International/National Reputation

Hello,

As I mentioned in another thread, I find the disparities between international and national rankings to be rather confusing. For instance, QS rates Edinburgh to be third nationally and ninth globally, but the Complete University Guide ranks it much lower, at mid-twenties. Conversely, St Andrews is placed fourth by the Complete University Guide but around tenth nationally and fiftieth globally by QS. As I don't particularly aspire to work outside of the United Kingdom, should I ignore international rankings. Which rankings are the most used by employers, if any?

QS, look at the subject you are applying to.

So ought I to look at the national reputation for English within the QS rankings?

Careers advisers generally use the Complete University Guide.

The international rankings always have favoured older universities in big cities hence the reason why places like St Andrews, Durham and Bath dont do as well in international rankings as in UK rankings. All the universities ranked highly in QS and THE are either Oxford and Cambridge or in London, Bristol, Manchester or Edinburgh and this has been the case every year for many years.

Careers advisers generally use the Complete University Guide.

I'm not so sure about this. They have universities like Lancaster above UCL, Loughborough above Durham. The league tables are based on frankly worthless criteria like student satisfaction, and are generally used to sell newspapers. They should be taken with a grain of salt by prospective students.

OP should focus more on looking at which unis employers favour the most. Usually these come down to the same rankings as the international ranking.

One of the criteria CUG uses is graduate prospects and that is actually based on what students report and places like Durham, York and Exeter do extremely well. Dont believe some of the snobbery you are being told. Just because a university was around pre 1900 doesnt make it the best today. Also perhaps ask yourself why older universities in big cities do so badly on student satisfaction rates.

One of the criteria CUG uses is graduate prospects and that is actually based on what students report and places like Durham, York and Exeter do extremely well. Dont believe some of the snobbery you are being told. Just because a university was around pre 1900 doesnt make it the best today. Also perhaps ask yourself why older universities in big cities do so badly on student satisfaction rates.

To be honest few employers care very much between universities, although naturally the real top tier ones might catch their eye somewhat more. As to the more 'normal' ones it really doesnt make much of a difference, especially at undergraduate where your classification will interest them more.

The traditional universities have extremely good graduate prospects on other rankings. If you filter by graduate prospects on CUG, you get London South Bank higher than Cambridge. Anyway, I'm not saying rankings should be the biggest influence on anyone's decision. You're set at a general top 10-15 university, and these are usually the same names. The big city universities get a much larger cohort and so the results are more diluted, while at the smaller unis there are less people and so each rating has a greater effect. It is also to be taken into account that people who are generally satisfied don't fill in these forms.

For this reason, would applying to Oxbridge be a good idea or a waste of a space as the odds of getting in are so small?

I did see that and thought it strange. Should I be looking for universities that historically maintain their top 10 spots?

Generally Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, LSE, UCL, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Exeter and Lancaster have ranked highly in CUG and Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, Imperial, Edinburgh, Manchester and Bristol have ranked highly in QS. As can be seen all the QS are in big cities whereas the likes of Durham and St Andrews do badly in QS which favours larger cities yet probably these are amongst the best. Interestingly royalty went for St Andrews.

It would really depend on what grades you're predicted/have. If you have the right ones and think you can cut it there than definitely.
That being said, i'd still only say to go there if you think you'd actually enjoy it. After all oxbridge isnt for everyone. Some would prefer the lifestyle of the London ones, Scottish etc. etc.

Generally Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, LSE, UCL, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Exeter and Lancaster have ranked highly in CUG and Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, Imperial, Edinburgh, Manchester and Bristol have ranked highly in QS. As can be seen all the QS are in big cities whereas the likes of Durham and St Andrews do badly in QS which favours larger cities yet probably these are amongst the best. Interestingly royalty went for St Andrews.

I am on a gap year presently having achieved A*A*A*AC at A level in English Literature, Psychology, Art, History and my EPQ respectively. I adore the English course at Cambridge, having applied there last year but being rejected from the pool. I'm not particularly keen on London but beyond that I do not have a huge preference for city vs campus or location. I am from the Midlands so I would be okay to travel anywhere.

Thank you. Which of these would you rate highly for English?