Guardian University League tables 2020 - Notts Trent rules Watch

Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 months ago
#21
(Original post by megascream)
Yes, Loughborough is good, but still, not excellent. It can easily argue that imperial/UCL/Edinburgh and even Manchester is better than Loughborough in engineering. If you are choosing between Loughborough and Manchester, the teaching/social quality in Loughborough may surpass Manchester's research quality, but Imperial/UCL will clearly provide better chances than Loughborough, yet both two are lower than Loughborough in Guardian, which doesn't make any sense.
What are these better chances, outside of academia, that UCL provides over Loughborough for engineering ?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by Student-95; 2 months ago
0
reply
megascream
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 months ago
#22
Higher employer reputation, higher quality of network, higher capacity of classmates, which all results in higher expected salaries.
As a LSE and UCL student, I don't want to be sounded like biased, so you can ignore my UCL comments, but do you really think Loughborough can rival Imperial or Bristol? It's not common for students choose Loughborough and reject Imperial/Bristol, while their rankings are all lower.

Sorry if my comments saying Loughborough is not that good comparing to several unis are offensive, I'm just trying to prove Guardian ranking is ridiculous. Again, Loughborough is very good and can attract some of the most intelligent students, but from my personal view, Imperial/LSE/UCL/Durham/Bristol, which are all lower than Loughborough in ranking, usually have better chances to attract best ones.
(Original post by Student-95)
What are these better chances, outside of academia, that UCL provides over Loughborough for engineering ?
Last edited by megascream; 2 months ago
0
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#23
Report 2 months ago
#23
(Original post by megascream)
Higher employer reputation, higher quality of network, higher capacity of classmates, which all results in higher expected salaries.
As a LSE and UCL student, I don't want to be sounded like biased, so you can ignore my UCL comments, but do you really think Loughborough can rival Imperial or Bristol? It's not common for students choose Loughborough and reject Imperial/Bristol, while their rankings are all lower.
Which engineering employers have said they value UCL grads over Loughborough grads?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#24
Report 2 months ago
#24
These uni rankings are so often BS, but this is a new level. LSE IS 30TH FOR ECONOMICS AHAHAHA
0
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 2 months ago
#25
(Original post by DarthRoar)
These uni rankings are so often BS, but this is a new level. LSE IS 30TH FOR ECONOMICS AHAHAHA
What's wrong with that? Have you studied economics at lse, let alone the other 29 above it?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 months ago
#26
(Original post by Student-95)
Have you studied economics at lse, let alone the other 29 above it?
Correction: LSE is 35th. I do indeed study economics at one of the 34 above it. The idea that Nottingham Trent would be 28 places above LSE at economics is patently absurd.

These rankings are ultra-skewed by satisfaction reporting from the NSS. If I'm a slacker who coasted into a mediocre university and is given an easy and un-challenging course, I'm going to be very happy and rate everything highly. If you're challenged and have to work hard and struggle, you probably wont rate things as highly, but you'll have benefited more.

What matters is how much you've actually learnt, how well you've been able to apply it, and how much it will benefit your future employment. However, these rankings mostly forget about that, and ask how students 'feel' instead.
Last edited by DarthRoar; 2 months ago
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 2 months ago
#27
(Original post by Student-95)
Depends on the industry. Loughborough is a very good choice if you're pursuing engineering and I'd choose it over the London unis.
Yes L'Boro is well respected for engineering but, Imperial is still well above it and the top end RG unis generally have more expertise as well. tbh Uni rankings are a complete joke, the data is pure ****...
0
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#28
Report 2 months ago
#28
(Original post by DarthRoar)
Correction: LSE is 35th. I do indeed study economics at one of the 34 above it. The idea that Nottingham Trent would be 28 places above LSE at economics is patently absurd.

These rankings are ultra-skewed by satisfaction reporting from the NSS. If I'm a slacker who coasted into a mediocre university and is given an easy and un-challenging course, I'm going to be very happy and rate everything highly. If you're challenged and have to work hard and struggle, you probably wont rate things as highly, but you'll have benefited more.

