University rankings don’t apply to undergraduate so how to decide

Looking at most university rankings you always see research output as one of the main things considered. Don’t get me wrong, this is important for postgraduate students, but talking to undergraduate students at universities known for research, the undergraduate quality often doesn’t represent this, and in fact can be much worse in cases of the university solely caring about their research output and thus having a huge lack of contact hours and student support, thinking specifically of some examples.
Now my question is two fold, are there any rankings that actually rank the undergraduate teaching quality and don’t care about research output; I saw some for US but no international ones.
In terms of Oxbridge I further wonder, while the unis have good research output they also seem to have a general reputation and the tutorials and more contact hours. So I guess the question is, are they still as good or even better at undergrad, if we ignore the research output and look just at the teaching quality.

Reply 1

PQ

Clearing and Applications Advisor

21

The Guardian excludes research metrics for exactly that reason. The compilers state that if the research benefits the teaching then universities will show that benefit in the remaining metrics

The THE did attempt a multi national teaching ranking in 2019: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/europe-teaching/2019 (but they included a large bonus for research outputs still! - so you're best sorting by the engagement measure to identify good "teaching" )

The government has also tried to quantify this with the TEF

Oxbridge are an outlier for having high contact hours as well as high research outputs. In many research intensive universities the teaching will be provided by PhD students and/or with minimal contact hours. The funding in the UK for research means that universities have to cross subsidise 20% of research grants/contracts from tuition fee income - so in general a large research output means poorer funding for teaching.

(edited 2 months ago)

Reply 2

JustBenjamin

OP

12

Original post by PQ

The Guardian excludes research metrics for exactly that reason. The compilers state that if the research benefits the teaching then universities will show that benefit in the remaining metrics

The THE did attempt a multi national teaching ranking in 2019: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/europe-teaching/2019 (but they included a large bonus for research outputs still! - so you're best sorting by the engagement measure to identify good "teaching" )

The government has also tried to quantify this with the TEF

Oxbridge are an outlier for having high contact hours as well as high research outputs. In many research intensive universities the teaching will be provided by PhD students and/or with minimal contact hours. The funding in the UK for research means that universities have to cross subsidise 20% of research grants/contracts from tuition fee income - so in general a large research output means poorer funding for teaching.

Thanks for the detailed reply;
Regarding Oxbridge being an outlier, would you say this means they’re still amongst or the best uk unis for undergraduate as well?

University rankings don’t apply to undergraduate so how to decide

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you