The Top 10 UK Universities

Rofl York is a new addition to the RG, and I bet that most employers would be like "oh?" if they were told that York was a member of the RG.

York is akin to Bath, Lancaster, Exeter, etc.

Ie ignores the bit relevant to students, treats the universities primarily as research institutions. If I were once again a prospective student I wouldn't give a damn about that, I'm there to learn, not to say I went to the university with the best research. Pray tell, which would you rather be a graduate from: an institution where the research comes first and the students are neglected, they may produce the best research in the world, but they provide poor student satisfaction, poor lecturers, poor course content and you're actually not that much better off for going unless you just need a degree for your occupation; or would you rather go to an institution with more average research, but better student satisfaction, better lecturers and good course content such that you actually have pretty good employment prospects.

can and papers tell the customers what they need to know, QS strokes the egos of the deans. I also wonder if I take the CUG listing and sort it based on research just how well it will match up to QS, I imagine questionably, although that can be put down to methodology, which from what I hear isn't necessarily the best for QS.

Posted from TSR Mobile

York has been a RG member longer than many others like Durham. I have been in business for a few years, and it is clear that RG universities are much more highly regarded than non-RG ones.

For better or worse, age still correlates with university prestige in England. Warwick may be objectively better than Durham in some respects, but Durham's age renders it more prestigious in the eyes of employers. Same as why Manchester and Birmingham will always be seen as "above" York (regardless of RG status), because the former are older and of the "red brick" age.

I don't necessary agree with this. I suppose it is why a Louis VIV ornament is more prestigious than a 1960s ornament.

In reality Manchester and Birmingham are better than Durham, they have more resources, better facilities, and more research power. But Durham has always been seen as one of the main alternatives to Oxbridge, and will superficially be seen as superior. Not that age has helped the cause of the 15th Century Aberdeen much. York is just as good as any university outside of the top 5.

York has been a RG member longer than many others like Durham. I have been in business for a few years, and it is clear that RG universities are much more highly regarded than non-RG ones.

For better or worse, age still correlates with university prestige in England. Warwick may be objectively better than Durham in some respects, but Durham's age renders it more prestigious in the eyes of employers. Same as why Manchester and Birmingham will always be seen as "above" York (regardless of RG status), because the former are older and of the "red brick" age.

I don't necessary agree with this. I suppose it is why a Louis VIV ornament is more prestigious than a 1960s ornament.

Actually you'll find that it only joined in 2012,according to Wikipedia at least, same time as Durham and Exeter, regardless the logic displayed was still poor, it's a 20yo group that is probably here to stay for quite some time, in a century will 18 years make a difference? No, does it even matter now? Well, not necessarily, if what you say is true, not particularly, and irrespective of that it is still RG, just like the others

Posted from TSR Mobile

You can, of course, base your judgement on one league table. Regardless, most international perspectives are based on prestige. i.e. Oxford above Cambridge as the former enjoys the more prestigious international brand.

Firstly this depends massively on what you want. If you want to be an academic, lawyer, banker or just have fun. secondly lest have a go.
Cambridge
Oxford
LSE
Imperial
UCl
Warwick
Durham
Bristol
St Andrews
Bath,

Well, even then it isn't really as clear cut as that given that most universities will have some sort of specialisation, even if relatively minorly, for a Mathematics graduate I expect they would be marginally better off from Cambridge than Oxford, after all, I Cambridge has a much stronger mathematical heritage. Similarly, MIT may outrank harvard, but which would you rather have a law grad from?

An overall ranking doesn't necessarily say everything, there are, I believe, a few institutions that rank relatively poorly in the overall rankings, but if you specify the search by the right field they shoot right up

Posted from TSR Mobile

No Edinburgh? What about Nottingham, the most targeted UK university by the top 100 graduate employers last year?

I will try to explain,
I am much more knowledgeable about social science, science, maths compsci. with finance related employment so what i say is bias. I would find it easier giving a maths league table tbh. Now no nottingham and edinburgh, well who should i replace?

Bath and St Andrews, as they are tiny non-RG universities.

I have absolutely no idea which unis are RG. So you agree with my top 10 even if no the order except these 2? Bath has very good job prospects and is more specialised, St Andrews does so well on every domestic ranking.

For better or worse, age still correlates with university prestige in England. Warwick may be objectively better than Durham in some respects, but Durham's age renders it more prestigious in the eyes of employers. Same as why Manchester and Birmingham will always be seen as "above" York (regardless of RG status), because the former are older and of the "red brick" age.

I don't necessary agree with this. I suppose it is why a Louis VIV ornament is more prestigious than a 1960s ornament.

Bath is indeed excellent, even more so than St Andrews iIMO. But they are just too small and are not in the RG. LSE is also very small, but that is another story.

But age isn't the be all and end all, a university that excellent for a few decades will become more prestigious than a university that is mediocre for a century. And I suppose we are slipping into that age when the post war unis are able to fight some of the redbricks in terms of prestige, the ones that are at/have been at the top of the 50 under 50, the likes of UEA, Warwick, York, Lancaster etc because you're starting to get that 50 years of better work carries more than 100 years of lesser, and then in 50 years you're looking at 100 vs 150.

Tbh, there is clearly more to prestige than age, the people that work there a day come out of there count too, if it's all down to age then why are the likes of Princeton, MIT, Harvard, UCLA(?) just as prestigious as major European universities, and far more prestigious than many older ones, especially the ones that have fallen into the gutter. Gottingen used to be one of the centres of mathematics, while it's still good it's nothing like the glory days, with most of the great minds leaving for North America, either by force for being Jewish, or through protest. It's still one of the best in Germany, second for the times, and is still pretty good in Europe, 17th, it starts slipping a bit globally, 63rd. 5th, 27th 93rd according to some Americans. Still highly renowned though, although at the same time it is less than 300 years old.

Lots of barely relevant ramblings, age isn't quite everything.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Bath is indeed excellent, even more so than St Andrews iIMO. But they are just too small and are not in the RG. LSE is also very small, but that is another story. My top 10:-

Cambridge
Oxford
Imperial
LSE
UCL
Warwick
Bristol
Durham
Edinburgh
Nottingham

Though I reckon York, KCL and a few others are just as deserving as Nottingham to get the final spot.