University rankings in the UK

You're not wrong or maybe a pinned thread in educational debate giving clarity on rankings.

When I first logged onto TSR back in 2012, there was one.

In all seriousness the rankings just prove how overinflated someone’s ego is. I know many a RG university graduate whose been down the job centre for several years, by contrast people who have gone to ‘lesser’ universities gained experience through their degrees and acquired employment straight after their degree.

As an international candidate, I have created and categorized a “general ranking” of top 20 UK universities based on the various rankings and websites....

Please note that this ranking is based on the following.
The Complete University Guide
The Guardian University Guide
QS Ranking
THE Ranking

Agree with others who have noted that the best uni for someone varies depending on a variety of factors, including course, budget, accommodation, location, and a number of other factors.

The rankings you have identified are quite different--with the first two being national rankings and the last two being global--and using them together in an attempt to derive composite ranking tiers really doesn't make sense in most cases because they measure different things. I think you need to pick and choose from the various criteria what is more meaningful to you and go with that. Some have suggested that they would favor the global rankings (QS and THE), and I can certainly see some reasons for doing that, depending on the candidate.

You note that you're an "international candidate," but you don't say from where, and you don't say for what level of study. If you happen to be from the US, you will be well familiar with the US News and World Reports (USNWR) rankings, which (for anyone who doesn't know) are the most used and quoted university rankings in the US. I would suggest to you that the USNWR rankings are more closely aligned with the UK national rankings than they are with the global rankings, at least insofar as undergraduate education is concerned.

Take for example, the QS global rankings and its ranking for Dartmouth, which is a member of the Ivy League, and widely (if not uniformly) regarded as an elite undergraduate institution in the US. QS ranks Dartmouth at #205 globally, behind 45 other US universities, while USNWR ranks it #12 nationally. Similarly, QS ranks Georgetown at #281 globally, behind 54 other US universities, while USNWR ranks it #22 nationally. Notably, QS ranks Georgetown lower than it does Arizona State University (#262), which USNWR ranks nationally at #121, nearly 100 spots lower nationally. The Times Higher Education rankings provide similar disconnects between the global and national rankings.

In addition, global rankings like QS and Times Higher Education don’t even include universities such as Williams, Swarthmore, and Amherst, which lead the national liberal arts category in the USNWR rankings. Students from such schools matriculate to the very top graduate programs in the country (e.g., Harvard, Yale, and the like), and anyone in the US knowledgeable about higher education would know that they are excellent universities filled with students of Ivy League academic caliber. Generally speaking, my impression is that the global rankings favor large universities with strong graduate programs and speak less to the academic caliber of students or rigor of teaching at the undergraduate level.

I think most people in the US would agree with me that they would consider the national rankings to be more meaningful than the global rankings, as they are generally more in line with the academic caliber of the student bodies attending the universities. Indeed, USNWR also has a global university ranking, and I’ve never seen anyone use that ranking as a barometer of how universities in the US are viewed domestically. Moreover, even Times Higher Education tacitly acknowledges that its global rankings do not provide a particularly good view of how universities are regarded within the United States, as evidenced by its separate national ranking of US universities, which is publishes in partnership with the Wall Street Journal. (See https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022).

Before I start a war, let me be clear that I'm not saying that one type of ranking (domestic v global) is "better" than the other, especially as it concerns the UK. My point is that rankings need to be understood in the context of what they measure, how they weight their various criteria, and with the understanding that different people/audiences value different things.

In the US, there is a very clear distinction made between undergraduate education and graduate education insofar as rankings are concerned, and the most relied-upon undergraduate ranking (USNWR) does not even consider research as part of its methodology. In the US, a common denominator for every single university considered elite is student selectivity (high test scores and high pre-university grades). For example, at the top 10 USNWR ranked universities, at least 75% of the entering class (that reported scores) have standardized test scores at the 96 percentile or above and exemplary grades, with the average admit being even higher--the student selectivity floor is very high. (While student selectivity officially counts for only 7% of the USNWR methodology, it is essentially baked into other heavily weighted factors such as "undergraduate academic reputation" and "graduation and retention rates." In the US, a university without high student selectivity will not carry a strong undergraduate reputation and will generally not have as strong graduation and retention rates.).

