The final say on university leauge tables Watch

This discussion is closed.
ssxx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible. All these people ranking tier 1,2,3,3,5 as if there are big differences.

This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...


Tier 1

Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)


Tier 2


York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.

Tier 3

The rest of the universities, not prestigious or world leading but some have good departments.

Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.

Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.

Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.

Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
26
cant_think_of_name
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Words fail me.
7
ssxx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by cant_think_of_name)
Words fail me.
Well you managed to type 3 words.

Here have a neg, it is one me!
4
Makebelieve15
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Switch Edinburgh with Warwick
7
User995789
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by ssxx)
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.

This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...


Tier 1

Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Edinburgh.


Tier 2


York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.



Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.

Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.

Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.

Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
You forgot to say "UK unis" league tables....
psht this hasn't got **** on Harvard and MIT or close to the other Ivy league unis
3
cant_think_of_name
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by ssxx)
Well you managed to type 3 words.

Here have a neg, it is one me!
Thanks for the neg

My point was simply that this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.. why would you rank a university higher because of its history? What sort of (detailed) research have you done into these universities and their research? More money does not mean better research.

As well as this, these are not subject specific - Loughborough, Leicester for Engineering, Lancaster for Maths and Social Sciences, King's College for quite a few subjects, etc.

Not to mention that UCAS points on entry is less important than the quality of graduates on leaving :rolleyes:
4
ssxx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by cant_think_of_name)
Thanks for the neg


[/s]
History plays an important roles in reputation!
People invest and have confidence because of history.
You need to learn a lot, mr school boy.
1
cant_think_of_name
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by ssxx)
History plays an important roles in reputation!
People invest and have confidence because of history.
You need to learn a lot, mr school boy.
Reputation means nothing towards quality of teaching :rolleyes:


EDIT: should have made it clear I meant historical reputation, rather than current reputation
1
ssxx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by cant_think_of_name)
Reputation means nothing towards quality of teaching :rolleyes:
What are you on about? You would have a bad reputation if your teaching was so bad!
Your still at school.

I am done with you.
0
russellsteapot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
I'd love to see a 'quality of teaching', 'quality of course' and 'quality of facilities' league table. History, research, Nobel prizes, entry tariff and number of horses in the university stable block is all very interesting, but I wouldn't mind seeing something that's actually relevant to the quality of undergraduate education one day.

Even research quality is more concerned with postgraduate study (aside from module choice being based on researchers' interests), given that it's unlikely you'll find many undergraduates involved in complex world-leading research, or even learning more than the basics about it.
4
ssxx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by russellsteapot)
I'd love to see a 'quality of teaching', 'quality of course' and 'quality of facilities' league table. History, research, Nobel prizes, entry tariff and number of horses in the university stable block is all very interesting, but I wouldn't mind seeing something that's actually relevant to the quality of undergraduate education one day.

Even research quality is more concerned with postgraduate study (aside from module choice being based on researchers' interests), given that it's unlikely you'll find many undergraduates involved in complex world-leading research, or even learning more than the basics about it.
Undergraduates go onto postgraduate,:rolleyes:
I rather be lead by the man who wrote the boom than one who read the book.
1
cant_think_of_name
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by ssxx)
What are you on about? You would have a bad reputation if your teaching was so bad!
Your still at school.

I am done with you.
It's fine, I'm done with you too

you're*

[the reputation I was referring to was historical reputation. how good a university was 50 years ago has little, if anything, to do with quality of teaching now]

Nice talking to you
0
Trent23
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by ssxx)
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.

This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...


Tier 1

Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)


Tier 2


York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.



Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.

Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.

Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.

Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.

Edinburgh, Tier 1 no way. can I take it you go there?
0
Makebelieve15
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by ssxx)
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.

This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...


Tier 1

Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, (Edinburgh, associated with 15 Nobel Prize winners)


Tier 2


York, Durham, St Andrews, Warwick, Bath, Kings, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Cardiff,Glasgow, Newcastle.



Before you people start going on about how Warwick should be in Tier 1, please pause and get your facts in order.

Warwick does not have Nobel prize affiliation to match the tier 1, even Liverpool has more Nobel prize affiliation than Warwick and greater research grant.

Warwick has good maths and economics departments but that does not justify it to be in tier 1, because some of you are obsessed with IB.

Warwick's research income is £88,200,000 a year, which is very low compared to places such as Edinburgh £180,990,000, UCL £283,383,000,
Even kings college gets more than Warwick, £147,099,000.
Manchester has 25 Nobel winners...>Edinburgh. Should be Tier 1 in your methodology brah.
3
russellsteapot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by ssxx)
Undergraduates go onto postgraduate,:rolleyes:
I rather be lead by the man who wrote the boom than one who read the book.
Yes, and when they do so, they'll actually be doing research.

Of course, if they picked a university based on amazing research quality, history and Nobel prizes, but shockingly bad teaching and piecemeal course content at undergraduate level (many of the best researchers I've come into contact with view teaching as a distraction, so you're not guaranteed the best education from the best researcher), they'll be wholly unprepared for postgraduate research when they get into it.
0
lNurl
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by cant_think_of_name)
Reputation means nothing towards quality of teaching :rolleyes:
it means a lot.

look,
1. If reputation is high, then uni can attract very strong academics which leads to quality of teaching going to be high.

2. If reputation is high, uni attracts very strong students that focused on learning more, which leads to good graduates.

3. If reputation is high, but the quality is low, believe me, these students are not stupid, they won't stay there and in long term no one will go to that uni => reputation will fall.
2
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by ssxx)
There have been endless posts about league tables.
Yes, the league tables are flawed in many ways and lot of people who don't know any better will follow them like the bible.

This ranking below gives the correct ranking based on many factors, such as history, Nobel prize affiliation, research power, quality of research, UCAS points on entry ect...
Could you please explain your methodology in more detail? Have you used the traditional z-scoring method used by most league table compilers for combining metrics with different characteristics?

Also I'd be interested in what qualifies you to call THIS the "final say" on league tables? Are you a researcher in university prestige like the compilers of the ARWU? Have you compiled substantial perception surveys of academics and employers like the compilers of the THE and QS world rankings? Do you have decades of experience of university administration, management, quality assessment and data analysis like the compilers of the Times/Guardian/Complete rankings?

Or are you just trying to justify your own self importance/intelligence?
2
ssxx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Makebelieve15)
Manchester has 25 Nobel winners...>Edinburgh. Should be Tier 1 in your methodology brah.
Thats just one area, manchester fails in ucas points, teaching, ect
0
ssxx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by PQ)
Could you please explain your methodology in more detail? Have you used the traditional z-scoring method used by most league table compilers for combining metrics with different characteristics?

Also I'd be interested in what qualifies you to call THIS the "final say" on league tables? Are you a researcher in university prestige like the compilers of the ARWU? Have you compiled substantial perception surveys of academics and employers like the compilers of the THE and QS world rankings? Do you have decades of experience of university administration, management, quality assessment and data analysis like the compilers of the Times/Guardian/Complete rankings?

Or are you just trying to justify your own self importance/intelligence?
Yes, to most of questions apart from the last.
0
ssxx
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by lNurl)
it means a lot.

look,
1. If reputation is high, then uni can attract very strong academics which leads to quality of teaching going to be high.

2. If reputation is high, uni attracts very strong students that focused on learning more, which leads to good graduates.

3. If reputation is high, but the quality is low, believe me, these students are not stupid, they won't stay there and in long term no one will go to that uni => reputation will fall.
Well said!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (532)
66.75%
No (265)
33.25%

Watched Threads

View All