Guardian University League Table 2021

Watch
Sentenced_to
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#1
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...1-league-table

Nothing toooooo crazy this year (other than a few 50+ places ups and downs of course) - me thinks....
Last edited by Sentenced_to; 2 months ago
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 months ago
#2
There is no better indication of how awful league tables are than how significantly rankings change each year. LSE from 19th to 5th - how? What did they actually do to warrant that, and how did they manage it in one year?

And how is Cambridge doing worse than St. Andrews? It performs better in every metric but one.
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 months ago
#3
(Original post by Theloniouss)
There is no better indication of how awful league tables are than how significantly rankings change each year. LSE from 19th to 5th - how? What did they actually do to warrant that, and how did they manage it in one year?

And how is Cambridge doing worse than St. Andrews? It performs better in every metric but one.
The guardian overall ranking isn’t based on the overall metrics in the table (they’re provided for information). The overall ranking is an aggregate of the university ranking in every individual subject table. To do well in the guardian a university needs to be well ranked in every subject they provide - they can’t mask dodgy subjects by having a large medical school like in the other rankings.
1
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 months ago
#4
(Original post by PQ)
The guardian overall ranking isn’t based on the overall metrics in the table (they’re provided for information). The overall ranking is an aggregate of the university ranking in every individual subject table. To do well in the guardian a university needs to be well ranked in every subject they provide - they can’t mask dodgy subjects by having a large medical school like in the other rankings.
Oh, that's interesting. How do they calculate it for schools like LSE that only offer a few subjects?

Also, how do you know? This guardian article appears to suggest they don't: "We rank universities through eight different scores which form a total out of 100."
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 months ago
#5
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Oh, that's interesting. How do they calculate it for schools like LSE that only offer a few subjects?

Also, how do you know? This guardian article appears to suggest they don't: "We rank universities through eight different scores which form a total out of 100."
“For those prospective undergraduates who do not know which subject they wish to study but still want to know where institutions rank in relation to one another, the Guardian scores have been averaged for each institution across all subjects to generate an institution-level table.”
“Each institution has overall versions of each of the indicators displayed next to its overall score out of 100, but these are crude institutional averages that are otherwise disconnected from the tables and give no consideration to subject mix. Therefore these institutional averages cannot be used to calculate the overall score or ranking position.”
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ity-guide-2021
Also
“Institutions that appear in fewer than eight subject tables are not included in the main ranking of universities.”
LSE is ranked in 8 or more subject tables.
1
reply
Sentenced_to
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#6
(Original post by Theloniouss)
There is no better indication of how awful league tables are than how significantly rankings change each year. LSE from 19th to 5th - how? What did they actually do to warrant that, and how did they manage it in one year?
London School of Economics was joint second place with Oxford and Cambridge for graduate jobs, enabling it to leap to fifth place overall from 19th, and re-enter the top 10 for the first time since 2015. LSE’s improvement was helped by high demand for graduates in economics and law, two of its major subject areas.

It was boosted further by higher ratings from its own students, who gave LSE improved scores for course satisfaction, assessment and teaching, where it had previously lagged behind its rivals.


https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...iversity-guide
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 months ago
#7
(Original post by Sentenced_to)
London School of Economics was joint second place with Oxford and Cambridge for graduate jobs, enabling it to leap to fifth place overall from 19th, and re-enter the top 10 for the first time since 2015. LSE’s improvement was helped by high demand for graduates in economics and law, two of its major subject areas.

It was boosted further by higher ratings from its own students, who gave LSE improved scores for course satisfaction, assessment and teaching, where it had previously lagged behind its rivals.