Global rankings such as QS and THE, on the other hand, do not consider the academic quality of a university's undergraduate intake at all. Instead, they focus in large part on research output. As such, to me, the global rankings are most meaningful for students in graduate programs who are conducting research, especially if they are considering working internationally. But I understand that my perspective is colored by my US upbringing, and the fact that, in the US, the starting assumption is that every elite university will have very high student selectivity--the closest analog in the UK would be A-levels, IB scores, etc. In contrast, it is my impression is that, in the UK, university reputations (for both the undergraduate and graduate level) are often tied to research output, which is why we hear so much about the Russell Group, though people seem to acknowledge that, although some Russell Group universities are highly prestigious, others are less so. (The closest analog to the Russell Group in the US is probably the Association of American Universities (AAU): https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members. These are all great universities, and some of them are truly elite, but the listing is not in any way a marker of the universities that people in the US would regard as the most prestigious for undergraduate education. Most people in the US will have never heard of the AAU).

All of this is a long way of explaining (by way of an example) my view that, to the extent one is consulting rankings, one should try to understand them in the context of what they measure, how they weight their various criteria, and with the understanding that different people/audiences value different things. I have my personal biases--I care about quality of intake (because these are people with whom one will be interacting with daily), post-graduation outcomes (job and graduate school prospects), and educational environment (overall happiness and teaching quality)--but these factors may not matter most to you or the audiences about which you care the most. Best of luck.

Agree with others who have noted that the best uni for someone varies depending on a variety of factors, including course, budget, accommodation, location, and a number of other factors.

The rankings you have identified are quite different--with the first two being national rankings and the last two being global--and using them together in an attempt to derive composite ranking tiers really doesn't make sense in most cases because they measure different things. I think you need to pick and choose from the various criteria what is more meaningful to you and go with that. Some have suggested that they would favor the global rankings (QS and THE), and I can certainly see some reasons for doing that, depending on the candidate.

You note that you're an "international candidate," but you don't say from where, and you don't say for what level of study. If you happen to be from the US, you will be well familiar with the US News and World Reports (USNWR) rankings, which (for anyone who doesn't know) are the most used and quoted university rankings in the US. I would suggest to you that the USNWR rankings are more closely aligned with the UK national rankings than they are with the global rankings, at least insofar as undergraduate education is concerned.

Take for example, the QS global rankings and its ranking for Dartmouth, which is a member of the Ivy League, and widely (if not uniformly) regarded as an elite undergraduate institution in the US. QS ranks Dartmouth at #205 globally, behind 45 other US universities, while USNWR ranks it #12 nationally. Similarly, QS ranks Georgetown at #281 globally, behind 54 other US universities, while USNWR ranks it #22 nationally. Notably, QS ranks Georgetown lower than it does Arizona State University (#262), which USNWR ranks nationally at #121, nearly 100 spots lower nationally. The Times Higher Education rankings provide similar disconnects between the global and national rankings.

In addition, global rankings like QS and Times Higher Education don’t even include universities such as Williams, Swarthmore, and Amherst, which lead the national liberal arts category in the USNWR rankings. Students from such schools matriculate to the very top graduate programs in the country (e.g., Harvard, Yale, and the like), and anyone in the US knowledgeable about higher education would know that they are excellent universities filled with students of Ivy League academic caliber. Generally speaking, my impression is that the global rankings favor large universities with strong graduate programs and speak less to the academic caliber of students or rigor of teaching at the undergraduate level.

