The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why do people think high entry tariffs = top uni

Surely this is just one indicator of a university's 'reputation'. People don't take things like the university's endowment, history and global reputation into as much account, which I would've thought are also valid indicators of reputation. For some reason people put so much more emphasis on the UCAS score of the average student there, when this is often higher than the actual entry requirement and is based on the current popularity of the institution rather than its actual 'prestige'.

I just find it baffling that students (at least on here) don't seem to rate global giants like Manchester/Birmingham particularly highly, in comparison to, say, Bath/Exeter. I always thought the former were very much 'top' unis.
(edited 6 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Bath and Exeter have a higher overall ranking....
Original post by beatles17
Surely this is just one indicator of a university's 'reputation'. People don't take things like the university's endowment, history and global reputation into as much account, which I would've thought are also valid indicators of reputation. For some reason people put so much more emphasis on the UCAS score of the average student there, when this is often higher than the actual entry requirement and is based on the current popularity of the institution rather than its actual 'prestige'.

I just find it baffling that students (at least on here) don't seem to rate global giants like Manchester/Birmingham particularly highly, in comparison to, say, Bath/Exeter. I always thought the former were very much 'top' unis.


Because people are dumb.
Reply 3
Avatar for gman999
gman999
13
Global reputation comes from the quality and quantity of research done by the university PERIOD. No one gives a **** if the staff to student ratio is 1:50 or it has a f****** swimming pool.
Original post by beatles17
Surely this is just one indicator of a university's 'reputation'. People don't take things like the university's endowment, history and global reputation into as much account, which I would've thought are also valid indicators of reputation. For some reason people put so much more emphasis on the UCAS score of the average student there, when this is often higher than the actual entry requirement and is based on the current popularity of the institution rather than its actual 'prestige'.

I just find it baffling that students (at least on here) don't seem to rate global giants like Manchester/Birmingham particularly highly, in comparison to, say, Bath/Exeter. I always thought the former were very much 'top' unis.


Local reputation is mostly driven by student perceptions and outcomes (with a healthy dose of research, spending and employer reputation etc).

Global rankings are driven by how much academics know other academics, number and %age of international staff/student and wider employer regard.

Either way universities like Bath, St Andrews, Durham and Exeter are no doubt still top notch institutions they are just different than their larger counterparts. Reputation and rankings aren't wholly linked. I'd say even though Lancaster is ranked higher than Edinburgh in local tables, Edinburgh is still far more prestigious.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Princepieman
Local reputation is mostly driven by student perceptions and outcomes (with a healthy dose of research, spending and employer reputation etc).

Global rankings are driven by how much academics know other academics, number and %age of international staff/student and wider employer regard.

Either way universities like Bath, St Andrews, Durham and Exeter are no doubt still top notch institutions they are just different than their larger counterparts. Reputation and rankings aren't wholly linked. I'd say even though Lancaster is ranked higher than Edinburgh in local tables, Edinburgh is still far more prestigious.

Posted from TSR Mobile


In that case, isn't it better to go by what academics think, rather than what students think? Seems like more 'objective' advice. What the hell do students know?
Original post by beatles17
In that case, isn't it better to go by what academics think, rather than what students think? Seems like more 'objective' advice. What the hell do students know?


Academics are focused on research, students are focused on prospects.. So I'm not sure how an academic's opinion of their research colleagues' work affects my own eventual career prospects and opportunities.
Original post by chungyanho
Bath and Exeter have a higher overall ranking....


That doesn't necessarily mean anything though. The domestic league table rankings (I assume that's what you mean) are pretty flawed, and they're not much higher ranked anyway. Being 5-10 places higher is a minuscule amount of difference when 130 or so institutions are being compared.

Never go to a university because of a number. Those places might drop 20 places by the time you graduate (although it wouldn't mean your prospects would drop too).
What you mean is that Manchester and Birmingham are better known. That doesn't mean they're known in a positive prestigious light.

More people know about McDonald's than my local Michelin-starred restaurant, but they'd prefer to eat at the latter.
Quite simple really. The entry grades differentiate students based on their academic capabilities. If a university requires high grades, a high amount of high-achieving students will be attending the university. This means that the university will have researchers of greater academic capabilities, resulting in the university yielding overall better research. This results in more money for the university, where the university can pay for better teaching. Better teaching + better research = better university. I'm disregarding the "social" side of the university as that's entirely subjective to opinion.
Original post by Princepieman
Academics are focused on research, students are focused on prospects.. So I'm not sure how an academic's opinion of their research colleagues' work affects my own eventual career prospects and opportunities.