What matters is how much you've actually learnt, how well you've been able to apply it, and how much it will benefit your future employment. However, these rankings mostly forget about that, and ask how students 'feel' instead.
So it's absurd that a uni you've never studied at is ranked below other unis you've never studied at.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#29
Report 2 months ago
#29
(Original post by DarthRoar)
Correction: LSE is 35th. I do indeed study economics at one of the 34 above it. The idea that Nottingham Trent would be 28 places above LSE at economics is patently absurd.

These rankings are ultra-skewed by satisfaction reporting from the NSS. If I'm a slacker who coasted into a mediocre university and is given an easy and un-challenging course, I'm going to be very happy and rate everything highly. If you're challenged and have to work hard and struggle, you probably wont rate things as highly, but you'll have benefited more.

What matters is how much you've actually learnt, how well you've been able to apply it, and how much it will benefit your future employment. However, these rankings mostly forget about that, and ask how students 'feel' instead.
Not just NSS, but almost all of the data makes no sense. The employability data is based on the % of students in work/further study after 6 months, salary, industry, future prospects are all disregarded.
Value added score is a terrible way of evaluating teaching, the research metrics don't align with REF, student to staff ratios are easily manipulated. Pretty much the only part of the methodology they get right is entry standards.

It's designed to get clicks and ad revenue, and does not honestly asses Unis accurately,
Coventry, trent, glasgow & lincoln all rank above: Nottingham, UCL, LSE, Bristol, Southampton...
That is an indication that their methodology is a complete joke, researchers & employers cant and dont take these things seriously
1
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 months ago
#30
(Original post by mnot)
Yes L'Boro is well respected for engineering but, Imperial is still well above it and the top end RG unis generally have more expertise as well. tbh Uni rankings are a complete joke, the data is pure ****...
What do you mean expertise? That sounds like a good thing if you want to go into research
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
XOR_
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 months ago
#31
look about right to me
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 months ago
#32
(Original post by Student-95)
What do you mean expertise? That sounds like a good thing if you want to go into research
Thats my point L'Boro is a very good engineering school... but it does not have the same level of expertise other Unis with more engineering research have its still an excellent program tho...
0
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 months ago
#33
(Original post by mnot)
Thats my point L'Boro is a very good engineering school... but it does not have the same level of expertise other Unis with more engineering research have its still an excellent program tho...
But research isn't very important for most students who go into industry. If you want to go into research/academia then fair enough but those students are a minority.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 months ago
#34
(Original post by Student-95)
But research isn't very important for most students who go into industry. If you want to go into research/academia then fair enough but those students are a minority.
Yes but if you care about the content the uni is providing you in the teaching, some professors have more expertise than others, if all you want is the piece of a paper from a reputable institute then yes very true L'Boro is considered a very strong engineering uni, but if you care about the content as well, then you might want to have more world leading experts on hand teaching you the content and a handful of Unis have that in engineering.
0
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 months ago
#35
(Original post by mnot)
Yes but if you care about the content the uni is providing you in the teaching, some professors have more expertise than others, if all you want is the piece of a paper from a reputable institute then yes very true L'Boro is considered a very strong engineering uni, but if you care about the content as well, then you might want to have more world leading experts on hand teaching you the content and a handful of Unis have that in engineering.
Often the good researchers are hopeless lecturers. They have been hired because they are great researchers but they can't teach to save their lives. Also, students that want to go into industry would benefit more from a lecturer with industry experience, not an expert academic who never left uni. When it comes to content the best bet for engineering would be unis with a more practical, industry focused approach and the top research unis tend to be the opposite.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 months ago
#36
(Original post by Student-95)
So it's absurd that a uni you've never studied at is ranked below other unis you've never studied at.
It's absurd that an extremely well renowned university for Economics with the highest expected earnings of all university courses is ranked 28 places below an ex-poly with poor prestige and poor expectations. FYI, I have actually studied at a university that was ranked higher, and can tell you it doesn't deserve to be so.
0
reply
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 months ago
#37
(Original post by DarthRoar)
It's absurd that an extremely well renowned university for Economics with the highest expected earnings of all university courses is ranked 28 places below an ex-poly with poor prestige and poor expectations. FYI, I have actually studied at a university that was ranked higher, and can tell you it doesn't deserve to be so.
You're talking about perception though, which is not necessarily the same as reality. Also perception is going to have a big effect on salary. If people THINK lse is the top uni for economics then the top students will strive to go there over an 'ex poly with poor prestige'. So yes they earn more but how much of that is because of the uni being any good, and how much is because the students going there are better in the first place? It's not a fair comparison at all. You'll also find a class difference between lse students and those of an ex poly which is another factor to skew salary data as well as London having higher salaries than the rest of the UK. So higher expected earnings proves nothing.

