Article: Loughborough University is better than 80% of Russell Group universities

Scroll to see replies

I averaged out all the international league tables, employer league tables, and research tables. The results there show a group of "elite" 12, in the following order.

Oxford (2,3) Cambridge (2,8) Imperial (4,375) UCL (4,9) Bristol (7,6) Manchester (8) KCL (8,8) Edinburgh (9,2) LSE (11,4) Warwick (11,8) Nottingham (12,6) Durham (13,1)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 21

returnmigrant

Rankings are nonsense.

Why TSR is pandering to this silliness is beyond me.

Reply 22

returnmigrant

Original post by JohnGreek

It gets them cheap views from people that couldn't possibly believe this to be true.

How much have Loughborough paid TSR for this over-the-top promotion I wonder.

Reply 23

She-Ra

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by returnmigrant

How much have Loughborough paid TSR for this over-the-top promotion I wonder.

Any sponsored content is clearly labelled on The Student Room.

This is an interesting story - league tables are always debated on TSR so when it hit head the headlines it felt very natural to create a talking point for our members.

Reply 24

She-Ra

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by GradeA*UnderA

Original post by She-Ra

A combination of three league tables.... that's pretty solid grounds don't you think?

Not when Mickey Mouse sports degrees are inflating student satisfaction.

I think that's a huge generalisation and one that is outdated. Loughborough academically offer far more that Mickey Mouse sport degrees.

Original post by WeslshStudent101

My first choice before I even realized how good it is, really nice campus and very good for extra curricular activities too.

I hope you get a place :smile:

I visited my friends a few times there and really liked it. I adored Birmingam (my uni) but if I had my time again I would certainly consider Loughborough as a choice based on their student experience and how close the student community is.

Reply 25

Doones

Original post by GradeA*UnderA

Original post by She-Ra

A combination of three league tables.... that's pretty solid grounds don't you think?

Not when sports degrees are inflating student satisfaction.

Only 12% of students are in the Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences dept.

Engineering, across their 5 areas, has 34% of their student population.

Reply 26

Doones

Original post by returnmigrant

Rankings are nonsense.

Why TSR is pandering to this silliness is beyond me.

And yet...

Screen Shot 2016-10-17 at 10.33.18.jpg

Reply 27

She-Ra

Universities Forum Helper

[QUOTE="jneill;68078942"]

Original post by GradeA*UnderA

Only 12% of students are in the Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences dept.

Engineering, across their 5 areas, has 34% of their student population.

Team STEM

Reply 28

Doones

Original post by She-Ra

Team STEM

And Business & Economics has 17% :smile:

Reply 29

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by jneill

Engineering, across their 5 areas, has 34% of their student population.

Which makes their high performance in the NSS even more remarkable.

Happy engineering students :eek2:

Reply 30

Dynamic_Vicz

Original post by PrinceHarrys

[video="youtube;ZANlYjuQJ-4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZANlYjuQJ-4[/video]

This video is cringeworthy! Couldn't watch the whole thing

Reply 31

Magic Streets

Original post by GradeA*UnderA

1. Cambridge/Oxford
3. Imperial/LSE
5. UCL
6. St Andrews
7. Warwick
8. Durham
9. Edinburgh
10. Bristol

In order of prestige (and you know it's true).

Cambridge/Oxford
LSE/Imperial
UCL
KCL/Edinburgh
Bristol
Warwick/Durham/Glasgow/St Andrews

Loughborough is a second rank university, OP. The World rankings provide solid proof of that.

Reply 32

_Fergo

Original post by jneill

And yet...

Screen Shot 2016-10-17 at 10.33.18.jpg

That doesn't change anything. You're conflating the importance of rankings with university marketing.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

Magic Streets

Original post by *Stefan*

That doesn't change anything. You're conflating the importance of rankings with university marketing.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Universities in the Russell Group take the World rankings very seriously, and this stretches beyond just marketing tripe to lure the top students in.

