QS SUBJECT Rankings... They're out!
Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) released their latest set of SUBJECT rankings yesterday.
Some argue that subject-specific rankings should be used by applicants rather than general rankings to avoid institutions being 'carried' by a particular department/school.
According to The Guardian:
"More broadly, UK universities take 34% of all top three positions across the tables, while at least one British institution can be found in the top three of 32 of the 48 rankings."
Some might say this proves Brexit is having little to no impact on British academia, but one needs to examine the methodology employed by QS to determine if this is the case:
"Crucially, the subject rankings use a different methodology to that of the overall QS World University Rankings. The subject tables place greater emphasis on research indicators, do not take staff to student ratios into account, and exclude measures of internationalisation. This means some trends in the sector – a decline in international representation, for example – do not affect performance here."
You can view the subject rankings here
-
At the request of (and I'm sure many others would find this useful), here are a few subjects and how UK institutions fared with a short summary at the end:
-
English Literature
Biological Sciences
Computer Science
Life Sciences & Medicine
Law
Chemistry
Physics
Economics
Unfortunately, I don't have time to put up any more tables w/ their changes (sorry!)
It seems like the vast majority of universities in the UK have stayed in the 'top' 50 for their respective subjects.
The biggest gains can be seen in Life Sciences and Medicine (judging on the tables I've seen).
P.S. I found a helpful table ranking WORLDWIDE universities with the most number of Top 10s here
Some argue that subject-specific rankings should be used by applicants rather than general rankings to avoid institutions being 'carried' by a particular department/school.
According to The Guardian:
"More broadly, UK universities take 34% of all top three positions across the tables, while at least one British institution can be found in the top three of 32 of the 48 rankings."
Some might say this proves Brexit is having little to no impact on British academia, but one needs to examine the methodology employed by QS to determine if this is the case:
"Crucially, the subject rankings use a different methodology to that of the overall QS World University Rankings. The subject tables place greater emphasis on research indicators, do not take staff to student ratios into account, and exclude measures of internationalisation. This means some trends in the sector – a decline in international representation, for example – do not affect performance here."
You can view the subject rankings here
-
At the request of (and I'm sure many others would find this useful), here are a few subjects and how UK institutions fared with a short summary at the end:
-
English Literature
Spoiler
Biological Sciences
Spoiler
Computer Science
Spoiler
Life Sciences & Medicine
Spoiler
Law
Spoiler
Chemistry
Spoiler
Physics
Spoiler
Economics
Spoiler
Unfortunately, I don't have time to put up any more tables w/ their changes (sorry!)
It seems like the vast majority of universities in the UK have stayed in the 'top' 50 for their respective subjects.
The biggest gains can be seen in Life Sciences and Medicine (judging on the tables I've seen).
P.S. I found a helpful table ranking WORLDWIDE universities with the most number of Top 10s here
(edited 6 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
I thought I'd add my personal opinion here rather than on the OP 
I don't think rankings matter much. People know which universities are 'good' without the need for rankings. By 'good' I mean the university might offer the course you want, examined in the way you want amongst other factors.
Subject rankings will have little to no impact on an undergraduate's academic (or workplace career). It might be useful to take a look at if you want to take on an integrated Master's as part of your undergraduate degree to see if subject XYZ produces cutting-edge research at the University of ABC, but rankings still shouldn't be relied on for this purpose.
tl;dr: Don't read too much into it. Don't be upset if your university has fallen by a few places - it's reputation doesn't suddenly go down the drain just because it's moved a few places on a worldwide ranking.
I don't think rankings matter much. People know which universities are 'good' without the need for rankings. By 'good' I mean the university might offer the course you want, examined in the way you want amongst other factors.
Subject rankings will have little to no impact on an undergraduate's academic (or workplace career). It might be useful to take a look at if you want to take on an integrated Master's as part of your undergraduate degree to see if subject XYZ produces cutting-edge research at the University of ABC, but rankings still shouldn't be relied on for this purpose.
tl;dr: Don't read too much into it. Don't be upset if your university has fallen by a few places - it's reputation doesn't suddenly go down the drain just because it's moved a few places on a worldwide ranking.
