Admit-One
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 week ago
#81
(Original post by Samk32)
Well so tell me why guardian and CUG use REF data in the rankings? and 2014 was not 10 years ago
Because they find value in including it as one data point of many when calculating their rankings?

Your position is that:

”Another way to choose a university is to look at REF rankings”

But for the majority of UG applicants, that’s just not going to useful. They’d be better looking at pretty much any ranking tables along with considering their own priorities.
0
reply
ScotBank16
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 week ago
#82
(Original post by PQ)
Or Strathclyde made sure that their students data was complete and correct and benefited from generous tariffs for scottish qualifications and LSE didn't bother because it doesn't matter if they properly record those 3As at A level from a previous year alongside the 1 A from this year because they're LSE and don't need to worry about a good league table position to be sure of a high demand for places.

LSE 16% of applications get an offer https://university.which.co.uk/londo...0-8e8e20858019
Strathclyde 37% of applications get an offer https://university.which.co.uk/unive...0-38d7fbaf876b

I'm no fan of LSE but the tariff system is not a reflection of selectivity and is not indicative of intelligence of students. It reflects demand, qualification profile of applicants (scottish highers and advanced highers attract much higher tariff in general than A level entrants) AND accuracy of a university's data.
generous tariffs??? what makes you think you are one to judge this? The pass rate for Scottish Highers (A-C) is 75%, with no tariff points given to grades below D whereas the pass rate (A*-E) for A Levels is around 98% with tariff points given for every band.

I also like how you infer that the majority of LSE students take A Levels when LSE is notorious for accepting international fee-paying students who are waaaaay more likely to take IB qualifications which actually benefit from inflated tariff scores.
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 week ago
#83
(Original post by ScotBank16)
generous tariffs??? what makes you think you are one to judge this? The pass rate for Scottish Highers (A-C) is 75%, with no tariff points given to grades below D whereas the pass rate (A*-E) for A Levels is around 98% with tariff points given for every band.

I also like how you infer that the majority of LSE students take A Levels when LSE is notorious for accepting international fee-paying students who are waaaaay more likely to take IB qualifications which actually benefit from inflated tariff scores.
You’re right. Generous was a poor choice of word. I was trying to point out that the Scottish education system is not comparable with the rUK system (both at university and pre university levels). The tariff system tries to measure equivalencies but comparing strathclyde to lse on tariff points is not comparing like with like. To then take that comparison and use it as a proxy for how “smart” the students are is shabby logic.

International students aren’t generally more likely to take IB. International A levels and APs are at least if not more common.

(My personal opinion is that anyone avoiding lse for undergrad degrees is smart)
1
reply
Samk32
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 week ago
#84
(Original post by PQ)
I think when you say

That you’re misleading people about what tariff scores measure and stating that “just” that one measure is the only thing any applicant like the OP should consider.

Likewise when you push REF rankings using very old research scores on undergraduates you’re misrepresenting their importance to the undergraduate experience.

You’ve shown no insight into the nuances of different metrics or the importance of non quantifiable influences. You’ve just blundered through the thread throwing out multiple misinformed opinions and misleading information about the underlying data in various rankings.
First of all, I put smart in " " for reason, guess you still haven't figured it out. Second of all, REF rankings aren't "very old research scores" they are still quite relevant, professors that conducted this research are still teaching at those universities go to REF websites and look at the articles published and the names then go to the faculty section at any university you choose. Those professors are going to be teaching you so you want them to be the experts in the field you are going to rather than professors who have not conducted any research. Simply put, you go to the university to get a job in the future and you want to graduate from the best one in that particular field, ask anyone at Investment Banks or Consultancy Firms
0
reply
Samk32
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 week ago
#85
(Original post by Admit-One)
Because they find value in including it as one data point of many when calculating their rankings?

Your position is that:

”Another way to choose a university is to look at REF rankings”

But for the majority of UG applicants, that’s just not going to useful. They’d be better looking at pretty much any ranking tables along with considering their own priorities.
I already explained how REF rankings can be useful, go figure
0
reply
Samk32
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 week ago
#86
(Original post by PQ)
You’re right. Generous was a poor choice of word. I was trying to point out that the Scottish education system is not comparable with the rUK system (both at university and pre university levels). The tariff system tries to measure equivalencies but comparing strathclyde to lse on tariff points is not comparing like with like. To then take that comparison and use it as a proxy for how “smart” the students are is shabby logic.

International students aren’t generally more likely to take IB. International A levels and APs are at least if not more common.

