Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can I just say again that I am not one of the ones who places so much weight on The Russell Group, this thread was just so I could reassure myself and others that just because a University isn't in The Russell Group, doesn't mean that it can't be fantastic, and vice versa.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas...)
    Which of these Universities, from the 1994 Group, would you say could be considered equal in prestige to a Russell Group University.

    I know prestige/regard, call it what you will, varies a lot within The Russell Group itself, but just generally speaking, which ones could quite easily slip into The Russell Group?

    Thes ones I think are on par are in bold, and maybes in italics.

    University of Bath
    Birkbeck, University of London
    Durham University
    University of East Anglia
    University of Essex
    University of Exeter
    Goldsmiths, University of London
    Institute of Education, University of London
    Royal Holloway, University of London
    Lancaster University
    University of Leicester
    Loughborough University
    Queen Mary, University of London
    University of Reading
    University of St Andrews
    School of Oriental and African Studies
    University of Surrey
    University of Sussex
    University of York


    This just comes from recent talks about how non-Russell Group Unis are increasing tuition fees. Let me know what you think.

    EDIT: I am not saying that The Russell Group is the be all and end all, I am just wondering, going by the mention of it so often in the news recently, what people think. Thanks.
    Lancaster's currently 8th in the country - what makes you think it's unworthy? I suppose opinion is subjective anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Lancaster's currently 8th in the country - what makes you think it's unworthy? I suppose opinion is subjective anyway.
    I just think some League Tables aren't entirley fool proof, and Lancaster being the proof. Not that it isn't a fantastic University, just that I personally don't think it is above the likes of Bristol, York, St Andrews, Durham, Bath, Exeter, Nottingham, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thomas...)
    I just think some League Tables aren't entirley fool proof, and Lancaster being the proof. Not that it isn't a fantastic University, just that I personally don't think it is above the likes of Bristol, York, St Andrews, Durham, Bath, Exeter, Nottingham, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc...
    Really why? I completely agree with the first four universities you listed but not the ones following, I think Lancaster is better than those by a fair distance.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Thomas...)
    I just think some League Tables aren't entirley fool proof, and Lancaster being the proof. Not that it isn't a fantastic University, just that I personally don't think it is above the likes of Bristol, York, St Andrews, Durham, Bath, Exeter, Nottingham, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle etc...
    I agree to be honest. However, I am not certainly sure that ALL of the unis you listed at the end of your posts are actually better than Lancaster. Lancaster is probably very good, but I doubt it's actually 8th in the country. League tables aren't really reliable. Greenwich was ranked 8th for Maths once when god knows it is not! Different league table use different measures. On that league table that has Greenwich high for Maths was based on student satisfaction.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Really why? I completely agree with the first four universities you listed but not the ones following, I think Lancaster is better than those by a fair distance.
    I think Bath and Nottingham is much better than Lancaster to be honest.

    Especially Nottingham. But that's jsut my opinion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by street.lovin')
    I think Bath and Nottingham is much better than Lancaster to be honest.

    Especially Nottingham. But that's jsut my opinion.

    Hmm well I don't know everything about these universities so that's perfectly viable. League tables aren't everything, I agree - a difference of more than ten in ranking must indicate something though lool
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Hmm well I don't know everything about these universities so that's perfectly viable. League tables aren't everything, I agree - a difference of more than ten in ranking must indicate something though lool
    Probably.

    I don't actually look at league tables a lot. If I did, I only looked at the subject tables or the RAE.

    Mainly because it is more relevant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L3mon)
    Depends how research intensive they are... Considering Russell Group gets a lot more funding, I don't see how other unis can compete.
    Which is why he's referring to the 1994 Group universities...

    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Really why? I completely agree with the first four universities you listed but not the ones following, I think Lancaster is better than those by a fair distance.
    Why? Because league tables tell you that? Even if these league tables can competely change next year (for it was only a year ago when Lancaster was ranked alongside those universities, and can easily be ranked allongside them again next year - not that the difference of a few places is significant anyway)?

    If that's your opinion, fair enough, but I don't see what you can base that opinion on?

    You're talking about some of our strongest and largest universities in the country. I'm just getting fed up of explaining it now, but anyone with any knowledge of higher education (quality of students at those institutions, quality of teaching, research) will know that they are broadly comparable (albeit with sometimes different strengths as all mutlifaculty universities have strengths across the board but with some modest departments).

    I'm not "dissing" Lancaster, it's a good university, but it is not better (or worse) than Newcastle, Birmingham, Nottingham. I mean...who cares about the Nobel laureates and significant research income (and world leading research) at those universities...

    It is difficult to compare multi-faculty universities, especially ones very different in size such as Lancaster and Birmingham/Manchester, but there certainly is not this "ladder" in place. Most of the Russell and 1994 Group universities provide a broadly comparable education, certainly for an undergraduate.

    (Original post by kevin6767)
    The Russell Group is a group of research intensive university as they were in 1994.
    No it's not. The membership of the Russell Group is liable to change and hasn't remained the same since it was created. Warwick and LSE weren't original members of the Russell Group, for example.

    Places like York and Bath have shot up just about ever league table there is.
    Pedantic point, but York was still fairly high in the early years of the league tables (and is, or certainly was, one of the universities to have never dropped out of the Sunday Times top 10). So there was no need for it to "shoot up".

    The 1994 group universities have grown and some of the Russell Group haven't been able to keep up with some of the 1994 group.
    What makes you say that?

