Guardian university rankings out yesterday

[TheJollyCoralEagle]

The Guardian University rankings were published yesterday (The Daily Mail rankings are out today as well, but I don't really want to reference that otherwise this might take a political detour which isn't relevant to the conversation)
The usual subjects are at the top. Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, Durham etc. What is interesting is further down. Established, high ranking globally, Russell Group unis like Newcastle and Nottingham at 62nd and 63rd, but Chichester at 26th and Bolton at 32nd
And then the variation between the league tables. Bolton for example is 108th in the CUG and Chichester at 79th.
I know the Guardian uses different metrics to CUG (and the others) but the rankings must have some relevance to each other?
Some good advice is to go look at the subject league tables but even there, that isn't always useful. My son wants to do Quantity Surveying. Speaking to Quantity Surveyors in practice they generally regard Oxford Brookes as one of the top universities for Quantity Surveying yet Oxford Brookes comes in at 12th on the CUG Quantity Surveying rankings. And for Magic Circle law recruitment or investment banking for example, apparently the vast majority of their recruits come from a handful of targeted top universities, but some other universities feature highly in these relevant subject rankings.
I know rankings aren't important for everyone. Some people just want to go to a university that they like for the experience, the city, their friends are going there, it's close to home etc, but for students concerned about getting a job and having to choose between more than 100 universities it's a bit of a minefield!
I know recruiters aren't supposed to look at which university you went to, so maybe rankings aren't such a big factor in the job market any more, but let's not kid ourselves if rankings/reputation/kudos weren't important most students would be going to Leeds Beckett, Northumbria, LJU or Nottingham Trent to have a great social life!

https://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2024/sep/07/the-guardian-university-guide-2025-the-rankings?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

What do they use then? And why is it so different?

What do they use then? And why is it so different?

The methodology is at https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/sep/07/methodology-behind-the-2025-guardian-university-guide.

You can make some comparison of methodologies using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankings_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom, although this seems to be a year out of date.

The thing The Guardian uses that others don't is the value-added score, which tries to put a number on the improvement between entry (i.e. A-Level or other level-3 qualification grades) and exit (degree class). Like all the other data used for league tables, it's a bit unstable because of differences in degree-classification algorithms and marking standards, but in principle it's an important measure.

The Guardian also doesn't use research rankings as it doesn't think they're particularly relevant for UG applicants. Hence why a lot of RG fare poorly - no REF to drag them up the rank.

It tends to be better to look at the job your child might want to have and do a search with that job title, linked in and name of the company they might work looking for recently hired people. g I just looked up biggest UK quantity surveyor - Turner & Townsend and then typed in that name, linked in and quantity surveyor and got first hit a man who was at Oxford Brookes.

@HEMole though doesn’t the Graun methodology show that they use two student satisfaction measures, each representing 10% of the overall score?

Is it really value added though? I have know students enter degrees (vocational) with 1 D at A level and a BTech and gain a 2:1 with a low overall examination score as it was important for universities to pass people for this vocation and it was effectively formative assessment. I don't think a 2:1 reflected a degree with a high degree of rigour.

We aren't changing people who scrape past A level into 1st class degree candidates unfortunately unless you change fundamentally the status of 2:1s and firsts. Employers are just going to look at A levels of set their own testing regime.

My daughter starts Uni in 2025 and is just going with how she will fit in. She's not especially bothered by rankings. She's "vibed" with one particular place and that's her number one choice. She's probably got the ability to get into somewhere far more "prestigious" but she's very shy, very introverted and so she's looking for somewhere that has all the industry standard equipment of course, but also where she knows she will be comfortable.

I think what people forget to consider is that it is rarely important what the current rankings are - the issue is what the rankings were when the people involved in recruitment went to uni. They are the people who will be making a judgement call on whether to interview and they will probably not have looked at current rankings but be influenced by those at the time they applied. So basically look at the rankings from around 10/15 years ago, as those with a say in recruitment will likely be around that much older than the people they shortlist for interview!

This makes me a bit sad. I'm sure your dd will do well but if she's got the ability to go somewhere very prestigious she should.

Of course I say this without knowing what course - maybe a lower ranked uni that's particularly good for her course?

@Ghilliegums Documentary Photography and journalism at UAL.

Don't know the course or uni but assuming if it's UAL it's good for that? Sounds niche anyway.

10th in the country apparently. My DD didn't choose it because of that though. She's been to open days, & their summer school, and feels she fits in. She likes the lecturers, she likes the location, she gets on well with established students and she loves the facilities.

Quite often it's not the rankings that matter.

In her groups at sixth form, lots of her friends and school colleagues have been to RG and other top universities on open days and come away cold, preferring to apply to universities they think they will do well in. Choosing somewhere to study is complex and not just based on a ranking in a newspaper .

