6 ms·

For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

30 points by s15624 5y ago

jack_riminton 5y ago
Whenever a rankings table comes out with a result like this it probably succeeds in selling some papers, but it also diminishes the esteem of the rankings table I'm sure that St Andrews is a brilliant college. But very few in academia would say its as brilliant as Oxbridge
- eptcyka 5y ago
  Mind you, these are not colleges, these are universities. Colleges are not as highly esteemed in the UK.
  - bencollier49 5y ago
    They're basically a different thing in the UK, I think. At the risk of stereotyping, they're where you go to get vocational qualifications (further, as opposed to higher, education).
    - jna_sh 5y ago
      Not necessarily, vocational qualifications in the U.K. (the NVQ) are often available at sixth-form colleges, but they will also teach the non-vocational A-level qualifications too. I don’t think there’s any consistency to what mix of vocational vs non-vocational certificate you can expect at an institution based on use of the word college.
    - raesene9 5y ago
      There is a slight naming clash though, for some institutions such as Cambridge and Oxford, where Cambridge university (for example) is made up of a number of colleges https://map.cam.ac.uk/colleges/ https://map.cam.ac.uk/colleges/ This is not the same as an independent institution which is a college (for example Cambridge regional college https://www.camre.ac.uk/ https://www.camre.ac.uk/)
      - bencollier49 5y ago
        Good point. The collegiate universities are a different matter.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    Imperial College London has a pretty good rep, no? Even when compared to most universities in the UK?
    - n4r9 5y ago
      Despite its name, it is considered a university.
    - acta_non_verba 5y ago
      Imperial college is just a part of the university of London. Like many words in the UK, sometimes “college” is used in a more historical meaning
      - cinntaile 5y ago
        It's not a part of the university of London anymore. But this is semantics really, apparently the GP meant a very specific type of college but didn't communicate this and colleges that are universities under the hood aren't part of that unstated definition.
      - foldr 5y ago
        Imperial College is not part of the University of London (it left in 2007). In any case, the ‘University of London’ is an almost meaningless umbrella institution. Its members function as separate universities for all practical purposes.
  - johnday 5y ago
    To be precise, colleges are usually sixth-form colleges for 16-18 year olds.
  - jna_sh 5y ago
    The two most common usages of “college” in UK education are: - pre-university education for 16-18 year olds. This is where you complete qualifications for university entry, such as A Levels, Scottish Highers, or the IB, as well as more vocationally aligned qualifications like BTEC or NVQ. This stage of education used to be optional but recently became compulsory. - institutions within a larger university umbrella. This includes the colleges of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham. For example, Jesus College of the University of Oxford or Magdalene College of the University of Cambridge. Very few UK universities use a college system, it is mostly a historical legacy seen in very old universities. Another reply mentions Imperial College London: many of the London universities are colleges of the University of London, but I think this system is mostly so they can share/issue one University of London degree, and that they don’t have the same degree of centralised administration that the Oxbridge college system does. EDIT: updated to reflect that A levels aren’t the only pre-university qualification in the UK
    - arethuza 5y ago
      "UK education" Nitpick: not all of the UK uses A-levels.
      - jna_sh 5y ago
        Apologies, a good nitpick! Particularly since the thread is for St Andrews so the Scottish Highers are definitely worth mentioning :) The international baccalaureate is also becoming more widely available.
        blitzar 5y ago
        I thought the international baccalaureate would take over from the old a-levels system years ago. Still hasnt really gained as much traction as I would have expected. Probably sounds too french.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      > Another reply mentions Imperial College London I guess it was cited as this is a fairly elite forum and it is a fairly elite university. Imperial actially left the University of London system and now issues its own degrees (left in 2007). It doesnt actually change the point above, but just a corrections all the same.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    They are both colleges and universities by US terminology. For example Harvard is both a college and university, the undergrad part is the college part.
- mvc 5y ago
  Except the students who went there I guess.
- Stevvo 5y ago
