How much store do you set by league tables?

[Thepleasureofyourcompany]

As the 2024 tables are now on The Complete Uni guide. Looking at what dd wants to study and some unis have moved up 30 or 40 places! That seems like a huge jump and could be complete anomalies.

She's looking at sports science and UEA is now in the top five despite not actually offering actual Sports Science (purely education based degrees).

Just wondered generally how seriously people take them?

I think you have to look at them with a critical eye, as you have identified. So for example the Uk ones have different weightings for various things, but for example they can place significant weight in eg student satisfaction, whilst at the same time allowing oxford and Cambridge to opt out of measuring that, yet allowing them to still remain at the top of the tables - so they must be making up for that gap in their formulae somehow - but how? Another is that they all take into account UCAS points on entry. But Scottish students take many more subjects and those are treated like A levels, which explains in part how St Andrews, Edinburgh, Glasgow etc with high numbers of Scottish students maintain consistently higher rankings than if they were the same universities south of the border.
min relation to subjects, sometimes the subject groupings are so wide that they put together unis that aren’t comparable. So there is an African and Middle East studies ranking on CUG but lots of the unis in the top 10 don’t have a Middle East / Arabic department at all, but have a good international development programme for eg.

But I think they are useful as long as you do look at them critically. I wouldn’t use them to distinguish between a uni ranked 12th and one ranked 15th in a subject for example, but I would use them as a jumping off point to investigate certain unis I hadn’t previously thought of for a subject.

Thanks that's interesting as I'd noticed the Scottish unis being very high up!

Completely agree with @Delphigirl . A critical eye is all important. The league tables are from from being absolutes but can provide another angle for a DC to look into what might be important to them, or indeed which I’d strongly recommend, look beyond the headlines.

we also know that a number of unis face financial difficulties. Not sure that is reflected.

the other thing is that it would be helpful if CUG, ST and Graun showed a more medium term view, so movement across say a five year period.

the Graun itself conjures up a few oddities 😀given its differing methodology.

I really don't think they matter. Unis will move up and down over time. Employers don't care in my experience. The criteria for the leagues are all very different.

I think the tables are worth a look and may be a factor in decision making but aren't the be all and end all. Like all this type of thing they can't be taken completely at face value, especially not the high level data - you need to look at subject specific data, and as has already been mentioned that might not be entirely accurate even, with different subjects lumped together in some establishments. Plus of course there's all the sub headings so you need to decide what personal weighting to give them. A Unversity might score highly on research quality but low on student satisfaction or graduate prospects for instance. How you view that might depend very much on your longer term career plans. The other thing to consider is the magnitude of difference between different places. My DS is currently at a University that isn't ranked highly for his subject and when I just saw the numerical ordering I did panic a bit. But if you look at the percentage scores for each domain, there are actually only small differences and a lot of the courses have very similar scores. His place actually only scores a few % lower in each domain than Universities a long way above it in the numerical rankings, with a lot clustered in the middle and a few outliers at each end. In other subjects the same numerical ranking difference could indicate a much bigger difference in the scores, so worth looking carefully.
Trends are also worth considering. The course my younger DS is currently looking at has been top 10 consistently for many years, until this year when its dropped a lot. My DH works in a related field and knows that graduates from this University are well regarded and sought after by many companies, wnd we know people who went there that had great experiences. So whilst I won't deny it's made me wonder what happened last year, I'm not stressing too much. I would probably be more concerned if it had been steadily declining over a number of years to be honest. And the other thing to remember is that a drop in rankings doesn't necessarily mean any particular course has got worse, it may reflect improvements in other places.
So worth a look and may precipitate questions to ask at open days etc, but I wouldn't personally read too much into them. Much like school league tables there is a lot more to consider.

Clearly rankings for Sports Science mean nothing if the only course available is Education that encompasses this subject!

That tends to show the anomalies for “new” subjects. History ranking , for example, might be far more reliable! The Guardian is the outlier. Quirky in many respects. It looks at uni and seems to think it’s school. My idea is to look at entry standards and jobs acquired. No point doing any degree if you don’t get a job after. Choosing the best route for employment means a lot in my view.

Unis do jump up and down. Not sure that means much within the top 25. Or bottom 25. A big rise is probably an anomaly. Employers will be behind the curve though. They didn’t go to uni in 2024.

I knew it wouldn't take long for you to appear to have a pop at Sports Science! History must be even more important to investigate deeply as there are so many areas that can be covered.

The UEA course is an odd one.

She's looking at sports science and UEA is now in the top five despite not actually offering actual Sports Science

UEA don't offer Sports Science as such, as you rightly say @Thepleasureofyourcompany, the reason for their high placing is that their education and PE courses are highly thought of, so if your DD is interested in that field it would be worth a look.

But if she wants to actually study the science, I wouldn't over-think it. People in the sports industry who are looking for sports scientists won't be employing graduates from UEA.

I'm never sure whether to give more weighting to the QS International League Tables or the Complete University (U.K. only)?

