The Student Room Group

QS World Rankings 2018 just out - bad news for UK universities

No UK university in the top 4, with CalTech replacing Cambridge in 4th place:
1 (1) : MIT < tops the ranking for the 6th year in a row.
2 (2) : Stanford
3 (3) : Harvard
4 (5) : CalTech

And, worse, 51 UK universities have dropped places in the rankings. QS says : "this reflects prolonged funding cuts, the increasing use of adjunct faculty, improvements from other nations, and concerns about the potential impact of Brexit;"

Of the UK universities in the Top 10:
Cambridge is still the top placed UK university, now in 5th place (was 4th).
Oxford remains 6th
UCL remains 7th
Imperial up to 8th (was 9th)

Selected others (previous year ranking in brackets):
23 (21) : KCL
24 (19) : Edinburgh
34 (29) : Manchester
35 (37=) : LSE
44 (41) : Bristol
57 (51=) : Warwick
65 (63=) : Glasgow
78= (74) : Durham
82= (84) : Sheffield
84= (75=) : Nottingham
92 (77) : St Andrews < biggest UK faller in top 100

https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2018

Where's your university?

Do you put more importance on international rankings like QS or UK rankings like CUG/Guardian? Why?

Edit to add: in better news, Oxbridge tops the table for Global Employer Reputation. With Cambridge #1 and Oxford #2 ahead of Harvard and MIT.
(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Meanwhile in Ireland, Trinity (TCD), UCD and Galway all rose significantly with Trinity safely in the Top 100 at 88th place, after nearly dropping out last year.
Reply 2
16 of the 24 Russell​ Group universities have fallen in the rankings.

“Of course, there is always room for improvement, and maintaining our global position in teaching, research and innovation requires investment,” said Tim Bradshaw, the Russell Group’s acting director.

“For a number of years, funding for teaching has been squeezed. The position is particularly acute in engineering and some of the sciences, where the need for specialist facilities, equipment and technical support adds to the cost of teaching. This is something that the new government will have to look at closely if universities are to deliver the jobs and growth that we all want to see for the UK.”




Posted from TSR Mobile
The Tele are reporting that this is due to more disadvantaged students attending uni and top universities now having to recruit more diversely rather than choosing only the "top" students.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/06/07/british-universities-slip-world-rankings-experts-blame-pressure/
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 4
How is this ranking different to the complete university guide? Which is more reliable?
Reply 5
Original post by Voi
How is this ranking different to the complete university guide? Which is more reliable?


It's International, and has a different methodology.
https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology

As to your 2nd question, that's for the reader to decide... for example, are citations/department more important for you than graduate employment outcomes?

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 6 years ago)
The thing I care about most is the standard of the degree what sort of capabaities will I have when I graduate etc.

The guardian tables may as well be used as toilet paper I really don't care how much fun clubbing 18 year olds whom I'd likely never associate with are having.

So student satisfaction is not a big deal for me.

I'm guessing international tables are better as a guidance to the standard of the degree then local league tables?
Reply 7
Original post by Doonesbury
It's International, and has a different methodology.
https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology

As to your 2nd question, that's for the reader to decide...

Posted from TSR Mobile



1.

International Faculty Ratio

2.

International Student Ratio


These two metrics seem completely pointless - they don't seem to measure 'quality'?
Reply 8
Original post by Luke7456
The thing I care about most is the standard of the degree what sort of capabaities will I have when I graduate etc.

The guardian tables may as well be used as toilet paper I really don't care how much fun clubbing 18 year olds whom I'd likely never associate with are having.

So student satisfaction is not a big deal for me.

I'm guessing international tables are better as a guidance to the standard of the degree then local league tables?


Which NSS question asks about night clubs and how much weight does that question have in the Guardian rankings, compared to NSS questions about teaching and learning?

Hint:
http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/content/NSS2017_Core_Questionnaire.pdf

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 6 years ago)
Reply 9
Original post by Voi

1.

International Faculty Ratio

2.

International Student Ratio


These two metrics seem completely pointless - they don't seem to measure 'quality'?