Reply 34

_Fergo

Original post by Magic Streets

Universities in the Russell Group take the World rankings very seriously, and this stretches beyond just marketing tripe to lure the top students in.

Considering every ranking produces very different results (if you count the whole RG span), that's difficult to believe.

Reply 35

Magic Streets

Original post by *Stefan*

Considering every ranking produces very different results (if you count the whole RG span), that's difficult to believe.

A lot of them mention or have mentioned the World rankings in their strategic plans, incuding KCL, Nottingham, Manchester, Durham, Exeter and Birmingham, to name but a few. The UK league tables are more for the ex-1994 group universities.

Reply 36

Doones

Original post by *Stefan*

That doesn't change anything. You're conflating the importance of rankings with university marketing.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You think marketing isn't important?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 37

returnmigrant

Original post by Magic Streets

Universities in the Russell Group take the World rankings very seriously,.

Because they know that their typical school-leaver applicants are obsessed with them. As above, its part of the marketing format - tell the customer what they want to hear - it doesnt mean that any of them take rankings that seriously.

Reply 38

Fenice

Original post by She-Ra

That goes for all league tables and rankings - they can be a good guide initially to help you get a feel. I think open days and course content is the most important indicator and research method personally. The uni could rank high but if you don't get a good feel when you're there you're just not going to be happy and that could affect how well you do.

Did you use any league tables when you were applying? What did you find most useful?

Here is the league table:

1. University of Cambridge

2. University of Oxford

3. University of St Andrews

4. Imperial College London

5. Durham University

6. Loughborough University

7. London School of Economics

8. University of Warwick

9. Lancaster University

10.

10.University of Surrey

University X is filled with third-rate students making use of second-rate resources surrounded by first-rate postgraduate research and an enviable number of biothermal toilets. These tables emphasise the areas that are either peripheral, dodgily measured or completely irrelevant to prospective undergraduates and are therefore totally inadvisable resources when deciding which universities to apply to for undergraduate degrees.

Let's have a look at Loughborough vs UCL on the Guardian table:

The first three measurements are related to student satisfaction. This is an inherently flawed value because students at universities with poorer reputations than others are pleased much more easily and those at more reputable universities disappointed much more easily. If two students go to two identical universities but one has been led to believe it is much 'better' than the other, they are likely to give it lower satisfaction ratings even when their experience has been the same. The experience itself does not determine the student satisfaction but is being presented as a reflection of just that. How hard a student works to get there is also likely to affect their satisfaction. Has the average Loughborough student worked as hard to get to university as the average UCLer? No, they haven't; this is reflected in the sizeable difference in entry standards between the two. It is much easier to be satisfied by the standards of a university if you have not worked your ass off to be in a position to be in it.

Is the average Loughborough history student going to pay as much attention to the feedback he receives as the average UCL history student? Does the average Loughborough student even know what 'feedback' is?

Additionally, student satisfaction is measured by the NSS. Here is what Wikipedia says about them:

Spoiler

As a result, the first three values are an unreliable reflection of the standards of teaching on offer. And even then the difference is negligible. Without those values, UCL would be far ahead of Loughborough. In every other area it is ahead, except for 'career after 6 months', another dodgy value that means this: 'The career score is the percentage of graduates who find graduate-level jobs, or are studying further, within six months of graduation. It’s our way of ranking employability'. Is it wise to judge the 'career score' of a university based on whether graduates are working in a graduate level job or studying further within 6 months of graduation? Based on this table, - as most applicants would use it at least - Robert Gordon offers brighter career prospects than UCL and Swansea than the LSE.

In conclusion, the league tables are a pile of piss and you'd be better off comparing universities by how impressive their architecture is and how well-known they are in far-away pubs.

I'd be interested to know whether you as a company has been in any sort of communication with Loughborough regarding an appearance on TSR.

PS You've created faulty links to the league tables