The Top 10 UK Universities Watch

This discussion is closed.
kedstar99
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#261
Report 4 years ago
#261
(Original post by Okorange)
It actually is their own fault they weren't founded earlier. There is no such thing as sympathy points for universities. Besides Nobels only started being awarded in the early 1900s.

You can't use the UoL when you want them and throw them away when you don't. UoL is like the university of california, it doesn't really mean anything. Berkeley is as much a different university from Riverside as UCL is from QMUL or Birkbeck.

To be honest, it just looks like you are grasping at straws here. We can talk when people are turning down Oxbridge offers for UCL and Imperial in large numbers.
I was only bringing up the University of London because you went by a completely irrelevant metric of nobel laureates. Fundamentally, Imperial has only been separate recently and so I don't think it is unfair to bring up the nobel laureates from the UoL. I still don't understand how having nobel laurietes proves anything, it's not like you are being taught by Rutherford at Cambridge Similarly, if you look at the individual colleges for Cambridge, you will see similar proportions of nobel laureates as those at the individual UoL colleges.. If you want to measure the quality of research, just look at the RAE which came out this year which put Imperial 2nd and Oxbridge 5th/6th.
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#262
Report 4 years ago
#262
(Original post by kedstar99)
I was only bringing up the University of London because you went by a completely irrelevant metric of nobel laureates. Fundamentally, Imperial has only been separate recently and so I don't think it is unfair to bring up the nobel laureates from the UoL. I still don't understand how having nobel laurietes proves anything, it's not like you are being taught by Rutherford at Cambridge Similarly, if you look at the individual colleges for Cambridge, you will see similar proportions of nobel laureates as those at the individual UoL colleges.. If you want to measure the quality of research, just look at the RAE which came out this year which put Imperial 2nd and Oxbridge 5th/6th.
The RAE put Oxford 1st, Imperial was 7th/8th... You are looking at the ranking that puts the institute of cancer research 1st... The one everyone cares about is the research power rankings and in that Oxford and Cambridge were 1st and 3rd respectively.

Also, don't forget Imperial isn't even part of UoL anymore.

Each college at Oxbridge has only a few hundred students. If you want to compare UoL to Cambridge then each student at Cambridge gets the funding, attention and value of about 7 London students. Prestige is about selectivity as well, if your university isn't a selective school, its not prestigious. If your grandmother could walk in and pick up a degree, then it just isn't as prestigious as if only the top scorers on an exam could do the same
0
username877577
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#263
Report 4 years ago
#263
Cambridge
Oxford
LSE
UCL
Imperial
Warwick
Durham
KCL
York
Bath


Just to say, I haven't placed any of the universities I have offers from in the list (probably because they aren't a top 10 in the first place idk :P)

Spoiler:
Show
Birmingham,Nottingham,Lancaster, Royal Holloway,Kent
0
kedstar99
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#264
Report 4 years ago
#264
(Original post by Okorange)
The RAE put Oxford 1st, Imperial was 8th... You are looking at the ranking that puts the institute of cancer research 1st... The one everyone cares about is the research power rankings and in that Oxford and Cambridge were 1st and 3rd respectively.

Also, don't forget Imperial isn't even part of UoL anymore.