Spoiler
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Blue_Cow
P.S. I found a helpful table ranking WORLDWIDE universities with the most number of Top 10s here
Indeed, and here's that table in full:
QS World University Rankings by Subject 2018:
Institutions achieving most Top-10 Ranks
1. University of Cambridge UK 37
2. University of Oxford UK 35
3. University of California, Berkeley USA 34
4. Harvard University USA 34
5. Stanford University USA 32
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology USA 24
7. University of California, Los Angeles USA 14
8. London School of Economics UK 13
9. National University of Singapore Singapore 11
10. Yale University USA 11
Camford takes the top 2 spots,
@Fullofsurprises
Original post by Blue_Cow
Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) released their latest set of SUBJECT rankings yesterday.
Some argue that subject-specific rankings should be used by applicants rather than general rankings to avoid institutions being 'carried' by a particular department/school.
According to The Guardian:
"More broadly, UK universities take 34% of all top three positions across the tables, while at least one British institution can be found in the top three of 32 of the 48 rankings."
However, some might say this proves Brexit is having little to no impact on British academia, but one needs to examine the methodology employed by QS to determine if this is the case:
"Crucially, the subject rankings use a different methodology to that of the overall QS World University Rankings. The subject tables place greater emphasis on research indicators, do not take staff to student ratios into account, and exclude measures of internationalisation. This means some trends in the sector – a decline in international representation, for example – do not affect performance here."
You can view the subject rankings here
-
At the request of @JohanGRK (and I'm sure many others would find this useful), here are a few subjects and how UK institutions fared with a short summary at the end:
-
English Literature
Biological Sciences
Computer Science
Life Sciences & Medicine
Law
Chemistry
Physics
Economics
Unfortunately, I don't have time to put up any more tables w/ their changes (sorry!)
It seems like the vast majority of universities in the UK have stayed in the 'top' 50 for their respective subjects.
The biggest gains can be seen in Life Sciences and Medicine (judging on the tables I've seen).
P.S. I found a helpful table ranking WORLDWIDE universities with the most number of Top 10s here
Some argue that subject-specific rankings should be used by applicants rather than general rankings to avoid institutions being 'carried' by a particular department/school.
According to The Guardian:
"More broadly, UK universities take 34% of all top three positions across the tables, while at least one British institution can be found in the top three of 32 of the 48 rankings."
However, some might say this proves Brexit is having little to no impact on British academia, but one needs to examine the methodology employed by QS to determine if this is the case:
"Crucially, the subject rankings use a different methodology to that of the overall QS World University Rankings. The subject tables place greater emphasis on research indicators, do not take staff to student ratios into account, and exclude measures of internationalisation. This means some trends in the sector – a decline in international representation, for example – do not affect performance here."
You can view the subject rankings here
-
At the request of @JohanGRK (and I'm sure many others would find this useful), here are a few subjects and how UK institutions fared with a short summary at the end:
-
English Literature
Spoiler
Biological Sciences
Spoiler
Computer Science
Spoiler
Life Sciences & Medicine
Spoiler
Law
Spoiler
Chemistry
Spoiler
Physics
Spoiler
Economics
Spoiler
Unfortunately, I don't have time to put up any more tables w/ their changes (sorry!)
It seems like the vast majority of universities in the UK have stayed in the 'top' 50 for their respective subjects.
The biggest gains can be seen in Life Sciences and Medicine (judging on the tables I've seen).
P.S. I found a helpful table ranking WORLDWIDE universities with the most number of Top 10s here
Thanks for this.
Some things to note:
1. The overall “Big 8” Universities still show to be Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, Edinburgh, Manchester, UCL and Kings College London.
2. The subject-specific gains like at manchester do show consistent indicators with university investments in those subjects.