Students should be focused on research. Students are academic, aren't they?

Usually if the research carried out at a university is rated highly by academics and experts (people of importance), this leads to more recognition, feeding into the university's general 'prestige', which indirectly leads to better prospects for the students. I would've thought that's roughly how it works.

If today's kids are going to university purely because they see it as an opportunity to make a lot of money for themselves, even more so than seeing it as an opportunity to be surrounded by experts in their fields, get a good education and further their minds, then that makes me feel incredibly cynical and empty.

Where do they even get their impressions of a university's 'prospects' from? The Sunday Times? Word of mouth?
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by omarathon
Quite simple really. The entry grades differentiate students based on their academic capabilities. If a university requires high grades, a high amount of high-achieving students will be attending the university. This means that the university will have researchers of greater academic capabilities, resulting in the university yielding overall better research. This results in more money for the university, where the university can pay for better teaching. Better teaching + better research = better university. I'm disregarding the "social" side of the university as that's entirely subjective to opinion.


In general, yes. But it gets a bit meaningless when we're comparing universities where the entry tariff is over 400 on average. Yet people view the ones as having over or close to 500 as being 'top universities', when in reality, that's just where the students with the highest UCAS choose to go to. It doesn't mean those universities are actually better (excluding Oxbridge), or lead to better prospects, than those between 420-450. As far as I can see it's based on nothing more than changing trends and current popularity.
(edited 6 years ago)
Because they're mugs.
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
What you mean is that Manchester and Birmingham are better known. That doesn't mean they're known in a positive prestigious light.

More people know about McDonald's than my local Michelin-starred restaurant, but they'd prefer to eat at the latter.


I'd say they are pretty prestigious from an objective academic view (rather than a Sunday Times-endorsed view which seems to be the brainwashed fabric of TSR).
Original post by beatles17
I'd say they are pretty prestigious from an objective academic view (rather than a Sunday Times-endorsed view which seems to be the brainwashed fabric of TSR).


There's nothing objective about it. You are subjectively choosing objective metrics. Or as I like to call it, cherry picking.

But back to the point, you attempted to say those two unis are more prestigious because they're more globally known. From my example, well-known =/= prestigious. Sizeable endowment can simply mean lots of alumni (so a big uni) or lots of rich sheik alumni (who perhaps happen to be dunderheads). If a uni which has a very large endowment still cannot attract the best students, then that tells you there is something wrong with the course and leadership of the uni.

So why attracting the best students matters? It means that the uni can be more selective and therefore to get onto the programme is more impressive. If we are asking what Uni X adds to your CV, the ability to have got onto a selective programme tells people that the person has a number of excellent qualities. It tells people a lot more than "my uni has a lot of sheikh alumni".
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
There's nothing objective about it. You are subjectively choosing objective metrics. Or as I like to call it, cherry picking..


It's no different to what people do with universities that have less global appeal but score highly on domestic rankings, but global rankings seem to be more 'objective'. Not to mention people are starting to take them much more seriously now than domestic ones, which are increasingly being considered a joke.

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
But back to the point, you attempted to say those two unis are more prestigious because they're more globally known. From my example, well-known =/= prestigious. Sizeable endowment can simply mean lots of alumni (so a big uni) or lots of rich sheik alumni (who perhaps happen to be dunderheads). If a uni which has a very large endowment still cannot attract the best students, then that tells you there is something wrong with the course and leadership of the uni.


But they still attract very good students. They might not have 90%+ Oxbridge rejects but they don't just accept anyone either. They don't attract the 'best' students because this generation isn't used to seeing them ranked right at the top of a university league table (although some of the 'best' students still go to them, and a lot of rich private school kids go to them too). If either Manchester or Birmingham were ranked in the top 5-10 in domestic rankings, students would think 'ah yes, of course that's a top uni' in the same way UCL and Durham are seen. There's no reason they can't rank that high and be 'up there' with those, they easily could with the amount of funding they get, it's just that they've chosen to focus on improving their global reputations rather than their domestic ones.
(edited 6 years ago)
Top 30 for law requirements are basically all the same anwmyway
Original post by beatles17
It's no different to what people do with universities that have less global appeal but score highly on domestic rankings, but global rankings seem to be more 'objective'. Not to mention people are starting to take them much more seriously now than domestic ones, which are increasingly being considered a joke.


