Does anyone have the top 10 from the new Times Uni Guide 2027?

[KizzyKoala]

It’s behind a paywall but would be interesting to see.

Top 20 are here:
https://thetab.com/2026/09/18/three-universities-rank-higher-than-oxbridge-in-the-timess-league-tables-for-2027

Interesting that Oxford and Cambridge keep being knocked out of the top spots.
However, I think that historical reputation probably matters more than these rankings. Most employers aren't looking at the rankings. Their views are based on historical reputation. I mentioned to a few of my friends that Loughborough and Lancaster are ranked high nowadays and they were surprised. They hadn't even looked at the rankings despite their children being ready to go to university next year.

I have a theory that the universities which were well regarded 15 ish years ago are the best ones to go to in order to get job interviews - on the basis that those making the decisions on who to employ are around 15 years older than the recent graduates. The decision makers probably haven’t looked at the tables for years so will still regard the top 10/20 unis in their day as being better than the ones being ranked higher now.

@fairyring25 I think Loughborough has been a top 10/11 for quite a number of years. I have a friend whose son got an insurance offer there (had applied to Warwick for firm, I think). She is very impressed. Long terms, lots of contact hours and a significant amount of end-of-year in person exams (more than at the son's friends' RR unis). She has 2 other kids at leading RR and felt Loughborough compared very favourably.

I was a bit surprised to hear this initially as thought mainly sports but then it hit me that many people who are elite sports people often are highly driven. Yes, maybe their entry grades are somewhat lower than others in the top 10 but then presumably off set by the fact those pursuing elite sports training train so much. If they hadn't, maybe they would have hit their ceiling of ability.

But she also said lots of people don't do any sports - another surprise as I assumed everyone going was massively into sports. Which is why my DC didn't apply to Loughborough. Shame as would have been a convenient choice location wise for us.

I'd be interested to see exactly how they calculate that.

The league tables are based on several factors, including continuation rates, the proportion of students who get a first or 2:1 degree, and the average UCAS points that new students obtained.

For example, the proportion of students getting a first or 21. That's basically decided by the uni and is it a good thing if lots of people get a first (oh look, our students in the exam we set and chose where the grade boundaries are, have all got firsts. Honest that means we are very good at teaching, really it does...) or a bad thing?

the UCAS points used to rank universities disproportionately favour Scottish universities because Scottish students can count more points from their Highers and Advanced Highers (typically 7 subjects with up to 244 points) while English students taking A levels mostly take 3 subjects with up to 168 points (or 4 subjects with up tp 224 points). Other league tables such as Complete Universities do a manual adjustment of flat 25% down for Scottish unis, which isn’t very scientific but they recognise the distortion created if the raw UCAS points are used like in The Times rankings.

I wonder if the entry points ranking is adjusted whether St Andrews would still come out on top, obviously they have very strong scores in other aspects.

I always think it's really strange that UCAS points is a measure. Surely it should be about outcomes, teaching, experience etc.

The Sunday Times Good University Guide 2027 revealed

https://www.thetimes.com/article/b69fc264-a4c9-49a4-8a37-3af4099d3472?shareToken=fca4077e05e656c6392d450b0d1d2dde

The QS rankings are more highly regarded and better reflect the quality of the institution across a range of factors, for those interested.

I think the QS tends to favour STEM research universities. For a child who wants to study humanities, it may not be the best guide.

Surely these league tables all disproportionately favour Scottish universities whose scores are bumped up by students who have done Scottish higher/ S6 year and accrue more ucas points than A level students? St Andrews and Edinburgh take about 25-30% Scottish students but Strathclyde is about 70% Scottish and so has an entry standards/UCAS score the same as Imperial.

Do they assess ucas points held or needed? There are very few courses at Scottish universities that require more than five Highers and Highers are 60% of an A level in ucas points so equal to three A levels.

@Multibarpack these are average achieved grades not needed ones. I don't know how often Scottish students at top unis have done advanced highers as well as highers (which are combined for the entry standards/UCAS score) but if you look at the table, St Andrews has entry standards score far higher than imperial or LSE and Strathclyde has the same score as Imperial and higher than Oxford, as does Glasgow.

So The Times rankings are pretty pointless then! Certainly the Guardian ones are laughable.

Why are MNers so obsessed with this? They change every year and Complete, Guardian and Times always differ.

There’s a massive blind spot on MN in treating Russell Group as an unquestionable marker of university quality or prestige. The RG is a lobbying group, not a measure of research quality.

you never hear REF chucked about like “Russel group” is yet it’s much more relevant if you care about quality

I guess it’s because on here universities are viewed solely as a function to secure “better” employment Which is understandable but only really part of questioning what quality means when you’re ranking universities

Surely the subject is the main thing as regards getting a job - apart from teaching degrees ie to become a teacher of the subject, engineering and science are way to go I would think

I wonder that large companies could be steering away from very woke subjects at very woke unis (I've been watching It Isn't Working youtube videos) employers are wary of anyone likely to demand special allowances

Major companies are using AI to screen CVs, they tend to strip university names for some and most focus on degree and job experience. A first in History in Cambridge vs 2.1 Data Science from Warwick with job experience means for finance and consulting Warwick graduate would be push forwards for interviews or next stage.

I do wonder about this as a first in eg natural sciences from Cambridge is likely a very different standard of candidate to a first in biology from Wrexham University.

@HawaiiWake That’s patently not true or all high paying jobs would be taken by stem grads and they are not. Plenty of non stem grads are still getting work and it’s a bit daft to compare Cambridge and Warwick. Warwick is obviously elite in the maths and associated fields but data scientists are not the only grads who are valued. Heaven help us if that’s how the world goes. We very clearly need broader skills in the workplace.

Agree not for law etc. The issue is AI HR screening tool has made it harder to get interviews stage for consulting and finance as in the past the net is wider. If one job has over 700 applicants, the AI tool would shift for the next stage. No human eyes are reviewing so it makes it harder to get seen.
Recent job hunting from top universities are encountering this now and it is unfair.

But is it unfair? Surely somebody from a lesser uni but with greater experience and a more relevant CV is more valuable. Surely the name of a uni should not have ever been used to prioritise applicants particularly when league tables differ so much and are so fluid. Humans aren’t going to be looking through league tables every year or requesting AI to. I have to say my husband has always said that when recruiting the name of a uni doesn’t interest him, experience always does.

I work in recruitment and hires come from a broad range of universities. We certainly don’t only target candidates from ‘top universities’. All our applications are seen by a human. No AI is used to shortlist. Candidates are chosen based on their degree grade, experience and attitude. Just because a candidate went to a ‘top university’ doesn’t mean they’re automatically the right fit for a graduate scheme or job. The days when a degree from a ‘top university’ automatically meant candidates got preferential treatment are long over. It wasn’t unfair to stop that practise, it actually makes the process more fair.

I agree university name should not be the only factor, meant it is unfair because it was known to be happening 2 years ago but students were not prepared or told about it unless you knew someone in tech sector or HR to give a heads up. Very simple things like format CV for AI scanning, a thick line between sections and the AI will stop scanning and stop so it looks incomplete. No headers or footers, avoid some fonts like Courier or Futura.