I think most people in the US would agree with me that they would consider the national rankings to be more meaningful than the global rankings, as they are generally more in line with the academic caliber of the student bodies attending the universities. Indeed, USNWR also has a global university ranking, and I’ve never seen anyone use that ranking as a barometer of how universities in the US are viewed domestically. Moreover, even Times Higher Education tacitly acknowledges that its global rankings do not provide a particularly good view of how universities are regarded within the United States, as evidenced by its separate national ranking of US universities, which is publishes in partnership with the Wall Street Journal. (See https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022).

Before I start a war, let me be clear that I'm not saying that one type of ranking (domestic v global) is "better" than the other, especially as it concerns the UK. My point is that rankings need to be understood in the context of what they measure, how they weight their various criteria, and with the understanding that different people/audiences value different things.

In the US, there is a very clear distinction made between undergraduate education and graduate education insofar as rankings are concerned, and the most relied-upon undergraduate ranking (USNWR) does not even consider research as part of its methodology. In the US, a common denominator for every single university considered elite is student selectivity (high test scores and high pre-university grades). For example, at the top 10 USNWR ranked universities, at least 75% of the entering class (that reported scores) have standardized test scores at the 96 percentile or above and exemplary grades, with the average admit being even higher--the student selectivity floor is very high. (While student selectivity officially counts for only 7% of the USNWR methodology, it is essentially baked into other heavily weighted factors such as "undergraduate academic reputation" and "graduation and retention rates." In the US, a university without high student selectivity will not carry a strong undergraduate reputation and will generally not have as strong graduation and retention rates.).

Global rankings such as QS and THE, on the other hand, do not consider the academic quality of a university's undergraduate intake at all. Instead, they focus in large part on research output. As such, to me, the global rankings are most meaningful for students in graduate programs who are conducting research, especially if they are considering working internationally. But I understand that my perspective is colored by my US upbringing, and the fact that, in the US, the starting assumption is that every elite university will have very high student selectivity--the closest analog in the UK would be A-levels, IB scores, etc. In contrast, it is my impression is that, in the UK, university reputations (for both the undergraduate and graduate level) are often tied to research output, which is why we hear so much about the Russell Group, though people seem to acknowledge that, although some Russell Group universities are highly prestigious, others are less so. (The closest analog to the Russell Group in the US is probably the Association of American Universities (AAU): https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/our-members. These are all great universities, and some of them are truly elite, but the listing is not in any way a marker of the universities that people in the US would regard as the most prestigious for undergraduate education. Most people in the US will have never heard of the AAU).

All of this is a long way of explaining (by way of an example) my view that, to the extent one is consulting rankings, one should try to understand them in the context of what they measure, how they weight their various criteria, and with the understanding that different people/audiences value different things. I have my personal biases--I care about quality of intake (because these are people with whom one will be interacting with daily), post-graduation outcomes (job and graduate school prospects), and educational environment (overall happiness and teaching quality)--but these factors may not matter most to you or the audiences about which you care the most. Best of luck.

I have serious concerns about the UK domestic rankings, not least the student satisfaction score, graduate job prospects, facilities spending, and even entry standards. A university should be ranked on metrics associated with teaching and research, as adding other criteria creates all kinds of problems for universities. If you include tariff points as a measure, you end up with an inflationary issue, with most universities playing games with unconditional offers and unrealistic conditional offers. The student satisfaction score is just too subjective to be used here, and not everyone takes part, so bias it an issue. As for job prospects, how do we define what a graduate job is these days? Any employer could say they are looking to bring in a graduate for a particular job, be it as a trainee recruitment consultant (where plenty of successful staff don't have or need a degree), or a graduate prison officer (something which I saw advertised during the David Cameron years). Facilities spending on things like sports equipment and counselling, whilst important, I don't see the need to add this to a league table. Perhaps spending on computers, libraries, teaching materials etc. would be more appropriate, and this does account for part of the criteria used. And I could go on and on. Universities should not be put in a position where they feel pressurised to chase the UK rankings and design their university strategies accordingly. There is some evidence that Durham and St Andrews have done just that, but just look at how they are now faring in the THES global ranking, the one ranking which I know for a fact a major UK law firm uses as a small part of their selection process for graduate recruitment.