Indeed it is no different, but you're playing it off as if you have the objective magical elixir. Ultimately you are talking tosh as much as everyone else.


But they still attract very good students. They might not have 90%+ Oxbridge rejects but they don't just accept anyone either. They don't attract the 'best' students because this generation isn't used to seeing them ranked right at the top of a university league table (although some of the 'best' students still go to them, and a lot of rich private school kids go to them too). If Manchester and Birmingham were ranked in the top 5-10 in the domestic rankings, people would think 'ah yes, of course they're top unis' and flock to them like crazy (and it has to be said, unlike some in the current made-up newspaper-created top 10, they actually look like prestigious universities).


They do attract good students, but attracting only some good students means your application process must still be quite open. If you attract mostly good students, your application can be more closed.

You're looking at things backwards. If the rankings changed, the better students would go to Manchester. Yes, but they haven't changed. Also what you're saying is circular: in the hypothetical the only means by which it would change would be if the better students went to Manchester, as that is obviously part of the rankings methodology too. It is somewhat true what you're saying, but it's not as meaningful as you think.


Original post by Chichaldo
Top 30 for law requirements are basically all the same anwmyway


A*AA, AAA, AAB. And Kent is 19th in CUG for law and its offers start at ABB.

A*AA and ABB are hardly "basically the same".
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
A*AA, AAA, AAB. And Kent is 19th in CUG for law and its offers start at ABB.

A*AA and ABB are hardly "basically the same".

They must have dropped. Were all AAA and above before
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
Indeed it is no different, but you're playing it off as if you have the objective magical elixir. Ultimately you are talking tosh as much as everyone else.


Fair enough. I don't have the objective magical elixir. At least we can agree that most people on TSR talk tosh.

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
They do attract good students, but attracting only some good students means your application process must still be quite open. If you attract mostly good students, your application can be more closed.


That's because they're big multi-faculty universities (especially Manchester) that offer loads of courses compared to somewhere like Durham for instance. In terms of the size of the intake, you'd probably find the number of 'good' students and Birmingham/Manchester and Durham is quite similar, but you'd also find more ABB students at Birmingham/Manchester doing slightly less core/traditional subjects which Durham doesn't offer - so the percentage is less (and also because they're twice/three times the size of Durham). For the more traditional subjects at Birmingham/Manchester and Durham, the entry requirements and even the entry tariffs are probably closer than you'd think.

I don't see why being a smaller university and offering fewer courses = 'better university', and I don't think employers or anyone except for a few insular snobs really think this. I think the fact Birmingham and Manchester offer so many courses, are still highly regarded and still rank pretty high says something.

Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
You're looking at things backwards. If the rankings changed, the better students would go to Manchester. Yes, but they haven't changed. Also what you're saying is circular: in the hypothetical the only means by which it would change would be if the better students went to Manchester, as that is obviously part of the rankings methodology too. It is somewhat true what you're saying, but it's not as meaningful as you think.


The rankings haven't changed because the agenda of those universities is to focus on improving their global reputation rather than climb up a Sunday Times ranking. Students aren't aware of this. 15 years ago they were both bubbling outside the top 10. In the 90s, Birmingham was higher than Durham and UCL for average entry requirements in some tables. Sussex was also considered a 'top' uni. These things change all the time that it doesn't matter. It's just fashion, it always changes. Even the current supposed 'top' universities may become unpopular in a few years.

Entry tariffs are only a part of the rankings methodology, not the whole thing. Places can move up the league tables without attracting 'the best' students, and that in turn can attract more students with higher entry tariffs (Surrey is gradually doing this). However the methodology of the UK rankings always seems to favour the smaller universities for some reason, sadly this influences students' perceptions of 'prestige', in turn driving up entry tariffs at those places. Even further down the rankings you'd probably see Manchester Met a lower than smaller ex-polys. Smaller isn't synonymous with 'more selective'.

Ultimately, newspaper rankings have only been around since the 90s and are still a relatively new phenomenon in higher education, considering how old these universities are. How do you think people measured the reputation of universities before then? At the end of the day, universities aren't football teams.
(edited 6 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you