  So should they fudge the numbers to maintain the "esteem of the rankings table"?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > I'm sure that St Andrews is a brilliant college. It's not a 'college' at all.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    In American speech it is. Anything which teaches undergraduates and awards college degrees is a college. They can also have a research university attach to it, but it is still a college. It doesn't make sense to me how here in Europe universities tries to say that they aren't anything but a university. Americans got this one right. How else would you compare where to study? Do you say "university rankings" but include non universities there that doesn't do research? You go there to do college studies, and try to find the best place to do college studies, why say it is wrong to call it a college?
    - arethuza 5y ago
      Because in the UK "college" means a variety of things, none of which apply to St Andrews?
      - Jensson 5y ago
        But this is a mostly American forum? Why say it is wrong to use the American word? Everyone understands what the poster meant. You wouldn't correct someone using the American billion just because it happened to be about a UK company either.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        arethuza 5y ago
        Given the time of day and the subject matter I suspect most people discussing this on here are not from the US.
        Sanguinaire 5y ago
        "College" in the UK education system already has a definition; it is the place you go from 16 to 18, studying a narrower curriculum than regular school prior to 16. You will also hear references to "sixth form college", which is the same 16-18 education but delivered at the same physical school as under-16 teaching.
- akie 5y ago
  It would be good if people could stop hero-worshiping famous universities and people from those universities. There are quite a few idiots who graduate from these institutions.
bencollier49 5y ago
Due to student satisfaction. It should be noted that Scottish students don't pay (significant) tuition fees.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  Only if you're Scottish though, if you're English, Welsh, or Northern Irish you still have to pay full fees.
  - bencollier49 5y ago
    Good point, but with 30% of the students there from Scotland (more than three times the UK population average), I'm guessing it's a factor in satisfaction ratings.
    - n4r9 5y ago
      As a former lecturer, I found that student satisfaction often came down to things like how "easy" the lectures are. Big name universities like Oxford traditionally haven't (until recently?) felt the pressure to hit these objectives since they can ride on their reputation.
      - andrewingram 5y ago
        What do you mean by easy in this context?
        Jensson 5y ago
        Students are happier with courses they get good grades in. Students who fail aren't very happy.
        n4r9 5y ago
        Good question, it is slightly nebulous but to do with how much the course requires students to deeply understand the underlying concepts, and how much independent effort it asks of them. For example... Easy: Lecture contains an algorithm for diagonalising 3×3 matrices and an example. Tutorial/exam has students do a very similar example (e.g. both matrices have lots of zeroes in the same cells). Harder: Lecture contains an algorithm for diagonalising 3×3 matrices and an example. Tutorial/exam has students do a matrix that is structurally very different. Hard: Lecture contains an algorithm for diagonalising 3×3 matrices and an example. Tutorial/exam has students extend the ideas of the algorithm to a specific 4x4 matrix. My own undergraduate experience was largely in the "hard" category, whilst as a lecturer at a different university there was pressure to move increasingly towards the "easy". It was even fairly explicit: student feedback surveys would be aggregated and you'd be informed that the students are unhappy because the tutorial exercises cover things they "haven't seen" in lectures.
ThePhysicist 5y ago
As a student I used to obsess over university rankings, but I realize now that most of them are massively gamed. My alma mater, the UPMC (Université Pierre et Marie Curie) e.g. merged with other universities in Paris to form the Sorbonne University, mostly to move up in the worldwide ranking. So, it's still largely the same university with the same funding and the same chairs, but since it's bundled up in a larger package it now gets some extra vanity points. IMHO, as a PhD student, what really matters is not how well your university is ranked but how well your research group is organized and how much the people there support you. I know students who went to do their PhDs in the groups of nobel prize winners because of the associated fame, only to find out that they're not very "hungry" anymore (in the sense that they're already at the top of their fame and not always eager to pursue new risky and innovative research) and are often so busy that they could only speak with them for a few hours over the entire duration of their PhD. So my advice is to go to a group with people that are still "hungry" and that actually have time to coach you.
- mettamage 5y ago
  > IMHO, as a PhD student, what really matters is not how well your university is ranked but how well your research group is organized and how much the people there support you. I've noticed this as well and I'm not even a PhD student! For example, the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam doesn't rank super high. Yet, when I look at their cyber security department, then they're top notch. In most cases though, industry doesn't care about any of this. So only do it if you're actually interested in research. PhD to industry doesn't translate well (high variability in where people end up).
