The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Jon of the North
Oxford
Cambridge
LSE
UCL
Durham
KCL


KCL in the top 6?!!!!!! Clearly it's not.

EDIT: Ah I see you go there so that would be why :wink:
(edited 12 years ago)
Does it really matter?
Original post by Jon of the North
Oxford
Cambridge
LSE
UCL
Durham
KCL


this is about right, but substitute ICL for KCL
Reply 1783
oxbridge
LSE
Imperial
Ucl
Kings College
Warwick
Tier 1: Oxford, Cambridge
Tier 2: LSE, Imperial, UCL
Tier 3: Warwick, Durham, St. Andrews

This is in an overall sense. Of course certain departments will be better than others. At the end of the day university reputation/prestige is only vital in investment banking, consultancy and law (and maybe academia but that's more department/supervisor focused). Also, there isn't too much of a gap between the tiers (I do think St. Andrews and Durham are a bit overrated though, especially on this forum).
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Mr. Roxas
as the thread title asks, name the top 6 universities in the UK, in order. Thanks :smile:


Here's a site that answers your question, it depends on what degree so it lets you choose one and base it on that.
Reply 1786
Could anyone give me the top 20 universities for English at The Times, please?

It'll be much appreciated. :smile:
Original post by Mo_H92
Could anyone give me the top 20 universities for English at The Times, please?

It'll be much appreciated. :smile:


Times 2012 English league table:

1 University of Oxford
2 University of Cambridge
3 University College London
4 Durham University
5 The University of Warwick
6 University of Exeter
7 The University of York
8 University of St Andrews
9 Queen Mary, University of London
10 The University of Nottingham
11 University of Leicester
12 University of Leeds
13 Loughborough University
14 Lancaster University
15 University of Liverpool
16 University of Southampton
17 The University of Edinburgh
17 University of Glasgow
19 University of Sussex
20 Newcastle University

Out of a total 101 listed UK institutions
Original post by MC armani
No LSE? :confused:


Doesn't teach it. For the same reason no Imperial
Original post by nulli tertius
Doesn't teach it. For the same reason no Imperial


My bad, thought it was just the general table.
Reply 1790
Original post by ultimate mashup
Times 2012 English league table:

1 University of Oxford
2 University of Cambridge
3 University College London
4 Durham University
5 The University of Warwick
6 University of Exeter
7 The University of York
8 University of St Andrews
9 Queen Mary, University of London
10 The University of Nottingham
11 University of Leicester
12 University of Leeds
13 Loughborough University
14 Lancaster University
15 University of Liverpool
16 University of Southampton
17 The University of Edinburgh
17 University of Glasgow
19 University of Sussex
20 Newcastle University

Out of a total 101 listed UK institutions


Thanks a lot! :smile:
Much appriciated :smile:
I have no idea why people even read or listen to these rankings, do any of you even understand the poor methodology behind them? If you want a real judge of how "good" academically a university is; look at the academics that are there, are there any notable academics, what are they currently researching, is it at the frontier of that subject or is it lagging behind and how much funding does the academic institution get from both government and private investors. You should never read these rankings, you should do your own research with those questions in mind rather than making silly mistakes.
Original post by Bradelygh
I have no idea why people even read or listen to these rankings, do any of you even understand the poor methodology behind them? If you want a real judge of how "good" academically a university is; look at the academics that are there, are there any notable academics, what are they currently researching, is it at the frontier of that subject or is it lagging behind and how much funding does the academic institution get from both government and private investors. You should never read these rankings, you should do your own research with those questions in mind rather than making silly mistakes.