Each college at Oxbridge has only a few hundred students. If you want to compare UoL to Cambridge then each student at Cambridge gets the funding, attention and value of about 7 London students. Prestige is about selectivity as well, if your university isn't a selective school, its not prestigious. If your grandmother could walk in and pick up a degree, then it just isn't as prestigious as if only the top scorers on an exam could do the same
I was looking at the overall score by the REF 2014, which put Imperial 2nd and Oxbridge 4th/5th by GPA. Fundamentally, if you want to pick an choose which data to say such University is ahead, then go ahead. The REF latest results shown on the Times Higher Education chose to portray Impeiral as 2nd. I wouldn't be surprised if Imperial has a smaller research power considering how we have far few departments than Oxbridge.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the only reason i am bringing up the UoL is the fact that you are highlighting a bull**** metric of nobel laurietes. You can't say that Oxbridge has so many nobels and then ignore the portion of history in which Imperial has been part of the UoL. Also you argue about selectivity but don't seem to realize that Imperial and UCL have a lower acceptance rate than Oxbridge.
0
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#265
Report 4 years ago
#265
(Original post by kedstar99)
I was looking at the overall score by the REF 2014, which put Imperial 2nd and Oxbridge 4th/5th by GPA. Fundamentally, if you want to pick an choose which data to say such University is ahead, then go ahead. The REF latest results shown on the Times Higher Education chose to portray Impeiral as 2nd. I wouldn't be surprised if Imperial has a smaller research power considering how we have far few departments than Oxbridge.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the only reason i am bringing up the UoL is the fact that you are highlighting a bull**** metric of nobel laurietes. You can't say that Oxbridge has so many nobels and then ignore the portion of history in which Imperial has been part of the UoL. Also you argue about selectivity but don't seem to realize that Imperial and UCL have a lower acceptance rate than Oxbridge.
Imperial/UCL have a lower acceptance rate than Oxbridge because they get all the people applying 'for a punt' - whereas with Oxbridge having admissions tests and interviews, people are far less willing to just 'have a go'. That is to say, despite Imperial/UCL having a lower acceptance rate, that doesn't make it harder to get in.

Also I'm not quite sure how Imperial can be ranked higher on REF than Oxford. Even just looking at the departments shared by Oxford and Imperial, Oxford clearly did better overall.

First number is %age classified as 4* and the second is %age 3*

\begin{center}

    \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l | p{5cm} |}

    \hline

    Unit & Oxford & Imperial \\ \hline

    Biology & 47/46 & 51/40 \\ \hline

    Chemistry & 49/47 & 34/62 \\ \hline

    Physics & 43/49 & 35/57 \\ \hline

    Maths & 59/37 & 44/47 \\ \hline

    Comp Sci & 53/34 & 56/38 \\ \hline

    Engineering & 55/41 & 44/51 \\

    \hline

    \end{tabular}

\end{center}
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#266
Report 4 years ago
#266
(Original post by kedstar99)
I was looking at the overall score by the REF 2014, which put Imperial 2nd and Oxbridge 4th/5th by GPA. Fundamentally, if you want to pick an choose which data to say such University is ahead, then go ahead. The REF latest results shown on the Times Higher Education chose to portray Impeiral as 2nd. I wouldn't be surprised if Imperial has a smaller research power considering how we have far few departments than Oxbridge.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the only reason i am bringing up the UoL is the fact that you are highlighting a bull**** metric of nobel laurietes. You can't say that Oxbridge has so many nobels and then ignore the portion of history in which Imperial has been part of the UoL. Also you argue about selectivity but don't seem to realize that Imperial and UCL have a lower acceptance rate than Oxbridge.
You are really just arguing a losing game, its clear you are getting upset because the status quo is that Oxbridge is clearly superior. That won't change just because a few years some international rankings decided to rank Imperial around the same as Oxford.

Sure nobel prizes don't indicate much about the undergraduates themselves, but the fact remains that Oxbridge takes the brightest students each year and that is not changing. Instead of arguing this and that about Imperial, just work hard and get into Oxbridge. Problem solved.
0
kedstar99
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#267
Report 4 years ago
#267
(Original post by Noble.)
Imperial/UCL have a lower acceptance rate than Oxbridge because they get all the people applying 'for a punt' - whereas with Oxbridge having admissions tests and interviews, people are far less willing to just 'have a go'. That is to say, despite Imperial/UCL having a lower acceptance rate, that doesn't make it harder to get in.

Also I'm not quite sure how Imperial can be ranked higher on REF than Oxford. Even just looking at the departments shared by Oxford and Imperial, Oxford clearly did better overall.

First number is %age classified as 4* and the second is %age 3*

\begin{center}

    \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l | p{5cm} |}

    \hline

    Unit & Oxford & Imperial \\ \hline

    Biology & 47/46 & 51/40 \\ \hline

    Chemistry & 49/47 & 34/62 \\ \hline

    Physics & 43/49 & 35/57 \\ \hline

    Maths & 59/37 & 44/47 \\ \hline

    Comp Sci & 53/34 & 56/38 \\ \hline

    Engineering & 55/41 & 44/51 \\

    \hline

    \end{tabular}

\end{center}
Perhaps it's because of the fact that your little table doesn't take into account all the different engineering and medical disciplines offered. If you look at all the subjects Imperial has a higher GPA overall. If you look at my previous posts, I did argue that Imperial was ranked higher of 8/14 subjects, that still leaves 6 which they were lower.

