Rank your personal ranking for uk Uni’s

[lightisnotwhite]

I’ve read the league tables but interested to know what MN prefers in a Uni. Bristol for example ranks outside the top ten but MN is keen.

I think (based on these threads) Durham, St Andrews, York, Bath, Bristol, Exeter, Manchester, one of the London ones LSE?

Oxford and Cambridge are givens. So what’s next.

I think a lot depends upon what you are studying and at what level.

For an undergraduate studying humanities, I think small classes, led by profs who take the students through their paces. Helping them learn to think critically by analysing, questioning, assuming different view points, debating, etc. Is worth more than fancy labs and professors who are busy publishing not teaching.

Totally different for grad students or applied sciences, I would think. These global rankings are often comparing apples and pears.

St Andrews is interesting because it experienced quite a sudden move up the various rankings in roughly 2007. Usually, these kinds of moves can be attributed to quite specific things happening (either in the university or in how the rankings are compiled). At a guess in St Andrews' case:

• A fairly big increase in student satisfaction. I don't know why it fell so catastrophically in the Guardian rankings (to 39th) in 2006, but its bounce-back has been attributed to an improvement in student satisfaction.

• The removal of tuition fees in Scotland, and an increase in tuition fees in England (Glasgow, Strathclyde and Aberdeen similarly jump up the rankings at this point).

• The removal of subjective external opinion from the rankings around this time. The Times ranking had included a metric based on the opinion of academics and school Head Teachers and there were two other popular rankings (the Financial Times and the Telegraph) around in the early part of the 2000s that used employer ratings of universities.

St Andrews has always faired relatively poorly on measures related to graduate outcomes and employment and these metrics effectively double-counted their problem. St Andrews usually didn't make even the top 20 in the employer ranking and was barely top 20 in the academics and schools ranking. This somewhat damaged their reputation at the time. You can still see some of the impact of including these metrics in the QS Rankings.

There may be some spill-over effect from William having been there until 2005 and the increase in students from the US particularly, but this wouldn't actually affect most of the metrics. There is no evidence in the ranking metrics that they spent any additional income they gained on either staff numbers or student services and facilities.

Their further climb since then is probably just attributable to success gradually breeding success incrementally over time, as the only metric where they have noticeably improved their ranking is in the proportion of students awarded a 'good degree'.

I went to Surrey.....probably way down the list.

Just to be clear, graduate recruiters couldn't really give a shit if a candidate went to Warwick over Nottingham.....it's Oxbridge, followed by the next 10-15 and then the mid tier ones like Sussex, Exeter...and dare I say Surrey?

Really a more progressive employer is just as interested in extracurricular activities, leadership roles etc but even they will make candidates do all the tick box activities like verbal and numerical reasoning tests, personality tests, group activities.... and if you can't pass them then you are buggered wherever you went.

In the end none of it really matters. Lots of successful people have been to lower tier unis or not been to university at all. Apprenticeships are arguably a better way of getting in to many roles.

Sorry, can probably tell I used to work in graduate recruitment. In all honesty the average application is skimmed at best.

Do they have the grades in academic(ish) subjects?
Are they predicted a 2:1?
Can they speak English?
Any work experience other than the summer holidays are Sainsbury's?
Did they make a half decent attempt at answering our boring and unoriginal competency based questions?
Do they have contacts in the business? If so don't piss them off, maybe call them if rejecting rather than sending the standard reject email.
Any typos - if so get rid.
Are they a mature student? If so find a way to weed them out that isn't ageist.

3 mins max....

It's as much about who you know as what you know in the end.

Anyway, I don't work in recruitment any more. Probably a good thing!

@22woo

As Scottish unis go, Edinburgh is at 16 or thereabouts in the QS Global Rankings, year on year. St Andrews is 90-something.

To be fair to St Andrews, though, which is a very good university, the QS metrics favour a) larger universities over smaller ones and b) universities which are strong in STEM subjects rather than those which are strong in humanities and business, as I and others explained earlier in this thread. Edinburgh is a great university too, but I wouldn't 'downgrade' St Andrews on the basis of the QS Global Rankings – you have to really understand the metrics that league tables are using before you can bring any sort of objectivity to them.

St Andrews does particularly well on the QS Global rankings where it ranks 92nd. In The Times Higher Education rankings, it is ranked down in the 200-250th placed group while in the Shanghai rankings, it is placed as low as 300-350th.

Absolutely, St. Andrews should not be discounted for an undergraduate degree based on its rankings.

@Phphion

St Andrews is interesting because it experienced quite a sudden move up the various rankings in roughly 2007. Usually, these kinds of moves can be attributed to quite specific things happening (either in the university or in how the rankings are compiled). At a guess in St Andrews' case:

• A fairly big increase in student satisfaction. I don't know why it fell so catastrophically in the Guardian rankings (to 39th) in 2006, but its bounce-back has been attributed to an improvement in student satisfaction.

• The removal of tuition fees in Scotland, and an increase in tuition fees in England (Glasgow, Strathclyde and Aberdeen similarly jump up the rankings at this point).

