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

Is London Met, South bank actually apart of the university of London?

I never understood why Lancaster always does so well in these tables - it's not an issue for me, per se, but I always take league tables with a pinch of salt.

Not always. It's only been in these last two years. So that's very, very recently considering the tables are close to 20 years old (Independent's is under 10).

The answer is obvious if you look at the table...

I never understood why Lancaster always does so well in these tables - it's not an issue for me, per se, but I always take league tables with a pinch of salt. There already is a general idea of what the 'good' unis are, and as far as I'm aware, Manchester is one of them - so it performing consistently a lot lower than Lancaster, for example, just proves that.

i know imperial is a very good university
i didn't say it was unlikely.... im saying that their maths department isn't as good as warwicks so it deserves fourth.

for cambridge you need STEP + interview
oxford have their own entrance exam + interview
warwick you need STEP
imperial you don't need anything, just A's in every module (easier than STEP i can assure you)... they have an interview, but it isn't nearly as intense as an oxbridge one... (a few mates of mine told me they only ask a few relatively basic questions)
therefore the quality of warwick candidates are better than imperials

actually its clear you don't know much about it.

this university table is well off anyway.... if you look further down the list it places nottingham above UCL for mathematics.. something to lol at.

warwick > imperial for mathematics IMO.

imperial is however better for all other departments.. (except law & finance)
imperial has gotten third (on a bullcrap league table) by name in this case

disagree all you like..

Not sure why you think UCL clearly better than Nottingham - look at RAE result (UCL pretty appalling - 12th for pure, okayish, but almost uncountably low for applied.)

Also NSS 3.9 is a bad result - closed doors?, cant be bothered talking to students? no response to complaints about crap courses?....

One might put it the other way round - UCL maths tariff points of 518 is a triumph of marketing over reality.

LOL at Notts even having a smell at being better than UCL.

I can't begin to say what a monkey Uni Notss is.

Even NTU is better than them at some things

I guess the whole 'ancient' image they try to project is working, don't you think?

so you're saying you'd rather do maths at nottingham than UCL?

Its a downright lie isn't it ?

Was UOL til 1958 ?

Do you know they try to portray themselves as some sort of international U ?

Like UCLA......?

Nott U at Ningpoo China, most ridiculous thing I ever heard.


LOL

For the mathematics, certainly yes.

One might think that London would make a difference to employability - but the difference is very small 76 vs 74 ..... i.e. UCL maths is not making use of that advantage.

Interesting approach. I guess you would say the same about Warwick Maths. Not a university till the mid sixties ....

So we should order them by date of foundation (irrespective of subject).... ?