Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think the biggest losers are people who need to look at league tables all the time to justify their university choices. When I applied to UCL and Imperial for maths-based degrees my parents did not like me for choosing UCL over Imperial because of the league tables and for choosing a maths/languages course over a straight maths course. I chose UCL because I really wanted to do the specific course it offered. I am doing it now and love it. I couldn't care less if UCL were 1st, 10th or 100th because they are the only university that offers this course with as much flexibility.

    It is nice that they are 4th in the world according to one league table, but considering they are 5th in the UK according to another it does just show that the league tables take different factors into account and that the difference between 3rd-10th is not going to be that massive really.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig_D)
    I was hoping you'd tell me in what sense you consider it a surprise? As in genuinely (presumably not), from a depressed but accepting point of view, from an anti-Nottingham point of view, etc?
    No anti-Nottingham standpoint at all. In fact, the reason behind my lack of surpise (at the OP's post) has nothing to do with the university itself.

    It's only because every single post of the OP's (and all of his dupes) has been spent bemoaning Nottingham's position in the league tables (not letting us forget that when he was applying it was "consistantly considered a "top ten").
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Lancaster are doing great and as for Imperial they are lacking behind in terms of a decent feedback on course work by students I think.Then again ICL is top rated not just in Uk but everywhere xD
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Janicia)
    LSE- isn't it like number 15 or something now. SOAS seems to do well these years, but I don't look at league tables and am just going by hearsay.
    LSE's never been ranked out of the top ten :lolwut:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by help1111111)
    LSE's never been ranked out of the top ten :lolwut:

    Lol sorry. I just know that it went from number 3 (when I started in 07) and slipped quite significantly. Maybe to number 10 then.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Janicia)
    Lol sorry. lI just know that it went from number 3 (when I started in 07) and slipped quite significantly. Maybe to number 10 then.
    It was fourth in 2007, now it's seventh. So that's only a drop of three places which, let's be frank, is no drop at all. There are always fluctuations and LSE has been lower in the past (albeit eigth).

    Most people point to LSE's fall in the World Rankings, but I can't be bothered to explain that now :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    It was fourth in 2007, now it's seventh. So that's only a drop of three places which, let's be frank, is no drop at all. There are always fluctuations and LSE has been lower in the past (albeit eigth).

    Most people point to LSE's fall in the World Rankings, but I can't be bothered to explain that now :p:
    Ah I'm getting all this league table malarky wrong :o:

    Oh I know about the world rankings- maybe 60 now when it was 17 before (rough estimate), but I think LSE could drop to 700 in that table and it wouldn't make a difference. Plus I think the way they calculate it is a bit unfair- the amount of citations in books- so immediately its at a disadvantage because it doesn't do the sciences/arts/sports. Something along those lines. Is that what you were going to say?
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    (Original post by River85)
    It was fourth in 2007, now it's seventh. So that's only a drop of three places which, let's be frank, is no drop at all. There are always fluctuations and LSE has been lower in the past (albeit eigth).

    Most people point to LSE's fall in the World Rankings, but I can't be bothered to explain that now :p:
    You should include Mark Tremonti in your sig :p: awesome guitarist, for variation listen to his solo in his band Alter Bridge's, "Brand New Start," and then "Come To Life" and "Open Your Eyes." Check Myles Kennedy too!! Front runner for the once-rumoured LZ reunion.
    Back on topic, Nottingham Trent University (Yes, I am slightly biased as I go there) has sprung up not neccessairly in league tables, but through word-of-mouth. It's spending £150 Million pounds on the regeneration of its City Campus, is now a first for graduate employment, and is the UK's most environmentally friendly university.
    The University of Nottingham hasn't taken that much of a bashing like some on here have said, it's still really well spoken of round Nottingham.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    biggest loser - lse
    biggest winner - ucl

    but it doesnt really matter tbh. its the individual course rankings that matter more an an arbitrary guide.

    overall rankings dont justify all the qualities of candidates. you simply cant stereotype everyone based on what uni they went to, though of course there are definitely higher proportions of certain types of people from certain universities.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    biggest loser - lse
    biggest winner - ucl
    Again, is LSE a "loser" (and a bigger loser at that) when it hasn't suffered a decline in positions. A drop of three places in a few years is nothing. Fluctuations are to be expected. It was actually 6th - 8th for a few consecutive years in the late 90s.

    Moreoever, how is UCL a winner, when its position has remained consistant?