• The removal of subjective external opinion from the rankings around this time. The Times ranking had included a metric based on the opinion of academics and school Head Teachers and there were two other popular rankings (the Financial Times and the Telegraph) around in the early part of the 2000s that used employer ratings of universities.

St Andrews has always faired relatively poorly on measures related to graduate outcomes and employment and these metrics effectively double-counted their problem. St Andrews usually didn't make even the top 20 in the employer ranking and was barely top 20 in the academics and schools ranking. This somewhat damaged their reputation at the time. You can still see some of the impact of including these metrics in the QS Rankings.

There may be some spill-over effect from William having been there until 2005 and the increase in students from the US particularly, but this wouldn't actually affect most of the metrics. There is no evidence in the ranking metrics that they spent any additional income they gained on either staff numbers or student services and facilities.

Their further climb since then is probably just attributable to success gradually breeding success incrementally over time, as the only metric where they have noticeably improved their ranking is in the proportion of students awarded a 'good degree'.

That's really interesting . Thanks Pphion.

I am at asking headteachers! Presumably of a) public schools and b) skewed by the unis those heads went to!

Are they a mature student? If so find a way to weed them out that isn't ageist.

What's wrong with mature students?

@Talkwhilstyouwalk

I went to Surrey.....probably way down the list.

Just to be clear, graduate recruiters couldn't really give a shit if a candidate went to Warwick over Nottingham.....it's Oxbridge, followed by the next 10-15 and then the mid tier ones like Sussex, Exeter...and dare I say Surrey?

Really a more progressive employer is just as interested in extracurricular activities, leadership roles etc but even they will make candidates do all the tick box activities like verbal and numerical reasoning tests, personality tests, group activities.... and if you can't pass them then you are buggered wherever you went.

In the end none of it really matters. Lots of successful people have been to lower tier unis or not been to university at all. Apprenticeships are arguably a better way of getting in to many roles.

Sorry, can probably tell I used to work in graduate recruitment. In all honesty the average application is skimmed at best.

Do they have the grades in academic(ish) subjects?
Are they predicted a 2:1?
Can they speak English?
Any work experience other than the summer holidays are Sainsbury's?
Did they make a half decent attempt at answering our boring and unoriginal competency based questions?
Do they have contacts in the business? If so don't piss them off, maybe call them if rejecting rather than sending the standard reject email.
Any typos - if so get rid.
Are they a mature student? If so find a way to weed them out that isn't ageist.

3 mins max....

It's as much about who you know as what you know in the end.

Anyway, I don't work in recruitment any more. Probably a good thing!

This is so depressing

A really good friend went to St Andrews in the 80s. For context their siblings went to Oxford and Cambridge. I don't think they'd ever consider themself in the same league as siblings, in terms of cleverness. They are intelligent for sure but not stand-out so.

@Talkwhilstyouwalk's post is very informative and provoked a lot of conversation in this household. Thank you for that! Business is far less 'clubby' these days, which is a good thing. Customers are more diverse and won't necessarily gel with a constant succession of people from the same limited set of institutions and general background. The business knows that narrow academic performance/uni 'name' does not corollate with the best performers, managers, leaders in their own organisation.

So employers use filters to make sure those who can spell can add up and those who can add up can spell. They look for tangible evidence that the candidate can work with, motivate and direct others without hacking them off. They want to avoid the passive 'issue avoiders' or nightmare egotists who will be a problem down the line and will be the subject of an anonymous thread somewhere on MN in a few years time.

It is yet another example that academic rankings (published or generally 'perceived') often sit uneasily with the actually requirements of the real world. Hopefully we are moving to a situation where students choose a particular university because they think it suits them and so they will thrive, avoid a 2.2 or worse, have time to build other experiences alongside their academic studies, rather than worry unduly about perceived rankings.

I suspect most students and many employers are already there, it is teachers and parents who need to catch up. Hence my post upthread saying you might as well go to a university that has handled Covid well and so has your interests at heart, rather than a 'name' that might have mis-managed things badly.

Finally Talk's off-the-cuff comment about mature students is a whole other topic but might reflect that fact that whilst many mature students will bring amazing depth of experience and technical skills, some might have proved, historically, more difficult to bring on board for a range of reasons (including, in some cases, the employer's own lack of adaptability). Nevertheless demographics means that businesses will need to get a lot better at courting and successfully integrating career changers and career returners.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

A really good friend went to St Andrews in the 80s. For context their siblings went to Oxford and Cambridge. I don't think they'd ever consider themself in the same league as siblings, in terms of cleverness. They are intelligent for sure but not stand-out so.

That’s really sad to be clever enough to go to a top uni and not think so.

@thing47

When I was at school (in Scotland) in the early 90s St Andrews had nothing of this cachet.

I agree, my two best schoolfriends went to Southampton and St Andrews and they were considered more or less on a par in terms of achievement. That was late 80s.

Interesting point @Newgirls makes, though, I wonder if St Andrews has been making a conscious effort to offer courses very in keeping with the current zeitgeist. Neuroscience used to be a post-graduate field of study but quite a few universities are offering it at under-graduate level now.

