Sunday Times University League Table

[thing47]

Just having a look at yesterday's new league table. No real surprises in the top 20, Surrey is the big mover just outside that, up from 32 to 22, and further down the list Northumbria has moved up from 62 to inside the top 50.

Universities of the year are Bath and NTU (Modern University of the Year).

The 'Best for Teaching Quality' sub-table made me take a second look, as with the exception of St Andrews the top 10 is all non-RG, lesser-known universities. But that category is student-assessed so I don't really see how many students are in a position to compare objectively how good their teaching is to another university…

Of course league tables have to be taken with a (large) pinch of salt, but always worth a glance.

I wouldn't trust 'student satisfaction' as a rating of anything because it mushes together multiple factors, most of which are based on ratings by first year students who barely know which end is up.

No, the KPI of student satisfaction is usually taken from the NSS results. The NSS is ONLY done by final year undergraduate students.

But that's not to say I don't wonder if she might not do better there in terms of her actual education.

What do you mean by "actual education" though?

A university which encourages critical thing and thoughtful evidenced discussion & debate (as desired by @glitterfarts , for example) might be a tougher place intellectually, and that WILL be a "better" education.

But it might not be as enjoyable. (Although my alma mater - tough & uncompromising - definitely was for me, both excellently demanding & fun)

Plus always remember that the right institution for you/your child has other factors too eg teaching style, pastoral care, type of location ... I know 4 young people who have dropped out of Warwick for mental health reasons but gone onto get degrees elsewhere

And the pressure cooker effect and the academically competitive environment really is not good for some students, of course. It can also be a big let down to have got into this 'top ten' institution and then hate it.

DS2 had a place at the 'University of the Year' top ranked for his subject. Jury is out as to whether he was right to reject his offer...

And Oxbridge are somehow allowed to opt out.

And at some institutions hardly any students complete it.

It just depends what you want to get out of university. If you have a career or kind of career in mind look at where people who graduated a few years ago went and their profiles on linkedin for ideas.

Hi, OP -

Your question from 11.20 this morning is interesting. I will come at the answer sideways.

I def think that different institutions have different teaching styles. A part of this is that less able students need more support, but the question goes much deeper. I think it relates back to my earlier description of the elite American four year colleges vs elite research universities (in America, for the sake of argument). Working in either type of institution is a highly desirable job and the competition is fierce. But the jobs are very different.

In the fields I can roughly assess, St Andrews has 2021 REF (Research Exercise Framework) results roughly equivalent to, say, the lowest third of the Russell Group - respectable, solid, not particularly leading. The relevant Schools appear to have some promising young researchers.

But we all know that research is not the core of the St Andrews identity (despite the above and the fact that it turns out a number of good PhDs in these fields every year). The core of the St Andrews identity is undergraduate teaching. In this regard it functions much like one of those highly elite American colleges. Admission is hugely competitive, and every year, having assembled a small group of excellent students in each subject, St Andrews then turns all of its efforts to providing them an excellent education.

Are they challenged and stretched in quite the ways I was, or that Oxbridge students in their tutorials are? TBH, my impression is that they are not. Do they get an awfully good education in, say, Maths/Physics/Chemistry compared to almost anyone outside of Oxbridge/Warwick/Imperial? My impression is that they do. So it isn’t just about coddling weaker students.

I thought the top 20 Uni’s intake from private school was very interesting. All the “desirable” uni’s basically. In fact if you were to ask parents what a good Uni looked like it would probably rank similarity ( except Oxbridge with 8th and 10th).
Cirencester ( The Royal Agricultural) would be the only one not instantly recognisable as a top Uni but that’s because it’s clearly niche.
Top of the list Durham (38.4%) , St Andrews(36.9). with KCL (17.1%), Glasgow ( 16.2) and Manchester (16.2) at the bottom.
So really where the rich kids go is a fairly good indicator that it’s good.

our eclectic listing - it certainly is

and with the usual league table caveats quite a spread across the overall rankings; which doubtlessly will come as a surprise to some; the fact the "other nine" are not all clustered as the bottom end of the ST table being their surprise. Aberystwyth celebrates its 150th anniversary this year so hardly a "new" university.

lol @ Manchester and Glasgow unis being at the bottom of private school intake % - I am
assuming they are quoted here as being the outliers as they are very desirable unis?

I think the poster meant bottom of the top 10?

Aberystwyth celebrates its 150th anniversary this year so hardly a "new" university.

I suppose if you were going to nit-pick, this has only been its title since 2007, though of course under other names it is, as you say @boys3 , quite ancient.

Thanks for posting that graph, interesting spread, isn't it…

Yes thank you! It was the top 20 of unis receiving private school students.
@aesopstables I agree. That it only reinforces my point I think.

