Opinion: most underrated university among the general public

When did anyone last seriously call Sussex "Balliol by the sea"?

I've never heard the phrase....?

I've never been to Balliol, but I know Brighton....and I'm guessing Balliol life isn't like Brighton?

I'm afraid when the chips are down, and you're applying for jobs... no one is going to care where some namby pamby league table put your university. It will come down to prestige.

It's no individual question, the idea of student satisfaction factoring in is bull**** altogether. There's only one metric that matters... prestige.

League tables are pointless. The harsh truth is that unless you are taking medicine, attending a non-Russell Group (few exceptions like Bath) is pretty much pointless, especially given that you would be paying the same fee as an Oxbridge student - it's like a regressive tax . Prestige counts for much, much more. University is, sadly, a business. It's all about the brand.Nottingham and Manchester do badly in league tables because they are so large. They are invariably considered better institutions by employers and globally than some of those that rank higher on domestic rankings due to student 'satisfaction'. Just check LinkedIn for the real facts.

Is there another way to objectively see which universities are more prestigious than others if not through league tables? How do you find out which unis employers like the most?

Out of interest: which of the NSS questions do you think are not relevant or appropriate for determining quality?

Is there another way to objectively see which universities are more prestigious than others if not through league tables? How do you find out which unis employers like the most?

Very well researched look at the prestige and reputation in the job market of universities by an ex MBB management consultant:

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable

Thanks, but damn this has turned around my previous opinions completely. I thought Durham (A*A*A) > Warwick (A*AA) > UCL (AAA). I thought Durham had the best Physics department out of the three. Is general prestige better than specific department quality? Is there no subject-specific prestige?

I'm just a student myself, so take what I say with a grain of salt... but generally:

If you want to go into academia, department reputation/prestige matters most.
If you don't want to go into academia, general reputation/prestige matters most.

There are a few cases where this rule won't work however... for example, Warwick is firmly 6th if investment banking is where you want to go (the link putting it at 10).

Interesting question - I guy from Citigroup who I talked about Banking at a Careers evening said that the vast majority of the employers within his circle really weren't up to date with League Tables, and besides obviously tended to favour people who they personally knew (so from apprenticeships, dinners, etc.) This meant that there were very few names that stood out to him at all - Oxbridge was considered "elite" within his circle because of the rigorous selections process, the London unis (LSE/UCL/KCL/Met/LBS) were anywhere from "excellent" to "quite decent", and, other than Warwick and Bristol (where he had personally studied), the rest of the UK was an amorphous mass of "ok" unis that he couldn't distinguish from.

He even went as far to cite anecdotal evidence that a colleague had once confused Durham with Hull (which is worrying considering the fact that the occupy the very extremes of the league tables), and that the only thing that he'd heard about Nottingham was that Robin Hood had been there! (facetious of course, but you get his point)

The issue, as always, people just can't be arsed to even google a uni rankings table, and instead just believe in the reputations of the older, more established unis.

(Sorry for the double-post guys)


Actually, you reminded me of an interesting thing I noticed earlier:Comparing two unis from the Guardian 2016 League table (found here)

UCL has higher grad prospects (80.9 vs 78.3), a higher entry tariff (admittedly meaningless and only really a signifier of competition, if anything), higher spending per student (is London controlled for?) and a better staff-to-student ratio.

However, Warwick beats it in student satisfaction in three areas (course/teaching/feedback), and gains a Guardian score of 84.6 vs only 81 for UCL.

If anything, this shows how the Guardian overall ranking is a lot more focused towards course quality rather than grad prospects (or indeed reputation in many courses such as Law).

That's why I no longer look at overall rankings, but rather at the very specific measures I'm interested in (usually student course satisfaction, staff ratios, employer rep and grad prospects), as they give a more precise reflection of what I'm seeking. I hope that other people do the same thing

Definitely agree with that, even though I'd argue that the quality of staff/lecturers and resources available is difficult to quantify, which is why rankings agencies take the easy route by asking students to rank different things about the course on an arbitrary scale. As for research, I believe that there should be a separate ranking for postgrads + research students (even though one admittedly choses a uni for PhDs based on things other than its nominal ranking on any League Table) putting more weight on that side of things. I may personally not care about Law research at this point in time, but if I end up pursuing a DPhil/LLD, I most definitely will

However, I think that we agree that a single "one-size-fits-all" table really doesn't help at all. It's all about how you use it in conjunction with other resources.

Is there another way to objectively see which universities are more prestigious than others if not through league tables? How do you find out which unis employers like the most?

http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/2015/graduate_market/GMReport15.pdf
Page 33 (although the rest of the report is worth reading too - especially the growing use of internships and placements as a recruitment route- Surrey and Bath succeed in the UK rankings because of their placement schemes as much as their NSS success).

Is there another way to objectively see which universities are more prestigious than others if not through league tables? How do you find out which unis employers like the most?