beneficial for it (because I agree the name is well-known still, it just lacks polish imo).

As for St Andrews it's consistently topped the Scottish league tables with the only competition coming from Edinburgh, but I agree it has got a lot of rep from William and Kate going there. There probably is a case to move this down, I'm not awfully familiar with the ins and outs of Scottish unis though.

Reply 55

Original post by Wired_1800

Okay. That is a fair point.

You have brought it back to my original point that the rankings, whether local or international, have an inherent bias towards a particular group. They also seek to please a particular group over others.

In that way, Universities like Manchester are bashed locally and being labelled as mediocre, when it really isn't.

It is incredible that some students will calmly bash Manchester with their very average university that got a boost based on "student satisfaction" or "how green a university is"

I think that we can agree that Manchester is a really good university and does not deserve the bashing (like what we have already seen on this thread).

I think Manchester is better than a lot of people give it credit for, but compared with places like LSE then just no, it's nowhere near on that level. I'd put it with the Notts group at highest, but personally I think it's slightly below that but certain universities are quite hard to differentiate between. We have a bit of a problem in the UK where we have so many good unis that those that are otherwise classed as good worldwide are labelled as below average (or at least below the top echelon) at home :biggrin:

Suppose it's a nice problem for a country to have though!

Reply 56

Josb

6

Original post by SayoniRoy

I don't think manchester should be within tier 2.

Why?

Reply 57

Original post by JRKinder

I think Manchester is better than a lot of people give it credit for, but compared with places like LSE then just no, it's nowhere near on that level. I'd put it with the Notts group at highest, but personally I think it's slightly below that but certain universities are quite hard to differentiate between. We have a bit of a problem in the UK where we have so many good unis that those that are otherwise classed as good worldwide are labelled as below average (or at least below the top echelon) at home :biggrin:

Suppose it's a nice problem for a country to have though!

I agree.

My main problem with LSE and other specialised Universities is the number of subjects they offer and its consequently good performance in fewer subjects.

Example:

If University X offers 20 subjects, it has 15 excellent subjects and 5 average subjects. That will give it a score of 75%.

If University Y offers 50 subjects, it has 25 excellent subjects and 15 average subjects and 5 poor subjects. That will give it a score of 50%.

With this you see that there is an unfair comparison between the University offering fewer subjects and the University offering more subjects with more students.

Another example:

If I study 10 subjects, I get 8 A*s and 2 B's, this can be translated to 80%.

If you study 20 subjects, You get 15 A*s and 5 B's, this can be translated to 75%.

People then say that I am smarter than you because my mark was 80% and yours is 75%, when I did fewer subjects than you.

This the reason why I think that these Universities (like Imperial, LSE etc) should be ranked on subject tables or a "specialised" University list, but larger Universities should be ranked on an overall head-to-head basis.

My point is that ranking Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester etc will be a decent metric to use, but not including specialist universities.

Reply 58

math42