This discussion is closed.
taeht
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Hey,

could anyone explain me, why particularly Edinburgh is rated so high in world rankings (around 20-40), whereas in UK rankings goes heavily down (around 15-30)?

It is reputation against the real quality?

Respectively speaking about QS/THE (for world comparison) and G/TCUG (for UK rankings).

Thank you! )
0
golden tribe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Uk rankings are most students satisfaction orientated. So if a uni has low satisfaction it will be ranked lower. International rankings however take into account everything and give you the overall rating of the universities.

Edinburgh, kcl and manchester are all ranked low in the domestic league but are ranked well
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
UK league table rankings rank satisfaction as well as difficulty of entry. International league tables mainly rank reputation and research.

UK league tables are more relevant for an undergraduate student and international league tables more relevant for a postgraduate student.
0
taeht
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#4
So if I can ask,

how would you rate UCL vs St Andrews?

Edinburgh is below? Similar?

Durham is lower I believe as well as Glasgow.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by taeht)
So if I can ask,

how would you rate UCL vs St Andrews?

Edinburgh is below? Similar?

Durham is lower I believe as well as Glasgow.


Posted from TSR Mobile
I would rate UCL, St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh on the same level for UG. Glasgow is slightly lower for UG, but not significantly.

I would rate UCL around the same as Edinburgh but maybe slightly higher for PG. For PG however, especially a research PG what matters would be the specific field you are studying in rather than the general reputation because your research is going to directly relate to how advanced the field is at the university you are working at.

This is really broad however, give me a subject and the rankings will change.
0
taeht
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by Okorange)
I would rate UCL, St Andrews, Durham and Edinburgh on the same level for UG. Glasgow is slightly lower for UG, but not significantly.

I would rate UCL around the same as Edinburgh but maybe slightly higher for PG. For PG however, especially a research PG what matters would be the specific field you are studying in rather than the general reputation because your research is going to directly relate to how advanced the field is at the university you are working at.

This is really broad however, give me a subject and the rankings will change.


Actually speaking about psychology.

Got offers from them all, but as an EU undergraduate applicant I have to take tuition fees into account.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by taeht)
Actually speaking about psychology.

Got offers from them all, but as an EU undergraduate applicant I have to take tuition fees into account.


Posted from TSR Mobile
If you have offers from all, I would choose St Andrews, Glasgow or Edinburgh mainly because of fees. Glasgow seems to do really well on subject league tables even though I would take them with a grain of salt people seem to be satisfied which is important, St Andrews has a good psychology department, I don't know too much about Edinburgh.

However if fees are not really a big concern for you and you want to study in London, UCL is probably your best option as its also ranked well in the world for psychology.

I think for undergraduate you should make your decision based on location, if you think you would enjoy a small town vs a larger city then pick St Andrews, otherwise I would choose between Glasgow and Edinburgh.
0
taeht
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by Okorange)
If you have offers from all, I would choose St Andrews, Glasgow or Edinburgh mainly because of fees. Glasgow seems to do really well on subject league tables even though I would take them with a grain of salt people seem to be satisfied which is important, St Andrews has a good psychology department, I don't know too much about Edinburgh.

However if fees are not really a big concern for you and you want to study in London, UCL is probably your best option as its also ranked well in the world for psychology.

I think for undergraduate you should make your decision based on location, if you think you would enjoy a small town vs a larger city then pick St Andrews, otherwise I would choose between Glasgow and Edinburgh.


Thank you for opinion!


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
hummingthrough
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
Hello everyone, I would like to thank everyone for their perspectives...
I got an offer from Edinburgh for MSc in psychology and I was worried about is national rankings. Now I feel a little better.
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Okorange)
UK league table rankings rank satisfaction as well as difficulty of entry. International league tables mainly rank reputation and research.

UK league tables are more relevant for an undergraduate student and international league tables more relevant for a postgraduate student.
I disagree with this statement.

Undergraduate students would mostly be interested in finding out which universities provide them with prestige and good employment prospects. UK league tables don't satisfy this need as much as even international league tables.

Both are relatively unsatisfactory for undergrad students.

I would suggest an undergrad student use a mix of:

- International league tables.
- Global Employability University Ranking by Emerging and Tredence.
- Average starting salaries and employment prospects.

This will help them know which universities give them the prestige and good employment.

