Guardian University League Tables 2017

Scroll to see replies

Those are real degrees?

those are departments within UCL, as many universities. A student within the school of Slavonic and East European Studies might be reading for e.g. the BA in Russian; within Education, the BSc in Educational Psychology.

I can't imagine why this is a surprise to you.

Reply 121

Tom__

How am I meant to decide whether a university is good or not? I want to study Computer Science but all of the league tables contradict each other.. should I just judge it based on what the entry requirements for the course are?

Reply 122

KingYusHalo

Original post by Tom__

Look at the 3 top international rankings and take average.(THE, ARWU, and QS)

Eg. Berkeley in CS is ranked 3rd in ARWU, 7th in QS, and 5th in THE.
Your average score is 5.

Do this for whatever universities is find, and see which one has the highest average score(1 is highest). I don't see how you could go wrong using 3 of the world's best rankings.

Reply 123

username2313507

Original post by Tom__

Identify companies that would hire lots of CS grads and then check their LinkedIn; find out where they recruit grads from for CS roles

Reply 124

sweeneyrod

Original post by Tom__

Non-Guardian league tables are all fairly similar. It doesn't really matter whether you go to somewhere that's ranked 8th or 12th, so the slight differences are irrelevant. For Computer Science, I think the ranking is roughly Oxbridge; Imperial, Bristol, UCL, Warwick etc.; the rest of the Russell group + Bath and St Andrews; everywhere else.

Reply 125

sweeneyrod

Original post by KingYusHalo

I'm not sure how reliable ARWU is -- I think most people would agree that Cambridge is better than Purdue University - West Lafayette for Computer Science.

Reply 126

Tom__

Is Lancaster university really that good? It seems to be ranked high on a lot of the lists, even higher than some Russell Group universities.
Or is it bad to presume that Russell Group universities are superior?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 127

WCF

Just admit it, people will base prestige on how the university looks at the end of the day. If someone builds a new university that has old buildings like Oxbridge I can guarantee it will climb up those league tables fast because everyone will want to go there and it looks prestiguous. No matter how hard modern plateglasses like Warwick try, they will never really be good because of their crap architecture that makes it feel like a business rather than a place of knowledge and learning.

Reply 128

math42

Original post by WCF

Yes, the deciding factor in a university's long-term success is...architecture. Of course

Reply 129

WCF

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42

Yes, the deciding factor in a university's long-term success is...architecture. Of course

Prestige, not success. I've known people choose York over e.g. Warwick for maths just because it has a collegiate structure for example. Ok, so colleges probably count as well. Architecture + colleges = max prestige

Reply 130

Doones

Original post by WCF

York colleges have no responsibility for teaching. It's nowhere near the same as Cambridge or Oxford.

If that was the only reason they chose York over Warwick they are making a mistake.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 131

stevey396

Original post by WCF

Well the joke's on them when the Warwick grads are getting prestigious grad jobs/post grad places and they with their paltry York degrees are struggling to find a job in retail.

Reply 132

C_Richards99

Original post by KingYusHalo

Ignore what this muppet is saying. The QS has the LSE ranked between 51-100 in the world for Computer Science when it doesn't even offer the degree. International rankings for subjects are hardly reliable.

Look at the entry tariff for universities, graduate prospects and research standards (not that important given you won't actually do any research in your UG but useful nonetheless) and then combine the average rankings of all three.

Original post by peachpetals

"Its ranked higher in other league tables." All league tables are full of inconsistencies if you are seriously believing in any of them your crazy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankings_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom

Wikipedia summarises which universities appear in the top 10 of all the national league tables: Oxbridge, St Andrews, Imperial, Durham and Warwick as well as the universities which appear in the top 100 of all the global league tables: Oxbridge, UCL, Imperial, KCL, Edinburgh, Bristol and Warwick.

Four appear in both: Oxbridge, Imperial and Warwick.

UCL appears in the top 10 of 2 of the national league tables and Durham and St Andrews appear in the top 100 of 3 of the global league tables.

Reply 133

username638250

Original post by WCF

LOL York Maths over Warwick Maths, what a joke.

Reply 134

stevey396

Original post by yl95

LOL York Maths over Warwick Maths, what a joke.

Too right. I hope the York grads enjoy their "careers" in Retail or Admin.

Reply 135

WCF

Original post by JohnGreek

With that logic, Liverpool, Leeds and Birmingham should be second only to Oxbridge (and Durham) in terms of "prestige", owing to their beautiful red brick buildings - well above places like Warwick, LSE and Imperial. And yet their application figures show that to be false when it comes to both popularity and career prospects. Nice theory you've got there.

Only the main buildings are nice at those unis, look at the rest of the buildings, nothing compared to Oxbridge. Royal Holloway also has a nice main building but all the others are just ugly IMO. Again, Reading has Wantage Hall and a few old buildings but the rest are really ugly. Only at Oxbridge are the buildings consistently old and nice, also the cities themselves are historic and beautiful. Durham and St Andrews are the only close runners up, all others are either in a polluted city (Edinburgh, Glasgow, UCL, etc) or a boring concrete campus (Warwick, Bath, Lancaster, etc)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 136

cambio wechsel

Original post by WCF

The fantasy hypothetical of building "a new university that looks like Oxbridge" is only preposterous, and see for example the universal and as well local derision with which (specifically the design of) Nuffield College Oxford was met.

We can find an analogue in the US, where a large majority would choose Berkeley or MIT (or UCSD?) over the University of Virginia, a very respectable school and perhaps the most architecturally 'distinguished' college in the nation.

Reply 137

Doones

Original post by WCF

Cambridge (and Oxford) have a lot of modernist/brutalist architecture too you know. Which you clearly don't because you really have no idea at all.

Churchill College:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 138

WCF

Original post by jneill

Cambridge (and Oxford) have a lot of modernist/brutalist architecture too you know. Which you clearly don't because you really have no idea at all.

Churchill College:

Not sure how you came to the conclusion that I clearly didn't know because FYI I did know about those but they basically drown among the beauty IMO. But even then I don't for one moment think they are as ugly as people make out; look at the Churchill dining hall for example:

Also the spiral staircase and beautiful library at Murray Edwards is another example of inner beauty, despite looking like this on the outside:

Try comparing those to Warwick's library for instance, ugh

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 139

username738914

Original post by mas_

Can't speak for Brunel but City (due its location & reputation) has great links with many investment banks, making it easier to get internships etc

Loooool.... I think you mean only Cass.

I love how people phrase this, as if a couple of visits now and again by people amount to 'great links'. A uni can have as many 'links' as they wish but if their graduates aren't adequately represented amongst graduate intakes, I would hardly call the links 'great' nor particularly helpful.

Posted from TSR Mobile