University rankings in the UK

That article quotes the “Guardian University Guide 2020”. The Guardian published the 2023 guide this September

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 find it interesting that people are snobby about which university they go to. But the Guardian University Guide 2020 show a low-ranking university has a very high level of employment which show it person not the university.

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.

Choosing a university is a multi-faceted dilemma, and it is unique to every student. And arbitrary rankings arent suitable (and given how many different careers and subjects people are interested in, its essentially a waste of time and energy).

That said, I would say your perceived rankings seem roughly in line with what id assume a consensus rankings would look like.

The league tables moved from measuring graduate employment to measuring employment in “highly skilled” jobs because the Luton University (now Bedfordshire) topped the scores every year.
League table compilers (uk and international) are selling advertising space. It’s not a public service it’s a profit making service and people accessing the rankings (whether to feel good about their choices or to mock the results because they don’t match their preconceptions) are the PRODUCT that compilers/publishers are selling to their advertisers.

(that said I wouldn’t trust anything published by a *****y agency like si or any if their ilk)

Exactly, and in the UK, similar universities exist, where their undergraduate teaching supersedes their research, like St Andrews, Durham, Bristol etc. These students often go on to Ivies/Oxbridge for graduate school.

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.

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

←better

The University of Bedfordshire has many degree apprenticeships which make students employable.

I will agree with you that the international rankings do matter a little for undergraduates as well, also if you want to look for employment abroad, they do matter a little. However, I have to say I chuckled a little at your suggestion about undergraduates and research, undergraduates do not perform important research. I did do research as an undergraduate but you really are just learning about research at that stage, the real work is done by PhDs, post-docs and faculty.

Undergraduate research is important for the student to demonstrate research potential to universities and future employers. What is more, the most gifted researchers may get their work published if they are lucky. I am afraid St Andrews is overrated by people like you, and it just cannot compete with the great universities around the globe like Chicago, Sydney, UCL, KCL, Melbourne etc.

You seem to be getting worked up into a quite a lather, and, at least to me, you are coming across as the poster child for post #53. Though I'm not the person to whom you directly replied, I certainly presented my viewpoint on national/global rankings, so I'll respond.

As far as I recall from reading the posts in this thread, I don't believe that anyone suggested that the universities that top global rankings such as THE and QS are not great, prestigious, elite, or whatever other superlative one might want to apply to them. The universities that top those rankings are indeed great institutions that conduct important research, and they have been rightfully recognized for their contributions.

But a university can be exceptional in one area and not in another. And, even if a university is not top 20 in the world for research, that does not mean it cannot be top-notch for undergraduate education. In an earlier post, you said "Research is the cornerstone of what any university does, with teaching coming second in the list of priorities." To me, that is an answer to the wrong question, and it completely misses the point. I think it's fair to say that many if not the large majority of the people reading TSR are prospective undergraduate students, and thus, to me, the operative question is not what is important to the university, but what is most important to a prospective undergraduate student. If I were a prospective undergrad, I would not be particularly enthusiastic about pursuing a taught degree from an institution that views teaching (and presumably the large bulk of undergraduate students who will not be doing any meaningful research as undergrads) to be of secondary importance. Many prospective undergraduates care more about quality of teaching, the academic caliber of their classmates, the programs offered, the educational structure, and the general vibe of a university than they do about a university's research prowess. Certainly not every prospective undergrad will feel that way, but I have enough experience with education--once upon a time I taught at a university that THE ranks higher than all but three UK universities--and exceptional students at different points on their educational paths to feel very confident in saying that higher education is not one-size-fits-all.

To the extent you're suggesting this--and I'm not entirely clear that you are--I would certainly not agree with the notion that one must attend an elite global research university as an undergrad to put oneself in position to attend such a university as a postgrad. It did not take me long to find a number of Oxford professors (including a department head), for example, who obtained postgraduate degrees from Oxford, Cambridge, and the like after first attending a university that fares materially better on domestic rankings than it does in the global rankings.

I don't think research is completely irrelevant for undergrads. A lot of science degrees, especially for RG unis, are research-based, and having a good research base established really helps with that. I've also seen domestic rankings (only UK unis) focus heavily on research as a major component in their league tables (CUG and THE being two examples), so I don't think that's exclusive to international league tables either.

Student satisfaction being low at high-ranked unis is something I've seen, and I attribute that to research professors not really knowing how to teach, or not having the time to teach properly. (In my current school, things are pretty much the same, and the entire student body suffers for it I've taught myself half my subjects for the last two years since my teachers couldn't be bothered to teach properly apparently But I digress.)

I assume the only merit of having research professionals teach would be for them to impart some new, relevant material you wouldn't find in textbooks, and that would give certain unis an advantage over the other. But I don't think unis standardize their curriculum too much, so I'm not sure how much that even matters.

I don't think all postgrads look at international rankings only either. For research subjects (I've only researched biomed, so this is from that perspective), postgrads will ideally look for research supervisors who are currently doing research in an area they are interested in. While I won't deny that funding and prestige plays a big role in research power, it's not going to matter if Oxford is investing 2 million into cancer research when you're into cardio physiology.

Thank you for your post. I completely agree with your comments. I am by nature a skeptical person and not one to naturally trust "student satisfaction", as a metric, so I entered St Andrews skeptical, but after entering, I was truly impressed by the quality of teaching in medicine. Our lecturers weren't usually famous professors, they were mostly career lecturers who had been teaching the same course for years. In fact, the best teachers were often these career lecturers. Their lectures were designed so that we understood the topic, and important concepts were repeated multiple times, they taught at a pace that was understandable and with a passion that made students interested.

I went to a more research focused university for a later degree and the teaching was done by clinicians who were forced to teach, and it showed. Lecturers were not oriented towards students, content was incomplete. Imagine learning the hardest concept in the module first and then finishing off with the easiest, introductory topic. When students say they paid tuition only to learn from google, that's a university that isn't doing its job.

"I assume the only merit of having research professionals teach would be for them to impart some new, relevant material you wouldn't find in textbooks, and that would give certain unis an advantage over the other. But I don't think unis standardize their curriculum too much, so I'm not sure how much that even matters." Yes, this would be the only merit, but the key thing to realize is what you learn in undergrad, is honestly not cutting edge. It can and should be taught be someone who knows how to teach. Even in a masters degree or taught aspect of a PhD, most of what you learn is not cutting edge. The only time where you are doing cutting edge work is when you are a postgraduate and working in a lab, this is where you really benefit from a famous professor. I can tell you that this is common knowledge among everyone who has completed a doctorate.

"I don't think all postgrads look at international rankings only either. For research subjects (I've only researched biomed, so this is from that perspective), postgrads will ideally look for research supervisors who are currently doing research in an area they are interested in." This is absolutely correct. In reality, for post-graduate you look for a research supervisor who can support and mentor you and is researching an area of interest, regardless of institution. If you have an eye out for industry or private corporations, you may care about the institution name, but for most who are interested in an academic career, your focus is on the area of research and the supervisor, with little focus on the institution.

I'm really glad that your experience at St. Andrews was a good one

I went to a more research focused university for a later degree and the teaching was done by clinicians who were forced to teach, and it showed- Does this happen to include UCL and KCL?

...but the key thing to realize is what you learn in undergrad, is honestly not cutting edge- So there's basically no advantage for undergrad unis in terms of pursuing research later? And of course, it does raise the 'international prestige' point. If you plan to continue your further studies elsewhere (even if it's an undergrad), I'm assuming a more 'prestigious' uni like KCL would rank better internationally.

Thanks for your reply!