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.

@Needmoresleep - what about the bright children without access to a good school, books at home, parents in professional roles or able to support them through the university system - this group need the additional chances or opportunities in the job market otherwise there will none of the levelling up the Tories keep promising.

@EmpressCixi

Mine is St Andrews Cambridge Oxford

The rest I rank by course, no real overall rating.

Out of curiosity, re the top 3, do you mean that all the courses at those institutions are by some metric superior to the equivalent offering anywhere else? Or that there is no need to compare the courses at the three universities with their equivalents elsewhere, because anything those three offers is automatically 'the best', just because it's one of the three it's being offered by (to put it rather unhrammatically)?

The problem with blind recruitment tools are that they are only as good as their methodology. Any test can still favour a particular type of education or background, I think it was the original civil service blind recruitment test which found it was actually selecting more Oxbridge rather than less (it may have been one of the large accountancy firms ). So do you change the algorithm to select for different characteristics and are you then prioritising the selection process over the job. Of course the answer is that you need to balance the two but some degree of subjectivity is inevitable.

Did anyone see the case this week where two employees one at an employment tribunal because they were de selected from a job after computerised interview selection which matched facial expressions with key words in their answers

@MarchingFrogs
Out of curiosity, re the top 3, do you mean that all the courses at those institutions are by some metric superior to the equivalent offering anywhere else? Yes even if it is superior by reputation alone as while some recruitment may be blind, admissions for postgraduate study are not.

Or that there is no need to compare the courses at the three universities with their equivalents elsewhere, because anything those three offers is automatically 'the best', just because it's one of the three it's being offered by? Also yes. Although, I have been comparing courses between the top 3 as they may be equivalent, but not identical. The modules within the course that you take will matter for future postgraduate specialised study and/or future job skills and capabilities.

However, I recognise that the top 3 don’t always offer an equivalent to every course especially if you are interested in say an engineering degree. So the top 3 are not the best choice for every student no matter what the course.

How did St Andrew's manage to jockey themselves into this position over the years? It must just be because of it being in favour with the English public school sector, surely?

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

@Peaseblossum22, I don’t think the civil service test tending to pick Oxbridge graduates is a problem at all. The civil service wants smart people, most Oxbridge graduates are clever. This is to be expected.

By using some sort of diagnostic test, it allows room for other smart people who might be overlooked to get in too.

Skipping the test, and just using Oxbridge as a proxy for IQ is the problem.

@Piggywaspushed

How did St Andrew's manage to jockey themselves into this position over the years? It must just be because of it being in favour with the English public school sector, surely?

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

I went to university in the 1980s and St Andrews definitely was very sought after then. I remember not applying because I didn’t think I would get in but I did apply to Durham. I am English though.

@Piggywaspushed

How did St Andrew's manage to jockey themselves into this position over the years? It must just be because of it being in favour with the English public school sector, surely?

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

It’s the third oldest uni in the UK so it’s hardly a newcomer.

Yes, maybe sought after in England but not like the number one in the way it is seen now.

I didn't say it was a newcomer. It's an ancient. Well aware of that!

Things change. Leeds wasn’t highly sought after when I went now it seems very appealing to students.

I think St. Andrews does very well for more ‘current’ courses like international relations, neuroscience etc that others don’t offer. So students get the cool courses and the old buildings?

hmm...yes. I still think what the elite attend then becomes the best university...as in general elite .

what about the bright children without access to a good school, books at home, parents in professional roles or able to support them through the university system - this group need the additional chances or opportunities in the job market otherwise there will none of the levelling up the Tories keep promising.

I don't understand what you are arguing with. Many top ranked Universities and employers are working very had to ensure that the provide access to those who have been relatively disadvantaged.

What I am saying is that this makes education all the more important for those who might find themselves squeezed out of opportunities that they may otherwise have had. There will always be universities and employers seeking bright, hard working and able people regardless of background. So DS was sifted out at the first round of a five stage recruitment process despite having a very appropriate Masters, by an employer who is publicly committed to increasing diversity within their organisation. A pity but he is fine as his skills meant he was offered a fully-funded PhD place in a top 10 department in the US, an RA position with a well known Professor at an Ivy (HYP) and even a place on the reserve list of the parallel institution in the US to the one he was rejected from in the UK.

Diversity within an organisation is important and one assumes that the commitment by UK institutions to d&i in recruitment is on the basis that this will ultimately strengthen their organisations. If so, all win. But there is a need for caution and to ensure a correct balance. At the end of the day they want to recruit the people who in the longer term are able to make a strong contribution to the work of the organisation. The right/wrong school/university only tells you so much.

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.

@Newgirls and Classics, Divinity and English (among others)!

@thing47 that wasn't my experience at all.

while some recruitment may be blind, admissions for postgraduate study are not.

Admissions for Masters courses don't depend on where you did your under-graduate, though, so much as what you did, surely?

DD2 did her first degree at a post-92 former polytechnic, but what she did there qualified her to apply to – and get accepted for – a Masters at a university ranked higher than Cambridge or St Andrews (or any other RG university for that matter) in her particular STEM field.

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.

@thing47

Admissions for post graduate study are not blind as to where you studied, so of course where you got your bachelors is going to influence the success of your application. It is often said (rightly or wrongly) that a 2nd at St As or Oxbridge is equivalent to a 1st at RG and so on. So, no admissions don’t depend on where you went, that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying because it’s not blind admissions where you went will definitely influence the decision makers. The top unis also have a revolving door type nepotism going on between them. It’s understood that if you get a bachelors at one, you’ve got a better chance of getting on the masters or PhD program at another. The number of people who bounce between Oxford and Cambridge for example is not unusual.

In the case of your DD2 it largely depends on the degree course she studied, so cannot comment on whether her experience is in line with the average or not. As I mentioned above, the top 3 don’t always have equivalent courses, and so top school by course is still well known, published annually and would still have influenced her admission to this unnamed university which is higher than St As, Cambridge and Oxford.

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

One of the reasons St Andrews has become very selective is that it has stayed small; it has prioritised quality over quantity. It has not followed the drive of many southern universities for ever increasing numbers of students. More students are applying to university including St Andrews but they have not expanded to meet this need. , consequently the ratio of offers to applications has fallen. In addition they have massively increased their international intake, there are so many Americans at St Andrews that you can actually apply on the US Common Application, this has brought in the funds that they have missed out on by not increasing numbers.

@FrancescaContini

I wouldn’t touch Bristol for my own DC with a barge pole after the way it treated Raquel Rosaria Sanchez. As an institution, it clearly lacks the ability to use critical thinking.

@FrancescaContini Surely it is up to your DC where they go to University and as a parent you should just want to support them in their life choices?

Ah, Americans. Yes, that makes sense. The size thing too.

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.