Fundamentally, I don't care after a certain point, as Uni is only as good as you can achieve. If you believe that Oxbridge students are "brighter" because of arbitrary interview tests then you are misguided. Neither of which have been shown by google to prove any correlation over the success of the applicant. Fundamentally, 80% of Imperial students are Oxbridge rejects. We still achieve success and are just as competitive as any other Oxbridge candidate out there.
0
Hollywood Hogan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#268
Report 4 years ago
#268
(Original post by kedstar99)
I was looking at the overall score by the REF 2014, which put Imperial 2nd and Oxbridge 4th/5th by GPA. Fundamentally, if you want to pick an choose which data to say such University is ahead, then go ahead. The REF latest results shown on the Times Higher Education chose to portray Impeiral as 2nd. I wouldn't be surprised if Imperial has a smaller research power considering how we have far few departments than Oxbridge.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the only reason i am bringing up the UoL is the fact that you are highlighting a bull**** metric of nobel laurietes. You can't say that Oxbridge has so many nobels and then ignore the portion of history in which Imperial has been part of the UoL. Also you argue about selectivity but don't seem to realize that Imperial and UCL have a lower acceptance rate than Oxbridge.
The REF 2014 is kind of funny, as it placed Cardiff at 5, and Birmingham at 26. I'd rather go to Birmingham regardless.
0
palladin984
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#269
Report 4 years ago
#269
Cambridge, Oxford, UCL,LSE, Imperial, Bristol, Edinburgh, Warwick, Durham, St Andrews.

In no particular order.

By the way, its all very well comparing research etc but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people go to uni due to the potential of earning more money in the future. That's what matters most to most people when choosing a uni

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Hollywood Hogan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#270
Report 4 years ago
#270
(Original post by palladin984)
Cambridge, Oxford, UCL,LSE, Imperial, Bristol, Edinburgh, Warwick, Durham, St Andrews.

In no particular order.

By the way, its all very well comparing research etc but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people go to uni due to the potential of earning more money in the future. That's what matters most to most people when choosing a uni

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's pretty accurate, but I don't think St Andrews graduates earn as much as a few which you haven't included.
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#271
Report 4 years ago
#271
(Original post by kedstar99)
Perhaps it's because of the fact that your little table doesn't take into account all the different engineering and medical disciplines offered. If you look at all the subjects Imperial has a higher GPA overall. If you look at my previous posts, I did argue that Imperial was ranked higher of 8/14 subjects, that still leaves 6 which they were lower.

Fundamentally, I don't care after a certain point, as Uni is only as good as you can achieve. If you believe that Oxbridge students are "brighter" because of arbitrary interview tests then you are misguided. Neither of which have been shown by google to prove any correlation over the success of the applicant. Fundamentally, 80% of Imperial students are Oxbridge rejects. We still achieve success and are just as competitive as any other Oxbridge candidate out there.
Oxbridge students are predominate in law, media and politics. They are also score the highest on the MRCP part 1 and 2. Their intelligence is clearly leading to something on average.
0
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#272
Report 4 years ago
#272
(Original post by kedstar99)
Perhaps it's because of the fact that your little table doesn't take into account all the different engineering and medical disciplines offered. If you look at all the subjects Imperial has a higher GPA overall. If you look at my previous posts, I did argue that Imperial was ranked higher of 8/14 subjects, that still leaves 6 which they were lower.

