Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Edinburgh is a fair point, actually. I think Manchester has Bristol beaten on international reputation, though.
    I would put edinburgh, bristol instead of Durham and st Andrews
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    From 1- 10

    The University of Surrey
    UCLAN
    University of Liverpool
    University of Dundee
    University of Chester
    Middlesex University
    London Southbank University
    The University of Croydon (wud b number 1 but it's in Croydon )
    Manchester Metropolitan University
    The University of Oxford (Would be at number 12 but Harry Potter went there )
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    I take it you have been in some cave for a while now?

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3032753
    Again, you're showing me only one survey, which is a very controversial one at that, to start with.
    If you're smart, you must have figured it out already that I only give weight to a report having a more comprehensive data, such as a summation of all surveys, given that numerous surveys are being published now.

    Is King's really a superior uni than Imperial is for research? Really?? Come on. You're making me laugh...



    But you referred to tables that are a joke as "credible" ones, so I assumed you would also say the Washington Monthly league table is "credible".
    Here's your problem, young man. You assume too much. That is your problem.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by War and Peace)
    I don't want to get too involved in this exchange, but here are a few data points:

    1. It would appear academics around the globe tend to rate KCL higher than Warwick. Based on academic reputation, KCL places 43rd in the world and Warwick doesn't make the top 100.

    Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ng/range/01-50

    2. It would appear employers around the globe tend to rate KCL higher than Warwick. Based on employer reputation, KCL places 38th in the world and Warwick places 135th.

    Source: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...5-graphic.html

    3. It would appear UK academics think KCL produces more high quality research than Warwick. KCL placed 7th and Warwick placed 14th for research power in the recent REF.

    Source: http://exquisitelife.researchresearc...a_table_p1.pdf

    4. However, it seems strong undergraduate matriculants tend to favor Warwick over KCL. Warwick has a median tariff score of 509, while KCL has a score of 466.

    Source: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...nkings?o=Entry

    5. On KCL having "a single program where it can honestly, seriously and confidently say, it can rival with the best in the world," this claim can definitely be made in regards to programs offered by the War Studies Group (Department of War Studies/Defence Studies Department) and perhaps now by the Dickson Poon School of Law.

    Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/department...ies/index.aspx
    Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/dsd/index.aspx
    Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/index.aspx

    International league tables don't weigh much for undergraduate education. And, since we're talking about undergraduate education here, those rankings brings very little value.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Edinburgh is a fair point, actually. I think Manchester has Bristol beaten on international reputation, though.
    Edinburgh should be above KCL and behind UCL. No way, you can leave it outside the Top 10. Bristol too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    Again, you're showing me only one survey, which is a very controversial one at that, to start with.
    If you're smart, you must have figured it out already that I only give weight to a report having a more comprehensive data, such as a summation of all surveys, given that numerous surveys are being published now.
    Oh, I see!

    You used the same source when you stated this:

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    Stop playing with us.

    Which league table did you look at?
    This league table tells us that Warwick is not only superior to King's in terms of student selectivity, it also is superior to King's in RESEARCH, that's aside from STUDENT SATISFACTION RATING.
    2.80 of Warwick vs 2.69 of King's -- http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...ngs?o=Research
    It was not "controversial" then? Nor was it "only one survey"? It was "credible"?:rolleyes:

    I now get the rules:

    When the same source states that Warwick is better than another university, you use it, it is credible.

    But when the reverse is the case, you reject it and state "it is just one survey, which is controversial"?

    Controversial to whom?


    After that, can you then show us some other "credible" survey you know that demonstrate that Warwick is superior to KCL in research?

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    Is King's really a superior uni than Imperial is for research? Really?? Come on. You're making me laugh...

    Here's your problem, young man. You assume too much. That is your problem.
    Stop laughing and use your brain to think about it.

    They are very different in size, that is the only reason KCL was slightly higher than Imperial, and UCL was higher than Cambridge and Oxford, in THE's rankings.

    Are you still laughing?:rolleyes:

    When you look at other measures independent of size then Imperial triumphs.

    - Imperial (4th) had a higher proportion of 4* (World leading research) than Strand Poly (7th).