    Perhaps you're also referring to the World Rankings, although the OP's post suggests he's referring to domestic tables

    As far as the World Rankings go, they perfectly highlight the difficulty of comparing such different universities (which, after all, is what league tables do). Aside from questionable metholody, is it really fair to compare LSE to a multi-faculty university? Let alone a specialist science institution. It remains that LSE is not the only university to experience a drop in the World rankings or to fluctuate. Most importantly (if we are to just the tables as important) I believe it still maintains a top five position in the social science table.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    River,

    What would you say it is happening with Nottingham?


    I believe the university has been performing around the same levels but, lately, other universities seem to do better.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Again, is LSE a "loser" (and a bigger loser at that) when it hasn't suffered a decline in positions. A drop of three places in a few years is nothing. Fluctuations are to be expected. It was actually 6th - 8th for a few consecutive years in the late 90s.

    Moreoever, how is UCL a winner, when its position has remained consistant?

    Perhaps you're also referring to the World Rankings, although the OP's post suggests he's referring to domestic tables

    As far as the World Rankings go, they perfectly highlight the difficulty of comparing such different universities (which, after all, is what league tables do). Aside from questionable metholody, is it really fair to compare LSE to a multi-faculty university? Let alone a specialist science institution. It remains that LSE is not the only university to experience a drop in the World rankings or to fluctuate. Most importantly (if we are to just the tables as important) I believe it still maintains a top five position in the social science table.
    very convoluted. :rolleyes: im assuming youre from lse? since youre so desperately trying to defend them.

    well too bad im just giving my opinion on the matter so if you dont like it dont read it. the world rankings are the world rankings after all. like it or hate it its still the quantitative judge of who's the best. :rolleyes:

    UCL remained constant? :rofl: are you a troll? and yes im referring to the world rankings. and i didnt say lse is not good for social sciences, just that its on a decline. primarily due to the quality of students it accepts based on its dubious recruitment methods (heavy emphasis on PS).

    on the other hand, as its been repeated many times over, UCL has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the past 10 years in the world rankings.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    very convoluted.
    Quite concise I thought. Particularly short for one of my posts.

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    im assuming youre from lse? since youre so desperately trying to defend them.
    :rofl: No I'm certainly not. But thanks for that :top2: I honestly have no interest in defending LSE. Actually, I'm not even defending them, only asking for clarification from you and also pointing out how flawed the tables are.

    It's quite clear you're a fairly new member otherwise you'd certainly be aware of who I am and which university I attend (or how long my posts can be) :p:

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    well too bad im just giving my opinion on the matter so if you dont like it dont read it. the world rankings are the world rankings after all. like it or hate it its still the quantitative judge of who's the best. :rolleyes:
    It's not that I don't like it, I just think it required further clarification. This forum is called General University Discussion. People have a right to ask a point to be clarified or to argue against someone elses view. All part of discussion.

    If we just gave short, rather meaningless posts, and didn't get into and discussion or debate then we'd see a further decline in the quality of this subforum. It would render the whole thing completely meaningless.

    There are a number of different kinds of World Rankings, some with quite different results, so what makes the THES rankings so definitive? As with all tables, its methodology can be severely questioned.

    As mentioned in my previous post, it's completely meaningless to say MIT is better than LSE. Or even that Chicago is better than York. Such different universities, of such hugely different sizes, often teaching very different subjects.

    But again, I made it quite clear that I was referring to domestic rankings (as I'm sure the OP was, at least largely).

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    UCL remained constant? :rofl: are you a troll?.
    Given that I was an established moderator until just the other day, I certainly hope not, otherwise that would be particularly naughty :spank:

    I thought I made it quite clear I was referring to the domestic rankings where, yes, it has remained fairly consistant.

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    and yes im referring to the world rankings. and i didnt say lse is not good for social sciences, just that its on a decline. primarily due to the quality of students it accepts based on its dubious recruitment methods (heavy emphasis on PS).
    Are you aware of the methodology used in the THES world ranking? If so, you'd know that the academic quality of students is not taken into account.

    This is if you're saying the LSE's decline in the World Rankings is a result of its quality of students. Your post suggests this is the case.

    The reasons for LSEs fall in recent years lie elsehwere.

    I never suggested you don't think LSE is good in the social sciences. I would certainly hope you do think it's good, given that it only teaches the social sciences and humanities! My point was that it was unfair to compare such different universities, and LSE is at a disadvantage as it doesn't teach sciences. When you look at the social science table, the only subjects LSE teaches, it has a very high position. But this was point was clearly lost.

