Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Biological Sciences League Tables

This is the Guardian's Biological Sciences league table; how can Ulster be listed 5th and Imperial 15th? Should I take their 'score' with a pinch (or
bucket) of salt?

League.png22.6KB

Reply 1

shroomie

The Guardian's table is infamously weighted favourably towards student satisfaction, as shown by St Andrews appearing 3rd. Imperial definitely has one of the best biology courses in the country. I prefer QS's listings for accuracy and they give you an international perspective too. Here's their list for biology. I'd definitely take university tables with a pinch of salt - they just give you a rough indication of performance and shouldn't be used definitively.

Reply 2

siarc

As Shroomie mentioned, it's very heavily weighted on student satisfaction which is quite low for Imperial. Personally, I put this down to both expectations and work load. A lot of students expect university to be one massive jolly and when they see the workload ICL tutors expect they can be a bit disheartened. Furthermore, living in London where it can be quite cramped and the Imperial accommodation is (well, the parts I saw) pretty crappy yet expensive can lead to people ending up dissatisfied with what is a world leading university. This all has nothing to do with the course but affects the league tables.

That being said, I have heard of feedback being late and tutors not great at getting exam marks back, but that happens at a fair few universities and is all about your perspective on it - that might not have any bearing on your student satisfaction rating.

All in all - with the research capabilities, world leading teaching staff and the sheer volume of funding flocking in, it's a great university let down by reasonably insignificant ratings on a league table that don't really do it justice. That's not to say Ulster doesn't deserve it's high up place, just that Imperial College doesn't deserve such a low one.