@TheJollyCoralEagle my DS has just graduated with a first in QS from UWE. Would really recommend having a look there.

doesn’t the Graun methodology show that they use two student satisfaction measures, each representing 10% of the overall score?

Sorry. Yes, you're right.

Do we have to think about what the effect on aspiration and ambition is though of saying to school children getting the best qualifications possible may not matter as you can get mediocre A levels, go to a newer university, get a first and with cherry picked metrics argue you have been to a high status institution and therefore go on to a high status job?

If teachers make this apparent to children I think it will have a marked effect on their motivation to go the extra mile to maximise the results. Why bother revising if your ultimate destination is the same independent of degree institution? It's a cynical but valid question.

Again Oxbridge may be immune to this perspective but we have a lot of talented young people you could argue of being near Oxbridge calibre who we are now looking with the rest of the student cohort, possibly placing them on courses that will not stretch them.

There seems to be a little bit of schadenfreude present amongst those whose children have done well through lower tariff institutions when they achieve the same roles as peers at other institutions. It's great you kids have done well but you do have to ask questions of we seem to be producing some sort of educational communism.

There is a pathway that has a capable person without the A/As*

Is 'capable' coded language for 'not an intellectual but has some common sense and can be relied on to not lose us money even if they're not making us any either'?

This is the Daily Mail methodology.
Not sure if you can see it.
Student experience is 8% of the weightings

www.mailplus.co.uk/university/374156/methodology-how-we-compiled-our-innovative-ranking

The above is to @Needmoresleep , apologies for not tagging!

@mids2019 I really do agree with you. The intellectual rigour just isn’t the same at some lower tariff unis. The Guardian rankings tend to assume it is. I know something about Civil Engineering. Again it’s whacky. West London ranked higher than Sheffield or Manchester. Thats simply not credible. Northumbria is good for Civils but not above Sheffield or UCL eirher. It simply doesn’t make sense and is misleading.

No particular code, or rather a positive not a negative.

Not everyone gets A*s, and plenty of others do well despite lower grades at 18 who are late bloomers, emotionally intelligent, make good people managers, work hard, have common sense etc. And obviously the reverse. Sensible employers will recognise this, and promote.

I guess what you want to know is which courses teach the right technical skills. I am not sure that the Guardian table does this. Universities in towns with a big banking sector would be an obvious place to look first, not least because there may be more chance to get your foot in the door. I once met someone from, as I recall, Halifax, who at a friends suggestion made a last minute switch to a finance degree, got a first banking job in Yorkshire, was offered a job in London and within a short time had a high flying finance career.

Way back when, Ealing tech had a really good reputation for both law and accountancy. Sandwich courses, evening courses, full time courses. Indeed it is where I studied for accountancy exams. Even in sought-after professions not everyone needs to be an academic superstar to do well.

A number of degree course are accredited to professional organisations/qualifications, so doesn't that mean those courses must be similar and contain similar modules etc whichever university you go to, top10 or top 50. Because they will be monitored to ensure they fulfil the requirement of the accreditation

This is the Daily Mail methodology.
Not sure if you can see it.

I can. Thank you for the link: very helpful.

Student experience is 8% of the weightings

But "student satisfaction", i.e. responses from the National Student Survey (NSS), contribute 25%:

• 10% for "teaching excellence" (c.f. 20% in The Guardian)
• 10% for student support
• 5% for student experience

Interestingly, the Daily Mail methodology also includes a measure for inclusion of students whose parents didn't attend university, which gives a boost to universities that are stronger on widening access.

It's a shame I can't see the tables, as it sounds like they would provide a useful extra source for comparison. I don't really think league tables are inherently valuable because the data they are based on are unreliable (e.g. NSS data can't be used for small cohorts, are usually based on a small minority of students and can be skewed by one-off events; the graduate outcomes survey is very unlikely to be representative of the whole population of graduates, as those in higher level occupations are more likely to respond). But having multiple tables with different emphases at least gives a more detailed picture.

This has the league table for the top 50 and below that is a link for the universities by category
https://thetab.com/uk/2024/09/05/these-are-the-best-uk-unis-right-now-according-to-the-daily-mails-new-uni-rankings-384738

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/university-guide/index.html

Interesting that you mentioned Quantity surveying at Oxford Brookes. My ds got his QS degree from there and indeed it was a great experience. However I got sick of people telling me it wasn't a good university.😕

It should ensure a sufficiently high standard to meet their requirements but doesn't impose an upper limit on what can be taught.

For instance(this is a made up illustration), the accreditation might include a requirement to understand how and why to use a particular scientific technique. Which is maybe what most going into that field would need, great. But a university might go beyond this to teach more of the theory and maths underlying it. And at the top they'd be able to really do that maths and maybe have the depth of insight to be the ones to develop the next refinement of the method. This is where university research rankings most definitely can be relevant to undergraduate study.