To look beyond university rankings.

[Miztermann]

DC is in Year 12 so we're looking at universities. His predicted grades are likely to be A*'s and A's so he is aiming high. All the universities on his current shortlist are Russell Group, with aspirational entrance requirements, but some are 'ranked' more highly than others in the league tables, and the one he favours the most is ranked the lowest - e.g. 201-250 in the QS world subject rankings and 35 in the Guardian subject rankings. But he favours it because it is one of the best places to go for his sport, which is very important to him.

It seems to me that the university rankings are weighted towards research rather than teaching, so AIBU to think they're not worth paying much attention to at first degree level? If he later wants to do a postgraduate research degree somewhere more prestigious then he can move when he graduates. But if he goes straight into employment, I do wonder if there are many recruiters who only focus on graduates from the top tier institutions. That would have been true in the past, but how about now?

@FlyingSoHigh

I disagree - the higher ranked the university is, the higher quality the academics it attracts and the better quality teaching it can offer because those academics are at the top of their game. The research led universities offer better teaching and facilities and industry knows that.

But unfortunately as they are so research key etc.... the top researchers may not teach much and a lot of the teaching is done by post-docs, graduate students or non-research teaching staff.... so it's best to find out.... If they are doing lab classes, these are likely to be run by a mix of technical staff and demonstrators etc...

Research key should read research oriented

@FlyingSoHigh the best researchers aren’t always the best teachers ...

@willstarttomorrow

It really depends on the subject and what you what you want to do with it. I come from a family of academics and all say university ranking is based on postgrad research, not under graduate degrees. None really enjoy teaching because they work in research, they have to do a but they are not lecturers. I have been to university three times, two were RG. The final one was where I had the best time and also came out with a highly respected degree in my field of work. It is not a former poly, but lots are at the top of their field in certain professions because they always focused on delivering degrees ready for the work place.

Your family members may not enjoy teaching, but it's not because they work in research - that's an excuse.

Hmme, not sure how much it really matters tbh. My first degree was from York, my Msc from Imperial. I have a good job but that's because of my doctorate from a lesser known uni. I know someone whose degree was from an ex poly who is very senior in a well known multi national and earns very well
My field is very competitive, but uni "name" doesn't have much sway tbh....It certainly doesn't sway me when recruiting

There is wider scope to look at other non-Russell Group universities. To be honest OP, your son’s requirements for sport and STEM (it’s main two areas of focus) sound perfect for a very highly ranked and non RG uni beginning with L in the centre of the country (if we are not naming!). Incredibly high employability rates... it’s your sons decision ultimately but I would definitely recommend he visits campus. The sports coaching, facilities and campus as a whole is outstanding.

Both Loughborough and Leeds Beckett university rank highly for sports and are seen as that within the field. Look into their alumni.

@32SarahAndQuack no it is because they have been researchers spending years of uncertainty seeking funding and are now professors at Oxbridge colleges. They lecture but they are not lecturers.

LozMuffin, someone else suggested the uni of interest might begin with L, not me. I didn't confirm one way or the other because I don't want the thread to be about a specific uni - just about the principle of the rankings.

Moanranger, I also didn't mention "data analytics". I said DS is likely to do something analytical which is different and much broader - the equivalent to saying he is likely to do something arty or musical or managerial. He will be making his own choices, but, as is so often the case, personality will be a factor and the apple may not fall far from the tree.

[quote willstarttomorrow]@32SarahAndQuack no it is because they have been researchers spending years of uncertainty seeking funding and are now professors at Oxbridge colleges. They lecture but they are not lecturers.[/quote]

What's your point? All professors spend years of uncertainty seeking funding; everyone teaches.

I accept it's really unusual that you have multiple family members who have professorships, but I am fairly familiar with Oxbridge teaching structure and I can't think of a single faculty where professors don't do any teaching, still less any faculty where they've never done any teaching before they got to the prof level.