QS says:
"A highly international university acquires and confers a number of advantages. It demonstrates an ability to attract faculty and students from across the world, which in turn suggests that it possesses a strong international brand. It implies a highly global outlook: essentially for institutions operating in an internationalised higher education sector. It also provides both students and staff alike with a multinational environment, facilitating exchange of best practices and beliefs. In doing so, it provides students with international sympathies and global awareness: soft skills increasingly valuable to employers. Both of these metrics are worth 5% of the overall total."

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Doonesbury
Which NSS question asks about night clubs and how much weight does that question have in the Guardian rankings, compared to NSS questions about teaching and learning?

Hint:
http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/content/NSS2017_Core_Questionnaire.pdf

Posted from TSR Mobile


Okay very funny but obviously they wont directly ask about getting drunk and clubbing etc but students who like to go out four times a week obviously have different standards to those that want to really study. So someone saying the course was in depth and covered a lot at a weaker university does not mean the same as someone saying that from a strong university.

EG if I took the hardest A level Math papers and gave them to C grade Math students as a sample group they would all say this was ridiculously hard

If we then took the same papers and gave them to a Class studying for Step exams with Oxbridge offers The class would probably say these papers are easy.

its all about the sample group and relevance etc so trying to assess things on student satisfaction has its flaws. Its like the local election if I ask people around universities I get overwhelmingly Labor, if I ask people from my area its strong Tory support.

if I look at the Guardian League table for Maths for example
Bristol and Nottingham are 32 and 33 and Manchester is 51

Now above this we have
Coventry in 11th
Swansea in 13th
keele in 20th
Liverpool John Moores 21st
Portsmouth 25th
university west of England 25th
Plymouth 27th
Grenwich 28th
Nottingham Trent 30th
South wales 31st

Now basically according to the Guardian all these universities are better then Manchester Nottingham and Bristol for Maths.

Does that really seem like it could be the case for you?

If I studied to the same standard at each university do you reckon that would be the case? my Plan is to study up to a first or 50 hours a week. after 50 hours a Week of studying I would likely stop. or if I am getting a strong first with less, I may stop at that point to.

Do you really think I would come out of South Wales/ Portsmouth been better at maths then if I had gone to say Manchester and put in the same level of time and effort?

Because I am highly skeptical.
Is this a cause for concern ?
Reply 12
Original post by Luke7456
Okay very funny but obviously they wont directly ask about getting drunk and clubbing etc but students who like to go out four times a week obviously have different standards to those that want to really study. So someone saying the course was in depth and covered a lot at a weaker university does not mean the same as someone saying that from a strong university.

EG if I took the hardest A level Math papers and gave them to C grade Math students as a sample group they would all say this was ridiculously hard

If we then took the same papers and gave them to a Class studying for Step exams with Oxbridge offers The class would probably say these papers are easy.

its all about the sample group and relevance etc so trying to assess things on student satisfaction has its flaws. Its like the local election if I ask people around universities I get overwhelmingly Labor, if I ask people from my area its strong Tory support.

if I look at the Guardian League table for Maths for example
Bristol and Nottingham are 32 and 33 and Manchester is 51

Now above this we have
Coventry in 11th
Swansea in 13th
keele in 20th
Liverpool John Moores 21st
Portsmouth 25th
university west of England 25th
Plymouth 27th
Grenwich 28th
Nottingham Trent 30th
South wales 31st

Now basically according to the Guardian all these universities are better then Manchester Nottingham and Bristol for Maths.

Does that really seem like it could be the case for you?

If I studied to the same standard at each university do you reckon that would be the case? my Plan is to study up to a first or 50 hours a week. after 50 hours a Week of studying I would likely stop. or if I am getting a strong first with less, I may stop at that point to.

Do you really think I would come out of South Wales/ Portsmouth been better at maths then if I had gone to say Manchester and put in the same level of time and effort?

Because I am highly skeptical.

Cambridge students go out too you know.
Original post by Doonesbury
Cambridge students go out too you know.


Yes but not to the same extent or as often. for My last degree students went out 3/4 times a week and were often hung over or did not show up for most lectures their exam revision involved learning the lecture slides from scratch the day before an exam.

You might have the occasional genius at Cambridge who can get away with this but I doubt most students there spend their time falling over getting drunk.

everyone goes out at some point and everyone studies at some point just some do more then others.

your avoiding the point do you really think Portsmouth liverpool John Moores and South Wales offer better standards then Manchester Nottingham and Bristol for Maths?
The Big 4 London Universities seem to have done fairly well. LSE is slightly surprising however, more than 10places behind KCL and almost 30 compared to UCL.

