What is the ranking supposed to reflect, exactly? Quality of education? If the programs have the same instructors, same facilities, same curricula, etc., why would we expect a small change to admission criteria to affect rankings of the program?
I feel like this kind of change most likely reveals that rankings likely have little to do with quality of instruction; just another case of selectiveness being used (by employers, by graduate schools, whomever) being used as the proxy for "quality" of candidates and the whole process of education is of secondary importance if it's considered at all.
I'm not saying it's wrong but people are reacting to this as if the Times university guide is some objective truth.
Regarding the potential lowering of standards for widening participation purposes, this doesn't change the fact that the entry standards for Oxford and Cambridge are still higher than LSE and St. Andrews.
I think the real story here might be the line below:
"Durham University improved by 30 places year-on-year"
Seems a bit suspicious, no? What methodology change led to this result? How can a university that was previously not as well-regarded become the #3 in the country overnight?
I compared this to the QS ranking, where Oxford is still second in the world, and Durham, the new third place in the ranking mentioned in the article is 341. QS ranking does not even rank the first two, London School of Economics and University of St. Andrews. Does anybody know why?
Edit: Sorry, I only looked at the Engineering ans Technology ranking. Anyway, QS ranking is vastly different from the Times' ranking.
I wasn't even aware Oxford has ever loses top 2. May be I am way too stuck in the past. Also surprised Imperial and UCL are lower than what I expected.
I remember the joke in "Yes Minister" about LSE. How times have changed.
I also wonder the world is now more American focused, how do they rank against Harvard, MIT or other US Universities.
1. LSE
2. University of St Andrews
3. Durham University
4. Oxford and Cambridge
6. Imperial College London
I don’t think many people place much stock in these rankings, and if they don’t have “shocking” moves then how are they gonna sell papers and get people to click!?!
An article on the site says “Durham wins University of the Year and dismisses Oxbridge reject stereotype.”
Not to be cold, but willing to bet that a good chunk of the Durham student population are those that were passed over by Oxbridge.
Helping someone practice Oxford Maths Assessment Tests at present, and whatever else may be happening in the admissions process, those test papers are not getting easier over time.
When I was a student, no one would seriously say they had a ‘doxbridge education’ for the same reason that saying you went to an ‘Ivy League school’ meant you went to a shit one like Brown (idk about the US rankings tbh; basing that on a Lisa Simpson nightmare). That’s still obviously true today.
I expect new hires at my employer and our competitors to continue mostly coming largely from Oxford and Cambridge (plus to a lesser extent Warwick, Imperial, and some European schools) and not much from Durham.
iirc the Times ranking has always been garbage as it weighs some "student experience" metric way too high. Do I really care about the result of some online survey equally or more than the academic achievement of the staff?
Back when I chose a UK university to attend, I valued the QS ranking much higher.
It doesn’t matter. UK education is flawed already by the time a student reach tertiary. A levels leave such a gap in people that I would go as far as adding it to the reasons for the country issues. People in the UK, even if they study at Oxford, are likely more ignorant than many Europeans having done classical studies in high school.
I am a Durham graduate, still somewhat involved with the university via some voluntary roles, and a bit of a 'booster' in the sense that I'll sing its praises to anyone. I also have a postgrad degree from Cambridge and did a little teaching while there. So, I'm quite familiar, and while I'm happy to see Durham get some love, this is bunk.
There is a gulf in undergraduate teaching between Oxbridge and the pack. The supervision system guarantees all Oxbridge students weekly, small-group tutorials, organised and paid for by the colleges, which retain much more academic involvement than other collegiate universities like Durham and York (whose colleges are mainly residences with pastoral care and sports teams). If you go to Oxbridge as an undergrad, you'll be pushed hard and closely supported.
The second gulf is of course the selection effect of every bright child in the UK having Oxford or Cambridge as their first university pick. No-one from an older generation would advise any teenager to do otherwise. (Incidentally, I'm acutely aware that Durham first, then Cambridge is lower social status than vice versa. Because I didn't get in at 17). Everyone knows about this, and we could debate how reputations change, but I suspect my point above about the supervisions system for undergraduate teaching is less well-known.
I could also mention the gulf in wealth between universities (which pays for those supervisions, book grants etc), in age (Oxbridge actively lobbied against new universities in England for hundreds of years), which has a consequence for historic buildings, famous names and prizes, and so on. It all creates an almost unbreakable flywheel of reputational lead for Oxbridge that would take generations to overturn.
There are tens of these ratings with different weights to different things. Obviously the universities prefer to brag about ratings where they are higher. Also realistically reputations of different of unis across various subjects are vastly different.
So the actual title of this article is just clickbait.
47 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 86.2 ms ] threadI feel like this kind of change most likely reveals that rankings likely have little to do with quality of instruction; just another case of selectiveness being used (by employers, by graduate schools, whomever) being used as the proxy for "quality" of candidates and the whole process of education is of secondary importance if it's considered at all.
Regarding the potential lowering of standards for widening participation purposes, this doesn't change the fact that the entry standards for Oxford and Cambridge are still higher than LSE and St. Andrews.
"Durham University improved by 30 places year-on-year"
Seems a bit suspicious, no? What methodology change led to this result? How can a university that was previously not as well-regarded become the #3 in the country overnight?
Edit: Sorry, I only looked at the Engineering ans Technology ranking. Anyway, QS ranking is vastly different from the Times' ranking.
I remember the joke in "Yes Minister" about LSE. How times have changed.
I also wonder the world is now more American focused, how do they rank against Harvard, MIT or other US Universities.
1. LSE 2. University of St Andrews 3. Durham University 4. Oxford and Cambridge 6. Imperial College London
An article on the site says “Durham wins University of the Year and dismisses Oxbridge reject stereotype.”
Not to be cold, but willing to bet that a good chunk of the Durham student population are those that were passed over by Oxbridge.
I expect new hires at my employer and our competitors to continue mostly coming largely from Oxford and Cambridge (plus to a lesser extent Warwick, Imperial, and some European schools) and not much from Durham.
Still too high.
Back when I chose a UK university to attend, I valued the QS ranking much higher.
UK education is flawed already by the time a student reach tertiary.
A levels, by focusing pnly on few subjects, leave such a gap in people that I would go as far as adding it to the reasons for the country issues.
People in the UK, even if they study at Oxford, are likely more ignorant than many Europeans having done classical studies in high school.
There is a gulf in undergraduate teaching between Oxbridge and the pack. The supervision system guarantees all Oxbridge students weekly, small-group tutorials, organised and paid for by the colleges, which retain much more academic involvement than other collegiate universities like Durham and York (whose colleges are mainly residences with pastoral care and sports teams). If you go to Oxbridge as an undergrad, you'll be pushed hard and closely supported.
The second gulf is of course the selection effect of every bright child in the UK having Oxford or Cambridge as their first university pick. No-one from an older generation would advise any teenager to do otherwise. (Incidentally, I'm acutely aware that Durham first, then Cambridge is lower social status than vice versa. Because I didn't get in at 17). Everyone knows about this, and we could debate how reputations change, but I suspect my point above about the supervisions system for undergraduate teaching is less well-known.
I could also mention the gulf in wealth between universities (which pays for those supervisions, book grants etc), in age (Oxbridge actively lobbied against new universities in England for hundreds of years), which has a consequence for historic buildings, famous names and prizes, and so on. It all creates an almost unbreakable flywheel of reputational lead for Oxbridge that would take generations to overturn.