    - Imperial (1st) had a higher proportion of 4* (World leading research) and 3* (Internationally excellent research) than Strand Poly (10th).

    - Imperial (1st) beat Strand Poly (6th) in THE's GPA (Quality) rankings.

    - Imperial (6th) beat Strand Poly (7th) in Guardian's research power rankings, but not THE's one.


    This is despite Imperial submitting roughly the same amount of staff as KCL, which means, considering the size difference, Imperial submitted a high proportion of staff for all that superior stats to KCL's.

    Warwick despite being roughly the same size as Strand Poly does not beat it in anyway.

    Strand Poly is a better research institution than Warwick.

    Are you still laffing, insecure Warwick graduate?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    International league tables don't weigh much for undergraduate education. And, since we're talking about undergraduate education here, those rankings brings very little value.
    Where did you see the rules or boundary guidelines restricting our chat about Top 10 universities in the UK to undergraduate education only and not the entire university?

    Did it say "undergraduate university"?

    Or you were laughing so much, the tears in your eyes blocked your vision?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    Edinburgh should be above KCL and behind UCL. No way, you can leave it outside the Top 10. Bristol too.
    KCL outranks Edinburgh on the REF, THE reputation rankings, (THE actual rankings, come to that,) and the New York Times employment rankings. Clearly academics and companies the world over disagree with you.

    Also, London is just better than Edinburgh.

    Bristol is one of several unis that can make a somewhat plausible claim to a spot somewhere near the bottom of the top 10. Durham, Warwick, Bristol, Manchester, etc, all go in that band.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    KCL outranks Edinburgh on the REF, THE reputation rankings, (THE actual rankings, come to that,) and the New York Times employment rankings. Clearly academics and companies the world over disagree with you.

    Also, London is just better than Edinburgh.

    Bristol is one of several unis that can make a somewhat plausible claim to a spot somewhere near the bottom of the top 10. Durham, Warwick, Bristol, Manchester, etc, all go in that band.
    Not in everything.

    - Edinburgh (4th) outranks KCL(7th) in the Guardian's research power rankings.

    - Edinburgh (4th) outranks KCL (6th) in the THE's research power rankings.

    - KCL (7th) had a higher proportion of 4* (World leading research) than Edinburgh (8th).

    - KCL (10th) had a higher proportion of 4* (World leading research) and 3* (Internationally excellent research) than Edinburgh (12th).

    - KCL (6th) beat Edinburgh (9th) in THE's GPA (Quality) rankings.

    But that said, Edinburgh submitted far more staff, almost 400 more (roughly the same amount more that KCL submitted in comparison to Warwick).

    400 is close to the same amount of staff LSE, St Andrews and Bath submitted in total for assessment. That is a significant difference.

    So Edinburgh was taking more risks than KCL and still performed almost on par. KCL took more risk than Warwick and did far better.

    Also:

    - Edinburgh's financial muscle is superior to KCL's
    - Edinburgh has a slightly stronger alumni (including PMs).

    To be frank it is a very close race and arguable either way, but I would personally give the position after the Top 5 to Edinburgh and KCL will be 7th.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    International league tables don't weigh much for undergraduate education. And, since we're talking about undergraduate education here, those rankings brings very little value.
    To be honest, such a response makes it seem like you're deluded, backpedalling, or both. Points 1 and 2 draw from international league tables based on polls (there's no more suitable source) and respond to your (seemingly false) claims about what international academics and employers think of KCL and Warwick. You don't address points 3 - 5, which have nothing to do with international league tables, so maybe you agree with them.

    PS: When was this conversation limited to undergraduate education?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    To be frank it is a very close race and arguable either way, but I would personally give the position after the Top 5 to Edinburgh and KCL will be 7th.
    Fair enough. it is possible that I am overly influenced by the points on international reputation, but given we haven't exactly established a rigorous methodology for the thread's rankings maybe that's not so bad. I'm not so sure about alumni etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)

    But that said, Edinburgh submitted far more staff, almost 400 more (roughly the same amount more that KCL submitted in comparison to Warwick).

    400 is close to the same amount of staff LSE, St Andrews and Bath submitted in total for assessment. That is a significant difference.

