The Sunday Times University Guide 2010 - Discussion thread

Because of the National Student Survey results. Take them out and it's a solid fifth (2 points behind UCL).

Aw, yay. I'm sick of people knocking Queen Mary on TSR, it really doesn't deserve it.

Ah! So we take the tables as gospel truth to the minutest detail, unless they don't give us the result we want or expect, in which case it is all right to ignore the bits we don't like?

The ABC1 etc classification is the NRS classification. It was used in market research but has become increasingly criticised.

I know that in the 2001 Census the government/National Statistics used a different system (NS-SEC).

http://www.ons.gov.uk/about-statistics/classifications/current/ns-sec/cats-and-classes/category-descriptions/index.html

I think this is becoming the standard classification. I've seen it used more often than the old NRS anyway.

I must say I do find it funny how so many on TSR take league tables to be gospel.

Because of the National Student Survey results. Take them out and it's a solid fifth (2 points behind UCL).

i don;t like the disparties in the tables....its politics....the right wing ******* (times and sunday times) don't like soas!!!...check guardian and independent they love soas...

Although, I love league tables I certainly don't take them as gospel. However, I do believe The Sunday Times University Guide league table is the most credible.

Why is Manchester so low?

Even this is fairly recent as, pre-NSS, it was as low as the 40s in some of the rankings. Note that the St Andrews wikipedia article only lists its position since 2005 and ignores the previous twelve years.

This is not my slating St Andrews more than it is slating the tables. It's just fact.

It is all stupid if you ask me and league tables should be scrapped.

The only vague 'rankings' I have a mild interest in are the ones which list most state school intake, most middle class, least middle class, etc. because they make for interesting reading and thought. Apart from that, the tables are useless.

St Andrews is proof though that alot of people subconsciously take league tables seriously. Many people on here now automatically say St Andrews is in the very top group purely because it has ranked well becuae of the NSS. 5 Years ago no one on here even put St Anderew's in a list of their top 10 (i looked at an old thread on that). No doubt half the reason St Andrew's appliations have risen nearly 20% in 2 years is because of their ranking.

It just shows how ranking plays on us. Who knows, if LSE has five 12th place rankings in the next 5 years because of the NSS, people will no doubt say how it has 'lost it' which would be utter rubbish academically.

It is just like Edinburgh, Notitngham and Manchester. Edinburgh used to be held in higher regard than St Andrews on here, but no more purely due to rankings. Also Nottingham and Manchester have apparantly 'fallen back' purely due to a drop in rankings. It has nothing to do with academics.

It is all stupid if you ask me and league tables should be scrapped.

Are these on the internet?

I don't understand how students can be more 'satisfied' at St. Andrews than Edinburgh or Manchester. I always found it a bit of aa boring place. Is there nothing unis like Edinburgh and Manc can do about the student satisfaction? They are both research intensive universities so they are more recognised globally, than places like Durham and St. Andrews and and hence come behind Oxbridge/ Imperial/UCL in the world rankings. However, they are underrated right here in the UK...