Guardian 2019 University Ranking Watch

17blackhes
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
So the Guardian have just released university rankings for 2019!

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...2019?CMP=fb_gu

What’s everyone’s opinions?

For example: Nottingham Trent is now ranked above Uni of Nottingham and Loughborough is ranked 4th.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
6
reply
abhinair3004
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
It's an absolute farce, Southampton Solent in 14th in the Law Tables? Abertay over Glasgow and KCL?
12
reply
17blackhes
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by abhinair3004)
It's an absolute farce, Southampton Solent in 14th in the Law Tables? Abertay over Glasgow and KCL?
But perhaps its the case that ex-polys are making their way up the league tables rather than a misjudgement by the Guardian?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
Dinasaurus
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
I disagree with the methodology putting so much focus on student satisfaction, but if you check for graduate prospects, which imo is the best indicator you'll find that even the traditionally looked-down upon unis are all improving. Although there are still some awful institutions out there, the top 90 or so all provide good grad prospects for more than 2/3rds of their students and over 40 institutions with 80+% grad employment.
5
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
What a load of ****e, Nottingham Trent is superb within psychology apparently.
1
reply
17blackhes
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by random_matt)
What a load of ****e, Nottingham Trent is superb within psychology apparently.
Can you please elaborate what’s so bad about Nottingham Trents psychology department?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
2
reply
username3917068
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
I had a really good laugh
14
reply
Dinasaurus
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Despite some flaws with the guardian table, I find it silly that people are so quick to dismiss it not because the methodology but because anything that suggests an ex-poly doing well in one criteria above a russel group, just isn't acceptable.
14
reply
17blackhes
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Dinasaurus)
Despite some flaws with the guardian table, I find it silly that people are so quick to dismiss it not because the methodology but because anything that suggests an ex-poly doing well in one criteria above a russel group, just isn't acceptable.
Completely agreed. If an ex-poly is doing well, then people say its a load of rubbish. Imo, ex-polys such as Nottingham Trent are really on the rise.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Dinasaurus
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by 17blackhes)
Completely agreed. If an ex-poly is doing well, then people say its a load of rubbish. Imo, ex-polys such as Nottingham Trent are really on the rise.
When they released the TEF standards last year I think they were rubbished by TSR because high-ranking unis sometimes got silver and bronze, as if how well a university conducts research or how hard it is to get into has any bearing on the quality of teaching.
0
reply
abhinair3004
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by 17blackhes)
But perhaps its the case that ex-polys are making their way up the league tables rather than a misjudgement by the Guardian?
Okay , ex-polys may be making their way up but then every ranking should show that trend. It's just been Guardian
2
reply
Helloworld_95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
The Guardian rankings have never been good to be fair, they can't even do subject rankings well let alone overall.

A large part of the problem of using so many metrics is that it overcomplicates things for the reader. When you're looking at CUG you can easily pick out which of the metrics you think are valid and then compare universities based upon those, but for Guardian rankings it's difficult to compare unis on more than one metric at a time.

I think student satisfaction is also difficult to measure as people going to different unis and courses will expect different things, someone going to a uni they perceive as better is going to expect better teaching and more labs and practical work than someone at a worse uni. In addition it's easier to run an 'easier' version course smoothly. If the content of a module is cut down by 20% then that's a lot less support that needs to be given, or there will be expectations of more challenging topics for modules at a more difficult uni so if that's not fulfilled in the right way then people will be left unsatisfied.

Adjustments also need to be made depending on the courses offered by the uni, e.g. of course specialist unis
for higher paid professions like LSE and Imperial are going to score higher for career prospects. The prospects should perhaps be course normalised before so it's e.g. 120% of the average prospects for this course before all of those being averaged for the overall rankings.

Another problem is the student-to-staff ratio, which discriminates against universities which try to hire undergraduate and postgraduate students.

edit: To clarify, I think ex-polys should be rising up the ranks, and it's good to see that happening. My comments are regarding all unis, not just trying to distinguish between RGs (to simplify) and ex-polys.
14
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by 17blackhes)
Loughborough is ranked 3rd.
Loughborough is 4th?