https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...iversity-guide
I figured it was doing better in the statistics, my question is more "what did they do?" It doesn't make sense for a university to make no significant changes to their teaching, student support (etc.) but still end up improving its ranking that far.
0
reply
Sentenced_to
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 months ago
#8
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I figured it was doing better in the statistics, my question is more "what did they do?" It doesn't make sense for a university to make no significant changes to their teaching, student support (etc.) but still end up improving its ranking that far.
Yes I agree. Its a little fishy to jump places just because there was an increased demand for "economics and law graduates" during a period, but at the same time the improvement in student satisfaction is a legit reason IMO as it indicates a change in teaching approaches.
Meanwhile in the same universe... Stratclyde jumped from 51 to 15. Yeah! Well done Strathy!:banana:
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 months ago
#9
(Original post by Theloniouss)
I figured it was doing better in the statistics, my question is more "what did they do?" It doesn't make sense for a university to make no significant changes to their teaching, student support (etc.) but still end up improving its ranking that far.
I’m not sure why you assume LSE aren’t putting considerable efforts into changing their teaching to improve NSS performance? That’s been in their strategy for quite a long time now and significant improvements take 3 years to feed into NSS results.
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 months ago
#10
(Original post by PQ)
I’m not sure why you assume LSE aren’t putting considerable efforts into changing their teaching to improve NSS performance? That’s been in their strategy for quite a long time now and significant improvements take 3 years to feed into NSS results.
It's not that they aren't making any improvements, it's that you surely wouldn't expect a university to improve that significantly in one year
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 months ago
#11
(Original post by Theloniouss)
It's not that they aren't making any improvements, it's that you surely wouldn't expect a university to improve that significantly in one year
Why not?

It’s been their top strategic priority in the approach to 2020 https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/service.../strLsePla.pdf

The work behind this improvement started nearly 5 years ago before the 2020 finalists even started their degree.
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 months ago
#12
(Original post by PQ)
Why not?

It’s been their top strategic priority in the approach to 2020 https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/service.../strLsePla.pdf

The work behind this improvement started nearly 5 years ago before the 2020 finalists even started their degree.
It just seems unlikely? As you say, they've actually been making improvements for 5 years - so even if their ranking is accurate this year, that just means it's been inaccurate for the past four.
0
reply
bored_user:)
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 months ago
#13
Nawww I dont trust this. How is Kings not as good as Keele and Nottingham Trent? How is that even possible???
0
reply
username5243714
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 months ago
#14
The Guardian has released their university league table for 2021! https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...1-league-table

Here is the top 10:

1. Oxford
2. St Andrews
3. Cambridge
4. Durham
5. LSE
6. Bath
7. Loughborough
8. Warwick
9. Imperial College
10. Lancaster

What do you think of the results of this league table?

Here is a link to the methodology for those who are interested - https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...ity-guide-2021
Last edited by username5243714; 2 months ago
0
reply
royalty1702
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 months ago
#15
note that the career prospects shows the % of students that make it into graduate-level jobs after they finish. Which is why many unis have similar numbers for this category

(Original post by Sentenced_to)
Yes I agree. Its a little fishy to jump places just because there was an increased demand for "economics and law graduates" during a period, but at the same time the improvement in student satisfaction is a legit reason IMO as it indicates a change in teaching approaches.
Meanwhile in the same universe... Stratclyde jumped from 51 to 15. Yeah! Well done Strathy!:banana:
0
reply
username5243714
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 months ago
#16
(Original post by bored_user:))
Nawww I dont trust this. How is Kings not as good as Keele and Nottingham Trent? How is that even possible???
Why don't you trust it? Because it doesn't go along with the idea you already have about which unis are better than others?

Based on the statistics and data The Guardian has used, King's is not as good as them.
2
reply
royalty1702
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 months ago
#17
(Original post by Lightning720)
Why don't you trust it? Because it doesn't go along with the idea you already have about which unis are better than others?

Based on the statistics and data The Guardian has used, King's is not as good as them.
They said UCL was 22nd in 2020, despite it being ranked in the top 10 in the WORLD!
1
reply
username5243714
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 months ago
#18
(Original post by royalty1702)
They said UCL was 22nd in 2020, despite it being ranked in the top 10 in the WORLD!
Yes, because different league tables use different sets of data in different ways.
0
reply
bored_user:)
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 months ago
#19
(Original post by Lightning720)
Yes, because different league tables use different sets of data in different ways.
No, it does not look realistic. UCL is the 10th in the WORLD but 22nd? St. Andrews is better than the University of Oxford? Am I supposed to believe that? KCL which has contributed MORE to society than unis like Keele and Nottingham Trent and is the 31st best uni in the world is not supposed to be ranked higher than these unis?

So you expect me or anyone who is sane enough to believe that?
0
reply
royalty1702
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 months ago
#20
(Original post by Lightning720)
Yes, because different league tables use different sets of data in different ways.
I suppose but there are some really silly rankings. Like for maths, why is lincoln better than imperial and warwick? Bit dodge considering it has "n/a" for career prospects
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

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (516)
33.68%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (634)
41.38%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (312)
20.37%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (70)
4.57%

Watched Threads

View All