Fundamentally, I don't care after a certain point, as Uni is only as good as you can achieve. If you believe that Oxbridge students are "brighter" because of arbitrary interview tests then you are misguided. Neither of which have been shown by google to prove any correlation over the success of the applicant. Fundamentally, 80% of Imperial students are Oxbridge rejects. We still achieve success and are just as competitive as any other Oxbridge candidate out there.
Sorry, I'll update my little table.

\begin{center}

    \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l | p{5cm} |}

    \hline

    Unit & Oxford & Imperial \\ \hline

    Biology & 47/46 & 51/40 \\ \hline

    Chemistry & 49/47 & 34/62 \\ \hline

    Physics & 43/49 & 35/57 \\ \hline

    Maths & 59/37 & 44/47 \\ \hline

    Comp Sci & 53/34 & 56/38 \\ \hline

    Engineering & 55/41 & 44/51 \\ \hline

     & &  \\ \hline

    Clinical Medicine & 53/39 & 48/38 \\ \hline

    Public Health & 57/35 & 57/34 \\ \hline

    Psychology & 67/28 & 50/42 \\ \hline

    Electrical Engineering & 60/38 & 47/52 \\ \hline

    Bus. and Mgmt & 51/36 & 49/43 \\ 

    \hline

    \end{tabular}

\end{center}

These are the only units Oxford and Imperial share. Adding the extra units has only gone and made it even more bewildering how anyone thinks Imperial did better than Oxford on REF :lol:
0
kedstar99
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#273
Report 4 years ago
#273
(Original post by Okorange)
Oxbridge students are predominate in law, media and politics. They are also score the highest on the MRCP part 1 and 2. Their intelligence is clearly leading to something on average.
Too bad Imperial doesn't have law, media and political departments. If you look at the Eng firms, the difference between an Oxbridge and Imperial candidate is miniscule.
0
kedstar99
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#274
Report 4 years ago
#274
(Original post by Noble.)
Sorry, I'll update my little table.

\begin{center}

    \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | l | p{5cm} |}

    \hline

    Unit & Oxford & Imperial \\ \hline

    Biology & 47/46 & 51/40 \\ \hline

    Chemistry & 49/47 & 34/62 \\ \hline

    Physics & 43/49 & 35/57 \\ \hline

    Maths & 59/37 & 44/47 \\ \hline

    Comp Sci & 53/34 & 56/38 \\ \hline

    Engineering & 55/41 & 44/51 \\ \hline

     & &  \\ \hline

    Clinical Medicine & 53/39 & 48/38 \\ \hline

    Public Health & 57/35 & 57/34 \\ \hline

    Psychology & 67/28 & 50/42 \\ \hline

    Electrical Engineering & 60/38 & 47/52 \\ \hline

    Bus. and Mgmt & 51/36 & 49/43 \\ 

    \hline

    \end{tabular}

\end{center}

These are the only units Oxford and Imperial share. Adding the extra units has only gone and made it even more bewildering how anyone thinks Imperial did better than Oxford on REF :lol:
What about aeronautics, mechanical, civil etc? If you feel you are smarter at interpreting than the Times Higher Education feel free to write an article explaining how you are better at interpreting data.
0
curiousquest
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#275
Report 4 years ago
#275
(Original post by *Stefan*)
Funding another university to such levels that will allow it to employ Oxbridge-like means of teaching will mean that funding from Oxbridge (or other universities) will have to decrease. Thus, since funding is already too tight, it comes down to whether we want to petentially harm the reputation of Oxbridge and create a third, similar, university or keep things the way they are.

In my opinion -given these reasons- the UK government is right, if what we assume is true. Oxford and Cambridge benefit the UK not only because they themselves are prestigious, but because they are linked with the wider UK academia. I would say that they are the main(!) reason the UK as a whole is considered a centre of academic excellence, which of course benefits the UK economy immensely.

As such, a third ultra-prestigious university is not really needed. Unlike most other countries, which only boast one-two very good universities with the rest being under-funded and generally bad, you will receive a good education outside of Oxbridge (say the top 15?), which I believe is more than enough.

EDIT: And by the way, there are quite a few other universities which are older than Oxbridge.
So rather create a third or fourth Oxbridge for the UK, the government deems it better to fund mickey mouse degrees?
0
Noble.
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#276
Report 4 years ago
#276
(Original post by kedstar99)
What about aeronaughtics, mechanical, civil etc? If you feel you are smarter at interpreting than the Times Higher Education feel free to write an article explaining how you are better at interpreting data.
Did you not read: "These are the only units Oxford and Imperial share"?

