Is Warwick the most successful/prestigious 'young' University?

If so, how did it manage this? To go from a shithole in the middle of a field outside Coventry to competing with UCL, LSE, St Andrews, and Oxbridge (admittedly just in Maths and Economics) in just 50 years is kind of insane.

Why haven't other Plate Glass universities been able to have the same level of success?

If so, how did it manage this? To go from a shithole in the middle of a field outside Coventry to competing with UCL, LSE, St Andrews, and Oxbridge (admittedly just in Maths and Economics) in just 50 years is kind of insane.

Why haven't other Plate Glass universities been able to have the same level of success?

Because their Strategic Planning Office made an early decision to completely commit to League Tables and they learnt to play them before everyone else. Interestingly, the two other Universities that completely mastered the strategy of the NSS and League Tables were/are Exeter and Strathclyde. Exeter similarly has risen through the ranks rapidly in the last 20 years. Strathclyde had a very much lower starting point, but is now considered a mainstream, credible uni. Watch Bristol start to rise, the Director of Strategic Planning that led the Exeter turnaround is now at Bristol.

Citing 'Bristol' as an example of the 'next university to watch', as it starts to rise through the ranks is hardly credible is it? Bristol is already up there in the ranks, an excellent university. Hardly one in desperate need of a 'turnaround'.

If so, how did it manage this? To go from a place in the middle of a field outside Coventry to competing with UCL, LSE, St Andrews, and Oxbridge (admittedly just in Maths and Economics) in just 50 years is kind of insane.

Why haven't other Plate Glass universities been able to have the same level of success?

I am sure that if the rich, wealthy and famous decided ditch Cambridge in favour of Teeside I would pretty much guarantee that Teeside would become "the" place to go to study and with it, high outcomes.

Teeside would have tough competiton with St Andrews and Exeter....

If so, how did it manage this? To go from a place in the middle of a field outside Coventry to competing with UCL, LSE, St Andrews, and Oxbridge (admittedly just in Maths and Economics) in just 50 years is kind of insane.

Why haven't other Plate Glass universities been able to have the same level of success?

Because their Strategic Planning Office made an early decision to completely commit to League Tables and they learnt to play them before everyone else. Interestingly, the two other Universities that completely mastered the strategy of the NSS and League Tables were/are Exeter and Strathclyde. Exeter similarly has risen through the ranks rapidly in the last 20 years. Strathclyde had a very much lower starting point, but is now considered a mainstream, credible uni. Watch Bristol start to rise, the Director of Strategic Planning that led the Exeter turnaround is now at Bristol.

I think success needs to be much broader. Cambridge and Oxford are lorded as "the best" but the best at what? I am sure that if the rich, wealthy and famous decided ditch Cambridge in favour of Teeside I would pretty much guarantee that Teeside would become "the" place to go to study and with it, high outcomes. Where as the traditional universities pride themselves on outcome we tend to overlook the fact that they only accept the best students in the first place. Are they really good at doing what they do or do they simply pass the best students along a flat conveyer belt whilst extracting £9.5k each year?

What I do know is that many of the newer university's USP is much more student focused with the addition of developing the whole student through offering courses in leadership, studentship and other person centred qualities whilst providing a relaxed atmosphere that isn't intimidated by perceived entitlement.

Spot on, there is a fantastic working paper that everyone should read. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25315

The paper evaluated US students who all got into the best unis (top 30) and compared lifetime earnings, marriage rates, advanced degree rates etc. between students who chose the best uni they got into versus those who chose a lower ranked one (by median SAT score) Importantly, they controlled for SAT score, GPA, parental income, and the schools the students got into. They found that for male students there were no differences between students who went to the best uni compared to a uni with SAT scores 100 points lower, roughly lets say the difference between an Ivy vs UCLA. Now keep in mind this was done in the late 70s and only applies to students at elite schools. For female students, there was a difference in favour of going to the elite school, but when excluding non-full time employees, the difference disappears. That is to say that choosing the elite school made you more likely to work full time, which is why lifetime earnings were higher at the elite schools (but this may no longer be the case in 2023 vs 1977). What the authors found was that for women, choosing to go to the elite school instead of the slightly less elite school, increased full time employment rates and advanced degree obtainment rates, slightly decreased marriage rates, but for those who did marry, they made more money. They theorize this is because for women in the 70s, those who choose to go to the elite school may have a smaller but more accomplished dating pool, which reduced marriage rates, but also allowed those who did get married to have improved incomes themselves. Whereas for men, the outcomes don't change because they are a more homogenous group, since men were expected to find employment and were broadly considered more desirable if they were able to do so.

So all in all, your school choice does not matter, if anything, differences in graduate outcomes are due to the students own characteristics rather than their choice of school. If two kids who both got into Harvard with similar SAT scores, GPA and parental income, athlete status etc (among others), if one chose Harvard and the other chose UCLA, their lifetime earnings were essentially no different.

Interesting. I think the only difference is that in the UK the top end of the education system still have facets where connections count for more than meritocracy sadly. Excellent link about this here
How to Crack the Class Ceiling, Series 1: Episode 1: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001fygm via @bbciplayer

Spot on, there is a fantastic working paper that everyone should read. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25315

The paper evaluated US students who all got into the best unis (top 30) and compared lifetime earnings, marriage rates, advanced degree rates etc. between students who chose the best uni they got into versus those who chose a lower ranked one (by median SAT score) Importantly, they controlled for SAT score, GPA, parental income, and the schools the students got into. They found that for male students there were no differences between students who went to the best uni compared to a uni with SAT scores 100 points lower, roughly lets say the difference between an Ivy vs UCLA. Now keep in mind this was done in the late 70s and only applies to students at elite schools. For female students, there was a difference in favour of going to the elite school, but when excluding non-full time employees, the difference disappears. That is to say that choosing the elite school made you more likely to work full time, which is why lifetime earnings were higher at the elite schools (but this may no longer be the case in 2023 vs 1977). What the authors found was that for women, choosing to go to the elite school instead of the slightly less elite school, increased full time employment rates and advanced degree obtainment rates, slightly decreased marriage rates, but for those who did marry, they made more money. They theorize this is because for women in the 70s, those who choose to go to the elite school may have a smaller but more accomplished dating pool, which reduced marriage rates, but also allowed those who did get married to have improved incomes themselves. Whereas for men, the outcomes don't change because they are a more homogenous group, since men were expected to find employment and were broadly considered more desirable if they were able to do so.

So all in all, your school choice does not matter, if anything, differences in graduate outcomes are due to the students own characteristics rather than their choice of school. If two kids who both got into Harvard with similar SAT scores, GPA and parental income, athlete status etc (among others), if one chose Harvard and the other chose UCLA, their lifetime earnings were essentially no different.

That may very well be the case, and also keep in mind this is a statistic, so we can't extrapolate this to lets say your chances of becoming prime minister. Even if every prime minister in the UK came from Oxford and the only way one was to become PM was to go to Oxford, that in and of itself likely would not budge the needle on lifetime career earnings rates. These statistics are only sensitive enough to identify major trends.

Additionally, we can't extrapolate to say school choice does not matter at all. Maybe choosing UCLA instead of Harvard or Yale doesn't affect career earnings, but this study only looked at roughly the 30 best colleges in the US, so perhaps choosing Ohio State instead of Harvard as rare as that might be, would actually affect career earnings. There could be a tipping point whereby your school choice does matter.

I think the study only applies to the US who as a society are less focused on class and big believers in hard work being the product of ultimate success.

Boris Johnson and most of the current Tory cabinet for example has not done a day's work between them.