When I first logged onto TSR back in 2012, there was one.

In all seriousness the rankings just prove how overinflated someone’s ego is. I know many a RG university graduate whose been down the job centre for several years, by contrast people who have gone to ‘lesser’ universities gained experience through their degrees and acquired employment straight after their degree.

Just to cover a few of these of these:

NSS: the "satisfaction" question on the NSS isn't used be many of the UK rankings and where it is it's averaged. Most rankings focus on the teaching, learning opportunities and assessment and feedback questions (with the Times/Complete also using Academic Support, Org and Management and Learning Resources qs iirr). The questions/statements are here: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/63ee56d6-2557-4786-823f-b6f55d4d22a7/nss-2022-questionnaire.pdf universities are obliged to hit a participation threshold for their results to be published (which means that the responses cover AT LEAST 50% of final year students if they're included in any ranking).

Tariff: I'm not sure how you think unconditional offers impact tariff scores? The tariff scores used in rankings are the scores achieved by ENTRANTS - they don't (and won't) reflect the offer conditions or predicted grades of applicants. The real issue with tariff scores is the time between intake and inclusion in the rankings - the most recent rankings published in Sept 2022 were using tariff from entrants in Sept 2020. That's an issue with the way the data is collected and released and not something that's likely to improve until 2025 at the earliest (when a more timely reporting of entrant data will be in place).

Graduate jobs: again these aren't determined by the employer or even the graduate. It's based on an ONS derived mapping of job titles to a set of codes that are defined as High Skilled (graduate), Medium and Low Skilled (non graduate). https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/standardoccupationalclassificationsoc/soc2020 explains the coding and you can use https://cascotweb.warwick.ac.uk/#/classification/soc2020 to look at the sorts of mappings for different job titles. It's not a perfect system but it is consistent and based on research. The biggest issue again hear is timing. The most recent rankings used information on what graduates from 2019 were doing in September 2021.

Facilities spending: sports equipment isn't included straight away in facilities spending as it's not counted as expenditure. It's depreciated as expenditure across a number of years. The "staff and student facilities" expenditure used by some rankings covers:
Careers Advisory Services, Grants made to student societies, including additional subventions to student unions for specific purposes, That proportion of the emoluments of wardens of halls of residence in respect of all duties performed in that role, Accommodation Services, Health Services, Athletic and sporting facilities except maintenance, Transport of staff and students between colleges sites, The Officer Training Corps (OTC) and the Air and Naval Squadrons, Chaplaincy Centres, Student counselling, Créches
Most rankings that list expenditure prioritise "Academic services" expenditure which covers library, learning resource centres, central computers. The Guardian only uses this and not facilities. Complete and the Times give this equal weighting to facilities.

If a student is predicted AAA, and is given an unconditional offer, but does far worse (say BBC), then the university will suffer from that perceived under performance. They may also benefit from a student doing better than predicted (such as A*AA). The predicted grades are just that, a prediction, and cannot be fully relied upon to make unconditional offers. GCSE results may offer better information on how well a student is likely to fare in A levels.

What’s included in the rankings is the achieved grades of entrants to a university.
Predictions and offer conditions have no impact on that.

Most people who go RG have been too well funded schools in London including working class students (most schools including Hackney are rated good excellence).

It depends on how well a cohort of students with predicted grades did for a university, and how many unconditional offers were given. It can influence the entry tariff up or down.

**** me, if people on this site aren't arguing about the sex they're not having or religion and other social issues they're arguing about university league tables.