(My personal opinion is that anyone avoiding lse for undergrad degrees is smart)
Anyone avoiding LSE for undergrad degrees is smart? if this is the advice you give to prospective students then that is "shabby logic" https://news.efinancialcareers.com/u...morgan-stanley LSE students place really well at Investment Banks and there is a reason why
0
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 week ago
#87
(Original post by PQ)
A) I’m not a Mr
B) decide what is important to you as an individual (that might include things that can be measured but it might be less quantifiable qualities), find a university that meets your preferences that you’re capable of getting an offer for, double check that you like the location/environment, profit.

League tables can be useful sources of data if your important priorities are quantifiable.
Point B first sentence is spot on.
but imo not the league table bit, whilst generally speaking a uni ranked 5th will likely be better than a Uni ranked 45th, I have almost 0 confidence in their ability to accurately build a suitable ranking. The only criteria that works in CUG or guardian is average entry tariff. (tbh I think they invent an arbitrary methodology, and make sure it puts Oxbridge no1 & 2 to give it credibility but the actual methodology is 💩)

also if a student is unsure what criteria they should choose, prioritise the exit opportunities, or research opportunities, but obviously location, finances, size of uni, campus/city etc are all worth considering. For example: me personally I made the decision not to go to Uni in London despite it having some incredible unis with top exit opportunities.

If your interested in employability: look at the high flyers guide & graduate employer survey
Research: Its all public, both quality & quantity of every Uni (and if you don't know what to look for REF survey will give basic guidance)
Teaching quality: TEF
Experience & uni type: go visit the SU & campus...
Finance: google...

I cant recommend enough just ignoring the league tables and doing the research for yourself there is way better info about this stuff and you just need to look at the league tables overall results to see how warped & ridiculous they are, ie trent is ranked above UCL,Bristol,Notts,LSE.
0
reply
HarvestingSeason
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 week ago
#88
(Original post by mnot)
If your interested in employability: look at the high flyers guide & graduate employer survey
High fliers' research is misleading in my opinion. Massive retailers such as Tesco and Lidl are included as "top employers". This skews the numbers significantly. Additionally, it only looks at a very small portion of the market.

Use LinkedIn, there's no adjusting needed there, nor is there any faulty methodology, just a plain vision of reality.
Play around with the job titles and yearly cohorts. It's fun, informative and will paint a clear picture of where you'll really boost your employability.
Last edited by HarvestingSeason; 1 week ago
1
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 week ago
#89
(Original post by HarvestingSeason)
High fliers' research is misleading in my opinion. Massive retailers such as Tesco and Lidl are included as "top employers". This skews the numbers significantly. Additionally, it only looks at a very small portion of the market.

Use LinkedIn, there's no adjusting needed there, nor is there any faulty methodology, just a plain vision of reality.
Play around with the job titles and yearly cohorts. It's fun, informative and will paint a clear picture of where you'll really boost your employability.
The supermarket roles are looking at grad level positions such as central offices or regional management positions (not standard supermarket workers) The supermarket graduate positions are actually notoriously lucrative.
0
reply
HarvestingSeason
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 week ago
#90
(Original post by mnot)
The supermarket roles are looking at grad level positions such as central offices or regional management positions (not standard supermarket workers) The supermarket graduate positions are actually notoriously lucrative.
Sure, they're just not elitist when it comes to universities as some other employers can be and take on a large number of graduates every year. That's why that research will favor larger institutions over small ones (look at how high Leeds ranks, for instance, then compare that to LSE. Are we to deduce that prospects are higher at Leeds than at LSE?) The difference comes down to size and the fact that this research does not take that into account.
I think another thing you're disregarding is in what capacity graduates are being employed (HR and admin roles, which are not very lucrative) as well as the fact that it limits the study to a very small sample size of employers.

Just use LinkedIn to look at where alumni end up, it makes your life so much simpler.
0
reply
Stefanidi
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 week ago
#91
(Original post by A Rolling Stone)
well I went to St Andrews and am smarter than most of you tossers hahah
A non-Russell Group I understand? How radical
0
reply
Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 week ago
#92
(Original post by Samk32)
depending on the subjects the studied, since you've picked on Strathclyde vs LSE let's dig in shall we?

https://unistats.ac.uk/subjects/entr...eturnTo/Search (LSE ACC & FIN)
https://unistats.ac.uk/subjects/entr...eturnTo/Search (Strathclyde ACC & FIN)

we can clearly see that LSE has taken some students with as low as 48-63 ucas points whereas Strathclyde didn't take anyone below 144 with majority being around 200 whereas LSE 160-180
pointless because scottish qualifications are worth more ucas points than english ones. vast majority of people at Strathclyde come in with scottish quals.
1
reply
mnot
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 week ago
#93
(Original post by HarvestingSeason)
Sure, they're just not elitist when it comes to universities as some other employers can be and take on a large number of graduates every year. That's why that research will favor larger institutions over small ones (look at how high Leeds ranks, for instance, then compare that to LSE. Are we to deduce that prospects are higher at Leeds than at LSE?) The difference comes down to size and the fact that this research does not take that into account.
I think another thing you're disregarding is in what capacity graduates are being employed (HR and admin roles, which are not very lucrative) as well as the fact that it limits the study to a very small sample size of employers.