    Durham has opened it's own medical school. Times change.
    Not really...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by street.lovin')
    I agree to be honest. However, I am not certainly sure that ALL of the unis you listed at the end of your posts are actually better than Lancaster. Lancaster is probably very good, but I doubt it's actually 8th in the country. League tables aren't really reliable. Greenwich was ranked 8th for Maths once when god knows it is not! Different league table use different measures. On that league table that has Greenwich high for Maths was based on student satisfaction.
    Ok, maybe I went a bit over the top with the list there. But I just don't understand why Universities like Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Liverpool and Leeds are always ranked so low in the League Tables, (around 25-35) they are all old, well established Univesities. I don't understand how places like Bath, York, Lancaster, Exeter and Loughborough are more highly ranked than them? These are all much newer and not as large.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Which is why he's referring to the 1994 Group universities...



    Why? Because league tables tell you that? Even if these league tables can competely change next year (for it was only a year ago when Lancaster was ranked alongside those universities, and can easily be ranked allongside them again next year - not that the difference of a few places is significant anyway)?

    If that's your opinion, fair enough, but I don't see what you can base that opinion on?

    You're talking about some of our strongest and largest universities in the country. I'm just getting fed up of explaining it now, but anyone with any knowledge of higher education (quality of students at those institutions, quality of teaching, research) will know that they are broadly comparable (albeit with sometimes different strengths as all mutlifaculty universities have strengths across the board but with some modest departments).

    I'm not "dissing" Lancaster, it's a good university, but it is not better (or worse) than Newcastle, Birmingham, Nottingham. I mean...who cares about the Nobel laureates and significant research income (and world leading research) at those universities...

    It is difficult to compare multi-faculty universities, especially ones very different in size such as Lancaster and Birmingham/Manchester, but there certainly is not this "ladder" in place. Most of the Russell and 1994 Group universities provide a broadly comparable education, certainly for an undergraduate.



    No it's not. The membership of the Russell Group is liable to change and hasn't remained the same since it was created. Warwick and LSE weren't original members of the Russell Group, for example.



    Pedantic point, but York was still fairly high in the early years of the league tables (and is, or certainly was, one of the universities to have never dropped out of the Sunday Times top 10). So there was no need for it to "shoot up".



    What makes you say that?



    Not really...
    Chill your beans, I was only trying to say that I wouldn't call Lancaster worse. The people who compile league tables are much better qualified to judge than most. I even said league tables weren't everything and that you may be right, so don't get your knickers in a twist over it lol.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Hmm well I don't know everything about these universities so that's perfectly viable. League tables aren't everything, I agree - a difference of more than ten in ranking must indicate something though lool
    No, because it's really not the case that 12 > 13 > 14.....

    What's more you can significantly narrow this difference yourself by fiddling with the weighting (sending Lancaster down to 13 and Nottingham up to 15 - using the same statistics).

    For most of the years league tables have been in existence these universities have outranked Lancaster (some by well over 10 places). This didn't mean that Lancaster was "miles behind" them, and, now that Lancaster has ranked in the top ten this year, doesn't mean Lancaster has overcome this gulf overnight.

    I probably sound like a broken record but I really cann't emphasise the point- this ladder does not exist in real life.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Thomas...)
    Ok, maybe I went a bit over the top with the list there. But I just don't understand why Universities like Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Liverpool and Leeds are always ranked so low in the League Tables, (around 25-35) they are all old, well established Univesities. I don't understand how places like Bath, York, Lancaster, Exeter and Loughborough are more highly ranked than them? These are all much newer and not as large.
    Being new doesn't necessarily mean 'not as good'.

    Warwick have been in TOP 10 for many years and it has only been around for the same period of time as Loughborough.

    I just think it depends on the measures. League tables use the measure they believe are most important.

    Some unis climb up the league table with their student satisfaction rating, which doesn't really reflect the quality of the course or the uni to be honest.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    No, because it's really not the case that 12 > 13 > 14.....

    What's more you can significantly narrow this difference yourself by fiddling with the weighting (sending Lancaster down to 13 and Nottingham up to 15 - using the same statistics).

    For most of the years league tables have been in existence these universities have outranked Lancaster (some by well over 10 places). This didn't mean that Lancaster was "miles behind" them, and, now that Lancaster has ranked in the top ten this year, doesn't mean Lancaster has overcome this gulf overnight.

    I probably sound like a broken record but I really cann't emphasise the point- this ladder does not exist in real life.
    Yes, yes, fair enough. I was only saying that from an objective view, a university ranked 8th compared to one ranked 20th, you'd assume was better. I'm not saying that the assumption would be correct. It really doesn't matter, does it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Chill your beans, I was only trying to say that I wouldn't call Lancaster worse.
    Well, you said that certain universities were "worse"....

    I even said league tables weren't everything and that you may be right, so don't get your knickers in a twist over it lol.
    Yes, but you still seem to think a difference of 10 places possibly says something.

    I'm not criticising you, but I'm just incredibly frustrated that we have the same threads time and time again and that people with little experience of higher education (some don't have any) speak with such authority. I'm not saying you are one of them, though.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by River85)
    Well, you said that certain universities were "worse"....



    Yes, but you still seem to think a difference of 10 places possibly says something.

    I'm not criticising you, but I'm just incredibly frustrated that we have the same threads time and time again and that people with little experience of higher education (some don't have any) speak with such authority. I'm not saying you are one of them, though.
    *feeling guilty*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    **** russell groups
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Exactly lol I'm not - I've visited both Nottingham and Lancaster, did extensive research into most unis mentioned here when preparing my UCAS application, and I'm not stating anything with rigidity, only malleable opinion. Anyway hey ho
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Birkbeck and SOAS.

    Birkbeck definitely.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by agolati)
    Birkbeck and SOAS.

    Birkbeck definitely.
    I think a lot a London Unis are out shadowed by the likes of UCL, Imperial and LSE and that they would do a lot better in tables, and reputation with students if they weren't in London, but solitary in a city.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.