I like the Guardian methodology - the focus on the subject tables (and the overall ranking as an aggregate of performance in every subject table) makes it less likely to reward universities that have a few good departments and a lot of naff ones.

(Original post by Dinasaurus)
I disagree with the methodology putting so much focus on student satisfaction,
25% weighting on NSS results (with the focus on teaching and assessment and feedback)
That's exactly the same weighting given by the Complete and Times rankings (except they include scores on the less teaching focused questions.....)

Which NSS question do you disagree with focus on?
2
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by abhinair3004)
Okay , ex-polys may be making their way up but then every ranking should show that trend. It's just been Guardian
The guardian is the only ranking that doesn't place a large emphasis on research but is focused on TEACHING metrics to inform potential undergraduates.
1
reply
_gcx
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
They ranked Liverpool John Moores above UCL and Imperial for maths.

Need I say more.
16
reply
XOR_
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
2
reply
nottshistpol1821
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
Any league table that moves a uni up 18 places in one year clearly has some questionable methodology!

This type of thing is why I've generally ignored league tables throughout the application process.
8
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Helloworld_95)
The Guardian rankings have never been good to be fair, they can't even do subject rankings well let alone overall.

A large part of the problem of using so many metrics is that it overcomplicates things for the reader. When you're looking at CUG you can easily pick out which of the metrics you think are valid and then compare universities based upon those, but for Guardian rankings it's difficult to compare unis on more than one metric at a time.

I think student satisfaction is also difficult to measure as people going to different unis and courses will expect different things, someone going to a uni they perceive as better is going to expect better teaching and more labs and practical work than someone at a worse uni. In addition it's easier to run an 'easier' version course smoothly. If the content of a module is cut down by 20% then that's a lot less support that needs to be given, or there will be expectations of more challenging topics for modules at a more difficult uni so if that's not fulfilled in the right way then people will be left unsatisfied.
The CUG includes the measure of how organised a course was. The Guardian only look at NSS teaching and assessment and feedback questions - these 8 questions to be clear

They're not questions that would be affected by the level of rigour in a course (unless the course was only rigourous by making expectations unclear)

Adjustments also need to be made depending on the courses offered by the uni, e.g. of course specialist unis
for higher paid professions like LSE and Imperial are going to score higher for career prospects. The prospects should perhaps be course normalised before so it's e.g. 120% of the average prospects for this course before all of those being averaged for the overall rankings.
Unfortunately the evidence is increasingly clear that background has more of an impact on these measures than university. Although the Guardian is the only ranking that does normalise scores (for value added and continuation) and that normalises for subject mix in the fundamental methodology.

Another problem is the student-to-staff ratio, which discriminates against universities which try to hire undergraduate and postgraduate students.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? If a university employs students then they will be included as staff in the SSR calculation as long as they're employed on an academic (teaching) contract.
0
reply
17blackhes
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by catherineoxley12)
Any league table that moves a uni up 18 places in one year clearly has some questionable methodology!

This type of thing is why I've generally ignored league tables throughout the application process.

So what did you base your uni choices on?
2
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Dinasaurus)
Despite some flaws with the guardian table, I find it silly that people are so quick to dismiss it not because the methodology but because anything that suggests an ex-poly doing well in one criteria above a russel group, just isn't acceptable.
The issue is doing well in one criterion is determinative, when it isn't. How much is an applicant willing to trade a supportive university experience (from academic staff) with potentially lower employability? The other rankings are superior because they focus on criteria which loosely correlate with the employability of the course, how sophisticated and rigorous the course is, e.g. research and spend on academic services.

There are two big issues with NSS. Different places have different ideas about what they should do with NSS, some think that they should be honest so that applicants should know what they're getting themselves in to whereas others are encouraged by academic staff to give a sympathetic NSS response. The other is a difference in expectations, the student with DDC turning up at Portsmouth might expect it to be terrible and then be overwhelmed by how good it is. In contrast, the A*A*A* student turning up at LSE might expect the world and be disappointed.
5
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,829

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (221)
12.46%
Excited (166)
9.36%
Worried (309)
17.43%
Terrified (390)
22%
Meh (186)
10.49%
Confused (39)
2.2%
Putting on a brave face (244)
13.76%
Impatient (218)
12.3%

Watched Threads

View All