Gold, Silver and Bronze Universities

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    Graduate salary is not one of the metrics that is used for determining whether a university will be bronze, silver or gold.
    If one of the most important metrics is not used in this then that is a serious issue in the ranking system. with such large costs to go to university you really should be taking future career into account. A significant % of students will be going to university to better themselves and their prospects.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    If one of the most important metrics is not used in this then that is a serious issue in the ranking system. with such large costs to go to university you really should be taking future career into account. A significant % of students will be going to university to better themselves and their prospects.
    I've explained the metrics that will be used in post 12 of this thread.

    Employability (ie lack of unemployment and employment in highly skilled jobs) IS included in the metrics.

    Salary data 6 months after graduation hasn't been found to be a good indicator of lifelong salary/success. Plus (as I explained) the data available isn't robust enough to draw conclusions. Add in that salary data would need to be benchmarked against location AND that there are huge discrepancies in salary for graduates from certain backgrounds and you add in some perverse incentives for universities to discriminate in their admissions processes. (http://wonkhe.com/wp-content/uploads...rnings-IFS.pdf goes into this in more detail - there would be an incentive for universities to prefer applicants from high income families as they tend to earn more after graduating).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    I've explained the metrics that will be used in post 12 of this thread.

    Employability (ie lack of unemployment and employment in highly skilled jobs) IS included in the metrics.

    Salary data 6 months after graduation hasn't been found to be a good indicator of lifelong salary/success. Plus (as I explained) the data available isn't robust enough to draw conclusions. Add in that salary data would need to be benchmarked against location AND that there are huge discrepancies in salary for graduates from certain backgrounds and you add in some perverse incentives for universities to discriminate in their admissions processes. (http://wonkhe.com/wp-content/uploads...rnings-IFS.pdf goes into this in more detail - there would be an incentive for universities to prefer applicants from high income families as they tend to earn more after graduating).
    http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-conten...ees-REPORT.pdf

    this report takes that into account and still shows going to a decent university does make a significant difference. If you wish to complete a degree at Anglia Ruskin more power to you, It is not my preference though.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-conten...ees-REPORT.pdf

    this report takes that into account and still shows going to a decent university does make a significant difference. If you wish to complete a degree at Anglia Ruskin more power to you, It is not my preference though.
    Yes, but as PQ has explained, salary data is very vulnerable to Goodhart's Law. The Sutton Trust report was created in a world where no one had a reason to game the data.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-conten...ees-REPORT.pdf

    this report takes that into account and still shows going to a decent university does make a significant difference. If you wish to complete a degree at Anglia Ruskin more power to you, It is not my preference though.
    Missing my point.

    The salary data (as used in the Sutton Trust report) has been found to be an UNRELIABLE predictor of long term earnings or success.

    The salary data as used in the Institute for Fiscal Studies paper is based on long term earnings data and finds a 10% difference in median graduate earnings (more for upper and lower percentiles) based on whether you *parents* were classed as high or low income - even after allowing for the institution attended and the subject studied and student characteristics).
    quote from the report
    When we take account of different student characteristics, degree subject and institution attended, the gap between graduates from higher and lower income households is still a sizeable, at around 10% at the median. Further, we find that the gap is larger at the 20th and 90th percentiles of the graduate earnings distribution, suggesting coming from higher
    income households both protects against low earnings and provides greater opportunity for very high earnings. The magnitude of this effect is sufficient to be important.


    Because of the unreliability of the DLHE data AND the fact that long term earnings data is skewed by graduate background (and region of employment) means that the data source that you're setting so much store by (and using to declare a university "bad" and "****" ) will not be used to determine if a university is bronze, silver of gold.

    They also won't be using your spreadsheet :yes: - they'll be using the metrics explained in post 12.

    The study looking at long term earnings reveals that there is a measurable graduate premium to studying at all universities compared to not getting a degree...that's why even the "****" universities (like LSE and Bristol) will get bronze.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    the university of Hull has an average graduate Salary of £20000 they are below the average but not by much. Having said that the averages are pulled down a lot by the weaker institutions so this is still a poor figure.

    On the other hand I have heard positive things about Hull in terms of their support for students and openness. It is not somewhere I would like to go but there are many universities that are worse.

