This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The bumper thread of University League Tables discussion - includes an info post

Reply 980

MissUNIverse

League tables really do not matter.
It's much more about prestige.

Reply 981

tom29whu

2

Thanks.
Thats the one ive been going by, as well as the one on theCompleteuniversityguide.co.uk which I think is compiled with help from the Guardian

tom29whu

Hi,

I am looking at league tables and there are just so many different ones

I was wondering if one is more respected than the other? Also, whats the most important thing to look at when searching through tables? Is it consistency among all the tables?

If we are all being honest, are they even that important?

Thanks,
Tom

No, they're all as bad as each other and the only people who actually pay any attention to them are teenage students.

Employers know where the best graduates tend to come from; they don't need a league table to tell the this. Academics know where the best work in their field comes from; they don't need league tables to tell them this. Occasionally universities like to boast about the positions they receive on their undergraduate prospectuses or websites but you'll never hear them being used around anyone else.

Reply 983

tom29whu

2

MissUNIverse

League tables really do not matter.
It's much more about prestige.

so outside of the Cambridge/Oxford/Warwick/Imperial, it doesnt make too much difference you say?

Because it would be hard to argue either way that, for example, Southampton University has more prestige than University of East Anglia, despite the fact one is 10th on the Times list, and one is outside the top 20.

Do you agree with this statement?

tom29whu

so outside of the Cambridge/Oxford/Warwick/Imperial, it doesnt make too much difference you say?

Because it would be hard to argue either way that, for example, Southampton University has more prestige than University of East Anglia, despite the fact one is 10th on the Times list, and one is outside the top 20.

Do you agree with this statement?

Why do you care what she thinks? She's only 18 ffs. In fact, why do you care what almost any of us say? There are very few people who still post in this section that have any experience with the graduate jobs market. You'd be much better off talking with or researching the firms that you want to work for when you graduate because requirements tend to differ from sector to sector.

Reply 985

MissUNIverse

tom29whu

so outside of the Cambridge/Oxford/Warwick/Imperial, it doesnt make too much difference you say?

Because it would be hard to argue either way that, for example, Southampton University has more prestige than University of East Anglia, despite the fact one is 10th on the Times list, and one is outside the top 20.

Do you agree with this statement?

Yes.

At the top: Oxbridge.
Then comes 2nd class : UCL/LSE/IMperial/Warwick
and then 3rd class: other russel group
then 4th class: non russel
and then ex poly

this isn't 100% accurate but should give you a basic understanding of it.

Reply 986

alexs2602

22

tom29whu

Hi,

I am looking at league tables and there are just so many different ones

I was wondering if one is more respected than the other? Also, whats the most important thing to look at when searching through tables? Is it consistency among all the tables?

If we are all being honest, are they even that important?

Thanks,
Tom

As said in the first response they are pretty much gibberish. The Guardian ranking table pisses me off so much. They use a lot of satisfaction ratings for their marking scheme which throws pretty much any resemblance of accuracy right off.

Reply 987

Quady

20

MissUNIverse

Yes.

At the top: Oxbridge.
Then comes 2nd class : UCL/LSE/IMperial/Warwick
and then 3rd class: other russel group
then 4th class: non russel
and then ex poly

this isn't 100% accurate but should give you a basic understanding of it.

How can you say gimperial is as good as the LSE, they aren't comparable.

Reply 988

cloud29187

Just wondering what peoples thoughts are on Royal Holloway.... A small uni in comparison to UCL, KCL ect but nevertheless a very good uni (ranking dont count for much but 88th in the world) also their biochemistry course is extremely well thought... any thoughts ?

Reply 989

TheSownRose

16

No - reputation isn't based on league tables.

Reply 990

TheSownRose

16

Original post by Milk <3

no but if a uni consistently doesnt do well in consecutive league tables surely eventually its reputation will be lower?

Not necessarily. I think it's Leeds that is consistently in the twenties and thirties on league tables, but is considered to be a good uni. On the other hand, Loughborough is often quite high but doesn't really have the same punch.

Besides, league tables are very rarely consistent. :wink:

Reply 991

Zottula

16

Personally I wouldn't get too hung up over league tables. Durham is a good uni and I seriously doubt the Guardian's rankings this year for biology will harm its reputation.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 992

rrahimer

10

Last year(?) they put Portsmouth as 4th best maths department in the country...
I know you shouldn't really listen to league tables but seriously?