I agree that subject rankings at an international level would be a better evidence of performance than Uk tables, which to me are biased towards insignificant elements like student satisfaction.
Original post by Doonesbury
1. University of Cambridge UK 37
2. University of Oxford UK 35
Camford takes the top 2 spots, @Fullofsurprises
1. University of Cambridge UK 37
2. University of Oxford UK 35
Camford takes the top 2 spots,
@FullofsurprisesYou're just lucky they don't measure true quality. The Tab has always been good at appearances.
Original post by Wired_1800
1. My “Bigly 8” Universities still show to be Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, Edinburgh, Manchester, UCL and Kings College London.
FIFY
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Doonesbury
Fair, but it does not change the point that those 8 dominate international tables as British delegates.
Do you now accept the separation and recognition of the elite “Big 8” Universities to compete against the elites of other countries?
Original post by Wired_1800
Fair, but it does not change the point that those 8 dominate international tables as British delegates.
Do you now accept the separation and recognition of the elite “Big 8” Universities to compete against the elites of other countries?
Do you now accept the separation and recognition of the elite “Big 8” Universities to compete against the elites of other countries?
Nope, because there is no "bigly eight". It's not a thing.
If anything there's the "Fantastic Four" in the QS top 10 (Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, Imperial), and then the "Tenacious Twelve" holding on to their (mostly sliding) top 100 spots, but all of them now outside the top 20.
Original post by Doonesbury
Nope, because there is no "bigly eight". It's not a thing.
If anything there's the "Fantastic Four" in the QS top 10 (Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, Imperial), and then the "Tenacious Twelve" holding on to their (mostly sliding) top 100 spots, but all of them now outside the top 20.
If anything there's the "Fantastic Four" in the QS top 10 (Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, Imperial), and then the "Tenacious Twelve" holding on to their (mostly sliding) top 100 spots, but all of them now outside the top 20.
There is no formal group of “Big 8”, but I think there will be a push towards a new elite self-selected group of Universities along the lines of the Big 8.
If you look deep into the group, you would probably notice that these 8 unis (Oxford, Manchester, Edinburgh, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL and KCL) are head and shoulders above many universities in several indicators.
With Brexit and a demand for funds, Universities and Government will be forced to introduce a new Education Strategy that may see the emergence of the academic titans.
Original post by Blue_Cow
Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) released their latest set of SUBJECT rankings yesterday.
Some argue that subject-specific rankings should be used by applicants rather than general rankings to avoid institutions being 'carried' by a particular department/school.
According to The Guardian:
"More broadly, UK universities take 34% of all top three positions across the tables, while at least one British institution can be found in the top three of 32 of the 48 rankings."
Some might say this proves Brexit is having little to no impact on British academia, but one needs to examine the methodology employed by QS to determine if this is the case:
"Crucially, the subject rankings use a different methodology to that of the overall QS World University Rankings. The subject tables place greater emphasis on research indicators, do not take staff to student ratios into account, and exclude measures of internationalisation. This means some trends in the sector – a decline in international representation, for example – do not affect performance here."
You can view the subject rankings here
-
At the request of @JohanGRK (and I'm sure many others would find this useful), here are a few subjects and how UK institutions fared with a short summary at the end:
-
English Literature
Biological Sciences
Computer Science
Life Sciences & Medicine
Law
Chemistry
Physics
Economics
Unfortunately, I don't have time to put up any more tables w/ their changes (sorry!)
It seems like the vast majority of universities in the UK have stayed in the 'top' 50 for their respective subjects.
The biggest gains can be seen in Life Sciences and Medicine (judging on the tables I've seen).
P.S. I found a helpful table ranking WORLDWIDE universities with the most number of Top 10s here
Some argue that subject-specific rankings should be used by applicants rather than general rankings to avoid institutions being 'carried' by a particular department/school.
According to The Guardian:
"More broadly, UK universities take 34% of all top three positions across the tables, while at least one British institution can be found in the top three of 32 of the 48 rankings."
