rant about kings' reputation

The Times uses as one of their criteria the numbers of students who get firsts or 2:1s, which is hardly a measure of educational quality.

The Times is far more respected because it does not have strange weightings like the Guardian. Don't you dare try believe Essex is better than Bristol for Economics because I won't even warrant such a crazed statement with a dignified response

Essex is better than Bristol for Economics, according to The Times...

Out the window, your argument just went.

Climb down your pedestal, my argument still stands. The Times has far more relevant tables at the end of the day.

So The Times is relevent, but by your own admission:-

"Don't you dare try believe Essex is better than Bristol for Economics because I won't even warrant such a crazed statement with a dignified response"

Hardly a bulletproof argument you're forming, especially from somebody at a "top" university.

Yes, but as a whole, the Times' criteria and individual weightings are far more relevant.

Climb down your pedestal, my argument still stands. The Times has far more relevant tables at the end of the day.

Your argument holds about as much water as a screen door. First you rave about how much better The Times tables are, and how "crazed" The Guardian's assertion that Essex is better than Bristol for Economics is and how you wouldn't even "warrant it with a response". When The Times clearly agrees with that assertion.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've even glanced over the league tables you're comparing.

If the best example that you can think of isn't at all accurate, then I would wager a guess that your thesis isn't accurate in the first place.

If Essex students can walk in with 155 points less than Bristol students and come out with a better education, then more power to them! What's your point? Are we arguing about the quality of an institution or its students?

Top 20 is nothing. You're wasting your time at university unless it is top 10 for your subject or overall.

So what uni in the top 10 in The Guardian tables is "rubbish" exactly?

(Note: This may require you to actually look at the table)

KCL is not only better than "two average institutions". It's also better than all-but-a-dozen institutions in the UK, which is over a hundred - many of which are FAR better than average.

How can most institutions be better than average? Unless there were a few truly horrible ones pulling the average down, but in practise the opposite is more the case.

what cheek.

overall top 10 or a certain subject?

Overall.

Which ones are rubbish?

Looking at it, there are a few entrants that I would dispute.