  - blitzar 5y ago
    That is more of a case of Department than group being highly ranked. Department reputation in the field is very important, particularly how they are seen by industry. > well your research group is organized and how much the people there support you. Controversial perhaps, but when academics are being dicks, nobody ever calls them out on it, academics close ranks and protect their own. Students come and go, professors are there for life. If there are issues with ones research group, there is no support. Chose wisely, but it is hard to know in advance what sort of environment there really is and how things will really play out.
bsd44 5y ago
I am looking at their document* explaining methodology behind the ranking criteria and I am still to understand which of those indicate quality of programme. All five sections revolve around research and the data is collected mostly from Elsevier. So St Andrews outranks Oxbridge for the first time. Outranks in what? What does "best" mean? I think these rankings should better explain in the title what they indicate. It seems to me they compete in prestige and not quality of teaching which is what prospective students look for. All programmes in the country are standardised and cover the same required topics, so the only major difference there can be is the way these topics are presented to students. The research game is separate from the teaching entirely and shouldn't be considered as an indication of anything in the undergraduate realm. * https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/breaking_news_files/the_2021_world_university_rankings_methodology_24082020final.pdf https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/bre...
- arethuza 5y ago
  "All programmes in the country are standardised and cover the same required topics, so the only major difference there can be is the way these topics are presented to students" Undergraduate degree courses being standardised - since when? We don't even have the same high school level courses and exams across the UK...
  - biofox 5y ago
    The QAA and BCS have a set of national benchmarks and course descriptors that degree programmes have to follow if they want to be validated or accredited. There's a lot of flexibility within them for specialist modules, but some key topics have to be covered in all.
    - etothepii 5y ago
      The idea that these benchmarks have anything meaningful to add is a ludicrous. If you think a 1st from Anglia Ruskin is Comparable with a 2nd from Cambridge you need your slide rule checked.
dkarp 5y ago
Non-paywall https://archive.md/lhXt2 https://archive.md/lhXt2
DC-3 5y ago
League tables can declare what they like, the fact of the matter is that Oxbridge has been considered the gold standard of British university education since the Plantaganets, and I don't see that perception shifting easily.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mathieuh 5y ago
In my experience the only people who care about these rankings are 17- and 18-year-olds applying for places. And the rankings can show the opposite of how people actual view the unis. Where I am we have a Russell Group uni and an ex-poly. I went to the Russell Group uni and did computer science, solely because it is a Russell Group uni. In reality, everyone in the local market knows that the ex-poly's computer science course prepares you better for industry. On the whole though, no one really cares. I can barely remember what I got for my A levels, I can't even remember how many GCSEs I did. It really doesn't matter in my experience.
- blitzar 5y ago
  It matters a lot in the work place, particularly around the time the list comes out. Senior management, especially with kids looking at these lists become interested in them. Its a good time to name drop your university around the old boys.
bluenose69 5y ago
A ranking that is (was?) used by a magazine in Canada asked university presidents something like which university (apart from their own) that they regard most highly. It always seemed to me that this was a good question. Universities nowadays focus a lot on these rankings, to the detriment of students. If the rankings added a category for clean washrooms, universities would stop buying books and start scrubbing. Bean counters perform cost:benefit analyses to set policies and redirect funding. You don't want to be the person in the meeting saying "um, but library books are important, aren't they?". Deciding on a university based on an overall score is not a good plan. Focus on the things you care about. You'll likely find that there is no ranking category that matches up to your interest. So, visit the website. Or visit the university. Or (for graduate studies) contact professors and students. Talk with people, generally. And don't forget that there are other factors. Are you keen on cities or the country? Do you want to be near your family? Can you afford the university?
neonate 5y ago
https://archive.is/Fl7QS https://archive.is/Fl7QS