Some might say this proves Brexit is having little to no impact on British academia, but one needs to examine the methodology employed by QS to determine if this is the case:
"Crucially, the subject rankings use a different methodology to that of the overall QS World University Rankings. The subject tables place greater emphasis on research indicators, do not take staff to student ratios into account, and exclude measures of internationalisation. This means some trends in the sector – a decline in international representation, for example – do not affect performance here."
You can view the subject rankings here
-
At the request of @JohanGRK (and I'm sure many others would find this useful), here are a few subjects and how UK institutions fared with a short summary at the end:
-
English Literature
Spoiler
Biological Sciences
Spoiler
Computer Science
Spoiler
Life Sciences & Medicine
Spoiler
Law
Spoiler
Chemistry
Spoiler
Physics
Spoiler
Economics
Spoiler
Unfortunately, I don't have time to put up any more tables w/ their changes (sorry!)
It seems like the vast majority of universities in the UK have stayed in the 'top' 50 for their respective subjects.
The biggest gains can be seen in Life Sciences and Medicine (judging on the tables I've seen).
P.S. I found a helpful table ranking WORLDWIDE universities with the most number of Top 10s here
Student and staff ratios are considered for the overall rankings?
https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
Original post by Kyber Ninja
Student and staff ratios are considered for the overall rankings?
https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
AFAIK not for subject rankings? The Guardian could be wrong
Big point here.
The academic reputation which plays such a huge weighting is the opinion of academics who have knowledge of the region the uni is situated in.
EU/UK Academics value the "fab 4" more than NA academics value the Ivy League and other top schools collectively.
EU/UK academics had little say in the rankings of american unis and vice versa.
It's one of the factors why LSE isn't higher having 90 in academics, though it still has 100 employer rep, with an equal weighting between Domestic and International employers.
Imperial has 100 too, so why are people saying that these unis are unknown worldwide?
The academic reputation which plays such a huge weighting is the opinion of academics who have knowledge of the region the uni is situated in.
EU/UK Academics value the "fab 4" more than NA academics value the Ivy League and other top schools collectively.
EU/UK academics had little say in the rankings of american unis and vice versa.
It's one of the factors why LSE isn't higher having 90 in academics, though it still has 100 employer rep, with an equal weighting between Domestic and International employers.
Imperial has 100 too, so why are people saying that these unis are unknown worldwide?
Original post by Blue_Cow
AFAIK not for subject rankings? The Guardian could be wrong
The Guardian article was written by Jack Moran "closely involved in the auditing and analysis of the QS World University Rankings alongside the QS Intelligence Unit" So he probably has it right
Congrats 
. Are you actually going to be a member of University College? Well done!!!
. Are you actually going to be a member of University College? Well done!!!Well done. Enjoy Durham.
Are the QS rankings even taken seriously by anyone? They look a bit dodgy to me, frankly I've seen domestic league tables that look more genuine and I'm not a fan of them. QS looks like the 'joke' global ranking in the same way the Guardian is the 'joke' domestic league table.
I thought the only rankings anyone takes seriously anymore are the ARWU and the New York Times rankings.
I thought the only rankings anyone takes seriously anymore are the ARWU and the New York Times rankings.
(edited 6 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- Politics and international relation’s Birmingham V Nottingham
- Bsc accounting and finance
- Dropping out of university and starting again
- QMUL vs University of Manchester Law
- What is durham’s rank globally/nationally?
- KCL or Manchester
- Edinburgh vs KCL for English
- Why is Bath ranked low in QS ranking for pharmacy?
- UCL reputation in uk
- LSE segregation or not?
- Newcastle v Northumbria Uni’s for law
- Is prestige actually important?
- A-Levels in 8 months
- Need advice; (University ranking)
- Edinburgh or Saint Andrews for economics
- QS 2023 ranking Art Degrees
- Is Queen's University Belfast or Trinity College Dublin better?
- Cardiff vs Oxford Brookes for architecture?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
