(Original post by AfghanistanBananistan)
Im sure people will argue left right and centre about some controversial ranks (esp Manchester), but people these are facts from experts so we will just have to take their word for it.
I'm no expert in graduate recruitment, but....actually wait I am an expert in graduate recruitment.
It's pretty obvious what their methodology was, they went to the websites of the the top 100 companies (based on the Times list) looked at their university event calenders and basically counted how many of the top 100 went to each uni.
For London I'm pretty sure they've just listed the events organized by the University of London careers service as opposed to the ones at individual colleges. Which is pretty stupid and a good sign that they're actually clueless.
But back to the data, it is an interesting question why Manchester is ranked higher than say Oxbridge, surely the "best" employers are all going to be recruiting at Oxbridge ?
Well to understand why this isn't the case you have to consider the data, it's based upon the Times top 100 companies. How is this list generated ? - it's generated by an unweighted survey of students.
So companies that are favoured by say Manchester students are going to get a higher ranking in the Times list than those at say Oxford, purely because of Manchester's massive size. And which companies are favoured by Manchester students ? - by lucky coincidence they happen to be the companies that recruit at Manchester. Hence why this list favours big universities.
In practice if you take a random sample of large graduate recruiters, you will find they do tend to recruit at the traditional top-tier unis, hence even in this survey quite a few smaller top-tier unis do well in the list. A combination of this and the big university bias explains quite nicely why the list ended up as it did.