THES University League Tables

[Matthew Huntbach]

The Times Higher Education Supplement publishes today a "worldwide league
table" of universities, using for its ranking various criteria, but oriented
towards the prestige which fellow academics accord to the universities.

The UK universities which appear in the top 200 in the order they
appear are:

1 Oxford
2 Cambridge
3 London School of Economics
4 Imperial College London
5 University College London
6 Manchester
7 School of Oriental and African Studies
8 Edinburgh
9 Sussex
10 St Andrews
11 Warwick
12 Bristol
13 King's College London
14 Queen Mary University of London
15 Bath
16 Glasgow
17 Birmingham
18 Durham
19 Leeds
20 York
21 Sheffield
22 Liverpool
23 Dundee
24 Nottingham
25 Newcastle
26 Lancaster
27 Queen's University Belfast
28 Leicester
29 Southampton
30 Aberdeen

It's interesting how this league table differs quite a bit from the
UK newspaper league tables which A-level students seem to use as the
main factor in deciding which universities to go to. It does illustrate
the point I've been makig over the years that any university league table
should be treated as just a rough indication of which is the "best" and
that the difference of a few places between universities means very little
as the use of different criteria may well produce a different ordering.

Matthew Huntbach

[Gaurav Sharma]

imperial is 4th OH NOES!!!!

[Matt Johnson]

Post by Gaurav Sharma
imperial is 4th OH NOES!!!!

#include <disclaimer.h>

There have already been questions asked about the composition of this
"league table" though. For example, apparently number of international
students was used as a criterion...? (What that has to do with the
quality of an institution confuses me somewhat...)

- --M

- --
Matt Johnson <***@doc.ic.ac.uk>

[Matthew Huntbach]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Gaurav Sharma
imperial is 4th OH NOES!!!!

Imperial is 4th behind LSE. Since there is little overlap between
the subjects Imperial teaches and the subjects LSE teaches, it doesn't
make much sense to try and establish an order between them.

#include <disclaimer.h>
There have already been questions asked about the composition of this
"league table" though. For example, apparently number of international
students was used as a criterion...? (What that has to do with the quality
of an institution confuses me somewhat...)

If a lot of overseas students go there, it must mean it's more highly
regarded than a place where few people from overseas want to study.
Dubious argument, yes. But no more dubious than the arguments used to
incorporate various factors in the Times UK universities league table.

As I said, the real point is that league table positions can vary enormously
depending on the factors used to make up the overall points score, so
anyone who argues (as many seem to do) "X is better than Y because X is
five places higher in the league table than Y" is talking complete rubbish.

Matthew Huntbach

[cowboy carl]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by Gaurav Sharma
imperial is 4th OH NOES!!!!

Imperial is 4th behind LSE. Since there is little overlap between
the subjects Imperial teaches and the subjects LSE teaches, it doesn't
make much sense to try and establish an order between them.

LSE is better because they have more girls.

Post by Matthew Huntbach

#include <disclaimer.h>
There have already been questions asked about the composition of this
"league table" though. For example, apparently number of international
students was used as a criterion...? (What that has to do with the
quality of an institution confuses me somewhat...)

If a lot of overseas students go there, it must mean it's more highly
regarded than a place where few people from overseas want to study.
Dubious argument, yes. But no more dubious than the arguments used to
incorporate various factors in the Times UK universities league table.
As I said, the real point is that league table positions can vary enormously
depending on the factors used to make up the overall points score, so
anyone who argues (as many seem to do) "X is better than Y because X is
five places higher in the league table than Y" is talking complete rubbish.

Meh, I think it's kinda fun ... league tables and whatnot.

It doesn't matter *what* the ranking thingys are, if there is one, it will
help the competition between the top unis, thus driving up standards.

cc

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by cowboy carl

Post by Matthew Huntbach
As I said, the real point is that league table positions can vary
enormously depending on the factors used to make up the overall points
score, so anyone who argues (as many seem to do) "X is better than Y
because X is five places higher in the league table than Y" is talking
complete rubbish.

Meh, I think it's kinda fun ... league tables and whatnot.
It doesn't matter *what* the ranking thingys are, if there is one, it will
help the competition between the top unis, thus driving up standards.

The point is the competition will be on whatever features in the league
tables, not on real standards. For example, in this particular league
table, the more overseas students you have, the "better" you are. So
this means universities can become "better" than their rivals by going all-out
to recruit overseas students, even one so crap or so poor at English that
the degree standards have to be watered down to cater for them.

