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

I don't know how they can print these tables knowing they may mislead some parents and students, doing them a great disservice. And the ones most likely to be mislead are the disadvantaged - first generation uni-goers, those in poorer schools which are more likely to also offer bad advice.
It's shameful.

@TizerorFizz

The ability of universities to market low tariff courses to young people who are easily influenced needs to be examined. I think it is too easy to dismiss lack of intellectual rigour as 'snobbery' and that is to everyone's detriment particularly students.

My daughter s go to an average comp and you can see a culture of apathy toward achieving the best academic grades entrenched within the student cohort. It is maybe a justifiable attitude of 'well get enough GCSEs to scrape into A level courses then it doesn't really matter as even if I get 2 D s s university somewhere will take me and there are foundation courses as well to take advantage of '. The students wrongly think that once they get a 2:1 or 1st from the University of Blackpool then it's easy street as they think their degree should be comparable to those from better institutions. The problem is its hard to stop taking students taking this attitude (and let's face some can be lazy) when as a society we are preaching equivalence of degrees.

those suffering are those going to really poorly regarded courses and going into debt but also I feel extremely bright hard working children who because they don't have an Oxbridge badge are meant to feel they are now longer high achievers but just one of the mass that are going to the egalitarian non Oxbridge university group.

We seem maybe as a culture afraid of academic success of possibly willing to bring people down a peg or two of they have pretensions that their RG course is of value. We at the same time praise those that get to Oxford but then for the remaining 98% expect to somehow accept all the other universities are similar and it is snobbery to suggest otherwise.

It's weird.

@mids2019 I totally agree. If I’m honest, we knew where we stood with unis, Polys and HE colleges. Now we are just confused! It is a complete disservice to young people and madness. It is an attempt to say low tariff unis are just as good. Overall they are not. We are afraid to say this. I believe aiming high is vital, especially for dc from less affluent backgrounds. It does beg the question, who is this table for? I’ve certainly been aware of teachers who think all unis and courses are equal so dc should go where they like. DN was happy to go to where she supports a football club. I always feel social mobility happens through employment. So that really needs to be looked at in greater depth. A degree and a poor quality job afterwards has not moved social mobility forward very much, in my view.

It's weirder to think RG means anything - they self selected with no external criteria.
I've taught in RG and non-RG and the difference is that students at RG have generally had good experiences of education up to that point. No difference in actual intellectual capacity.
And Oxbridge in my subject area is so old-fashioned I couldn't name a single research project or discipline-shaping publication coming out of there in the last 30 years.
As this thread shows, people want simple solutions (which is 'the best'?) and that's why these rankings are popular but it's not that basic

I went to an ex poly and it was absolutely shite compared to the RG unis that my dcs are at.

My dd is going to study law at Northumbria, I’m really happy with her choice. so I’m not being snobby I just think we all make the decision that best suits our children.

op mentioned that if uni placing a weren’t important then students would all be going to Leeds Beckett (dd second choice) or Northumbria to party. My dd can do both

I always feel social mobility happens through employment. So that really needs to be looked at in greater depth. A degree and a poor quality job afterwards has not moved social mobility forward very much, in my view.

That's a very good point. Good clear robust data on graduate prospects for each course (both short term and longer term) would be very valuable.

@Howisittheendofsummer24

I would say the conclusion of your post is that all universities are equal given that there may be deficincies in all.

However .. . there is still the question about what is the point of pushing our children to get the best examination results possible if the end outcome is ultimately the same?

At the end of the day the primary use of A levels is a differentiator for higher education selection. I don't think that is going to change; we have a basic model of the better the qualification in general the better the course available as it is more competitive and the content is set at level based on a greater capability

It may seem unfair from one perspective but you could argued it is unfair to penalise high achievers by saying your Oxbridge degree is equivalent to the University of Northampton degree. In fact in reality the world doesn't work like this and the Oxbridge degree holds more currency

The problem is do we have a pyramidal hierarchy of universities with Oxbridge the apex or do we have some sort of theoretical one long layer with a couple of bricks on top (Ox and Cam). I would argue the former and the RG I agree is an imperfect means of defining the layer beneath Oxbridge but I do think there is a layer but is a little unclear to define. If we do not have this layet then it's Oxbridge or bust for every student who has a great A level profile.

We seem to have this reluctance as seeing education as competitive in our culture yet sport we naturally accept the completion . We have a culture where we don't celebrate children's acceptance into Oxford because well, het, it's just another uni and to celebrate equates to boasting

I think we have to question whether such a perspective is doing an injustice to the aspiration and ambition of our young people?

Late to the thread... The table seems as odd as ever. I think that a column for "financial stability" would have been really useful in the current circumstances!

I wonder how many people are influenced by these broad-brush and often misleading tables? Like a PP, DD is studying a small art/design subject that doesn't appear in any of the league tables and chose partly by industry reputation, but you wouldn't know that from the Guardian.

Although it's misleading in other ways, I rather wish that more press was given to DiscoverUni (the new-ish name for UniStats). It's linked from UCAS course pages, but nobody seems to talk about it very much.

The problem is do we have a pyramidal hierarchy of universities with Oxbridge the apex or do we have some sort of theoretical one long layer with a couple of bricks on top (Ox and Cam). I would argue the former and the RG I agree is an imperfect means of defining the layer beneath Oxbridge but I do think there is a layer but is a little unclear to define.

