Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I said that there was a thread that had universities in tiers, where KCL was not a tier 2 University. I was just repeating what I read from another thread.

    I maintain my point that Manchester appears to have a bad time in local rankings with favourable view towards oxbridge and south of england universities.
    Actually KCL were, I saw the thread to

    First tier were Oxbridge

    2nd tier were all the Top Russell group Uni's
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SayoniRoy)
    I don't think manchester should be within tier 2.
    So you're saying it should be lower or higher in ranking?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Vividly clear)
    Actually KCL were, I saw the thread to

    First tier were Oxbridge

    2nd tier were all the Top Russell group Uni's
    My bad. Sorry then.

    I was looking for the thread to see what the tiers were again.

    My original point was that many universities in the UK move up and down the ranking without control.

    Only very few Universities with strong reputation maintained a relatively higher position across the board. That being said, I think that Manchester seems to have a hard time on UK rankings.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danny the Geezer)
    So you're saying it should be lower or higher in ranking?
    He mentioned in his answer that it is par with imperial, ucl and lse. I don't think so. That's all.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SayoniRoy)
    If you are talking of global rank kcl is ranked higher than manchester, now according to you it should be in tier 2 then
    I think that another post has pointed out that KCL is indeed in tier 2.

    My original point was that many universities tend to go up and down the table a lot, but very few Universities with strong reputations tend to maintain that ranking locally and globally.

    It is ridiculous that Manchester is poorly ranked in the UK, but year on year it maintains a relatively high rank in international tables; even better than Universities that are ranked above it in the UK.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SayoniRoy)
    He mentioned in his answer that it is par with imperial, ucl and lse. I don't think so. That's all.
    Those three are London-based institutions with arguably more specialised degrees, Manchester is a very good university (I don't think anyone will deny that) just because it's a provincial, more conventional uni I think doesn't make it any stonger or weaker than the ones you mentioned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    Those Universities tend to move up and down the ranking tables like the rest.

    Kings College and Nottingham have good reputations, but, to me, they don't have that solid reputation of the top tier universities that Oxbridge, Manchester, UCL, LSE and Imperial have. You cannot go wrong with them, but they are definitely not at the top of the pack.

    There was another thread that had UK Universities in Tiers with Oxbridge as a Tier 1 University, while I think UCL, Manchester, LSE and Imperial were labelled as Tier 2. Then the list goes down. I think KCL and Nottingham were Tier 3 or something like that.

    Sometimes, it baffles me to see a random University in the top 10 overall best in the UK but not even in the top 300 of the World's Best Universities.
    You're definitely a Manchester student lol.

    No way you can put that C grade accepting university in the same sentence as Oxbridge, UCL, LSE and Imperial.

    Only acceptable one is Warwick, maybe Bath.

    KCL/Manchester/Nottingham are pretty much equal for most courses (with some exceptions especially for non-STEM courses). Nottingham is the most selective out of the three (and I got into KCL).
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Meh, let's stop discussing Manchester when the thread is about Bristol and it keeps fluctuating & is low in the same way as Manchester does...

    I think it's good to differentiate 'prestige' or 'reputation' with rankings, as rankings take into account student satisfaction (which is why Imperial sometimes comes lower than it perhaps 'ought' to do) and research output, which isn't really relevant to undergraduates.*

    It's really odd, because when I was in sixth form (a hot house private school that was obsessed with it's top 3 position in rankings), Bristol was within the top 6 in terms of reputation/prestige, but has just steadily gone down while Durham remains constant and so does UCL. Bristol was the place you went to if you didn't go to Oxbridge, LSE, or Imperial (maybe slightly above UCL and Durham -- reminder, this was at the time!!!).

    I think LSE and Imperial are similar in that they specialise in either social sciences OR science & so will always be good.

    Bristol ranks quite low for law, which is a little worrying, but I don't know. The admissions tutors consist of an Oxbridge graduate (of both!) who's on the steering group for LNATs & a Nottingham graduate which is high for law, so I imagine the rest of the faculty are from prestigious unis too.*
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    According to the Guardian Surrey is 4th, ahead off: Imperial, Durham, Warwick, Bath, LSE, UCL, York, Manchester, Bristol, Sheffield... the list goes on.

    The league tables methodology uses variables that you (or an employer) will have no interest in. Student satisfaction, value added etc. all benefit lower ranked Universities. I think I even saw one table that rated Universities on how energy effifcant they are. As if an employer gives gives a ****.

    The consensus is that the national league tables are flawed.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Random_PC_Errors)
    The league tables methodology uses variables that you (or an employer) will have no interest in. Student satisfaction, value added etc. all benefit lower ranked Universities. I think I even saw one table that rated Universities on how energy effifcant they are. As if an employer gives gives a ****.

    The consensus is that the national league tables are flawed.
    Not necessarily flawed, just meaningless. It would be like producing a league table of cars. A Ferrari isn't the best answer if you're wanting to pull a horsebox.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Duncan2012)
    Not necessarily flawed, just meaningless. It would be like producing a league table of cars. A Ferrari isn't the best answer if you're wanting to pull a horsebox.
    Right? Everyone knows Lambos are best for pulling livestock!

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Bringing the discussion back to Bristol, it is whammied in the UK league tables by very poor student satisfaction ratings. I queried this with the uni - they said it was primarily due to the student union needing refurbishment (now done) and because the SU building is poorly located - up a hill away from the uni and the main phlanx of halls.