UK league tables mostly tell you how happy you will be during your time at a university.
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by hummingthrough)
Hello everyone, I would like to thank everyone for their perspectives...
I got an offer from Edinburgh for MSc in psychology and I was worried about is national rankings. Now I feel a little better.
Don't be worried about it. You are going to a UK Top 7 university.
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by LutherVan)
I disagree with this statement.

Undergraduate students would mostly be interested in finding out which universities provide them with prestige and good employment prospects. UK league tables don't satisfy this need as much as even international league tables.

Both are relatively unsatisfactory for undergrad students.

I would suggest an undergrad student use a mix of:

- International league tables.
- Global Employability University Ranking by Emerging and Tredence.
- Average starting salaries and employment prospects.

This will help them know which universities give them the prestige and good employment.

UK league tables mostly tell you how happy you will be during your time at a university.
Much is made about student satisfaction in UK league tables, however one thing UK league tables tell you are UCAS tariff which is generally a good estimation of how competitive the program is, this I believe helps indicate prestige.

I agree a mixture should be used, international tables are more useful for name recognition and research, while UK league tables give you useful data on how competitive the program is which is an important factor in prestige. I've noticed the closest ranking to the typical TSR ranking is actually the UCAS Tariff based ranking.
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by Okorange)
Much is made about student satisfaction in UK league tables, however one thing UK league tables tell you are UCAS tariff which is generally a good estimation of how competitive the program is, this I believe helps indicate prestige.

I agree a mixture should be used, international tables are more useful for name recognition and research, while UK league tables give you useful data on how competitive the program is which is an important factor in prestige. I've noticed the closest ranking to the typical TSR ranking is actually the UCAS Tariff based ranking.
Yes, they tell you about UCAS tariffs, which is one of the good indicators of how good a univerity is, but senseless and crude to use on its own for prestige as I am sure you will agree.

Despite this, the UK League Tables are still poor because the weighting they give to these are less than to their student satisfaction ratings.

It would even surprise you that the least respected of the UK league tables, the Guardian's, is the one that gives the highest rating to Entry Standards/Tariffs with 15%. But it gave its student satisfaction measures about 25%. The other measures it uses are mostly about spending and staff ratios which carry the the rest of the percentages.

Times gives only 11% to Entry Standards/Tariffs, while CUG gave only 10%.

Yes, on TSR, the closest to their mental ranking is Entry Standards/Tariffs. That is absurd as one can easily conclude Washington St Louis is more prestigious than most Ivies and Stanford if we use the same crude approach with US universities.
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by LutherVan)
Yes, they tell you about UCAS tariffs, which is one of the good indicators of how good a univerity is, but senseless and crude to use on its own for prestige as I am sure you will agree.

Despite this, the UK League Tables are still poor because the weighting they give to these are less than to their student satisfaction ratings.

It would even surprise you that the least respected of the UK league tables, the Guardian's, is the one that gives the highest rating to Entry Standards/Tariffs with 15%. But it gave its student satisfaction measures about 25%. The other measures it uses are mostly about spending and staff ratios which carry the the rest of the percentages.

Times gives only 11% to Entry Standards/Tariffs, while CUG gave only 10%.

Yes, on TSR, the closest to their mental ranking is Entry Standards/Tariffs. That is absurd as one can easily conclude Washington St Louis is more prestigious than most Ivies and Stanford if we use the same crude approach with US universities.
Washington University has higher entry standards than the Ivies? I don't believe so, the Ivies and Stanford have the highest entry standards if we are going by SAT scores in the country.

Either way, I agree UCAS tariffs aren't the only thing you should evaluate for sure.
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Okorange)
Washington University has higher entry standards than the Ivies? I don't believe so, the Ivies and Stanford have the highest entry standards if we are going by SAT scores in the country.

Either way, I agree UCAS tariffs aren't the only thing you should evaluate for sure.
Washington University even has higher entry standards than some HYSPMs using ACT.

ACT is the easiest to use for comparison because there is available data for composite unlike SATs.

It beat Harvard, Yale and Stanford here:

https://www.vocabvideos.com/blog/sat...age-sat-scores
0
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by LutherVan)
Washington University even has higher entry standards than some HYSPMs using ACT.

ACT is the easiest to use for comparison because there is available data for composite unlike SATs.

