Guardian Uni League Table - some big jumps here!

[DewdropSnowdrop]

www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2020/sep/05/the-best-uk-universities-2021-league-table

Apologies for not being able to do a click Link. I will learn one day.

There are some big jumps and falls in the last 12 months.

What do we all think?

Student satisfaction does not always mean it’s a good, robust degree. I’d wager the opposite may sometimes be true.

maripoosa, the traditional list has always had Oxford and Cambridge at the top, then Durham and places like LSE, Bristol. In fact the places where most good law firms recruit from is not a bad list as it tends to be people with the highest exam grades. www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities-2019

Another way to check is pick someone in the carer you want and look at the linked in profiles of the newly hired graduates at places you might want to work eg might be Goldman Sachs or barristers' chambers etc (the latter post full CVs of barristers on their websites) and you can see which institutions the people you want to be went to.

LSE has shot up. For a long time it was a matter of pride amongst students that they came bottom of student satisfaction tables, and so they filled out questionnaires to ensure that happened. Proved how tough they were to stick it out*.

Perhaps the Guardian should introduce a new metric: Most infantile undergraduate population?

Actually, for infantile, read puerile.

@MarchingFrogs

Actually, for infantile, read puerile.

Probably. But Oxford and Cambridge (and some others) students unions also persuaded students to boycott the NSS for two years so last years and the year before league tables were based on three year old metrics... and meant those students never had the chance to actually comment.

Marchingfrogs, I am not sure I agree.

There are good reasons why students from, say, LSE will be less positive. 50% would have been paying overseas students fees, so will have expected £21,000 worth of education each year. They and the 40% of home students who came from outside the United Kingdom, will also have had to have made major adjustments in language, culture and style of teaching. It is far far easier for a kid from, say Nottingham, to jump on a train and study in London, yet many refuse to even consider it.

You then get the issue that degrees at places at LSE or Imperial, or UCL are not easy. Yes, brilliant for opening career doors, but the work life balance is more skewed towards work than at some other Universities, often with a chunk of surprisingly difficult maths.

LSE, like KCL, UCL, and SOAS are always bound to be near the bottom. It then becomes a bit like Eurovision. I am sure that I am not the only one who is puerile enough to hope for the nul points.

It probably comes down to if the students like it it's a doss course and one to be avoided - for some, not all.

Actually I am an LSE alumna, from 20 years before the inception of the NSS. If my own experience and that of my friends was anything to go by, we would not have given the institution a poor crit - and certainly not done it deliberately, unnecessary, for some warped reason. Granted, the odd seminar was less useful than ot might have been and one or two of my fellow students did hold some slightly 'interesting' views (joyfully supporting the statement of an invited speakers at one of our Women's Group meetings that abortion law was political control of women's bodies - okay so far - and that abortion should be legal at any time in pregnancy, up to and including full term, is something that stands out, rather. But then, I was already in my 20s when I started my degree and had trained and worked as a nurse prior to this and it was quite obvious that some folk had little life experience, not a great deal of imagination and very likely no more than an O level in Biology). But on the whole, the teaching was good and academic staff supportive and accessible (and no, not in the much derided 'hand holding' way) and the overall experience was a positive one.

If the experience of current LSE undergraduates is really unsatisfactory, then fair enough to reflect this in NSS responses - and explore every avenue available, during your time at the university, individually and as a student body to improve your own lot and that of those coming after you. But if it isn't, why make believe that it is? Okay, it obviously doesn't put hordes of applicants off, but why set off to deter those for whom LSE would be a good fit, but who quite reasonably stop and think, If those who have just spent three years there say how awful it was, perhaps I'll jog on and apply to places which seem more satisfactory?

Marching, DS' experience was that the teaching was very good.

However:

1. It was clear that some found the adjustment to the UK tough. Culturally Asia is as different to Europe as it ever was, and I suspect the approach to secondary education has diverged not converged. UK Universities require a level of self-direction that is new to many.

1. The maths content on many courses has increased significantly. Certainly one international student we knew well (our house became a bit of a summer holiday storage depot) hit her maths peak at A level, and found the compulsory maths courses heavy going. Second year was particularly tough and several hard working and disciplined students DS knew failed it. (Though the big advantage is you can then repeat that year, unlike Oxford where it all hangs on final exams.)

1. The LSE seems to believe that their students are more naturally critical because they have been taught to be critical. I have also heard LSE staff admit that until they gained their recent new student centre their non academic offer to students was sub optimal. The place has been a building site for a decade. It cannot have helped things, though hopefully things have stopped now.

1. UCL Imperial, KCL and KCL all suffer the same student satisfaction problems.

1. Our direct comparator is Bristol. Though different subjects, our impression is that LSE is in a different league altogether in terms of academics, organisation and career prospects. However there are a number of posters on this board who will confirm that they think their own DC would enjoy Bristol more or would discourage their children from studying in London.

1. The Guardian may downgrade Universities in London, however other league tables and overseas students don't.

www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-uk
I’ve just been looking at The Times one & surprised to see both St Andrews & Bath tanked at 30 equal to Reading. Really? Reading? Is Reading really up there or are Bath & St Andrews not so great? None are RG but I always thought St Andrews & Bath we’re highly regarded.

Ranked not tanked.

Not Donna, why?

I don't think Bath is significantly older that Reading, perhaps not older at all. In my experience Reading has some very strong property related degrees, around land economy, heritage etc, and some good science/technology ones. Each has their strengths.

NotDonna, it certainly isn't. My son who missed his Exeter grades when to Reading in clearly. Reading will be well below a good few.

I suppose it depends what you are after - clever fellow students? A place where certain firms might come on the milk round? Somewhere a 50 year old future boss might think is good who might be working with you later. All kinds of things.

A achievement of university starus:
Bath 1971
Reading 1926

Reading has historically been the place to go for property degrees, town planning etc. Bath is a science university very strong for maths , econometrics and engineering .

@Needmoresleep

Not Donna, why?

I don't think Bath is significantly older that Reading, perhaps not older at all. In my experience Reading has some very strong property related degrees, around land economy, heritage etc, and some good science/technology ones. Each has their strengths.

Who gives a shit how old it is! What’s relevant is if it’s any good?

Xenia, yes I think Reading has great opportunities for those kids who’d struggle elsewhere.

Latinsisters, I was only trying to understand why there was this MN downer on Reading. My understanding is that it is a well established and well regarded University.

There is a slight rule that younger, less established Universities, especially yhe post 92 ones come out lower in many rankings. (Though not necessarily the Guardian one.) Whatever, DDs close friend has landed a really good and sought after graduate job after a Reading science degree.

My son became a post man for 3 years and now drives a supermarket delivery van for 3 years and counting (he is very happy and doesn't want to do anything else but we do joke that passing his driving test at 17 was the only qualification he really had used and might as well have left school at 13 or 14 really.

That is amusing Xenia & good for him!!

It's the least accurate of all, I swear they sit in the office and pull names out of a hat!

Portsmouth 4th for biosciences, the university which simply requires a pulse for entry (know people there on 3 d's) I think not!

Movingonup, are your referring to the Times ranking which is where the discussion seems to have moved onto, or the Guardian one.

What is interesting in the Times one is the way London Universities are occupying many of the slots immediately below Oxford and Cambridge. For many subjects for many international students priorities are around "Triangle", when many Brits still seem to think in terms of Oxbridge. (72% of LSE's students are international!) It would be good to see thinking evolve, as London Universities offer some terrific opportunities.

What dyou mean by ‘triangle’ please?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_triangle_(universities)