    I would think it harsh to label them bronze but not really harsh, I would probably say they should just scrape Silver. Labeling them gold though would be a joke and make a mockery of the Hull thing.
    You're ignoring a lot of information bias here. Primarily: cost of living and graduate destinations. For the most part, graduates tend to stay around the area they went to uni in at least for the first few years of their career and it is pretty much common sense that lower cost of living areas will tend to have lower salaries.

    Another thing is the mix of grad destinations. Some graduate careers simply do not pay a lot.

    So overall, I don't think your analysis of salaries is that helpful when looking at quality here.

    Also +1 to PQ for mentioning how limited the salary data is and why.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    Missing my point.

    The salary data (as used in the Sutton Trust report) has been found to be an UNRELIABLE predictor of long term earnings or success.

    The salary data as used in the Institute for Fiscal Studies paper is based on long term earnings data and finds a 10% difference in median graduate earnings (more for upper and lower percentiles) based on whether you *parents* were classed as high or low income - even after allowing for the institution attended and the subject studied and student characteristics).
    quote from the report
    When we take account of different student characteristics, degree subject and institution attended, the gap between graduates from higher and lower income households is still a sizeable, at around 10% at the median. Further, we find that the gap is larger at the 20th and 90th percentiles of the graduate earnings distribution, suggesting coming from higher
    income households both protects against low earnings and provides greater opportunity for very high earnings. The magnitude of this effect is sufficient to be important.


    Because of the unreliability of the DLHE data AND the fact that long term earnings data is skewed by graduate background (and region of employment) means that the data source that you're setting so much store by (and using to declare a university "bad" and "****" ) will not be used to determine if a university is bronze, silver of gold.

    They also won't be using your spreadsheet :yes: - they'll be using the metrics explained in post 12.

    The study looking at long term earnings reveals that there is a measurable graduate premium to studying at all universities compared to not getting a degree...that's why even the "****" universities (like LSE and Bristol) will get bronze.
    LSE and Bristol are very good universities. It doesn't surprise me in the least that back ground contributes a lot to success. However I still think students from poorer back grounds would fair better having gone to Bristol, Durham Oxbridge etc then they would having gone to Hull, Anglia Ruskin or Sheffield Hallam.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    You're ignoring a lot of information bias here. Primarily: cost of living and graduate destinations. For the most part, graduates tend to stay around the area they went to uni in at least for the first few years of their career and it is pretty much common sense that lower cost of living areas will tend to have lower salaries.

    Another thing is the mix of grad destinations. Some graduate careers simply do not pay a lot.

    So overall, I don think your analysis of salaries is that helpful when looking at quality here.

    Posted from TSR Mobile

    this is actually a good point salaries in London are higher and their definitely was a trend in for the London Universities to do well. I guess this is true that some Graduate careers do not pay a lot. However I question what the value of doing a degree is if your going to go down a career path that does not pay well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    If one of the most important metrics is not used in this then that is a serious issue in the ranking system. with such large costs to go to university you really should be taking future career into account. A significant % of students will be going to university to better themselves and their prospects.
    It's not that important because it doesn't serve as a predictor for individual outcomes

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    LSE and Bristol are very good universities. It doesn't surprise me in the least that back ground contributes a lot to success. However I still think students from poorer back grounds would fair better having gone to Bristol, Durham Oxbridge etc then they would having gone to Hull, Anglia Ruskin or Sheffield Hallam.
    LSE and Bristol both perform significantly below expected levels for student satisfaction - they're therefore likely to start the assessment process classed as "Bronze" and have to do some extremely good explaining about why they underperform compared to the sector in order to get a Silver. Again - see post 12 in this thread and the "mock" TEF produced by THE https://www.timeshighereducation.com...-tef-table.pdf
    All three of your examples of "bad" institutions are likely to be classed as Silver without having to explain significant under performance.


    And the POINT is that if you declare a university bronze, silver or gold based on graduate earnings then there is an INCENTIVE for universities to discriminate against applicants from low income backgrounds (as even if they do well they will earn 10% (or more) lower than a student from a high income background). Which is WHY graduate earnings are NOT included in the metrics for determining whether a university is bronze, silver or gold.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    LSE and Bristol both perform significantly below expected levels for student satisfaction - they're therefore likely to start the assessment process classed as "Bronze" and have to do some extremely good explaining about why they underperform compared to the sector in order to get a Silver. Again - see post 12 in this thread and the "mock" TEF produced by THE https://www.timeshighereducation.com...-tef-table.pdf
    All three of your examples of "bad" institutions are likely to be classed as Silver without having to explain significant under performance.


