Firstly, a bit of disclosure. I'm a designer and a tutor who has taught on a number of design degree courses both here and abroad. My specialism is graphic design but these comments apply to illustration, visual communication, advertising and graphic communication courses too.
To cut to the chase, there’s almost no correlation between the quality of graduates coming out of each design degree course and their position in the league table. Pretty much all academics (although not necessarily those in management) accepts league tables are deeply flawed, but they seem to be a very important factor when applicants are deciding which open days to attend. They really, really shouldn’t be.
The University i work at most often has done quite well this year, so i’ve got no axe to grind with this year’s results. Just the system in general, and particularly how it doesn’t reflect the quality of creative courses at all. So a few points, aimed at applicants (and parents) considering which Unis to apply to...
1) I don’t know of any ‘bad’ design degrees in this country. It’s possible some aren’t great but (with the exception of a few old dudes that have since retired) every academic i’ve met that teaches these subjects really cares about their students and works extraordinarily hard to make their course as good as it can be. That’s not always true in academia, partially in fields where research is seen as a greater priority. However, i have seen cohorts from sixth form colleges produce better work than some degree courses. There are big differences in the level of expectation, the quality of thinking and the ambition of student projects.
2) Personally, i think the most important thing that distinguishes design degrees from each other is the quality of the work the students produce. To be more specific, the percentage of students producing the high quality work (rather than just a few shining stars). The second important thing to consider (other than location) is does the general ethos of the course fit with you as an individual? So is it traditional, experimental, political, commercially-facing etc? None of this is measured by the league tables.
3) Despite no proper correlation, there is some kind of link between league tables and quality. For example, Loughborough (often at number 1 in recent years) is a brilliant course. It’s very well run, has a great research culture, its students win lots of awards and its graduates do great things. However, there are a good 30 courses or so on that list that produce student work that’s just as good. So, for example, IMO you’re just as likely to have a great portfolio and successful career by going to Southampton (currently #52 in the Guardian table) as you are to Loughborough.
Lots of the data that goes into making the league tables is not relevant to the experience you’ll receive:
4) Student satisfaction scores don’t mean much at all. Let’s just say that it’s quite possible for a truly excellent course to have 75% student satisfaction, whilst a course with low standards has 100% satisfaction. Courses which regularly achieve less that 80% have probably got some sort of structural problems (lack of contact time, lack of studio space, overworked staff etc) but apart from that ignore the results of ’student satisfaction’ surveys.
5) 'Staff student ratio’ data bears no relationship to how much contact time you will have with your tutors. It’s not based on timetable information, or the actual number of hours individual staff members teach. Institutions with lots of researchers will do well in these tables, even if those researchers barely ever teach undergrad students.
6) Entry tariff info is a mixed bag. Whilst high scores indicates a selective admissions process, i’d argue that the better courses have a diverse range of students, rather than those that did very well in college. Also, Scottish institutions fare well in the 'entry tariff' section because the way college qualifications are run in Scotland is different to England and Wales. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Scottish courses are more selective, or have more able students on them (although many of them are excellent).
I could rant all day about the problematic ways data is selected and used. Simply put, be sceptical of any statistics or data you’re presented with on course promo material, or at open days. Legally, it has to be true ...but does it have any meaning in the real world? Probably not.
A couple more points…
As an industry, Graphic Design is a meritocracy (I hate that word). If you’re good, you will succeed. Therefore the perceived ‘reputation’ of the course really, really doesn’t matter. Certain employers regularly employ grads from the same University, most employers will look at where you studied (so for example, students who graduated from Brighton are likely to have a relatively experimental portfolio) but not many will place any real value on it. Getting a decent job is all about the quality and relevance of your portfolio, and of course your personal and social skills.
You don’t need to go to Uni to be a graphic designer. Plenty of graphic designers in this country have no HE qualifications, however trying to get into the best agencies doing the most rewarding kind of work is very, very hard. Doing that without a degree is even harder.
Finally, go to as many Open Days as you can, ignore statistics and choose somewhere that has the right vibe for you.
Apologies for the grumbling, but having heard from colleagues the kind of questions that are regularly asked at Open Days, I needed to get this off my chest. Perhaps league tables are more reliable in other fields, but for design subjects - ignore them.
I’m happy to answer any questions you might have about applying to these types of courses.