    So Edinburgh was taking more risks than KCL and still performed almost on par. KCL took more risk than Warwick and did far better.
    Edinburgh submitted far more staff than KCL, but they also have far more eligible staff (roughly 400 more). The idea that universities that submit higher numbers of staff are taking more risks is wrong. It's all about the percentage of eligible staff submitted, not raw numbers. On this front, there is very little that separates Edinburgh (83%), KCL (80%), and Warwick (83%).

    Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...017670.article
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    Oh, I see!

    You used the same source when you stated this:



    It was not "controversial" then? Nor was it "only one survey"? It was "credible"?:rolleyes:

    I now get the rules:

    When the same source states that Warwick is better than another university, you use it, it is credible.

    But when the reverse is the case, you reject it and state "it is just one survey, which is controversial"?


    Controversial to whom?

    After that, can you then show some other "credible" survey you know that demonstrate that Warwick is superior to KCL in research.



    Stop laughing and use your brain to think about it.

    They are very different in size, that is the only reason KCL was slightly higher than Imperial, and UCL was higher than Cambridge and Oxford, in THE's rankings.

    Are you still laughing?:rolleyes:

    When you look at other measures independent of size then Imperial triumphs.

    - Imperial (4th) had a higher proportion of 4* (World leading research) than Strand Poly (7th).

    - Imperial (1st) had a higher proportion of 4* (World leading research) and 3* (Internationally excellent research) than Strand Poly (10th).

    - Imperial (1st) beat Strand Poly (6th) in THE's GPA (Quality) rankings.

    - Imperial (6th) beat Strand Poly (7th) in Guardian's research power rankings, but not THE's one.


    This is despite Imperial submitting roughly the same amount of staff as KCL, which means, considering the size difference, Imperial submitted a high proportion of staff for all that superior stats to KCL's.

    Warwick despite being roughly the same size as Strand Poly does not beat it in anyway.

    Strand Poly is a better research institution than Warwick.

    Are you still laffing, insecure Warwick graduate?
    wait what? "Strand Poly"

    errr
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by War and Peace)
    4. However, it seems strong undergraduate matriculants tend to favor Warwick over KCL. Warwick has a median tariff score of 509, while KCL has a score of 466.
    This, by all means, is the only consideration where Warwick is better than KCL. And this can be attributed to factors.

    - KCL has a large Nursing school where the students make up about a sixth of its student intake and where average entry requires would be in the Bs and Cs. This large body of students drag its overall average entry grades down with their mostly below 400 tariff points.

    - Warwick has a strong focus on STEM subjects, while KCL only focuses on the S of STEM. Its other main strong focus are Social Science and Humanities. STEM subjects generally require higher grades, hence why median tariff for Cambridge is higher than Oxford and for Imperial higher than LSE.

    - KCL is regionally disadvantaged. It is unarguably fourth in London, so people would pick 3 universities ahead of it if they want to study in London. Warwick has only Birmingham to compete with in its region and it is the stronger one. Outside its region and London, Warwick is effectively only competing with Bristol and Durham, which are effectively its peers. (Very few people want to go to Scotland). Therefore, Warwick can compete for a better picking pool than KCL.

    Without the first factor, their median tariff would be roughly the same.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by War and Peace)
    Edinburgh submitted far more staff than KCL, but they also have far more eligible staff (roughly 400 more). The idea that universities that submit higher numbers of staff are taking more risks is wrong. It's all about the percentage of eligible staff submitted, not raw numbers. On this front, there is very little that separates Edinburgh (83%), KCL (80%), and Warwick (83%).

    Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...017670.article
    Yes, it had more eligible staff to submit.

    But the more staff you have to submit, the more quality you have to submit, which is harder. It is easier for a smaller institution than a larger one. Hence why LSE and Imperial can easily submit more quality than UCL.