In defence of my fellow TSRians, I think many, if not most, are well aware of the limitations of ranking tables. However, your methodology has equal limitations. Many "star" academics have little or no involvement with undergraduate teaching and except to some degree in the physical sciences the skill of accessing research funds also has little impact on the undergraduate experience.
Original post by ultimate mashup
Times 2012 English league table:

1 University of Oxford
2 University of Cambridge
3 University College London
4 Durham University
5 The University of Warwick
6 University of Exeter
7 The University of York
8 University of St Andrews
9 Queen Mary, University of London
10 The University of Nottingham
11 University of Leicester
12 University of Leeds
13 Loughborough University
14 Lancaster University
15 University of Liverpool
16 University of Southampton
17 The University of Edinburgh
17 University of Glasgow
19 University of Sussex
20 Newcastle University

Out of a total 101 listed UK institutions


I don't really follow these league tables but out of interest, what position does Sheffield come for Biosciences?
Original post by kbountra
I don't really follow these league tables but out of interest, what position does Sheffield come for Biosciences?


University of Sheffield is 3rd out of a total of 87 on the 2012 Times Bioscience league table. Only Oxford and Cambridge are higher.
Original post by ultimate mashup
University of Sheffield is 3rd out of a total of 87 on the 2012 Times Bioscience league table. Only Oxford and Cambridge are higher.


Seriously? That's quite impressive if we're being ranked ahead of the likes of Imperial, UCL, Bristol etc. Perhaps there's more meaning to these league tables after all :wink:
Original post by kbountra
Seriously? That's quite impressive if we're being ranked ahead of the likes of Imperial, UCL, Bristol etc. Perhaps there's more meaning to these league tables after all :wink:


Yeah seriously, its ranked at number 4 on the 2012 independent bioscience league table too, so I guess they must be doing something right! I think it may be something to do with their 2008 RAE research rating which is very high!
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
In defence of my fellow TSRians, I think many, if not most, are well aware of the limitations of ranking tables. However, your methodology has equal limitations. Many "star" academics have little or no involvement with undergraduate teaching and except to some degree in the physical sciences the skill of accessing research funds also has little impact on the undergraduate experience.


Funding has a huge impact on a undergraduate, not only for the future progression of that undergraduate, since more funding allows for more places on Masters courses, more diverse areas of research for that undergraduate to go in to and better facilities. More funding also enables better lecturers to be hired. If money has no impact on the quality of the development of the undergraduate, just look at Americas top universities and the amount of funding they receive and how successful there undergraduates are. Quality research also is passed down in a university to allow the latest knowledge to be taught to the upcoming graduates, to enable a greater grasp of a particular field and enhance the knowledge of that undergraduate. For me, in Mathematics and Physics , there are constant developments being made all the time.
I am afraid you have elided the argument in a number of places.

Original post by Bradelygh
Funding has a huge impact on a undergraduate,


Yes, of course it does but your original comment was specifically about research funding not funding in general.


not only for the future progression of that undergraduate, since more funding allows for more places on Masters courses, more diverse areas of research for that undergraduate to go in to and better facilities.


That makes the assumption that the undergraduate undertakes a masters at the same university as his undergraduate studies. It is hard to find statistics for those doing non-professional post-grad courses but it is somewhere around 10% of students. How many of those study at their undergraduates universities, I do not know.


More funding also enables better lecturers to be hired.


More funding attracts better researchers. The availability of more funding has a marginal impact on quality of lecturers because of national pay scales for lecturers.


If money has no impact on the quality of the development of the undergraduate, just look at Americas top universities and the amount of funding they receive and how successful there undergraduates are.


No, I am not going to look at the USA. Higher education is organised differently there. Liberal arts colleges, grad schools, tenure and absence of national pay scales means that the landscape is very different.

Quality research also is passed down in a university to allow the latest knowledge to be taught to the upcoming graduates, to enable a greater grasp of a particular field and enhance the knowledge of that undergraduate.


That has always been the research universities' argument. It isn't accepted by the proponents of liberal arts colleges in the USA or the teaching universities in the UK.

For me, in Mathematics and Physics , there are constant developments being made all the time.


My original post specifically distinguished the physical sciences where the impact of research funding on undergraduate teaching is probably at its greatest.
Reply 1799
Well the Shanghai ARWU ranking is just released, and not surprisingly USA convincingly dominates it by providing 17 out of the top 20.

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2011.html

Latest

Trending

Trending