It’s a clever move. Providing courses that employers want next. Courses cost so much that very few are now able to take a risk on those without a well paid job at the end. So places like St A have good employability stats and happy students too.

@JackieWeaver101

An applicant from Oxford or Cambridge would be considered as coming from a top ten university and would be viewed favourably by similar universities such as Harvard, Stanford or MIT. The same can certainly be said for an applicant from Imperial in science and engineering disciplines.

St. Andrews is not in the same league. Depending on the subject area and on the international rankings system used, St. Andrews could be viewed as a top one hundred university (ranked 91 in QS rankings) or simply a university ranked in the top five hundred. St Andrews ranks between 200-250 in Times Higher Education rankings or between 300-350 in Shanghai rankings.

Yet the Times ranked it as top university last year and top 3 for past couple of years.

[quote Liverbird77]@Newgirls and Classics, Divinity and English (among others)![/quote]
Yes I think divinity was why it exists in the first place. Not sure how many students now study that?

@22woo

I think, from a London / SE perspective, St Andrews seems a looong way north! People like Prince William probably thought nothing of going that far north as they’ve got Balmoral up that way anyway. Also, Charles etc went to Gordonstone. I think it appeals to some students who just miss Oxbridge because of the historical buildings. Others would really enjoy a more remote, ‘get away from it all’ location. It’s a bit similar in a way to the Penryn campus of Exeter University which is near the the far end of Cornwall. It depends what people want. Just like city unis will appeal to some but not everyone. It’s not about which is ‘best’ - just different environments suit different people.

It seems anecdotally that it’s quite tough to get a St Andrews place if you apply to oxbridge too. Pos because st a really read the personal statements so if a student has written it for a dif oxbridge course they may miss out.

Whatever my ranking was 3 years ago has changed dramatically.

3 years of strike/covid/strike has shown some uni's (particularly more established, probably perceived higher ranking) have treated their students appallingly. Taking tuition fees and in many cases leaving the student to flounder

I really feel for current 3rd years. Some of whom have had such poor service from their universities.

Whilst other uni's have shown great originality and compassion with dealing with covid and the subsequent MH of students. And have had limited strike impact.

These factors have totally changed my uni ranking, often in favour of newer uni's.

I wonder if employers are also looking less favourably on some universities which quite frankly have left students to teach themselves.

Certainly some employers are trying to be fair whichever university you attended. That can mean the effort people have to put in to get jobs is much harder and longer these days which sadly can put off those who are not privileged (or so Clifford Chance found). The rounds of tests and interviews are over the top in my view given that most applicants don't get the job and have to write off all that time instead of a simple form and covering letter (and if lucky an interview or two).

Some employers are old fashioned or remember which universities were good in their day so I wouldn't advise someone who could get into a good one going for a bad one just because they hope attitudes have changed and that's for a raft of reasons not just old fashioned employers. I still look at people's university on their linked in profile (not for recruitment as I recruit no one) but if I have 1 minute to see what I can find about someone that usually gives a bit of an idea about them. Some people even check university attended before dating men! Also who you meet there might mean friends for life, even useful or rich or successful friends which you may not get at some universities. It is a vast number of different advantages if you go somewhere good where those with high grades go, not just what graduate employers will think about it.

On the person who thought they were less clever than Oxbridge siblings, I never thought that. I didn't try Oxbridge but am no less clever than my siblings who went there.

@Newgirls I did! It's still pretty popular.

I really feel for current 3rd years. Some of whom have had such poor service from their universities.

I'm happy to say that DD's university (mid ranking RG) comes out well for how they dealt with the pandemic. DD says the strikes didn't affect her either.

From what I remember the worst university for strike action was Liverpool. It was complained about a lot on SM.

[quote Liverbird77]@Newgirls I did! It's still pretty popular.[/quote]
Oh wow! Has that become your career? No need to give too much away of course!

I do not think you will be alone in re-evaluating your perceived rankings @NotBabiesForLong. The most recent student satisfaction data revealed only a small number of institutions that maintained above benchmark satisfaction in both 2020 and 2021. Not one was Russell Group; all were either post-1992 uni's or non-RG pre-1992 such as Bath, Lancaster, Loughborough and St Andrews.

Employers will not necessarily have a clear handle on which institutions adopted a 'can do' attitude during successive lockdowns and which did not. However, for my part, I come across the newly graduated or students on placement who offer very measured but not at all flattering accounts of supine and entirely self-focused policies adopted by some 'elite' institutions. Rightly or wrongly this has definitely shaped my perceptions and that of colleagues towards those institutions.

@Xenia - surely you’re not advocating going to a particular Uni so that you meet someone rich or successful?

It’s called an MRS degree. Very popular in the past!

@Newgirls well in a way it has, although I am sahm at the moment.
I went on to do Classics at a different university, having also done it as part of my degree at St As. That's also been useful because it's such a niche.

[quote Liverbird77]@Newgirls well in a way it has, although I am sahm at the moment.
I went on to do Classics at a different university, having also done it as part of my degree at St As. That's also been useful because it's such a niche.[/quote]
Sounds interesting 👍