LATEST: British University Ranking 2001

The 2001 Times Good University Guide is just out.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/section/0,,670,00.html

------------------
Jonathan Liu
http://www.geocities.com/liu_jonathan/distance.html

 

Thanks for reminder, Jonathan,

I'll see if the supplement drops out of my next week's Sunday Times (along with the occasional use of black marker pen of course - last week was no exception !)

Glad to see my AM's of Leeds, Loughborough and Sheffield (alphabetical order) figure OK, but note how the stats show Sheffield as 7= on TQA and 15 in the composite ....

Cheers,

Neil

 

Yes, it was interesting to see how the uni where I study (Uni of Bath, ERASMUS exchange) made it, and well they did (9th in general, 1st in Maths/AerEng/MechEng!). BTW, do anybody here know about any kind of rankings between UK and US/international schools?

Jarkko

 

Most of the UK universities that have been discussed here did quite well in the ranking except De Montfort and Luton. HW is in the 3rd league out of 5, or number 50 out of 97. The ranking places HW somewhere in the second tier or at the top of the third-tier universities (US equivalent). That's not bad at all.

Ike

 

I have kind of a love-hate relationship with these sorts of lists. They are fascinating to study and it entertains me to pore over them, but I wonder how valid the rankings really are. I react the same way to the USNews rankings in the US.

My first reaction to this new UK list is how little things have changed. Oxbridge is still on top. The "new universities" are still on the bottom. In fact, I'm struck by how little overlap there is between the "old" universities and the "new" ones. Pretty much all of the top 50 schools are the 'old' universities, and all of the bottom 50 are the 'new' ones (the former polytechnics). With poor Thames Valley lagging along at the end....

So the inevitable question is, how much of this is due to real quality differences, and how much of it is simply an artifact of the rating methodology? Does the Times have an implicit vision of what a good program is, and their list represent how well schools approximate to that? In particular, does this vision consist of traditional-age undergraduate students fresh out of secondary school, studying full-time on-campus, at reseach universities that offer a wide range of scholarly doctoral programs?

I still have not examined the numbers in detail, but a couple of issues might include: Do schools that offer fewer doctoral programs fall in the rankings (due to lower research scores)? Do schools with more part-time or adult students get killed (because fewer students graduate in x years)?

It isn't hard to imagine other valid criteria that could turn the list upside down. For example, average number of years of relevant job experience per undergraduate. Or percentage of students already employed in their field.

 

Does somebody know what happened to the Open University of England. In a recent prospectus they claim to be in the top 15 per cent of British universities. However, the OU doesn't even get mentioned in the current guide or did I overlook it?

Dennis Siemens

 

Here's a mind-boggling fact that I just noticed:

Although it comes in overall at a middle-rank number 50, Heriot-Watt has a teaching quality score of 22.6. Compare that to number one Cambridge's 22.4 and number two Oxford's 22.0. In fact, Heriot Watt seems to have the highest teaching quality score in the whole UK. I'm not sure if that's a fluke or not, but it is impressive nevertheless. They seem to be considerably less selective than someplace like Oxford, but they apparently do a lot with the students they have.

 

That may partially explain why the people I have met who are aware of the school tend to regard more highly than what the rankings would suggest.

 

good comments Bill, I think these lists are a bit farcical now as well. It seems that if your 'old', then you are at the top, but if your new, then you can expect a low rating.

I studied at Oxford (Brookes and Christ College) for two years, after doing some studies at a 'new' uni (Anglia, ex Poly) - similar subject, different levels, but I looked into the comparisons and lo and behold the majority of it was the same.

A good friend of mine graduated from Cambridge with a first in Law, then did the LPC and went on to do the LLM then. He started his articles with a decent size law firm, and after six months he couldn't cope. He simple couldn't do the practical aspect of things. Theory, definitely - he flew that. But he couldn't do the people / social aspect of things, which I think is the fundamental, most important aspect of a person in a job. His cousin graduated from the Swansea Institute with an LLB (lower 2nd honours) and managed somehow to get his traning contract - he's been with Hugh James in Bristol for five years now and has been offered junior partnership, and is one of five of the main commerical litigators for the firm.

You'll find that the person who's a self starter, level headed and highly motivated with the social skills and people relations, will do just as well with a degree from any accredited uni - it's the degree that gets you the foot in the door. From there, it's all up to the individual and their potential. And when it comes to doing a job, it doesn't matter if your degree is from Oxford or the 'Millenium Dome University' (maybe not that one then!, but you know what I mean), it's all to do with the individual and their capacity to do a job.

A bit off topic, but trying to emphasise to all those out there, that getting your degree is forst and foremost, don't become bogged down with the somewhat farcical idea of 'this degree is worthless', or 'that uni is best'. Again, the compilor's that put this together and look at different things, it's really just an opinion - not solid fact, considering all the elements. Quick example, if you want to say that have considered all the aspects: what are you studying? from a vocational point or academic? what do you want to do with the degree? All these, along with many more are not taken into consideration, becuase IT DIFFERS FOR EVERYONE, and everyone being different suggests that no one can really put a lid on what is best. Personal preference and each to his own.

From personal experience and that of others, I've learnt that getting your degree and singing your own song in life is the most important.

Cheers

Dan

 

What is considered OLD in this context? For example is Bath OLD (fnd. 1966)? Or does OLD mean "not a former polytech."? For me as an foreign student, Bath is a NEW uni, as opposed to Oxford or my home institution, University of Helsinki (Finland), which was established in 1640.

Actually, I have also noticed that in England the Universities are quite the same level (this is probably do to the english exam system).

BTW (offtopic), from my own limited experience I can say that english unis are quite not as hard as an average continential european university (from my own studies and from talks with other people in England and other exchange student from france, germany, italy, spain..) Why do you think this is?

But certainly teaching people social skills is not the job of a university?

 

By social skills, I mean the focus being more on vocational aspects of study, as opposed to all of it being traditional, and combining the two. Key and core skills and other government introduced schemes that are brought in to enhance job prospects and make an individual more employable.

Cheers

Dan

 

Ah, good ol' TQAC. Does it measure teaching quality? I was around for the first one, and our conclusion was that it measured paperwork. The RAE? Don't get me started.

(Apologies to non-UK academics. . .)
jon



------------------
J. M. B. Porter, PhD
Lecturer in World History

 

If you look at the subject-by-subject ratings of The Guardian, you will see that there is a bigger mix bewteen "old" and "new" schools:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/specialreports/universities2000/