Matthew Huntbach

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by cowboy carl
It doesn't matter *what* the ranking thingys are, if there is one, it will
help the competition between the top unis, thus driving up standards.

Not true. One of the standard tables used regularly to
feature this dept below ... um, shall we say, a dept that no-one
in his right mind would have considered a serious rival. They
were able to "add value" in a way that we *could not* compete with
[no-one awards starred starred starred firsts ...]; and because
they couldn't get students, they scored very highly on things like
staff-student ratio, library spending per u/g, IT resources per
u/g, .... That dept has now closed [replaced by, according to its
deposed prof, "equine studies" -- a riding school]; they never
did manage to attract enough students.

As Matthew says, the tables only rank the features they
measure. If the features are ill-chosen, and don't represent real
quality, then the rankings are irrelevant. Not that that stops
people saying "but you come below XXX in the rankings"; but ATs,
applicants, teachers and serious journalists don't have to pander
to them.

As an applicant, you don't need to know how much we spend
per student on books. If you are interested in that area, then
you need to know rather whether the library is well-stocked, whether
the books are available to you when you need them, and so on. But
these features aren't so easily measured. You don't need to know
how many Nobel prizes we have won, nor even how good our research
is. If you are interested in that area, you need to know instead
whether the research-active staff are decent lecturers who you are
going to encounter in your course and whether their research is
going to "inform" what they teach you. You don't need to know how
many students are in halls of residence; you need to know whether
*you* will be in accommodation that suits *you*. And so on.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The point is the competition will be on whatever features in the league
tables, not on real standards. For example, in this particular league
table, the more overseas students you have, the "better" you are. So
this means universities can become "better" than their rivals by going all-out
to recruit overseas students, even one so crap or so poor at English that
the degree standards have to be watered down to cater for them.

Sadly, regardless of the league tables, we are under that
pressure anyway. When univs are [mostly] running at a loss, and
that loss is primarily made on the teaching of "home" students,
mitigated by the profit made on o/s students, it really hurts the
bean counters when we turn them away. Anguished 'phone calls --
"Are you *sure* that maths needs a high standard of English?",
"Can we not count [rubbish qualification] as equivalent to A-level?"
-- that sort of thing. Thus far we have been able to resist. But
we are being asked to consider whether there are sources of o/s
students that are not being tapped, and why we are less successful
at tapping them than some other depts.

Slowly but surely, UK univs are ceasing to be communities
of scholars and becoming supermarkets -- anyone can "shop" here as
long as they can pay for the product. Top-up fees and the like
are just one symptom.

[David Haardt]

Post by cowboy carl
Meh, I think it's kinda fun ... league tables and whatnot.
It doesn't matter *what* the ranking thingys are, if there is one, it will
help the competition between the top unis, thus driving up standards.

It /does/ matter. If the ranking criteria were indeed
counterproductive, they would pose perverse incentives to
universities.

David Haardt

[Gaurav Sharma]

Post by David Haardt

Post by cowboy carl
Meh, I think it's kinda fun ... league tables and whatnot.
It doesn't matter *what* the ranking thingys are, if there is one, it will
help the competition between the top unis, thus driving up standards.

It /does/ matter. If the ranking criteria were indeed
counterproductive, they would pose perverse incentives to
universities.
David Haardt

You WHAT?!

G.Sharma.

[Giles Martin]

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:07:51 +0000, Matthew Huntbach

Post by Matthew Huntbach
The Times Higher Education Supplement publishes today a "worldwide league
table" of universities, using for its ranking various criteria, but oriented
towards the prestige which fellow academics accord to the universities.
The UK universities which appear in the top 200 in the order they
1 Oxford
2 Cambridge
3 London School of Economics
4 Imperial College London
5 University College London
6 Manchester
7 School of Oriental and African Studies
8 Edinburgh
9 Sussex
10 St Andrews
11 Warwick
12 Bristol
13 King's College London
14 Queen Mary University of London
15 Bath
16 Glasgow
17 Birmingham
18 Durham
19 Leeds
20 York
21 Sheffield
22 Liverpool
23 Dundee
24 Nottingham
25 Newcastle
26 Lancaster
27 Queen's University Belfast
28 Leicester
29 Southampton
30 Aberdeen

Are any of those above former polytechnics? I dont think they are. Why
would this be?

[x***@search26.com]

http://www.zared.com/Science/Social_Sciences/Area_Studies/African_Studies/