This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

What is more important?

General University league tables OR subject specfic league tables
-When making your five choices.

Got into a debate at school today, and would like to see your opinions :yep:

Reply 1

inksplodge

17

Subject specific, if any. There is no point going to a 'good' university that might have a crap department for the subject you want to study!

Reply 2

geminibubblegum

12

Subject specific, b/c that's what really matters
if you want to go and do English and the uni is amazing at maths and science-y subjects it's not going to help you with your english degree, is it?

Reply 3

Mask Of Sanity

14

Depends on the subject tbh.
But, subject specific because that is what is going to aid your studies.

Reply 4

Georgie_Mc

OP

inksplodge

Subject specific, if any. There is no point going to a 'good' university that might have a crap department for the subject you want to study!

Thats what i thought :o:

Reply 5

jonnythemoose

15

subject specific, but neither should be disregarded.

Reply 6

TheOneWho

12

If any, I'd use subject specific. But remember the data is years out of date and so the people who made the department excellent may not still be there and it could have went downhill a little bit. Also, different departments have different research interests and are better at different things and league tables don't show this.

Reply 7

.ACS.

19

If anything, I would say the overall reputation counts for more than the subject specific ranking. If a university is in the top ten, or even top twenty, it is unlikely to have a department which is 'crap' or 'terrible', as some have said.

Additionally, in the case of mathematics, Bangor is listed in the subject-specific table, yet they don't actually have a mathematics department. Furthermore, how realistic is it that Bishop Grosseteste, De Montfort, Birmingham City, Swansea, and a swathe of other similarly ranked universities far outrank Manchester, Sussex, and Birmingham for English despite the latter three having far higher 2001 RAE scores (outdated, I know, but nonetheless) and entry standards.

I can, and do, fully support the argument that one should take into account RAE scores (as these, if anything, are the best indicators of 'quality' of the academics in an institution, the people who will be teaching you), but when it comes to tables, even though they should be taken with a pinch of salt (due to their volatility), the overall ranking is far more important.

Reply 8

cpj1987

15

I'd say subject specific would be more important. However, I also believe that neither are important. :p:

Reply 9

im so academic

15

I think that the location, the course, size etc are more important than league tables as most of them aren't even accurate. However to answer the question, I would go for both, because in a way, they are as equal as each other.

Reply 10

Georgie_Mc

OP

Although they are not accuate, i still believe you need to know the strength of your particular subject at a uni when you make a decision.

Some of the "top" uni's may only offer your subject on its own, instead of having a large specialised department.

Subject league tables =) are better!!!

Reply 11

.ACS.

19

If anything, the 'strength' of a department can come from the RAE (despite the fact the current one is outdated; we will have the new 2008 RAEs in December).

Reply 12

apassingfeeling

17

Subject specific! None of the 'good' unis in the general league tables really do my subject so it would be stupid for me to be like 'Ohhh... this uni's not in the top 10 in this league table...forget it!' when chances are none of the top 10 do the course.

Reply 13

River85

17

.ACS.

If anything, I would say the overall reputation counts for more than the subject specific ranking. If a university is in the top ten, or even top twenty, it is unlikely to have a department which is 'crap' or 'terrible', as some have said.

Maybe not "crap" but fairly mediocore (and weaker than some unis that are ranked 20-30). Also, remember than there are many courses that the top 20 unis don't do. It would therefore be a little silly if you're thinking about studying land management and concentrate on the general tables and being put off that, say, Reading is only ranked 30 something (I'm guessing there) when its land/estate management degree is the strongest in the country.

I would say course content, location and whole host of other factors are far more important. However, if you do want to consider league tables then maybe both subject specific and general, but work out a balance between the two.

Reply 14

prospectivEEconomist

16

If you don't care about investment banking lulzzz then go for subject rankings.

Reply 15

xoShannon

No matter where you are, you should always go for the schools that have good ratings in the area of study you're looking at. Knowledge is better than an overrated status symbol.

Reply 16

Jaydiee

12

.ACS.

If anything, I would say the overall reputation counts for more than the subject specific ranking. If a university is in the top ten, or even top twenty, it is unlikely to have a department which is 'crap' or 'terrible', as some have said.

Additionally, in the case of mathematics, Bangor is listed in the subject-specific table, yet they don't actually have a mathematics department. Furthermore, how realistic is it that Bishop Grosseteste, De Montfort, Birmingham City, Swansea, and a swathe of other similarly ranked universities far outrank Manchester, Sussex, and Birmingham for English despite the latter three having far higher 2001 RAE scores (outdated, I know, but nonetheless) and entry standards.

I can, and do, fully support the argument that one should take into account RAE scores (as these, if anything, are the best indicators of 'quality' of the academics in an institution, the people who will be teaching you), but when it comes to tables, even though they should be taken with a pinch of salt (due to their volatility), the overall ranking is far more important.

Ohhh sssh ACS....social class is also important to you is it not?!!!
Picking a girlfriend based on how high her UCAS points are.....

I think University decisions should be based on other factors not just league tables. Particularly whether you feel comfortable in the surroundings on an Open Day etc.

Reply 17

River85

17

.ACS.

Furthermore, how realistic is it that Bishop Grosseteste, De Montfort, Birmingham City, Swansea, and a swathe of other similarly ranked universities far outrank Manchester, Sussex, and Birmingham for English despite the latter three having far higher 2001 RAE scores (outdated, I know, but nonetheless) and entry standards.

Is this in the Guardian tables, or in all of them? If it's just the Guardian tables then that will largely be due to their value added score. They're a joke. Although, that said, there's more to undergraduate education than the RAE (of limited importance in my opinion) and entry standards (even universities with modest entry standards have good quality teaching and can often match the top).