For 2023, QS have 1) MIT 2) Cambridge 3) Stanford 4) Oxford. But Imperial and UCL also feature in this international top 10.

No mention of LSE, St Andrews, Bath or Durham - which all feature in the CUG U.K. top 10. I think LSE is in the 70s, Durham 90s and the others below 100.

Why are UCL and Imperial so high in international tables when, in U.K. tables, they are comparable to LSE, Durham, Bath etc?

Lots of issues with the QS rankings. For one, they favour STEM subjects and universities because they use a metric of citations which massively weights things in favour of STEM over humanities (and I say that as a scientist).

There are other long-standing issues which, to be fair, they have attempted to address but haven't fully got there yet.

International tables give a lot of weight to research and citations. Domestic tables give more weight to measures of undergraduate experience.
International tables therefore favour large, research-intensive institutions. Big institutions with a lot of research funding therefore place above smaller institutions where teaching may be excellent. Notable examples are Edinburgh and Kings, which place highly in international league tables despite the undergraduates being unsatisfied by their experience (as measured by the national student survey). In contrast, St Andrews and Bath are smaller, with smaller research budgets. They place lower on international league tables but have happier undergraduates according to NSS.
To pick an undergraduate course it makes sense to give more weight to the domestic rankings. That said, I think the guardian tables are junk. I'd look at all of Times, THE, complete uni guide, but also look at QS and international tables while giving them a lower weight. The NSS results are also available online.

As pp mentioned when my ds applied we looked at trends. For his subject Warwick had been in the top ten for over 10 years, whereas some universities appeared in the top 5 that year, came from nowhere and then dropped again.

Zero. I just go by where people work after and how hard it is to get in etc.

Thanks for explaining about the importance of research for QS. Still surprised LSE does not feature higher as its known for being research-intensive? Also Warwick is quite STEM-focused I thought?

@Thepleasureofyourcompany Sorry I popped up to state the obvious. Look in detail at the courses. High ranking or otherwise. You have discovered the anomalies.

My idea is to look at entry standards and jobs acquired.

Genuinely curious @TizerorFizz - what would your list of 'jobs acquired' be to rank universities by ?

Do the students get into grad schemes? Are they doing jobs commensurate with the degree? Are they doing further qualifications? There are stats on this. The IFS did a useful study a few years ago. Not all Economics degrees are the same they concluded in terms of salaries. It always depends what the student expects of course. But if it’s a grad job at the end, looking at what the students end up doing might influence choice of course and uni.

The rankings are useless.

If you want to be in an exciting research environment, look at what events have been held in the last year and what people are publishing, ask at open days what opportunities they offer for undergrads to get involved.

If you care more about pastoral care, social life etc, go to open days and really look around at what students are doing and where e.g. what events are advertised in the SU, where are students visibly hanging out together etc.

What people are publishing sometimes doesn’t trickle down to undergrads. The SU at some unis is a waste of space. DD hardly went inside the building. However the course and uni were first class for her subject. I think respected league tables are a starting point. Why not look at grades required? Why not look at what students aspire to do afterwards? There are other things to think about of course but I think it’s always worth evaluating why you want to go to uni in the first place? Will the course snd uni give you what you want in the long run?

Why does it matter what students aspire to do afterwards and how would you find that out?

I think looking at trends and relative positons probably gives some useful context, rather than absolute positioning. I also found that lookig at all 3 of the main tables was useful too as they are using slightly different metrics and there was variation. But there wasnt as much variation as you might expect, at least in the subject I was researching, which I thought was interesting, and encouraging.

@Thepleasureofyourcompany You can look at industry links. Look at destinations. Talk to students. Even ask on MN. I’m always mystified that people are prepared to spend £50,000 without ever considering possible outcomes and jobs. We do surely know not all universities snd degrees are equal? Not aiming high often stalls aspiration and some DC would be better off not going to university at all. There is no degree premium for many. The degree does not help at all. If we are serious about social mobility, we should help students make good choices.

If grads feel their degree was a waste of time and money, we should point students towards degrees and universities that might help them feel positive. It’s very middle class to be able to support Dc whatever they do. In overcrowded households with little money, being a grad and earning well could actually matter. It might also matter for grad well-being too.

All the tables include stats on graduate outcomes - you can see trends there too.

That tends to show the anomalies for “new” subjects.

Does it though? I mean, any form of computer studies is also relatively 'new' compared to, say, English or biology but you don't find people jumping on threads saying the rankings tables for computer studies are de facto meaningless simply because it's a new field…

The fault here lies in the tables, and the way they are compiled, not in the subject. So as I always point out, the imperative is to dig down into actual course modules and see whether you will be able to angle your degree in the direction in which you wish to go.

The UEA courses are are very good if you want to go into education, but they are not sports science courses in the way that people in the industry will understand that term.

You can look at industry links. Look at destinations. Talk to students. Even ask on MN

Industry links don't mean students will end up working there. Destinations could be a few firms in the last 10 years. The other two are anecdotal and one is almost certainly full of bias and misinformation