    I think the disparity between the domestic and international tables to be interesting and think both have their value in making an overall decision. Interestingly you will find more state school educated pupils take notice of the UK tables eg, Surrey, a relatively newcomer to the top 10 UK unis has over 90% state school intake, whereas private schools gravitate towards the more traditionally prestigious unis with higher international rankings eg 60% of Bristol's intake is private school (second only I think to Oxford). Thus a snob/prestige value is still associated with these unis which employers (like it or not) take notice of....

    Also worth looking at is the annual Highflyers report - gives a list of the unis most visited by Milkround employers. Interestingly, the most visited unis are the older prestigious ones as well as the ones conveniently located in a central position eg. Birmingham. Places like Exeter and Surrey dont get much of a look in.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Armpits)
    You're definitely a Manchester student lol.

    No way you can put that C grade accepting university in the same sentence as Oxbridge, UCL, LSE and Imperial.

    Only acceptable one is Warwick, maybe Bath.

    KCL/Manchester/Nottingham are pretty much equal for most courses (with some exceptions especially for non-STEM courses). Nottingham is the most selective out of the three (and I got into KCL).
    I am not a Manchester student. I was just pointing out how flaw national rankings were and how unfavourable they are to Manchester.

    I think that Manchester gets a lot of bashing both on TSR and around, even though it is a top tier university. Someone has called Manchester, a poor man's Cambridge, which is offensive to Manchester students.

    A poster just mentioned how the Guardian placed Surrey as the 4th Best University in the UK above Imperial and other clearly better Universities. When I checked international rankings, Surrey was not even in the Top 300 Best Universities.

    My main point is that Manchester is indeed a top tier University. Yes, it does accept C's in some courses, but so do other Universities. Internationally, it is ranked as 33rd in the world.

    To the original point (sorry OP). Bristol is a decent University, but I don't think it was the school for those, who could not get into Oxbridge. I think that school was Durham (sorry to any Durham students).

    There has been names through around including

    1. Boxbridge (Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge)
    2. Impbridge (Imperial and Cambridge)
    3. Doxbridge (Durham, Oxford and Cambridge)
    4. Woxbridge (Warwick, Oxford and Cambridge)
    5. Loxbridge (LSE, Oxford and Cambridge)
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I said that there was a thread that had universities in tiers, where KCL was not a tier 2 University. I was just repeating what I read from another thread.

    I maintain my point that Manchester appears to have a bad time in local rankings with favourable view towards oxbridge and south of england universities.
    Hmm. As a student in the South East, specifically London, with both a state and private school background, I can comprehensively state that Manchester is well regarded and in the same grouping as, say, Bristol, KCL, UCL in no particular order of hierarchy.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Bristol suffers because the national league tables take crap like student satisfaction into account, thus making it difficult to render objectively how good each university is (i.e. for it to be a good, prestigious university that puts out high quality research it doesn't have to be 'satisfying' for student x).

    In my opinion, the prestige/'good' uni rankings are something along the lines of:

    Tier 1:
    Oxbridge

    Tier 2:
    LSE/Imperial (depending on whether you are doing science or social sciences)

    Tier 3:
    UCL/Warwick
    St Andrews
    Durham

    Tier 4:
    Edinburgh/Bristol/KCL/Nottingham/Bath
    Manchester
    York
    Exeter

    Tier 5:
    et al

    Beyond a certain point it gets hard to rank, and obviously individual rankings are debatable, but this is my estimate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's largely got to do with student satisfaction, particularly for the Guardian.

    Don't base your entire hopes on a league table. Find the metrics you're interested in, and make your own one, weighed up in whichever way you like Anyway can scramble together a league table using commonly available data - the fact that it has "Guardian" stamped on it shouldn't lend it too much gravity.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JRKinder)
    Bristol suffers because the national league tables take crap like student satisfaction into account, thus making it difficult to render objectively how good each university is (i.e. for it to be a good, prestigious university that puts out high quality research it doesn't have to be 'satisfying' for student x).

    In my opinion, the prestige/'good' uni rankings are something along the lines of:

    Tier 1:
    Oxbridge

    Tier 2:
    LSE/Imperial (depending on whether you are doing science or social sciences)

    Tier 3:
    UCL/Warwick
    St Andrews
    Durham

    Tier 4:
    Edinburgh/Bristol/KCL/Nottingham/Bath
    Manchester
    York
    Exeter

    Tier 5:
    et al

    Beyond a certain point it gets hard to rank, and obviously individual rankings are debatable, but this is my estimate.
    In what way are Warwick/St Andrews/Durham above KCL/Nottingham/Bristol/Edinburgh though (especially Warwick and St Andrews)?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by stratagems)
    Hmm. As a student in the South East, specifically London, with both a state and private school background, I can comprehensively state that Manchester is well regarded and in the same grouping as, say, Bristol, KCL, UCL in no particular order of hierarchy.
    Fair enough. Manchester is a strong university that needs more respect than people accord to it.

    The sad truth is that Manchest's size (approx 38,500) students knocks its performance.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Who says Bristol is really that prestigious?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I suggest that you don't look deep into national rankings. Some are very subjective and others appear biased.

    Other than Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Imperial, LSE and UCL, those Universities move up and down the rankings based on who is doing the ranking.

    Just look at the quality of your course and the overall decency of the University, that is if you are not studying in the Universities mentioned above.
    Let me guess, you go to Manchester?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.