    In summary, yes LSE has fallen in the general table. But its position in the social science table, the only subjects it teaches, remains more or less the same (last I checked). As a result your claim that, based on the World Rankings, LSE has suffered an actual decline, and this is based on student ability, is null and void.

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    on the other hand, as its been repeated many times over, UCL has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the past 10 years in the world rankings.
    Well, first of all, the THES World Rankings (which I believe you're referring to) have only been in existence for six years. For the first few years UCL was in the late 20s. Not it has had a year or two of being around fifth. I wouldn't say this is a meteoric rise, over such a long period of time, which you suggest.

    It's actually quite common to see universities fluctuate their positions. They can rise or fall by forty places year on year. So twenty odd places isn't too large a climb.

    Edit:- Oh, but you're at UCL are you? Well no wonder you're "defending" UCL and see the THES rankings, where UCL does the best, as the most authoratitive. I just hope you aren't one of those people who, just a few years ago, used league tables to argue that UCL was better than Durham (despite there only be a couple of positions difference). But then, when UCL experiences a drop and is outranked by Durham (again, only a couple of positions), go around claiming the tables are rubbish all of a sudden.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    The biggest losers recently have been Notitngham and Manchester.

    Nottingham used to be seen as a top 10 by people on here just 3 years ago. There was a whole host of 'what are the top 10' threads around 3-4 years ago and Nottingham was in 80% of peoples. People tiered it with Bristol, Durham, Warwick, e.t.c all the time and it was harder to get into than these for neary a decade (higher entry standards and more apps per place from 1992-2002) The uni has expanded lots and its per students measures have decreased and so had its ranking. Does this make it any worse - Not really.

    Same with Manchester, it used to be one of the big players and considered top 20 easily - a league tables says differently and people stupidly believe it.

    Biggest winners have only cone since student satisfaction and these have been loughborough, exeter, leicester, lancaster, St Andrews. St Andrews always did well, but no better than most others and its reputation has now been highly inflated. Dont even get me started on Exeter and Loughborough, but its nice to see that their temporary rise seems to be stalling alittle.

    And River, i assume that your early dupe remark refers to me. Well if you check IP addresses (you say you can) you will find me and 'pantry leader' are both posting from two very different parts of the country. How is that possible? Once you check i woudl appreciate a public apology. Thank you very much.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Biggest losers = people that furiously masturbate over the positioning of universities in the tables
    (Original post by River85)
    ...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
    Yeah......I'm not going that though. Certainly not in the sense that I think league tables actually matter and that I intensley scrutinise every change thinking they mean something.

    The underlying point in all my posts is that all league tables are flawed. I'm just picking holes in peoples reasoning, or asking for further clarification.

    AB, I'll reply to you in due course!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Quite concise I thought. Particularly short for one of my posts.



    :rofl: No I'm certainly not. But thanks for that :top2: I honestly have no interest in defending LSE. Actually, I'm not even defending them, only asking for clarification from you and also pointing out how flawed the tables are.

    It's quite clear you're a fairly new member otherwise you'd certainly be aware of who I am and which university I attend (or how long my posts can be) :p:


    It's not that I don't like it, I just think it required further clarification. This forum is called General University Discussion. People have a right to ask a point to be clarified or to argue against someone elses view. All part of discussion.

    If we just gave short, rather meaningless posts, and didn't get into and discussion or debate then we'd see a further decline in the quality of this subforum. It would render the whole thing completely meaningless.

    There are a number of different kinds of World Rankings, some with quite different results, so what makes the THES rankings so definitive? As with all tables, its methodology can be severely questioned.

    As mentioned in my previous post, it's completely meaningless to say MIT is better than LSE. Or even that Chicago is better than York. Such different universities, of such hugely different sizes, often teaching very different subjects.

    But again, I made it quite clear that I was referring to domestic rankings (as I'm sure the OP was, at least largely).



    Given that I was an established moderator until just the other day, I certainly hope not, otherwise that would be particularly naughty :spank:

    I thought I made it quite clear I was referring to the domestic rankings where, yes, it has remained fairly consistant.



    Are you aware of the methodology used in the THES world ranking? If so, you'd know that the academic quality of students is not taken into account.

    This is if you're saying the LSE's decline in the World Rankings is a result of its quality of students. Your post suggests this is the case.

    The reasons for LSEs fall in recent years lie elsehwere.