Also hadn't realised Manchester was so high up, and its also surprising they've gone down places since I thought they were investing large amounts to improve the quality of the uni. Could be wrong?
Reply 15
Original post by Luke7456

your avoiding the point do you really think Portsmouth liverpool John Moores and South Wales offer better standards then Manchester Nottingham and Bristol for Maths?


Having studied CS at USW (it was a poly in my day) I can say it gave me a very good foundation for my career.

The advise is always, and remains, pick the course/university that suits you best*. If *you* prefer Nottingham or wherever, great. If someone else prefers Portsmouth then that's up to them.

*Assuming you meet the entry requirements, of course.
Original post by Doonesbury
Having studied CS at USW (it was a poly in my day) I can say it gave me a very good foundation for my career.

The advise is always, and remains, pick the course/university that suits you best*. If *you* prefer Nottingham or wherever, great. If someone else prefers Portsmouth then that's up to them.

*Assuming you meet the entry requirements, of course.


Oh thats just a Personal below the belt dig because you know my Stats exam went horrible and I probably only got 85 when I was aiming for a 100 which means I still wont get my marks up from the F up in FP1.

So i will probably get AB Manchester might still take me though.

I prefer where I can get the best education. If I truly believed Portsmouth could get me to higher standards then Nottingham/Manchester could I would gladly choose them.

I just have my doubts.

why do so many people root against me.
Reply 17
Original post by Luke7456
Oh thats just a Personal below the belt dig because you know my Stats exam went horrible and I probably only got 85 when I was aiming for a 100 which means I still wont get my marks up from the F up in FP1.

So i will probably get AB Manchester might still take me though.

I prefer where I can get the best education. If I truly believed Portsmouth could get me to higher standards then Nottingham/Manchester could I would gladly choose them.

I just have my doubts.

why do so many people root against me.


No it wasn't a dig at all. It was a note to self... At the time my preferred choice was Kent but I didn't get the grades.
Original post by Doonesbury
No it wasn't a dig at all. It was a note to self... At the time my preferred choice was Kent but I didn't get the grades.


I assume CS is computer science or chemical engineering?

anyway how long ago was this degree standards have changed a lot since then. We now have a large group of the population going to university who would have been considered not bright enough previously.

or people that just do not put the work in. I remember my course where people went out drinking most of the time and literally put in barely any effort I spend the lectures playing computer games or doing whatever learned the exams the night before almost from scratch wrote essays etc the day before and still came out with a 2:1. I know a lot of students who did this.

its not surprising with 35-40% of young people going to university there are a lot of lazy students or people just that bright etc. and the universities need them to graduate so the standards have been seriously dumbed down.

maybe back in your day this was not so much the case and degrees still had rigor.

However these days a lot of joke degrees I really do not think portsmouth is good for Maths. I think the Acid Test comes down to if I got a weak first in the degree/ integrated Masters would an application to a post grad at Oxbridge be realistic?

My general feel is
Imperial Yes
St Andrews Yes
Durham Yes
Warwick Yes
Bath Yes
Bristol Yes
Edinburgh Yes
Lancaster Yes
Glasgow Yes
Nottingham Yes
UCL yes
Exeter possibly
Newcastle Yes
Leeds Yes
Birmingham Possibly
Surrey Possibly
Loughborough Unlikely
Dundee nope
Sussex nope
Manchester Yes
York Possibly
Southampton possibly
Cardiff Possibly
Liverpool John Moores No Chance
London Met no chance
Portsmouth No chance
Nottingham Trent No Chance
manchester Metro No chance.
Original post by NotKidding
The Big 4 London Universities seem to have done fairly well. LSE is slightly surprising however, more than 10places behind KCL and almost 30 compared to UCL.

Also hadn't realised Manchester was so high up, and its also surprising they've gone down places since I thought they were investing large amounts to improve the quality of the uni. Could be wrong?


I live next to the uni and they are still building some multi-million pound Business building and another one for engineering. I think in 10 years it's gonna be up there in the top 10 maybe top 7 in the UK for most subjects. I don't think that exact league table positions matter as much as brand name though when it comes to getting jobs

Quick Reply

Latest