    More submission = more risks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NerdyMeg)
    wait what? "Strand Poly"

    errr
    Just a friendly dig.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWaffle)
    From 1- 10

    The University of Surrey
    UCLAN
    University of Liverpool
    University of Dundee
    University of Chester
    Middlesex University
    London Southbank University
    The University of Croydon (wud b number 1 but it's in Croydon )
    Manchester Metropolitan University
    The University of Oxford (Would be at number 12 but Harry Potter went there )
    what kind of crap is that? surely ljmu over oxford?!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welcometoib)
    what kind of crap is that? surely ljmu over oxford?!
    Too many private school people go to ljmu tho :colonhash:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    War and Peace,

    I do not use international rankings as reference because they do not reflect the real and actual prestige and strength of the universities. Additionally, the mobility of the international students is more common at the undergraduate level. Rankings that cover globally do rank the grad and postgrad levels, not the undergrad levels. Therefore, it is nonsense to debate about the actual strength and prestige of the UK unis basing on rankings with criteria supposedly for graduate and post-graduate levels.

    Take a look at these rankings:
    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u.../world-ranking
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-rankings.html

    They'll all tell you that Wisconsin is superior to Brown or UCLA is superior to Dartmouth or UT-Austin is superior to Rice University and so on, but in the USA, such isn't the case. No one would be willing to go for Wisconsin than Brown, or for UCLA for Dartmouth if for UT-Austin for Rice. I bet that almost everyone at Wisconsin would be very much willing to swap places with Brown students than the other way around. The same thing can be said in the UK. I bet no one at LSE would be very much willing to swap his place with someone from King's. No one from Cambridge would be very much willing to swap his place with Imperial. But when you look at the rankings that you and LutherVan are citing, it would seem that such is not the actual case in the UK. But the truth is -- no one sees LSE is in equal footing with King's or Cambridge is in equal footing with Imperial. Most students see them belonging to different leagues. Cambridge is in a league above Imperial, and LSE is miles in a league above King's. Yet, Luther Van keeps insisting most students do think LSE is inferior to King's, based on his logic.

    Prestige is MOSTLY determined by the selectivity level of the university. I have not known a school/uni that has a lenient selection process in the US or UK which most people regard it to be more prestigious, more respected than those that have more stringent requirements. There's a reason why Oxbridge is prestigious. There's a reason why Imperial/LSE are more prestigious than Manchester/Nottingham. There's a reason why Warwick is more prestigious than King's. If King's was more prestigious, it would have been more difficult to gain entry to King's. But we all know that Warwick students, on average, are superior to King's. And, there's a reason why the top employers, HRDs of top banks, financial institutions and management consulting firms highly favors Warwick graduates to King's graduates.

    Maybe you're right about King's having a top program in War Studies/Defence Studies. But no offense, how many people do you think are interested in the program? Compare that to how many people are interested in MBA or a master's degree in fields related to banking, finance, economics, business and management.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    War and Peace,

    I do not use international rankings as reference because they do not reflect the real and actual prestige and strength of the universities. Additionally, the mobility of the international students is more common at the undergraduate level. Rankings that cover globally do rank the grad and postgrad levels, not the undergrad levels. Therefore, it is nonsense to debate about the actual strength and prestige of the UK unis basing on rankings with criteria supposedly for graduate and post-graduate levels.

    Take a look at these rankings:
    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u.../world-ranking
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-rankings.html
    This is an extremely weak argument.

    It is very lame to argue that international rankings do not reflect (a) the real and actual prestige and (b) the strength of a university and then argue that domestic rankings do reflect this.

    What is prestige?

    Prestige is about perception of an entity based on its reputation, influence, distinction and success.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prestige

    What is strength?

    In the education sector, we can easily say strength is about the influence, power and resources a university has in its environment. This can easily be linked to its alumni and financial muscle that helps build influence, power and resources. These can be internal or external.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/strength

    Now how can you state that local rankings are better for assessing prestige and strength of a university at undergrad level when many of the measures used has no relevance to prestige and strength?

    What have the following got to do with prestige and strength?

    Guardian (6 out of 9)
    - Satisfied with course
    - Satisfied with teaching
    - Satisfied with feedback
    - Spend per student
    - Value added score

    CUG (4 out of 9)
    - Student satisfaction
    - Academic services spend
    - Facilities spend
    - Degree completion

    Times (3 out of 9)
    - Student satisfaction
    - Services and facilities spend
    - Degree completion

    Roughly half of the measures of local rankings do not measure prestige or strength. These are just customer service measures. Many of these even flunctuate too much for it to be highly regarded.