I don't particularly care how the Times decide to interpret the results. You said Imperial was ranked higher in 8/14 subjects - where has this statistic been plucked from? There aren't even 14 units shared between Oxford and Imperial, and Imperial only had a higher proportion of the submission deemed world-class in two of the eleven shared units (and in both cases Oxford trailed by 3-4%) whereas in the nine units where Oxford had a higher proportion of research deemed world class, on average Oxford was nearly 10 percentage points ahead of Imperial.

It's also worth pointing out that from the Times' GPA ranking the difference between Oxford and Imperial's GPA is 0.02, arguably a non-existent difference when you take into account how they calculate the GPA. It doesn't take into account the fact that, for non-science units, there seems to be a lower proportion of research deemed 4* all around, clearly this is going to boost Imperial's GPA considering all their units are from those where it seems to be a higher proportion of submissions are awarded 4*.
0
kedstar99
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#277
Report 4 years ago
#277
(Original post by Noble.)
Did you not read: "These are the only units Oxford and Imperial share"?

I don't particularly care how the Times decide to interpret the results. You said Imperial was ranked higher in 8/14 subjects - where has this statistic been plucked from? There aren't even 14 units shared between Oxford and Imperial, and Imperial only had a higher proportion of the submission deemed world-class in two of the eleven shared units (and in both cases Oxford trailed by 3-4%) whereas in the nine units where Oxford had a higher proportion of research deemed world class, on average Oxford was nearly 10 percentage points ahead of Imperial.

It's also worth pointing out that from the Times' GPA ranking the difference between Oxford and Imperial's GPA is 0.02, arguably a non-existent difference when you take into account how they calculate the GPA. It doesn't take into account the fact that, for non-science units, there seems to be a lower proportion of research deemed 4* all around, clearly this is going to boost Imperial's GPA considering all their units are from those where it seems to be a higher proportion of submissions are awarded 4*.
Like I quoted earlier, I got the rankings form the complete University guide. I apologize, i didn't notice that Oxford didn't offer Aeronautical Engineering. Also my argument is not that Oxbridge is worse than Imperial. All I am arguing at the moment is that Imperial deserves to be a similar rank which considering the subject rankings and the evidence you have seen, I feel is fair.

Subjects which Imperial ranks higher
Computing
Chemical Engineering
Geology
Physics
Mechanical Engineering
EEE
Civil Engineering

Subjects which Oxford ranks higher
Material Sciences
Mathematics
Medicine
Biological Sciences
Chemistry

Subjects which Oxford doesn't offer
Aeronautical Engineering

PS: I may have accidentally counted one of the subjects twice by accident earlier. This shouldn't detract from my point, as no matter what subject Imperial offers, it is ranked pretty close or similar to those offered at Oxbridge.
0
fudgecake22
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#278
Report 4 years ago
#278
(Original post by TheMagican)
Looking back at this thread and i am in pure amazement at the amount of academic masturbation going on by posters trying to feed their egos. It seems as if people are trying to feed their own ego's somewhat.
Obviously tsr they do that. People's opinions and half the information they're feeding out is bull****

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Hollywood Hogan
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#279
Report 4 years ago
#279
(Original post by TheMagican)
Looking back at this thread and i am in pure amazement at the amount of academic masturbation going on by posters trying to feed their egos. It seems as if people are trying to feed their own ego's somewhat.
Your comments hold merit and are helpful, kind words, like a frog's butt.
0
The Polymath
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#280
Report 4 years ago
#280
(Original post by kedstar99)
I got the rankings form the complete University guide.
Before Noble responds to your post (and I imagine he will do so in a merciless fashion), I'd suggest that you go to the CUG ranking website and take a look at what the rankings are based on. I wrote about it here if you're interested.

Sometimes, when statistics fly in the face of all reason, you need to sit down and question what you're being told. The rankings you linked to would have you believe that Oxford's physics graduates have worse job prospects than Surrey's, or that Portsmouth is top for physics research in the UK.


To anyone joining the discussion now, I strongly suggest that you go back and read through Noble's and Birkenhead's posts, rather than the same points being put forward and refuted and over and over.

(Original post by Birkenhead)
x
(Original post by Noble.)
x
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (236)
39.14%
No - but I will (41)
6.8%
No - I don't want to (45)
7.46%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (281)
46.6%

Watched Threads

View All