You can't tell me anything of the sort if you haven't studied at lse as well. You're trying to say A is better than B when you know the value of B but not of A.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 months ago
#38
(Original post by J-SP)
Someone needs to look at why the app is rubbish at cutting off posts if you go back to edit them...

Salary and industry aren’t good measures - they’d be worse than the current one which is basically “did you need a degree to do this job”. The good news is that the employability data will switch to 18 months post graduating - must be next year if it isn’t this year. That will at least be a little more reflective of the employability stats.

However whatever the system, the data collection will always be open to abuse. For employability that will include universities employing their NEET on short term assignments, or putting them on a free short term PG course when the survey is taken. For others it will be paying employers to take them on short term assignments. But even outside of these practices, even the resource put into manipulating the inputs of data will always skew the data in the universities favour - even the basics of who they communicate the NSS out to, who they fail to chase up, who they actively target. That drives all of the data, not just employability to be skewed. And why the whole thing needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
The NSS (and now the graduate survey) is run by HESA/Ipsos MORI. Universities don’t have any input into which students are targeted to complete the surveys and chasing emails/phone calls.
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 months ago
#39
(Original post by J-SP)
Just because someone conducts the survey, doesn’t mean other organisations haven’t got the power and capability to promote it. You are naive if you think universities are not promoting (and sometimes pressurising) certain groups to complete the NSS and actively removing those from the communications where they know the stats will work against them.

I’ve seen it in action. I’ve been part of the process (securing alumni NEETs a job and then sending them a link to the NSS to complete). I’ve been in meetings where these tactics have been discussed by senior management in universities.
Even if a university isn’t promoting the survey to a student they’ll receive 5 emails and a minimum of 3 phone calls to get them to complete it.

(It was different for the DLHE survey where universities were responsible for conducting the survey - although universities had their results suppressed when selective surveying was uncovered).

I’m afraid senior management are obsessed with “tactics” that they think will improve their NSS because they are rubbish (or incapable or scared) at actually delivering good teaching that is the only solid way to improve NSS performance. That doesn’t mean their nonsense tactics are effective
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 months ago
#40
(Original post by J-SP)
Quality teaching is only one of the measures of the survey. So there are plenty of basic ways to ensure other measures work in a universities favour.

You seem to misunderstand how basic data can be utilised to show how these tactics are working. It often doesn’t need a seismic impact, small changes and influences here and there can have a real collective impact that helps.

Having done this purely focused on improving the employability stats with very small sections of a student population, I know these “tactics” are working. The results and improvements of the surveys are proof in part of that.
I’m more than well aware of the various ways to maximise league table performance. It’s part of my job description (and something I do very well).

Selective promotion of the NSS isn’t effective in improving results. Improving staff satisfaction and nailing timetabling is. But senior management don’t want to deliver the difficult but effective solutions. The NSS is by far the most difficult metric for a university to improve without delivering significant improvements to organisation and teaching. I have seen a single department delivering significant improvements by adjusting the timing of semester 1 results and actively encouraging students to fill in the NSS before the results were released - but that just lifted their results from abysmal to good for a year - then they slipped back to just below median once the staff lost interest. Still an improvement but rearranging the timing of the final year of assessment is a lot of work to get to “middling” results.

The dlhe stats used to be a very easy area to improve (primarily because so few universities actually properly bothered to properly code up job types but also because there was an option to chase for more information if it looked like a graduate had only provided partial details about what they were doing). Now the survey is centrally compiled and coded using automated systems there’s going to be some big shifts in the data.

The easiest metric to “fix” is entry requirements. Most universities have a huge number of tariffable qualifications that they don’t properly record. Even just a week or so focusing on checking/properly recording the data for the lowest 5% of entrant tariffs has a significant impact on overall averages.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,500

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 (213)
12.71%
Excited (151)
9.01%
Worried (303)
18.08%
Terrified (375)
22.37%
Meh (155)
9.25%
Confused (37)
2.21%
Putting on a brave face (230)
13.72%
Impatient (212)
12.65%

Watched Threads

View All