30 points by s15624 5y ago

Whenever a rankings table comes out with a result like this it probably succeeds in selling some papers, but it also diminishes the esteem of the rankings table I'm sure that St Andrews is a brilliant college. But very few in academia would say its as brilliant as Oxbridge

eptcyka 5y ago
Mind you, these are not colleges, these are universities. Colleges are not as highly esteemed in the UK.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  They're basically a different thing in the UK, I think. At the risk of stereotyping, they're where you go to get vocational qualifications (further, as opposed to higher, education).
  - jna_sh 5y ago
    Not necessarily, vocational qualifications in the U.K. (the NVQ) are often available at sixth-form colleges, but they will also teach the non-vocational A-level qualifications too. I don’t think there’s any consistency to what mix of vocational vs non-vocational certificate you can expect at an institution based on use of the word college.
  - raesene9 5y ago
    There is a slight naming clash though, for some institutions such as Cambridge and Oxford, where Cambridge university (for example) is made up of a number of colleges https://map.cam.ac.uk/colleges/ https://map.cam.ac.uk/colleges/ This is not the same as an independent institution which is a college (for example Cambridge regional college https://www.camre.ac.uk/ https://www.camre.ac.uk/)
    - bencollier49 5y ago
      Good point. The collegiate universities are a different matter.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Imperial College London has a pretty good rep, no? Even when compared to most universities in the UK?
  - n4r9 5y ago
    Despite its name, it is considered a university.
  - acta_non_verba 5y ago
    Imperial college is just a part of the university of London. Like many words in the UK, sometimes “college” is used in a more historical meaning
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      It's not a part of the university of London anymore. But this is semantics really, apparently the GP meant a very specific type of college but didn't communicate this and colleges that are universities under the hood aren't part of that unstated definition.
    - foldr 5y ago
      Imperial College is not part of the University of London (it left in 2007). In any case, the ‘University of London’ is an almost meaningless umbrella institution. Its members function as separate universities for all practical purposes.
- johnday 5y ago
  To be precise, colleges are usually sixth-form colleges for 16-18 year olds.
- jna_sh 5y ago
  The two most common usages of “college” in UK education are: - pre-university education for 16-18 year olds. This is where you complete qualifications for university entry, such as A Levels, Scottish Highers, or the IB, as well as more vocationally aligned qualifications like BTEC or NVQ. This stage of education used to be optional but recently became compulsory. - institutions within a larger university umbrella. This includes the colleges of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham. For example, Jesus College of the University of Oxford or Magdalene College of the University of Cambridge. Very few UK universities use a college system, it is mostly a historical legacy seen in very old universities. Another reply mentions Imperial College London: many of the London universities are colleges of the University of London, but I think this system is mostly so they can share/issue one University of London degree, and that they don’t have the same degree of centralised administration that the Oxbridge college system does. EDIT: updated to reflect that A levels aren’t the only pre-university qualification in the UK
  - arethuza 5y ago
    "UK education" Nitpick: not all of the UK uses A-levels.
    - jna_sh 5y ago
      Apologies, a good nitpick! Particularly since the thread is for St Andrews so the Scottish Highers are definitely worth mentioning :) The international baccalaureate is also becoming more widely available.
      - blitzar 5y ago
        I thought the international baccalaureate would take over from the old a-levels system years ago. Still hasnt really gained as much traction as I would have expected. Probably sounds too french.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    > Another reply mentions Imperial College London I guess it was cited as this is a fairly elite forum and it is a fairly elite university. Imperial actially left the University of London system and now issues its own degrees (left in 2007). It doesnt actually change the point above, but just a corrections all the same.
- Jensson 5y ago
  They are both colleges and universities by US terminology. For example Harvard is both a college and university, the undergrad part is the college part.
mvc 5y ago
Except the students who went there I guess.
Stevvo 5y ago
So should they fudge the numbers to maintain the "esteem of the rankings table"?
chrisseaton 5y ago
> I'm sure that St Andrews is a brilliant college. It's not a 'college' at all.
- Jensson 5y ago
  In American speech it is. Anything which teaches undergraduates and awards college degrees is a college. They can also have a research university attach to it, but it is still a college. It doesn't make sense to me how here in Europe universities tries to say that they aren't anything but a university. Americans got this one right. How else would you compare where to study? Do you say "university rankings" but include non universities there that doesn't do research? You go there to do college studies, and try to find the best place to do college studies, why say it is wrong to call it a college?
  - arethuza 5y ago
    Because in the UK "college" means a variety of things, none of which apply to St Andrews?
    - Jensson 5y ago
      But this is a mostly American forum? Why say it is wrong to use the American word? Everyone understands what the poster meant. You wouldn't correct someone using the American billion just because it happened to be about a UK company either.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - arethuza 5y ago
        Given the time of day and the subject matter I suspect most people discussing this on here are not from the US.
      - Sanguinaire 5y ago
        "College" in the UK education system already has a definition; it is the place you go from 16 to 18, studying a narrower curriculum than regular school prior to 16. You will also hear references to "sixth form college", which is the same 16-18 education but delivered at the same physical school as under-16 teaching.
akie 5y ago
It would be good if people could stop hero-worshiping famous universities and people from those universities. There are quite a few idiots who graduate from these institutions.