    These are the kinds of measures universities like Warwick without any significant achievements or resources excel in. Of course, if you are spending on facilities instead of world class research to compete with big-money american universities, you would score highly in the local rankings customer service tables.

    International league tables actually measure perception of an entity based on its reputation, influence, distinction and success. They survey people about their perception. They also measure strength based on alumni, actual successes in research and actual financial muscle (through income made from its successes).

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    They'll all tell you that Wisconsin is superior to Brown or UCLA is superior to Dartmouth or UT-Austin is superior to Rice University and so on, but in the USA, such isn't the case. No one would be willing to go for Wisconsin than Brown, or for UCLA for Dartmouth if for UT-Austin for Rice. I bet that almost everyone at Wisconsin would be very much willing to swap places with Brown students than the other way around. The same thing can be said in the UK. I bet no one at LSE would be very much willing to swap his place with someone from King's. No one from Cambridge would be very much willing to swap his place with Imperial. But when you look at the rankings that you and LutherVan are citing, it would seem that such is not the actual case in the UK. But the truth is -- no one sees LSE is in equal footing with King's or Cambridge is in equal footing with Imperial. Most students see them belonging to different leagues. Cambridge is in a league above Imperial, and LSE is miles in a league above King's. Yet, Luther Van keeps insisting most students do think LSE is inferior to King's, based on his logic.
    So do you believe anyone thinks Bath or St Andrews are better than LSE, Imperial and UCL?

    Do you believe anyone thinks Surrey is a UK Top 10 university for the last 2 years?

    Do you believe anyone thinks Heriot--Watt is more prestigious than Edinburgh?

    No ranking is perfect, they are just indicative.The International rankings give better indication of prestige because they do not measure rubbish. But they are not perfect, there is room for improvement, but at least it is measuring the right things.

    Maybe the weightings might need to be adjusted or maybe measures relativity to institution's size need to be infused in calculations or maybe additional measures need to be introduced. Whatever the case, it uses better measures for prestige and provides better indicators for prestige and strength.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    Prestige is MOSTLY determined by the selectivity level of the university. I have not known a school/uni that has a lenient selection process in the US or UK which most people regard it to be more prestigious, more respected than those that have more stringent requirements. There's a reason why Oxbridge is prestigious. There's a reason why Imperial/LSE are more prestigious than Manchester/Nottingham. There's a reason why Warwick is more prestigious than King's. If King's was more prestigious, it would have been more difficult to gain entry to King's. But we all know that Warwick students, on average, are superior to King's. And, there's a reason why the top employers, HRDs of top banks, financial institutions and management consulting firms highly favors Warwick graduates to King's graduates.
    No. Prestige is mostly decided by the achievements of a university.

    If you cannot get that basic right, then I suggest you stop commenting on this.

    KCL is more prestigious than Warwick because it has more achievements and is set to continue having more achievements.

    If I create a university today in Scunthorpe and then state that minimum entry tariff is going to be A*A*A*A, that would not make my university prestigious? It is the prior achievements of my university that would make it prestigious.

    If you don't know that, you need to stop commenting now.

    I am not suprised though that you chose that measure as the one "mostly determines prestige". You chose it because that is one of the only two things Warwick is top in. You are way too bias. You try to look for things that fit your argument instead of a comprehensive assessment.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    Maybe you're right about King's having a top program in War Studies/Defence Studies. But no offense, how many people do you think are interested in the program? Compare that to how many people are interested in MBA or a master's degree in fields related to banking, finance, economics, business and management.
    Again, the pathetic "Warwick is good for IB".

    This is the other one of the only two things Warwick is top in. One would think it is only IB that employs graduates the way your insecure self keep on banging on about "Warwick is good for IB".

    Apart from that, Warwick has no significant achievements for it to have any prestige close to the Golden Triangle, Edinburgh and Manchester.

    Don't come out with some useless "prestige by association" (a student from Warwick goes to study in Harvard every year rubbish) to counter this fact.

    KCL is more prestigious than Warwick.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.