Turn on thread page Beta

'Times Good university guide 2010' watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dingy)
    No, the Times guide has changed beyond recognition in recent years, and has far too much fluctuation to list the most prestigious accurately. For example, going on prestige, most would put LSE 3rd, certainly not 7th, and Nottingham would be higher than 20th. To get an idea look at all rankings over the last 15 odd years to get a better guide to prestige. Also the older Times rankings were more reliable IMO

    Forget what a lot of people are saying above. If you care about prestige then so be it. I dont see how that is different to wanting to go somewhere with a good nightlife, accommodation etc. Just dont trust the latest league tables as they are a bit strange nowadays
    Hmm. Your account seemed to pop up almost exactly around the time two other Nottingham fanboys got permanently banned for being a duplicate account of a third Nottingham fanboy, who forever felt insecure about the status of his university that he had to repeatedly talk up how prestigious it was (getting his duplicate accounts to back up his posts), usually amongst other nonsensical posts- a pattern you've happily carried on. Funny that. "Nottingham's too low, it was a top 10 years ago" was a favourite line of theirs too... How very strange, eh?

    Here's a link especially for you: http://www.wikihow.com/Use-You're-and-Your . Maybe you should get some rep from other users before you waste your time negging me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dingy)
    No, the Times guide has changed beyond recognition in recent years, and has far too much fluctuation to list the most prestigious accurately. For example, going on prestige, most would put LSE 3rd, certainly not 7th, and Nottingham would be higher than 20th. To get an idea look at all rankings over the last 15 odd years to get a better guide to prestige. Also the older Times rankings were more reliable IMO

    Forget what a lot of people are saying above. If you care about prestige then so be it. I dont see how that is different to wanting to go somewhere with a good nightlife, accommodation etc. Just dont trust the latest league tables as they are a bit strange nowadays
    League tables are a reference only and by no means should we treat it like a Bible when selecting universities. There are so many factors we need to take into consideration before coming to a final decision. However, we can't say that the older tables were more reliable because your favoured universities were within your expected range but the latest ones are not trustworthy because they have dropped recently. We must allow universities to climb up the ladder with efforts and similarly, there are high possibilities that a once 'reputable' school would drop a few places down for reasons outsiders may not be aware of.
    I am not a big fan of league tables but for international students, that is a reference most of us will rely on. No offence to Nottingham here but it is a fact that the University has received less popularity among top students in my place.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Ignore newspaper league tables.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dingy)
    No, the Times guide has changed beyond recognition in recent years, and has far too much fluctuation to list the most prestigious accurately. For example, going on prestige, most would put LSE 3rd, certainly not 7th, and Nottingham would be higher than 20th. To get an idea look at all rankings over the last 15 odd years to get a better guide to prestige. Also the older Times rankings were more reliable IMO

    Forget what a lot of people are saying above. If you care about prestige then so be it. I dont see how that is different to wanting to go somewhere with a good nightlife, accommodation etc. Just dont trust the latest league tables as they are a bit strange nowadays
    Thanks so much.I'll deffinatly check the past rankings out.And you're pretty much right.Btw I'm not really paying attention to the negative comments, I value those comments as much as i value dog s*** :p:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Grapevine)
    It would have been more appreciated if you hadn't of asked such a moronic question.
    Meh...dont you have better things to do than be a offensive d***.Oh, I guess not.Btw don't bother replying because I wont answer
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherrycharm)
    League tables are a reference only and by no means should we treat it like a Bible when selecting universities. There are so many factors we need to take into consideration before coming to a final decision. However, we can't say that the older tables were more reliable because your favoured universities were within your expected range but the latest ones are not trustworthy because they have dropped recently. We must allow universities to climb up the ladder with efforts and similarly, there are high possibilities that a once 'reputable' school would drop a few places down for reasons outsiders may not be aware of.
    I am not a big fan of league tables but for international students, that is a reference most of us will rely on. No offence to Nottingham here but it is a fact that the University has received less popularity among top students in my place.
    Thoughtful response, but to clarify, I only think the current tables are not as good as the old ones because of the methodology they now use, especially student satisfaction, which have led to massive changes in a few short years. Taking an average of all tables is more reliable for a universities perceived position IMO

    Thats my opinion at least, others may disagree.