bencollier49 5y ago

Due to student satisfaction. It should be noted that Scottish students don't pay (significant) tuition fees.

BoxOfRain 5y ago
Only if you're Scottish though, if you're English, Welsh, or Northern Irish you still have to pay full fees.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  Good point, but with 30% of the students there from Scotland (more than three times the UK population average), I'm guessing it's a factor in satisfaction ratings.
  - n4r9 5y ago
    As a former lecturer, I found that student satisfaction often came down to things like how "easy" the lectures are. Big name universities like Oxford traditionally haven't (until recently?) felt the pressure to hit these objectives since they can ride on their reputation.
    - andrewingram 5y ago
      What do you mean by easy in this context?
      - Jensson 5y ago
        Students are happier with courses they get good grades in. Students who fail aren't very happy.
      - n4r9 5y ago
        Good question, it is slightly nebulous but to do with how much the course requires students to deeply understand the underlying concepts, and how much independent effort it asks of them. For example... Easy: Lecture contains an algorithm for diagonalising 3×3 matrices and an example. Tutorial/exam has students do a very similar example (e.g. both matrices have lots of zeroes in the same cells). Harder: Lecture contains an algorithm for diagonalising 3×3 matrices and an example. Tutorial/exam has students do a matrix that is structurally very different. Hard: Lecture contains an algorithm for diagonalising 3×3 matrices and an example. Tutorial/exam has students extend the ideas of the algorithm to a specific 4x4 matrix. My own undergraduate experience was largely in the "hard" category, whilst as a lecturer at a different university there was pressure to move increasingly towards the "easy". It was even fairly explicit: student feedback surveys would be aggregated and you'd be informed that the students are unhappy because the tutorial exercises cover things they "haven't seen" in lectures.

ThePhysicist 5y ago

As a student I used to obsess over university rankings, but I realize now that most of them are massively gamed. My alma mater, the UPMC (Université Pierre et Marie Curie) e.g. merged with other universities in Paris to form the Sorbonne University, mostly to move up in the worldwide ranking. So, it's still largely the same university with the same funding and the same chairs, but since it's bundled up in a larger package it now gets some extra vanity points. IMHO, as a PhD student, what really matters is not how well your university is ranked but how well your research group is organized and how much the people there support you. I know students who went to do their PhDs in the groups of nobel prize winners because of the associated fame, only to find out that they're not very "hungry" anymore (in the sense that they're already at the top of their fame and not always eager to pursue new risky and innovative research) and are often so busy that they could only speak with them for a few hours over the entire duration of their PhD. So my advice is to go to a group with people that are still "hungry" and that actually have time to coach you.