I always come onto these threads to make the same point which I find is often misunderstood about league tables.
So for example on the Complete University Guide Tables the 'Entry Standards' measure/column is not the same as the A level offer grades required to get onto the course e.g. A*AA

"The Entry Standards column on our league tables is not a measure of the number of UCAS points required to get into a university – it's the average of the total number of points held by new undergraduate students entering the university."
^Source: www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/student-advice/applying-to-uni/ucas-points^

But this doesn't mean it is the actual grades students achieved to get onto the course either (e.g. AAA, if they dropped a grade).

In reality, ALL qualifications which attract UCAS points can be included. Even if universities don't use Tariff points to calculate their offers or admit students, they will record and report their UCAS Tariff on entry to generate government data and the league tables.

So, to use a personal example:
DS was offered a RG uni place with an offer of AAA ( equivalent to 144 UCAS points, 3 A levels x 48 points each)

His actual results were AABB (= 176 UCAS points, 2 x 48 & 2 x 40) and he went to his reserve choice uni (another RG)

When he arrived, he was phoned in the first week and asked about all his possible UCAS points and they recorded the following:
A levels: AABB = 176 UCAS points
EPQ (done in L6) = 24 points
Grade 8 Music (instrument 1) = 30 points
Grade 8 Music (instrument 2) = 30 points
Total: 260 UCAS points
This is the figure that goes forward to government and higher education league tables (although I believe they cap it in some tables - Complete Uni Guide is capped at 209)

Why does this matter? Because this measure automatically up weights universities with a higher proportion of independent/grammar school students!
Independent/grammar schools are much more likely

• to have students taking more than 3 A levels and/ or an EPQ qualification
• to have students engaged in extra-curricular music/dance/ drama exams which attract UCAS points at Grade 6,7, 8 and higher.

So, perhaps it's no surprise to see a correlation between top-ranked unis and % of privately educated students?

But always with university in its name, not a polytechnic etc

When he arrived, he was phoned in the first week and asked about all his possible UCAS points

I've never hey of this.

None of my dc were ever asked about anything else than their actual A level grades.

Norma, interesting points. My children did loads of music whch would have gone on the UCAS, one had I htink it was 4 grade 8s, although to obtain their places the universities only looked at the A levels themselves.

I still think those where people go into the highest paid jobs tend to be those with the highest A level grades however.

Also as with choosing a decent secondary school in state or private sector it can pay to choose a peer group as it were. If everyone is bright and wanting high paid professional graduate jobs it is more likely even if you have a lazy little so and so it might follow the herd and get a decent job, peer pressure and feeling that is the norm etc. Other advantages are if everyone has pretty high A levels the quality of discussion in the pub never mind in seminars might be good if your child is also like that.

A level grades aren't really a mark of intelligence, they're a mark of how good you are at taking A levels. Well, they are, but only up to a point. University education is of a different nature, far less prescriptive and far less dependent on being able simply to memorise salient points.

I'd like to see evidence of your belief that higher A level grades lead directly to higher paid jobs. This might apply to school leavers who aren't going to university, but once you have a degree I think employers are much more interested in that than they are in A levels. If I'm recruiting graduates, I only give a cursory glance at previous qualifications, and possibly at where and what sort of school they went to.

Perhaps different unis attach different importance to it as they understand who it plays out in league tables?
Both mine were asked. DS1 was phoned, but DS2 was just sent an email with a link to a form to complete. I only know this because he WhatsApped me to find out what grade he got in his drama exams!

Both are Top 20 Russell Group unis.

Scottish pupils achieve more UCAS points as both highers in year 12 and advanced highers in her 13 are both counted towards the points total.

I've just calculated the UCAS pts for my state-school high achieving elder DS.

His relevant qualifications for UCAS points are:

6 highers at grade A - 33 x 6
4 advanced highers at grade A - 56 x 4
grade 8 merit in two instruments - 24 x 2

Total UCAS points 470.

He won't be the only one and this is why Scottish unis are high up the tables for entry requirements.

If students are not answering the NSS with evidence based thought and are not capable of separating individual experience from objective assessment, then surely their assessment of teaching tells you all you need to know about the quality of a university? That is to say, a university that fails to make students think objectively is a waste of time and money.

I agree 100% with @PermanentTemporary - selectivity is the only way to judge quality.

I agree aurea and said this upthread. It doesn't mean the Scottish unis aren't fab, but it rather works in their favour...

In that link @NormaSnorks shared it says that grades for both Highers and Advanced Highers aren't combined:

The Higher score and Advanced Higher score for a single subject cannot be combined, you must calculate for your final grade at Advanced level.

And I'm sure I read somewhere that Scottish tariff scored were reduced by 15% to bring them in line with A level equivalents?

This

following some of the comments up thread a few more scatter graph from the ST figures. I'm cautious about using the word data when it comes to uni league tables; but that's just my personal prejudice.

This is student satisfaction