    For all those saying league tables are useless I disagree to a point. They can be quite good guides if using a lot of indicators and measures. The US rankings use loads of surveys and data and are very similar every year so people treat them as gospel. I personally always thought the Sunday Times rankings were the best we have as they stay very similar each year and incorporate surveys from academics.

    Yes basing a reputation and uni choice solely on tables is wrong and dangerous, but telling students to ignore them in such a condescending manner like some posters above is snobbish arrogance cos they are used by many and become a self-fulfilling prophecy for reputation of universities. The OP asked a simple question on the Times guide and people just shoot them down. LAME!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .ACS.)
    Ignore newspaper league tables.
    So which league tables are worth considering, then?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why is Glasgow so high?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by La Esmerelda)
    Why is Glasgow so high?
    If a university has moved up a significant number of places recently, or has dropped back, then you can bet your bottom dollar that it is due to the student satisfaction survey score it received. Simple as that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by La Esmerelda)
    Why is Glasgow so high?
    Evidently, your reply from Dinghy wasn't a great one, so I'll elaborate. Firstly its bounced around the rankings, 19th is pretty normal, and its average has always been around that sort of area, (it was 20th the year before, I think), and every university can move around in these tables by 15 or so places- there's only seven universities that have never been outside the top 20 in any table, which shows you how volatile they are.

    Glasgow's student satisfaction score wasn't fantastic, but looking purely at the stats provided, its entry standards are higher than the university below it, its research score is better, it has a better staff student ratio, and everything else is pretty close. I don't think 19th is a high or a low ranking- its only based on the figures supplied, if it was 5th or 50th, it'd be there fair and square. Some tables put a high weighting on certain criteria, and that's enough for a few more places here and there, I really couldn't care less. Others take it like you've insulted their mother when a university is 'lower' than they think it should be in their head. Its a collection of numbers, get over it.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by BJack)
    So which league tables are worth considering, then?
    Subject specific rankings. Not from league tables, mind. For example, in economics, I'd recommend people look at the Research Fortnight RAE Power Ranking Analysis, Econphd.net, Tom Coupé's economics ranking of research output and citations, and if they're interested in econometrics (as I am), to look at Baltagi's econometrics ranking (the latter is quite an important one since few departments actually have a strong focus on econometrics).

    Obviously other subjects will have their own discipline-specific league tables.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They're not listed by prestige. It's the ones which are constantly at the top of such tables that are prestigious, as a result of coming first.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Evidently, your reply from Dinghy wasn't a great one, so I'll elaborate. Firstly its bounced around the rankings, 19th is pretty normal, and its average has always been around that sort of area, (it was 20th the year before, I think), and every university can move around in these tables by 15 or so places- there's only seven universities that have never been outside the top 20 in any table, which shows you how volatile they are.

    Glasgow's student satisfaction score wasn't fantastic, but looking purely at the stats provided, its entry standards are higher than the university below it, its research score is better, it has a better staff student ratio, and everything else is pretty close. I don't think 19th is a high or a low ranking- its only based on the figures supplied, if it was 5th or 50th, it'd be there fair and square. Some tables put a high weighting on certain criteria, and that's enough for a few more places here and there, I really couldn't care less. Others take it like you've insulted their mother when a university is 'lower' than they think it should be in their head. Its a collection of numbers, get over it.
    I really wasn't that bothered about it, I was merely curious.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G50)
    They're not listed by prestige. It's the ones which are constantly at the top of such tables that are prestigious, as a result of coming first.
    So were Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial and the rest not prestigious 20 years ago?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get why anybody would mark down their university in terms of 'Student Satisfaction'. At the end of the day, it's in every student's best interest to ensure their university maintains a good reputation, surely?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loggins)
    I don't get why anybody would mark down their university in terms of 'Student Satisfaction'. At the end of the day, it's in every student's best interest to ensure their university maintains a good reputation, surely?
    Has LSE lost any of its reputation in these past couple of years (when it's achieved mediocore students satisfaction in comparison to most of the other top tens)? Sure, it dropped a few places in the latest Times ranking, but does that mean its "reputation" will suffer? It has a reputation for being a quality specialist instituion, arguably one of the finest in the world in some areas, how satisfied its students are doesn't really affect that.