mettamage 5y ago
> IMHO, as a PhD student, what really matters is not how well your university is ranked but how well your research group is organized and how much the people there support you. I've noticed this as well and I'm not even a PhD student! For example, the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam doesn't rank super high. Yet, when I look at their cyber security department, then they're top notch. In most cases though, industry doesn't care about any of this. So only do it if you're actually interested in research. PhD to industry doesn't translate well (high variability in where people end up).
- blitzar 5y ago
  That is more of a case of Department than group being highly ranked. Department reputation in the field is very important, particularly how they are seen by industry. > well your research group is organized and how much the people there support you. Controversial perhaps, but when academics are being dicks, nobody ever calls them out on it, academics close ranks and protect their own. Students come and go, professors are there for life. If there are issues with ones research group, there is no support. Chose wisely, but it is hard to know in advance what sort of environment there really is and how things will really play out.

bsd44 5y ago

I am looking at their document* explaining methodology behind the ranking criteria and I am still to understand which of those indicate quality of programme. All five sections revolve around research and the data is collected mostly from Elsevier. So St Andrews outranks Oxbridge for the first time. Outranks in what? What does "best" mean? I think these rankings should better explain in the title what they indicate. It seems to me they compete in prestige and not quality of teaching which is what prospective students look for. All programmes in the country are standardised and cover the same required topics, so the only major difference there can be is the way these topics are presented to students. The research game is separate from the teaching entirely and shouldn't be considered as an indication of anything in the undergraduate realm. * https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/breaking_news_files/the_2021_world_university_rankings_methodology_24082020final.pdf https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/bre...

arethuza 5y ago
"All programmes in the country are standardised and cover the same required topics, so the only major difference there can be is the way these topics are presented to students" Undergraduate degree courses being standardised - since when? We don't even have the same high school level courses and exams across the UK...
- biofox 5y ago
  The QAA and BCS have a set of national benchmarks and course descriptors that degree programmes have to follow if they want to be validated or accredited. There's a lot of flexibility within them for specialist modules, but some key topics have to be covered in all.
  - etothepii 5y ago
    The idea that these benchmarks have anything meaningful to add is a ludicrous. If you think a 1st from Anglia Ruskin is Comparable with a 2nd from Cambridge you need your slide rule checked.

dkarp 5y ago

Non-paywall https://archive.md/lhXt2 https://archive.md/lhXt2

DC-3 5y ago

League tables can declare what they like, the fact of the matter is that Oxbridge has been considered the gold standard of British university education since the Plantaganets, and I don't see that perception shifting easily.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mathieuh 5y ago

In my experience the only people who care about these rankings are 17- and 18-year-olds applying for places. And the rankings can show the opposite of how people actual view the unis. Where I am we have a Russell Group uni and an ex-poly. I went to the Russell Group uni and did computer science, solely because it is a Russell Group uni. In reality, everyone in the local market knows that the ex-poly's computer science course prepares you better for industry. On the whole though, no one really cares. I can barely remember what I got for my A levels, I can't even remember how many GCSEs I did. It really doesn't matter in my experience.

blitzar 5y ago
It matters a lot in the work place, particularly around the time the list comes out. Senior management, especially with kids looking at these lists become interested in them. Its a good time to name drop your university around the old boys.

bluenose69 5y ago

A ranking that is (was?) used by a magazine in Canada asked university presidents something like which university (apart from their own) that they regard most highly. It always seemed to me that this was a good question. Universities nowadays focus a lot on these rankings, to the detriment of students. If the rankings added a category for clean washrooms, universities would stop buying books and start scrubbing. Bean counters perform cost:benefit analyses to set policies and redirect funding. You don't want to be the person in the meeting saying "um, but library books are important, aren't they?". Deciding on a university based on an overall score is not a good plan. Focus on the things you care about. You'll likely find that there is no ranking category that matches up to your interest. So, visit the website. Or visit the university. Or (for graduate studies) contact professors and students. Talk with people, generally. And don't forget that there are other factors. Are you keen on cities or the country? Do you want to be near your family? Can you afford the university?

neonate 5y ago

https://archive.is/Fl7QS https://archive.is/Fl7QS