Reply 993

ellakrystina

14

Original post by Milk <3

no but if a uni consistently doesnt do well in consecutive league tables surely eventually its reputation will be lower?

Yes, eventually. But until the current generation of graduates of said reputable universities die out, there will always prejudice against newer universities who have done well, regardless of the funding from being an old establishment.

OP, just go where you feel comfortable :smile:

Reply 994

River85

17

Original post by Milk <3

no but if a uni consistently doesnt do well in consecutive league tables surely eventually its reputation will be lower?

Not really, no, as a university's research and teaching is far more important than its position in a league table. Few people will take notice of a league table except for some applicants. Even then, Durham has always traditionally been a popular university, especially with those from middle class and privately educated backgrounds, and a modest position in a league table is unlikely to change this. I say modest, not poor, as 17th isn't exactly poor. Even if we are to take league tables seriously then you still can't treat it as some ladder, or even literal table, that 15th is better than 16th, 16th better than 17th and so on.

Durham has always performed strongly in the Times, Sunday Times and (newer) Indepedent tables. Though there always has been fluctuations as there are for pretty much all but two or three universities.

If it began to fall in those tables then, yes, you'll possibly have a point. Athough I don't feel this will affect its reputation/standing within academia (unless its research quality also declines) it may have a slight affect when it comes to applicant numbers. This has been seen with other universities. But it has actually climbed up the other three tables in recent years.

Edit: - Basically, check the position of Durham relative to Middlesex in the other two (or, if looking at general rankings for the ST doesn't break down into subjects, 3) and Durham outranks Middlesex. This creates a contradiction and shows how unreliable league tables can be. I think applicants, and certainly the world of academia, realise this. So it's not like the Guardian is the only league table.

I'm assuming the reason why the Guardian ranks Middlesex above Durham is largely due to its value added score. In other words Middlesex take students with lower entrance grades but still award a roughly comparable number of 2:1s and firsts. The value added score is unique to the Guardian.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 995

angelmxxx

14

Original post by River85

I'm assuming the reason why the Guardian ranks Middlesex above Durham is largely due to its value added score. In other words Middlesex take students with lower entrance grades but still award a roughly comparable number of 2:1s and firsts. The value added score is unique to the Guardian.

If value added is based on how many people get 2:1s and 1sts, that assumes the Guardian thinks it's as hard to get a 2:1 from (low-ranked ex-polytechnic university) in x subject than it is from Cambridge in x subject, which is clearly rubbish.

Reply 996

Nichrome

18

Original post by angelmxxx

If value added is based on how many people get 2:1s and 1sts, that assumes the Guardian thinks it's as hard to get a 2:1 from (low-ranked ex-polytechnic university) in x subject than it is from Cambridge in x subject, which is clearly rubbish.

But according to everone on here, that's the case. I frequently get told my 2.1 is the same from Cambridge as it would have been at TVU.

Reply 997

angelmxxx

14

Original post by Nichrome

But according to everone on here, that's the case. I frequently get told my 2.1 is the same from Cambridge as it would have been at TVU.

really?! Every post I see on here seems to be saying a 3rd from Cambridge is better than a 1st from TVU/etc.

Anyway if you think about it, academically it can't be true - because if it was then nobody would get 2:1s/1sts at lower-ranked unis. (Or everyone from Cambridge would get ridiculously high marks, because their exams would have to be at a level that people who got DE/EE at A-level could access the top range of marks too.)

Also I've seen exam/coursework papers from a range of unis so personally I know that the standard of uni work does obviously cater for the standard of entry requirements.

Reply 998

Quady

20

Original post by angelmxxx

If value added is based on how many people get 2:1s and 1sts, that assumes the Guardian thinks it's as hard to get a 2:1 from (low-ranked ex-polytechnic university) in x subject than it is from Cambridge in x subject, which is clearly rubbish.

Because the teaching quality is higher at ex-polys and so its easier to get a higher grade you mean?

Reply 999

Quady

20

Original post by Nichrome

But according to everone on here, that's the case. I frequently get told my 2.1 is the same from Cambridge as it would have been at TVU.

But the key difference being Cambridge students are 3-4 times more likely to attain a 2.1 than someone at TVU.

The bumper thread of University League Tables discussion - includes an info post

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you