    I never suggested you don't think LSE is good in the social sciences. I would certainly hope you do think it's good, given that it only teaches the social sciences and humanities! My point was that it was unfair to compare such different universities, and LSE is at a disadvantage as it doesn't teach sciences. When you look at the social science table, the only subjects LSE teaches, it has a very high position. But this was point was clearly lost.

    In summary, yes LSE has fallen in the general table. But its position in the social science table, the only subjects it teaches, remains more or less the same (last I checked). As a result your claim that, based on the World Rankings, LSE has suffered an actual decline, and this is based on student ability, is null and void.



    Well, first of all, the THES World Rankings (which I believe you're referring to) have only been in existence for six years. For the first few years UCL was in the late 20s. Not it has had a year or two of being around fifth. I wouldn't say this is a meteoric rise, over such a long period of time, which you suggest.

    It's actually quite common to see universities fluctuate their positions. They can rise or fall by forty places year on year. So twenty odd places isn't too large a climb.

    Edit:- Oh, but you're at UCL are you? Well no wonder you're "defending" UCL and see the THES rankings, where UCL does the best, as the most authoratitive. I just hope you aren't one of those people who, just a few years ago, used league tables to argue that UCL was better than Durham (despite there only be a couple of positions difference). But then, when UCL experiences a drop and is outranked by Durham (again, only a couple of positions), go around claiming the tables are rubbish all of a sudden.

    too long, will only reply on a few essential points.

    first, yes im aware of the methodology. but i was not referring to it in my statement. i was stating my opinion that it is the main reason why i feel its declining as a university and not based on whatever the rankings use to assess it. (again, the statement was a generic one, not one referring to rankings)

    the point you raised in the paragraph following the bolded part is obvious. there is no definitive method of ranking universities due to so many differences. i never disagreed with that. im just bantering about (maybe a little difficult to tell through the internet) about the rankings of lse and ucl respectively. i.e. joking. :cool: however, rankings do have their uses and in a large, general sense, they do have some purpose. i.e. universities 1-20 definitely have better teaching standards and quality than those below 20 in the tables. other than that ill say the top few are very homogeneous and theres very little to differentiate between them in ANY league table.

    and the second bolded point: no its not void. it is valid because i was referring to the general tables. :rolleyes:

    third bolded point: first part of the sentence i dont even get what youre saying. pls edit your grammar. second part, its my own definition of what is meteoric. who are you to question what i say about it? hyperbole or not its my opinion so im right and youre wrong. :rolleyes: and anyway, being placed above the likes of oxford, princeton, mit etc is definitely a great achievement for a much less publicized and marketed university such as UCL. if you disagree youre a douche. :rolleyes:

    of course im defending UCL since im headed there :rolleyes: i didnt say i was objective did i? :rolleyes: and for one, its impossible for anyone to be completely objective as its impossible to get every single fact about every single university and tabulate them such that there is a perfectly fair assessment of each university. there are too many qualitative factors involved and tbh, i totally support the student survey criteria in rankings since i feel that its a good measure of how good a university is (after all universities have to cater to the student experience as part of its educational curriculum...but that leads to another debate and i dont want to start it here :rolleyes: perhaps another day...)

    but i digress. you get my point.:cool:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    I think Aston since it is 17th now which is ahead of Birmingham by about 5, yet I always thought it was behind Birmingham in terms of reputation.
    Its not. League tables do not equal prestige. Birmingham is still the more prestigious institution
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Before I offer my full reply, I'd like to know what you think of this.

    You are suggesting that LSE is in decline, as shown by its fall in the THES rankings.

    Durham was in the 70s back in my first year there. Then I think it dropped to 130. Since that time it has flittered between 100 - 120 or so. Lower than its position a few years ago which it has never retained. Does this mean it's in decline?

    If it is in decline, then how do you reconcile that with domestic tables? Its position in them has remained the same during this time. In fact, in the Independent it has risen. So, does this mean it is in decline but also improving?

    Yes, domestic tables use a completely different methodology. I'm aware of that. This only highlights my point. Why is one table right, but the other wrong? Not one of them is "wrong". They are right, in that they are ranked according to the relevant criteria. As they can differ so much they cannot be used as a reliable means of determining the quality of a university in relation to its peers.

    This isn't perhaps the strongest example, has it didn't have a consistant position to begin with. I could probably find a better example if I weren't so tired.

    Also, do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the academic standard of LSE students has declined in recent years? They are not the only university to rely solely on academic grades and personal statements as few universities interview or demand additional admissions tests. LSE still has very high entry standards. This is quite clear.