    And the POINT is that if you declare a university bronze, silver or gold based on graduate earnings then there is an INCENTIVE for universities to discriminate against applicants from low income backgrounds (as even if they do well they will earn 10% (or more) lower than a student from a high income background). Which is WHY graduate earnings are NOT included in the metrics for determining whether a university is bronze, silver or gold.
    Well I know as things currently stand, I would fair better at LSE or Bristol then i would at Sheffield Hallam.

    LSE is irrelevant to me though because I will never apply there. I want to do a maths degree not a mathmatics and economics degree. I still recognize it is supposed to be a good course.

    If they really rank Sheffield Hallam Anglia Ruskin and Hull as better then Bristol then it does make the whole thing dubious.

    Having said all that I have heard about Students not been satisfied at Bristol and it is something I would look into before applying.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think we can all agree that Oxbridge is gold, LSE and Imperial are next. Then UCL, Durham, Bristol. Then the rest including KCl and the other Russell Groups.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    I think we can all agree that Oxbridge is gold, LSE and Imperial are next. Then UCL, Durham, Bristol. Then the rest including KCl and the other Russell Groups.
    Based on the splits suggested by the government there are likely to be 25 universities classed as Gold, 63 Silver and 38 Bronze (assuming that the weighting towards bronze is on the pessimistic end).

    If FE colleges put themselves forward too then that could go up to 44 universities/colleges classed as Gold (111 Silver and 67 Bronze)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    I think we can all agree that Oxbridge is gold, LSE and Imperial are next. Then UCL, Durham, Bristol. Then the rest including KCl and the other Russell Groups.
    You would think but they seem to think that Sheffield Hallam and Anglia Ruskin are better then Bristol.

    You do need to be careful though because some universities suck for certain subjects Kings college are not good for maths for example.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Grading systems with such 'black and white' connotations attached will surely lead to further employer bias...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    this is actually a good point salaries in London are higher and their definitely was a trend in for the London Universities to do well. I guess this is true that some Graduate careers do not pay a lot. However I question what the value of doing a degree is if your going to go down a career path that does not pay well.
    And? If third sector work, nursing, teaching etc don't have strong compensation growth does that mean they aren't worthy graduate roles?

    Not everyone goes to uni with the intent of getting *the* highest paying jobs out there, which is perfectly fine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    And? If third sector work, nursing, teaching etc don't have strong compensation growth does that mean they aren't worthy graduate roles?

    Not everyone goes to uni with the intent of getting *the* highest paying jobs out there, which is perfectly fine.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I thought nurses got paid quite well, mind you its just what I heard its not something I would want to do so don't know a lot about that. Well yeah sure if its someones passion then of course but some graduate schemes are just jokes and would be weird to be someones passion. as for Teaching teachers earn a pretty reasonable salary, not to mention the chance to break out and private tutor.

    A better example would have been Art and Design degrees which typically have very low graduate salaries but sure if that is someones passion and they are aware of that then why not. I am talking about people that do weak degrees at weak universities and don't know what they want to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If it is gold, silver and bronze only, I would say Russell Group universities + unis like Loughborough, Lancaster would be gold then semi-tier like Kent, Leicester, Sussex would be silver - imo
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dante991)
    If it is gold, silver and bronze only, I would say Russell Group universities + unis like Loughborough, Lancaster would be gold then semi-tier like Kent, Leicester, Sussex would be silver - imo
    well that is what common sense would state, of course according to others it will be

    Gold Sheffield Hallam, Anglia Ruskin Liverpool St John Moors, other crud unis times 15

    Bronze peices of **** that no one should want to go to
    Cambridge Oxford Warwick Bristol Bath Imperial College London UCL etc

    but yeah I would hope your right and they are wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    well that is what common sense would state, of course according to others it will be

    Gold Sheffield Hallam, Anglia Ruskin Liverpool St John Moors, other crud unis times 15

    Bronze peices of **** that no one should want to go to
    Cambridge Oxford Warwick Bristol Bath Imperial College London UCL etc

    but yeah I would hope your right and they are wrong.
    Please read post 12 again and don't misrepresent my posts.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 14, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Wake up and smell the...
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

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