I have serious concerns about the UK domestic rankings, not least the student satisfaction score, graduate job prospects, facilities spending, and even entry standards. A university should be ranked on metrics associated with teaching and research, as adding other criteria creates all kinds of problems for universities. If you include tariff points as a measure, you end up with an inflationary issue, with most universities playing games with unconditional offers and unrealistic conditional offers. The student satisfaction score is just too subjective to be used here, and not everyone takes part, so bias it an issue. As for job prospects, how do we define what a graduate job is these days? Any employer could say they are looking to bring in a graduate for a particular job, be it as a trainee recruitment consultant (where plenty of successful staff don't have or need a degree), or a graduate prison officer (something which I saw advertised during the David Cameron years). Facilities spending on things like sports equipment and counselling, whilst important, I don't see the need to add this to a league table. Perhaps spending on computers, libraries, teaching materials etc. would be more appropriate, and this does account for part of the criteria used. And I could go on and on. Universities should not be put in a position where they feel pressurised to chase the UK rankings and design their university strategies accordingly. There is some evidence that Durham and St Andrews have done just that, but just look at how they are now faring in the THES global ranking, the one ranking which I know for a fact a major UK law firm uses as a small part of their selection process for graduate recruitment.

If you look at graduate employment rate for 2022 London South Bank is third best.

https://www.studyin-uk.in/study-guide/top-seven-universities-uk-highest-graduate-employability-scores/#:~:text=1%201.%20Imperial%20College%20London%20Imperial%20College%20London,6.%20Swansea%20University%20...%207%207.%20Loughborough%20University

I've been on both sides, seen quite a bit now and I believe the UK domestic rankings are good for undergraduates and international rankings for postgraduates. For reference I have been taught and performed research at five institutions (1 undergrad focused, 2 postgraduate focused (both world top 25) and 2 that do both (Ivy League schools).

The reason I say this is because the international rankings focus heavily on research, citations, which are biased towards large institutions with well regarded research, which is not relevant for undergraduates but is for postgraduates. The international rankings can't factor in teaching because "good teaching" is not well defined and the definition varies by country. The domestic rankings focus on factors the international rankings cannot, which is teaching, education and graduate prospects, which also happen to matter to undergraduates more. Oftentimes, the best research institutions are not the best teaching institutions, which is why a lot of Ivy League schools in the US separate out their undergraduate schools so as to ensure their students get good teachers not just research profs who are forced to teach. The same can be seen with Oxbridge colleges and their tutorial system, both are designed to give their undergraduates a better education. What we see is that this is what students want and benefit from.

I went to St Andrews and genuinely came to understand why St Andrews has such a high satisfaction rate. The student body is small, we get more focused attention and feel part of a community. The teaching is not done by prestigious professors with huge demands on their time, but by dedicated lecturers who know their material cold and like working with students. Nothing you are learning as an undergraduate is ground breaking, although you are more specialized, it is still material that can be found in any textbook. You don't need a world famous professor teaching your undergraduate classes in the same way you don't need them to teach you geography in school. I have seen how some universities ignore their undergraduates and only spend money on their postgraduates and research, leaving undergraduates with disorganized classes, complicated systems, poor quality lecturers and courses and little careers guidance or sense of community. These schools ultimately don't support their students well and their student satisfaction scores reflect that. Student satisfaction isn't perfect, I'd be open to another method of evaluating undergraduate schooling, but this is the best method as far as I have seen.

For post-graduate, your focus is on advancing your specialty field and to do that you want to learn from the world leaders, this is where you will want to look at international rankings, but more importantly, find leading profs in the area you work in. More often than not, the schools with higher international rankings will have more research and more leading research. Some schools do both undergraduate and postgraduate well, and these are your Oxbridge/Ivy League esque schools. Others, do undergraduate well, like St Andrews, Durham, Bristol etc. Others yet, do postgraduate well, Manchester, Edinburgh etc. Both rankings are necessary because they both provide valuable information. Ideally we'd have one ranking to rule them all, but the unfortunate truth is you can compare certain things in a national system that you can't compare in an international system and student satisfaction is one of those things.

**** me, if people on this site aren't arguing about the sex they're not having or religion and other social issues they're arguing about university league tables.