Guardian University League Tables 2005

League tables are generally not to be taken seriously, but this is truly exceptional in its absurdity.
The table for law

1. Oxford
2. Schl of Oriental & African Studies
3. London Schl of Economics
4. Manchester
5. Cambridge
6. King's Col, London
7. Cardiff
8. Abertay Dundee Uni
9. Queen Mary, London
10. Bradford
11. Hull
12. Warwick
13. City
14. University College London
15. Nottingham
16. Birmingham
17. Leicester
18. Bristol
...
33. Durham

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,15905,-5163903,00.html?start=0&index=2&index=2

Reply 1

Wings_cp

7

well glad to see the ppl at Guardian are making the most out of the relaxed canabis laws :biggrin:

Reply 2

otnemem

OP

This is actually quite remarkable, the Bradford law course begins, for the first time, in September 2005. Ha ha ha. Don't have entry requirements yet, but if the economics requirements are anything to go by, you need 260 UCAS points including general studies! - 3 As at a-level is 360. The people at the guardian have got to be kidding.

Reply 3

otnemem

OP

I'm sorry I can't stop. Actually, they should stop publishing these meaningless guides since the discrepancies between them are far too overwhelming. The Times guide (published last May) places Abertay Dundee in 75th place (out of 76 unis) - and here it is at number 7, above Nottingham, Bristol, UCL, Durham etc. ha ha ha.

Reply 4

Eru Iluvatar

18

Loughborough has 0 job prospect?... Its nice to see that brighton also has a really low job prospect too (which is where i am...) how do they work this out anyway?

Reply 5

Dreama

13

Cambridge will have a fit!

*Hugs Nottingham and Bristol*

It's ok, we still love you..

Reply 6

Dreama

13

It's not looking splendid in validity is it... ?

Reply 7

tiantang

8

KINGS ABOVE UCL!!!

OMG, PANDORA's BOX IS OPEN!

Reply 8

Wings_cp

7

tiantang

KINGS ABOVE UCL!!!

well put it this way...

SOAS over Cambridge..

need i say more ? :p:

Reply 9

goneaway56

6

tiantang

KINGS ABOVE UCL!!!

OMG, PANDORA's BOX IS OPEN!

What's surprising about that? :wink:

Reply 10

tiantang

8

Pinch of salt, more like gordan ramsey's seasoning!

I have very little faith in the national league tables. Because they are judged on things like teaching quality and not reputation.

The world league tables are based on the opinions of 1500+ scholars as 50% of weighting and in that respect it is far more accurate refelction of reputation and what employers want.

This is shown with the dominace of g5 uni's accurately being depicated as the best.

Reply 11

Phonicsdude

19

Just as well I dont pay ANY attention to league tables, or it would send me beserk!

*has made up his mind about university*

Reply 12

goneaway56

6

tiantang

Pinch of salt, more like gordan ramsey's seasoning!

I have very little faith in the national league tables. Because they are judged on things like teaching quality and not reputation.

The world league tables are based on the opinions of 1500+ scholars as 50% of weighting and in that respect it is far more accurate refelction of reputation and what employers want.

This is shown with the dominace of g5 uni's accurately being depicated as the best.

I don't think anyone has any faith in the league tables - they are simply too variable. What was it with the times - strathclyde in 9th or something like that?

Reply 13

Phonicsdude

19

tiantang

Pinch of salt, more like gordan ramsey's seasoning!

I have very little faith in the national league tables. Because they are judged on things like teaching quality and not reputation.

The world league tables are based on the opinions of 1500+ scholars as 50% of weighting and in that respect it is far more accurate refelction of reputation and what employers want.
QUOTE]

I dont pay attention to league tables, but that argument against is preposterous!

So instead of judging a university on how well students are taught, or how good the job prospects are, we should judge them on what academics think! Most academics see very few institutions, so are not in a position to make any real comment on how good other universities are. Surely this is a backward view designed only to help elite universities (Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and American universities!) This sort of attitude leads in the opposite direction to the one City firms are taking (increasingly meritocratic).

How can you trust a world table with so many American unis? Not a single French and German uni! Countries which have produced many of the best scientists and philosophers in the world dont get a look in.

Employers want students who are taught well, can put theory into practise and can show initiative. The reputation of a uni does not guarantee any of these. The kinds of factors you criticise do.

Reply 14

yawn

17

The new league tables are out!

Not much in common with other league tables - so many variables!

How useful do others find them and are they a reflection on your perceptions of what is/isn't the best?

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/0,15903,1455246,00.html

Reply 15

Kew

16

Shame it doesn't count research - it really does make the table unbalanced.

Edit: If not a joke! Certainly, not very useful....

Reply 16

AT82

I've never taken any notice of the Guardian scores, the fact they ignore research is not fair on older universities.

Reply 17

yawn

17

kew96158

Shame it doesn't count research - it really does make the table unbalanced.

Edit: If not a joke! Certainly, not very useful....

If they did count research it would knock quite a few of the very good former polytechnics out of the tables.

It is almost impossible to use the many facets of variables to give a conclusive picture on value added - in much the same way as school performance league tables.

Reply 18

Wings_cp

7

I think its shame they missed April Fools day by a few weeks.

Reply 19

tiantang

8

So instead of judging a university on how well students are taught, or how good the job prospects are, we should judge them on what academics think! Most academics see very few institutions, so are not in a position to make any real comment on how good other universities are. Surely this is a backward view designed only to help elite universities (Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and American universities!) This sort of attitude leads in the opposite direction to the one City firms are taking (increasingly meritocratic).

How can you trust a world table with so many American unis? Not a single French and German uni! Countries which have produced many of the best scientists and philosophers in the world dont get a look in.

Employers want students who are taught well, can put theory into practise and can show initiative. The reputation of a uni does not guarantee any of these. The kinds of factors you criticise do.

I disagree,

First off, there is a difference between what is 'fair' (or backwards thinking) to what happens in reality. Secondly I stress I acknowledge there are flaws in all the league tables.

I am arguing that the THES is btr reflection reputation and respectability amongst employers.

League tables change 24/7, I think few days ago LSE was 7th in the law tables and now jumped to 3rd. UCL is now lingering way down.

However, in reality the reputation of these universities, much like imperial or Oxbridge, or despite kings being in double figures in the overall league tables will always be seen as first class amongst employers.

This is because; employers are use to employing from the G5 universities, or the old red brick universities due to their longer more established reputation. This 'reputation' is far better reflected by the opinions of top scholars in the world league tables than teaching quality.

You mention Oxbridge, followed by UoL bias. Whilst they are moving to meritocratic basis of employment. The bottom line is that the city, like the top scholars in the world, are still snobbish to newer universities, and bias to the old school universities because of their 'reputation' as shown by Slaughter May still employer over 50% of Oxbridge students thus making the THES tables a better reflection.

The THES does include French unis from the Sorbonne to the e'cole however they are below a lot of the American unis as you stated. However, a person with an American degree from the likes of Cornell and John Hopkins would also be seen as at least as prestigious if not more so despite being considered 2nd tier American uni's. This is unfair but is reflected to a certain extent in the THES tables (i.e. the popularity of a top American degree amongst employers.)

Similarly, the likes of Warwick and Notts are superb institutions and have no difference between LSE and UCL, etc. their students are just as “taught well, can put theory into practice and can show initiative” however they are nevertheless still subject to bias from universities who recognize Oxbridge, UoL’s reputation, like scholars in the THES of a university.

Guardian University League Tables 2005

Related discussions

Articles for you