    UCL don't offer interview or offer additional admissions tests. I'm aware that for law LSE don't use the LNAT, whereas UCL do, but I don't see this as evidence that their intake is therefore of a lower quality. Cambridge have ditched the LNAT after all (although still interview, of course) and I doubt the quality of their students will decline.

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    i.e. universities 1-20 definitely have better teaching standards and quality than those below 20 in the tables.
    Not really. Why just use top twenty? That seems very arbitary. Secondly, there are yearly fluctuations in league tables which means there is not a definitive top 20.

    There are also many different tables, with different "top twenties", as they can use different methodology. I maintain that there is no definitive top 20.

    As far as we can compare universiies, I maintain that there is no significant difference between most of the Russell Group and 1994 Group universities. I could go into more detail about this, and provide evidence (as I have done before) but too tired at the moment.

    Departments can also vary widely within universities. Taking your argument further, and applying it to subject specific domestic tables (which you probably don't want me to do). Durham is in the top five for philosophy and top ten for politics. However, it certainly doesn't offer better teaching, research and overall quality compared to universities ranked below it (including outside the top 20). Reading for philosophy, Aberwystwth for politics. You might argue that these are exceptions. Possibly so, but I still find your top twenty very arbitary.

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    other than that ill say the top few are very homogeneous and theres very little to differentiate between them in ANY league table.
    Nope, there are a wide variety of different tables often using wildly different metholodogies. I've seen UCL ranked anything from 25th to 80 something in other tables. What makes one table right but the other wrong?

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    and the second bolded point: no its not void. it is valid because i was referring to the general tables. :rolleyes:
    It's quite simple: -

    You say LSE has experienced a significant decline in the THES rankings.

    The THES rankings still place LSE in much the same place as they have been in recent years (at least in the subjects they teach).

    Therefore there is no decline.

    Even if you do insist on using the general tables, because a university has dropped places doesn't mean that it has actually experienced a decline in standards. But I can't be bothered going into that right now.

    I will put this as a simple question, how do you think it's fair to compare universities of such differing sizes and universities who can teach such different things? The general table does not show LSE is declining. It does show how flawed the table is.

    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    third bolded point: first part of the sentence i dont even get what youre saying. pls edit your grammar. second part, its my own definition of what is meteoric. who are you to question what i say about it? hyperbole or not its my opinion so im right and youre wrong. :rolleyes: and anyway, being placed above the likes of oxford, princeton, mit etc is definitely a great achievement for a much less publicized and marketed university such as UCL. if you disagree youre a douche. :rolleyes:
    Apologies for the grammar. I'm tired, having had little sleep, and distracted by an essay (on the Cartesian Circle if you're interested).

    My point was that in the THES rankings UCL has been in the late 20s and now it's in the top ten. Universities often fluctuate and often to a greater degree. Let's put it down to hyperbole on your part.

    As for the part in bold, it is only a league table. Once again, I can show you league tables which place UCL lower. Even using the exact same statistic used in the THES ranking, but applying a different weighting, UCL will be in a completely different position.

    o
    (Original post by ncsjohn02)
    f course im defending UCL since im headed there :rolleyes: i didnt say i was objective did i?
    You did not. However, when you assumed I'm at LSE you attacked me for defending my own university. The inclusion of the "rolleyes" smiley indicated that you were mocking my post or that it was certainly not worth taking seriously purely on the basis of my alleged bias. It certainly came across that way.

    Unfortunately, you were incorrect in your assumption.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AfghanistanBananistan)
    And River, i assume that your early dupe remark refers to me. Well if you check IP addresses (you say you can) you will find me and 'pantry leader' are both posting from two very different parts of the country. How is that possible? Once you check i woudl appreciate a public apology. Thank you very much.
    You will never get an apology from me, because you are quite clearly the same person. One may argue that spending a great amount of time on an Internet forum is quite sad (you've mocked another member for the amount of posts he makes a day, suggesting that he needs to get a life).

    It's even sadder making duplicate accounts to back up your own arguments. At least when you're caught out have the balls to admit it. An IP check isn't even needed, it's quite clear. Just like with Broadsword, your posting style is exactly the same, you say exactly the same things, you're pretty much always online at the same time (often logging out of one account, straight into another) and appear on the same threads.

    For so long, right up until your Broadsword account was banned, you claimed when you and he were not the same when there was clear evidence you were. I thought that after that you'd have the balls to admit it, or at least not be sad enough to try it again, but clearly not.

    Now stop trying to deceive people.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you chained to your phone?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.