Incidentally: lecturing is teaching.

the higher ranked the university is, the higher quality the academics it attracts and the better quality teaching it can offer

As others have said, that just isn't true, I'm afraid. It's possibly arguable that a higher ranked university will find it easier to recruit high quality academics, but even if so, that tells you absolutely nothing about the quality of the teaching. Indeed, it's equally possible that exactly the opposite is true – the best teachers (lecturers) are the ones who aren't spending all their time on their own research…

In terms of teaching it is also worth looking at how the Uni teaches.
My undergrad Uni had small years for my course, 30 people I think. Most of the teaching was in small seminars.
This meant we knew our lecturers very well and they knew us.
We had a famous professor arrive from another very highly rated Uni.
He said he he had taught in lecture halls with a hundred students and didn't know anyone who was an undergraduate.
It took less than a term before he knew each of our names.
The quality of teaching we got was fantastic and very individual.

Tbh I dont think 'employers' spend hours poring over the exact rankings (and if they did, probably arent a great company to work for). If its Russell group, it almost doesnt matter which.
I work on a professional field and while there is definitely one uni that is very well regarded for the subject, if you're good, it doesnt matter. I've helped hiring/interviewing grads and have never heard anyone day "yeah but they went to x uni". Plus, eventually you charter in my profession and after that, it really doesn't matter.
Another anecdote, but my ex essentially failed his degree in maths from a RG, because he didnt get enough credits to pass so even though he got 2:1 in everything he did pass, he had to graduate without honours. He is very good and talented, just struggled with uni. He was hired by a tax firm looking for apprentices who were more open to who he was in the interview and tests than degree status and he now earns shit-loads (official term) ad a tax consultant and is in high demand across a number of big firms and well respected and thought of in this industry.
Point being, it's a stepping stone. Everyone takes different steps...and often they end up where they wanted to be regardless of route taken.
If your DS can go to a uni where he gets that necesaaryvstepping stone for his career, and also gets to do a sport he loves in one of the best environments for it...its a no brainer IMO

I don't know if you are setting out to be obtuse SarahAndQuack as it is pretty clear what willstarttomorrow is saying, and, if you work in academia you must be aware that the fact someone is a brilliant researcher does not correlate with them having the best teaching style. hey aren't people who have chosen, as their life's passion, "teaching" (or lecturing if you prefer). They are people who have chosen to do research into something that really interests them, and who have to spend 1/3 of their time teaching as a by product of that.

Now some researchers are also brilliant lecturers, and their passion, interest in, and love for the subject shines through.
Others however, might be brilliant scientists, but lack the people skills and lack the patience for explaining things to people who don't 'get it' instantly.
Of course, most are somewhere in the middle. But is is clear that what is being said is there isn't a correlation between being a great researcher and a great lecturer.
Equally, there are lecturers out there who are not employed for their research, but for their teaching as that is what they chose to do as a career. Again, they still might not be brilliant lecturers, but not being a researcher doesn't indicate that they will, or won't be.

Also just to add, my first uhi was good high ranking RG, but not a Durham. I then did my masters which was actually geared towards specialisation for my profession at the uni that is most valued in my field. Would have been a waste to be miserable with a less good "fit" for my 4 year undergrad just for the sake of a name which I now have on my CV anyway, and is the one directly related to my job

If he wants to be a lawyer / accountant / management consultant or similar then he should go to the highest ranked uni he can or he may not be able to get interviews.

If he doesn’t have a particular career in mind then it doesn’t matter so much.

Personally I wouldn’t choose a uni based on sport, unless it’s something he hopes to link to his career, but is his decision 🤷‍♀️.

Really good sport at Durham as each college has its own teams. Dd didn’t go though as she didn’t like the college she was offered. She was England regional in her sport, never made it to the next level.

No, I'm really not setting out to be obtuse, I just don't follow what she's getting at.

In UK universities, the normal progression is PhD (may teach), postdoc (may teach), lecturer (will teach; will usually also research), senior lecturer (ditto), reader/associate prof (ditto), professor (ditto, but by this point the teaching load is usually a fair bit lower).

There also exist teaching-only posts, but (especially at the level the OP is talking about), most teaching will be done by people who are research active. Therefore, to say 'I don't enjoy teaching, I'm a researcher' is a poor excuse really. Yes, of course one can be a brilliant researcher and not good at teaching, but IME most people find they have to work at being good at both; increasingly, universities don't let you get away with shirking the teaching.