It beat Harvard, Yale and Stanford here:

https://www.vocabvideos.com/blog/sat...age-sat-scores
My views on Wash U might be a little biased because they do have an amazing medical school. That is really interesting actually, I have to admit my rating of Wash U's undergrad just went up slightly with this. Its a small uni, only 7k undergrads and 6k postgrads. Wow things have changed, Wash U is now at an admit rate of 13.7% and Cornell I remember a decade ago had admit rates of 20% regular decision with over 30% for early decision.
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Okorange)
My views on Wash U might be a little biased because they do have an amazing medical school. That is really interesting actually, I have to admit my rating of Wash U's undergrad just went up slightly with this. Its a small uni, only 7k undergrads and 6k postgrads. Wow things have changed, Wash U is now at an admit rate of 13.7% and Cornell I remember a decade ago had admit rates of 20% regular decision with over 30% for early decision.
Yeah, I know.

Afterall, it was the host of the "Master of Sex".

It is a top university with bright students, but that said, the point is still it is not as reputable as the HYSPM and the lower Ivies.

Just looking at entry tariffs might mislead the less bright to think it is, but anyone in the know would know it just does not have the alumni, history, brand etc to be on the same level reputationally with the best. That was what I try to keep on telling Mr Roxas when he keeps talking about Warwick's entry tariff and then allude that it is as prestigious or more prestigious than UCL, KCL, Edinburgh, Bristol etc.

Even Durham that is as old as UCL and KCL would struggle to claim it has similar reputation to these two.

One has to look at multiple indicators to access prestige, including things like: entry tariff, research power, endowment, funding attraction, selectivity, alumni quality, commercial income, percieved reputation, employment prospects etc.

If one did that, then it quickly becomes apparent that Washington St Louis is not in the league of HYPSM.

As I said here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post54750451

The inferior university can be better in 1 or 2 of the indicators, but when one looks at a breadth of indicators, the superior university shines through.
0
username1082104
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
UK Tables consider entry (selectivity) and so forth. International consider research and academic reputation. Also, international has some really stupid criteria like international students and faculty (really biased for London). Lets be honest here, Imperial isn't 2nd in the world and UCL isn't 5th (even though they're up there, not that far up). I'd take the rankings lightly. Also, I feel there is a slight science bias in international rankings (Look at LSE).

Edinburgh is a decent university. Don't worry too much about it.
0
ilovekosa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
TL;DR domestic tables are a load of bull
--------------------
Thing about domestic league tables is that they're based on things that can be easily manipulated - Times Higher Education recently ran an editorial/guest piece anonymously by someone working at a British university who explains that a lot of universities use forms of data manipulation to artificially inflate graduation prospects, which translates into artificially inflated "employment after 6 months".

Similarly, just because you're employed after six months of graduating from university does not explain the quality of your employment, i.e. you could be working at McDonalds for all they care, and it still adds up to high employment ratings.

Student satisfaction is just as worse, because students whom are not academically motivated will rate easy and academically less challenging courses with higher satisfaction. This issue was also explored in the US film Ivory Tower, which exposes the problems of rating universities by student satisfaction.

There is also the problem of entry tariffs. This is absolutely ridiculous. Universities can set entry requirements anyway they want. This does nothing in telling you whether the university is going to prepare you well for the subject/career you would like to pursue. You COULD argue that entry requirements are indications of demand and supply, but that is a self fulfilling prophecy, because demand will increase only because of the inflated position on domestic league tables because of the inflated entry tariffs.

International tables are much more trust worthy and are based on actual research quantities. Even the subjective components, such as reputation, are based on surveys of academics which have been in the respective industries for 10+ years (Times Higher Education reputation rankings?).
0
El Salvador
Badges: 21
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by LutherVan)
- Global Employability University Ranking by Emerging and Tredence.
They are hugely tiled towards STEM and the business field, not based on actual salary or employment (but rather things like how people think about the universities' research facilities), and are Euro-centric, so I'm not sure if they'd be particularly useful in general.

The title is hugely misleading - it's really not 'employability' but at most reputation among recruiters. They also don't reflect an actual view globally - not only are they Euro-centric, but most surveyed have never actually hired anyone out of their region.
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

How are you feeling about starting university this autumn?

Really excited (66)
22.15%
Excited but a bit nervous (134)
44.97%
Not bothered either way (37)
12.42%
I'm really nervous (61)
20.47%

Watched Threads

View All