Just use LinkedIn to look at where alumni end up, it makes your life so much simpler.
yes there is no perfect employability guide, and subject specific lists would be more useful, I take your point about LSE (although LSE also lacks employability opportunity in many areas due to its small number of subjects so it goes both ways) doing Linkedin searches of specific employers would be very useful, but there are a number of worthwhile resources including the highfliers guide and linkedIn.
0
reply
A Rolling Stone
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 week ago
#94
(Original post by Stefanidi)
A non-Russell Group I understand? How radical
a +200 UCAS points uni. suck it
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 week ago
#95
(Original post by ScotBank16)
generous tariffs??? what makes you think you are one to judge this? The pass rate for Scottish Highers (A-C) is 75%, with no tariff points given to grades below D whereas the pass rate (A*-E) for A Levels is around 98% with tariff points given for every band.

I also like how you infer that the majority of LSE students take A Levels when LSE is notorious for accepting international fee-paying students who are waaaaay more likely to take IB qualifications which actually benefit from inflated tariff scores.
We've got some fairly clear data that proves how Scottish law courses benefit from having an intake that overwhelmingly did Scottish Highers and Advanced Highers. Comparing like-to-like, and comparing the offer rates, rids us of this silly notion that they attract better students or whatnot.

The second sentence relies unnecessarily on conjecture. Unistats has data on the % of the intake that did A-levels vs IB and other Baccalaureates vs Scottish stuff.
0
reply
Mustafa0605
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 week ago
#96
I think the important thing to remember is that uni ranking is not as important as course. For example if you do something like pharmacy or engineering at a lower level university you’re far more likely to earn more money than to do something like Psychology at Oxford which has very competitive entry standards. So you should never sacrifice your preferred course just for a stronger uni name.
1
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 week ago
#97
(Original post by mnot)
Point B first sentence is spot on.
but imo not the league table bit, whilst generally speaking a uni ranked 5th will likely be better than a Uni ranked 45th, I have almost 0 confidence in their ability to accurately build a suitable ranking. The only criteria that works in CUG or guardian is average entry tariff. (tbh I think they invent an arbitrary methodology, and make sure it puts Oxbridge no1 & 2 to give it credibility but the actual methodology is 💩)

also if a student is unsure what criteria they should choose, prioritise the exit opportunities, or research opportunities, but obviously location, finances, size of uni, campus/city etc are all worth considering. For example: me personally I made the decision not to go to Uni in London despite it having some incredible unis with top exit opportunities.

If your interested in employability: look at the high flyers guide & graduate employer survey
Research: Its all public, both quality & quantity of every Uni (and if you don't know what to look for REF survey will give basic guidance)
Teaching quality: TEF
Experience & uni type: go visit the SU & campus...
Finance: google...

I cant recommend enough just ignoring the league tables and doing the research for yourself there is way better info about this stuff and you just need to look at the league tables overall results to see how warped & ridiculous they are, ie trent is ranked above UCL,Bristol,Notts,LSE.
Looking at TEF as an indicator of teaching quality, in its current iteration, when you have several years' worth of raw NSS data available through the Unistats datasets, is beyond stupid.

High Fliers is a joke of a survey. The people who I'd think of as 'high fliers' would rather drop out than have to bear the shame of working in Audi's marketing team or whatever.
Last edited by JohanGRK; 1 week ago
1
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#98
Report 1 week ago
#98
(Original post by A Rolling Stone)
a +200 UCAS points uni. suck it
What are you doing with your life right now?
0
reply
Stefanidi
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#99
Report 1 week ago
#99
(Original post by A Rolling Stone)
a +200 UCAS points uni. suck it
I’m fine 🙂. Who wants to go to some overhyped wedding venue in the middle of nowhere that has only established itself due to Americans romanising over Prince William and Kate being in former attendance? Would rather go to LSE where I can actually get a job after graduating 😌
1
reply
Stefanidi
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#100
Report 1 week ago
#100
(Original post by A Rolling Stone)
a +200 UCAS points uni. suck it
And yes, please do share the top job you’ve landed since you’ve graduated a while back now...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

University open days

  • Durham University
    Pre-Application Open Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 21 Sep '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 21 Sep '19
  • Loughborough University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 21 Sep '19

Are you attending a Global Climate Strike?

Yes, I'm striking (8)
6.45%
No, but I wanted to/I support the cause (69)
55.65%
No (47)
37.9%

Watched Threads

View All