    Besides, I think most students will still be quite honest. I know a few disillusioned students at, erm, certain universities who can't bring themselves to rate the university highly. That's lying and lying is bad.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Has LSE lost any of its reputation in these past couple of years (when it's achieved mediocore students satisfaction in comparison to most of the other top tens)? Sure, it dropped a few places in the latest Times ranking, but does that mean its "reputation" will suffer? It has a reputation for being a quality specialist instituion, arguably one of the finest in the world in some areas, how satisfied its students are doesn't really affect that.

    Besides, I think most students will still be quite honest. I know a few disillusioned students at, erm, certain universities who can't bring themselves to rate the university highly. That's lying and lying is bad.
    This depends what you base a university's reputation on though. As has been made clear, many students trust the league tables on reputation, in fact, I've read posts on here from people who didn't actually visit the universities or read up on the courses they were going to read - rather they just applied to the best universities according to a particular league table.

    Obviously the smart student/recruiter etc will know which university is strong in which subjects, but the truth is that league tables talk.

    As for the ratings system - I think that even if I were disillusioned with my particular university, I'd feel like I were cutting off my nose to spite my face if i contributed to the devlauing of my degree by hurting the university's prestige... My 2cents.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miss_opinionated)
    It would have been more appreciated if you had actually given me an answer :rolleyes:
    I hereby declare that you are too 'thick' to go to university. I arrived at this judgement by compiling together the quality of your posts and used the measure "intelligence" which I of course arbitirarily made up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    So were Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial and the rest not prestigious 20 years ago?
    That wasn't my point. Like I said, it's because these schools top the charts that they're prestigious (not the other way round). Now think for a second how they top the charts. The answer is, through superior criteria. The criteria is going to be there whether the charts exist or not; the charts just serve as a way of making more people aware of it. In the past, they simply had other ways of flaunting their superior criteria.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loggins)
    Obviously the smart student/recruiter etc will know which university is strong in which subjects, but the truth is that league tables talk.
    More recruiters than you think. Currently, all the available figures on graduate employment show that it doesn't follow the league tables in the slightest. Graduates of a university in 1999 ranked 15th are no less employable in 2009 if it was 35th, the only correlation seems to be towards recruiters who target certain institutions for certain degrees (Strathclyde or Southampton Engineering, for instance), London universities do well in London (and with varying degrees of success elsewhere), Oxbridge does well just about everywhere, Scottish ancients dominate Scotland, older universities attached to cities (Liverpool, Birmingham) also remain solid, etc. There is nothing to say that Exeter jumping from 40th around six years ago to 9th now will have any noticeable effect on the graduate recruiters who responded, or from the figures showing where those in grad employment attended league tables, or TSR's daft tiering system of 'prestige', is useful beyond anything other than influencing 17 year olds in where to apply. Even then, its not all that effective (St Andrews applications jumped on the back of William, the league table surge followed, and Birmingham has remained relatively constant whether 16th or 26th), so it can be overstated the effect all of this is having.

    My advice is to go and look at the university, compare environments and courses, and see what you think yourself. By all means ask employers- but expect the biases as mentioned above. No one will be utterly impartial, but similarly, the league tables are highly flawed. A university with a private/well off student background like Bristol, using indicators which show like these students drop out less, get better degrees, have better school grades etc, is worth a significant premium in a table, as these are the things that are scored on. The course might not be any different, the employability may be virtually identical, but by one being more fashionable (and fashions change) than the other, it makes it harder to get into, the better students then aspire to go there, the league table rank improves, and the vicious circle continues. Madness.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,552

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.