But this is tangential to my main point, which is that a lot of teaching is done by people who have pretty similar CVs and research profiles, across most universities.

My tuppence worth:

Don’t forget that the Russell Group has no official status, and that they selected themselves nearly 30 years ago, based on size and how research-intensive they were. Which means that several of the RG universities are not necessarily all that good, and that some good universities are not included.

I would pay attention to student satisfaction feedback, as others have said.

Unless DS is planning to row for TeamGB or so, I would not let sports play any significant role into the decision-making on this. Sports is vital for well-being, but in the end it is a hobby. As long as DS can practice his favourite sport (in general), it should not really matter whether the sports areas are top notch or merely average.

To be honest, I distrust universities who pay too much attention and invest too heavily in non-learning related topics, such as food courts, buildings, sports facilities, etc. These universities usually try to 'capture' you with such superficially visible facilities, while their library collection is falling apart, their teaching staff are put on temporary contracts, etc.

@Miztermann

DC is in Year 12 so we're looking at universities. His predicted grades are likely to be A*'s and A's so he is aiming high. All the universities on his current shortlist are Russell Group, with aspirational entrance requirements, but some are 'ranked' more highly than others in the league tables, and the one he favours the most is ranked the lowest - e.g. 201-250 in the QS world subject rankings and 35 in the Guardian subject rankings. But he favours it because it is one of the best places to go for his sport, which is very important to him.

It seems to me that the university rankings are weighted towards research rather than teaching, so AIBU to think they're not worth paying much attention to at first degree level? If he later wants to do a postgraduate research degree somewhere more prestigious then he can move when he graduates. But if he goes straight into employment, I do wonder if there are many recruiters who only focus on graduates from the top tier institutions. That would have been true in the past, but how about now?

Hi @Miztermann I currently work in a RG Uni and I'd encourage any potential applicant to look at the whole package rather than putting too much emphasis on what the rankings are. Things that have a big impact on the student experience are is it a campus uni or a city based one, what are the society and social / sport opportunities like and what are the support services that are available for students.

My experience from working in a range of non RG and RG Uni's is that some / many of the RG have been relying on their reputation for many years and are quite behind the curve of other not so famous/ established institutions in relation to teaching practice, student support and other important factors. My current Uni is about 15 to 20 years behind on critical systems and it's highly ranked.....!

Whilst looking at the staff that are teaching the subject he's interested isn't a bad idea, that can change and as key staff do move on. Also, the more senior / more eminent they are they are likely to have very little to do with day to day teaching.

I'd say going somewhere for the sport isn't a bad move! Campus tours, talking to current students and doing research on the Uni Applicant forums help to make an informed decision.

Happy to try and answer any further questions if you want to DM me.

I'm reading this and thinking I must be a really crap parent because my two both found the course they wanted and then applied to it. None of us looked into rankings or RGs or any data. My oldest didn't even do any visits.

One is at an RG Uni and the other isn't, both are doing well and both enjoy it.

Your child should look at extra curricular for sure. DD chose Durham over lots of others for maths because she could see the music scene was plentiful - both college and university-wide. Sport didn't interest her but friends picked Durham for a similar reason.
Also the maths (her subject!) was good.
But that is a job for child not parent

@LilMidge01 my DP is the same, autistic, the best he managed in exams was C’s and D’s, passed in a coursework based uni but is now a software engineer and is the best by far in his team. You won’t find stories like this in all professions though...

@nokidshere of course it depends on the course 😂 if you’re doing something quite specialised only a few unis offer it compared to something generic like history or physics

@SarahAndQuack when I went to uni (not that long ago) the best researchers weren’t the best ‘teachers’ in sense that they weren’t necessarily the best at supporting students at various levels of understanding.
We had a mix of lecturers hired solely for teaching and ‘superstar’ researchers. The latter’s courses were more ‘exciting’ in terms of content and big ideas but their explanations were not the most thorough. If you didn’t come to the lectures prepared with pre-readings or relied solely on lecture notes you’d be left very behind. The ones with a more ‘teaching focus’ were better at getting things across at a more digestible format.
Having said that though good researchers don’t normally teach foundational classes. It’s usually third year courses or electives, where everyone’s expected to have the basics and the module is more specialised....