The Sutton Trust's 13 and 30 probably still define the top of the 'pyramid' pretty well. There might be two of three in the 13 that should now be swapped with some from the 30, or some specific courses that don't fit. But overall there don't seem to be any downright weird inclusions or omissions as far as I can see

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Trust

@ErrolTheDragon

I agree with that and that was the picture when I went to uni.

The Sutton trust actually define these as institutions they wish to see more working class children at so they must have data to show graduates from these universities are valued and hence increasing working class students there aids social mobility.

We now have though a combination of campaigning Guardian journalists cherry picking dubious rating metrics and aggressive marketing from ex polys trying to change public perceptions? The question is are they buying it?

And you know should people have the ability to say their proud of getting into a top 13 uni in much the same way they would express pride getting into Oxbridge. Let's hand out about if praise to our young people knowing praising some doesn't diminish the achievements of others

Omissions…..Loughborough????

Queens uni Belfast? Possible omission? Leicester, Reading and Royal Holloway aren’t top 30 in CUG but are top 40. The edges are blurred!

I think schools could usefully use the Sutton Trust unis for celebrating excellence. I don’t agree that Oxbridge should be the only measure of success. Looking at earnings afterwards might put a few more in the mix!

I think celebrating excellence is more of what we should be doing. The advent of the noisy of newer universities up league tables has occurred d at a time when schools do not routinely applaud students who perform well for inculsivity reasons. Is this a a good thing? State schools rarely publish full results of user destinations and if they do will use higher education as a catch all phrase.

You know there are some bright young things that at 13 or 14 decide they want to do to Osbridge. They lightning make it but we should encourage surely? In addition if they are intelligent and yet fail to get in (and the margins are mighty fine) then they should be praised for getting into a 'second tier' university; why are we afraid of thiis?

It is in the new universities interests to erode the dividing lines but not necessarily the students .

The one thing we can say is that with the significant differences between the league tables almost everyone can find a table that ranks their university highly. Win win.

With blind recruitment it will become largely irrelevant. The reality is that kids should pick a place where they feel comfortable are inspired by the course and think they could be happy. They should balance this with cost and proximity to home/loved ones since this also impacts on cost and happiness (if they need support).

@Ciri .

we do have a spectrum of intelligence and ability in the population and I still think there is room for selective universities such as Oxbridge. Graduates from those universities are highly regarded and can found in many high status jobs throughout society. I think there is a natural order to this and we find similar in the US.

I just feel we shouldn't diminish the achievements of the brightest and best by suggesting an equality of shares as for reasons given above.

It has been found that university blind interviews still mean there are disproportionate numbers of successful candidates from higher status universityinstitutions which you would expect. In my experience university blind interviews deny an important opportunity to look at the candidates historically and not all recruiters like them especially in the public sector. There is a huge pressure for employees to get it right in terms of selecting a good candidate in perhaps an hour interview. Employers need to know the overall background and general ability of candidates. University blind interview lead to students thinking an interview performance is more important in life than getting the grades to go to high status institutions a and performing well in them; surely that must raise questions? Often you will find institutions have various ways of circumnavigation the exclusivity agenda.

That ranking is insane! Dd off to to a prestigious course at top RG university that that is rated 63rd?!

With blind recruitment it will become largely irrelevant. The reality is that kids should pick a place where they feel comfortable are inspired by the course and think they could be happy.

Blind recruitment might get you into the interview room, but recruiters will be using a range of techniques including competency tests. DS was surprised at how hard some of the others (from as I recall, Glasgow and the University of Westminster) found tasks around data manipulation, skills that were effectively taught in his first year at LSE. Similarly he tried to help one of his friends on an internship, who was studying at Oxford Brooks, to apply for Masters degrees. The boy was bright but from overseas and when first applying had not understood the differences in status between different UK Universities, so wanted to trade up at Masters level to somewhere like LSE. DS went through the topics his friend had covered and there was no way he had mastered the content he would have needed.

So yes, look at places that appeal and courses that inspire, but for more technical degrees course content is also important. Courses that take students with A*s will be able to move faster than those whose students don't have the same academic background. And if this is important for a potential employer, some form of competency testing will be built into the interview process.

I know the Guardian uses different metrics to CUG (and the others) but the rankings must have some relevance to each other?

The Guardian deliberately omits research rankings from their rankings.

Which is fine unless you think universities should be teaching their students new knowledge at the cutting edge as well as stuff from old textbooks.

Isn't this more at post graduate level though?
Undergraduate students won't really be taught by research staff?

Where I work, the university a candidate went to is blocked out on their cv, so the hiring manager has no idea where they were educated.

No, what makes you think that? Im a senior academic in an RG university and most of my teaching is at undergraduate level. That’s the case for most academics, unless they’re on a research-only contract. Many UG degrees have modules based around tutors’ current research in the final year.

@JustGotToKeepOnKeepingOn It might be hidden but usually tests sort out the best candidates. Often these will still be the higher flyers. Research is showing (IFS) that uni still counts if you look at earnings. Plus surely we need the brightest and the best to succeed. Why is success seen as something we don’t like in the uk?