The Sunday Times University Guide 2010 - Discussion thread

How do some unis have negative dropout rates? Do more students graduate than those who enrol?

The funding council that gives universities a big chunk of their money work out how many people should complete the course based on how many started. Effectively they expect certain universities to retain students better than others, and if they don't, points are deducted. Crap system if you ask me- every university in the more working class-orientated West of Scotland loses a heap in that column (Glasgow for instance would be 13th rather than 22nd if dropout rate was taken out of the equation) and, as River said, asking head teachers what they think is a daft idea- most of them don't have the faintest clue about higher education- even if they went to university, it was usually 30+ years ago.

Prudy has, as ever, hit the nail on the head. This will just cause the prestige whores to go nuts again for a while. It won't be long before someone calls this table 'rubbish' or 'inaccurate' because LSE is ninth....

yes but what does -22% drop out rate mean? They gain 22% more students since the start of the course?

It's not a percentage, its a score. The funding council expects Glasgow and Edinburgh to have something like 94% of their students going on to gain degrees. Edinburgh exceeds this figure very slightly, so gains a point based on a formula. Glasgow had about 89% of people getting degrees, and the govt expect more than that- so the ST decide to take points off, because they should be doing better in that respect.

94% is a pretty high level though- the powers that be calculate a figure for every university- Russell Group ones get the bar set quite high, but if an ex-poly for instance was to get 89% of people graduating, it'd gain a load of points under the Sunday Times method, as thats a much higher figure than they were expecting. So its not that the dropout rate is good or bad, its just if its better or worse than expected.

The funding council that gives universities a big chunk of their money work out how many people should complete the course based on how many started. Effectively they expect certain universities to retain students better than others, and if they don't, points are deducted. Crap system if you ask me- every university in the more working class-orientated West of Scotland loses a heap in that column (Glasgow for instance would be 13th rather than 22nd if dropout rate was taken out of the equation) and, as River said, asking head teachers what they think is a daft idea- most of them don't have the faintest clue about higher education- even if they went to university, it was usually 30+ years ago.

Prudy has, as ever, hit the nail on the head. This will just cause the prestige whores to go nuts again for a while. It won't be long before someone calls this table 'rubbish' or 'inaccurate' because LSE is ninth....

That is retarded.

Crap as usual.

It's a fair enough league table - all the papers this year have focussed really strongly on the 2009 NSS scores in their weighting - much more than ever before. This is why some have dropped off, with LSE and Edinburgh both suffering adversely from their scores. The same happened in the Guardian's recent table with LSE fifth and Imperial eigth.

If you take away the NSS scores (which are highly flawed, but then you could equally argue that against a lot of factors used) then LSE is fifth and Edinburgh moves up, so it's swings and roundabouts. If you are really concerned about satisfaction (which most will be) then take it into account, but look closely at how much it distorts other aspects. LSE is not the ninth best university in the country, it's not going to lose any of its world-class clout and international recognition as a leading global institution - it just shows that students aren't as satisfied with their teaching in certain programmes etc. which the institution is spending millions on addressing over the next few years. Edinburgh are doing the same, and Imperial are keen to boost their own satisfaction scores also.

Queen Mary is six places higher up than it was in the one that came out earlier this year

Combine the four and you'll get a pretty good idea of a university's position, if not much else.

Please, please tell me you are not advocating a league table of league tables. Please.

Haha, I'm having a read now. It seems quite thorough has a profile for every university in the country.
Enjoy reading

The Times and Sunday Times have different tables. Leicester is 15th in The Times, joint 20th in the Sunday Times.

IMHO, to get any kind of truth from the league tables, you should look at all 4 major British ones. The Times, Sunday Times, Guardian and Independent. Combine the four and you'll get a pretty good idea of a university's position, if not much else.