I think overall reputation and perception of the university can override league table performance to some degree. League tables are pretty subjective, and can be ranked on some strange criteria... whereas if you look directly at the Russell Group universities which are research based you won't go far wrong.
How important are University tables?
- Thread starter RastaManBob
- Start date
I honestly dont think general employers would really care either way- in fact Engineering firms would probably prefer straight Electrical and Electronic Engineering as that course would probably be IEE approved and allow graduates from that course to progress towards CEng status.
I should probably also point out that engineering courses are in generally mathematically intensive, so you probably dont really want to do extra maths courses unless thats your thing and you hate practical work
Incidentally, I started off doing Elec Eng at Edinburgh, realised (pre-contact lenses) that I was pretty much a liability with a soldering iron and thus changed to Comp Phys at the end of first year
I should probably also point out that engineering courses are in generally mathematically intensive, so you probably dont really want to do extra maths courses unless thats your thing and you hate practical work
Incidentally, I started off doing Elec Eng at Edinburgh, realised (pre-contact lenses) that I was pretty much a liability with a soldering iron and thus changed to Comp Phys at the end of first year
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 2,254
M0KUJ1N said:I honestly dont think general employers would really care either way- in fact Engineering firms would probably prefer straight Electrical and Electronic Engineering as that course would probably be IEE approved and allow graduates from that course to progress towards CEng status.
I should probably also point out that engineering courses are in generally mathematically intensive, so you probably dont really want to do extra maths courses unless thats your thing and you hate practical work
Incidentally, I started off doing Elec Eng at Edinburgh, realised (pre-contact lenses) that I was pretty much a liability with a soldering iron and thus changed to Comp Phys at the end of first year
Hi,
Both of the two courses are accredited by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (formerly the IEE) - And the joint honours course mentions:
"The course comprises all electronics modules taken from the Single Honours Electronics degree programme and selected modules from the Single Honours Mathematics degree programme."
... so I s'pose it'd just mean extra work? Though if it would be worth it I wouldn't be too unhappy...
Dan.
It shouldn't really mean extra work. I'd imagine that instead of doing the "Engineering Mathematics" modules you would do the same maths classes as straight maths students. You may also end up doing compulsory maths classes instead of optional courses (Im speaking purely IME here btw).
Of course this all depends on what course structure that University uses, though most Universities have some form of modular courses these days.
Of course this all depends on what course structure that University uses, though most Universities have some form of modular courses these days.
For design/art/media related careers I don't think where the degree came from, it is your portfolio and experience that counts mainly my research has led to believe.
So I think the tables aren't that relevant in my area but I can't say for others for sure, but I would assume they were!
So I think the tables aren't that relevant in my area but I can't say for others for sure, but I would assume they were!
You can't trust university tables as from experience a university alters the marking scheme to make sure the output grades from students don't break their yearly limit.
The University I went to and I know several folk at other Uni's have a line set as to how many students will get such a grade. For example, no more than 5 will walk away with a first in whatever department.
Like an ex lecturer at the Uni I once went to said, if 10 people walked away with a first, the department would be investigated to know how come the number doubled within a year.
The Uni/department don't want this as marking would be investigated and other things so to keep things right, they keep the output results near to the previous year.
It's a shame but its what happens.
The top Uni's work the complete opposite as they need a high number of top grade students coming out. If you ever herd of getting a helping hand then you know how these Uni's work with the tables.
Personally, I would go to a Uni which is high as possible in the tables as you will have a bigger chance of getting a good grade but you still have to work for it as with the lower classed uni's, you could find your 1st becoing a 2-1 or 2-2.
When you talk to people from other Uni's, things start to make sense and when a few lecturers spill the beans.
The University I went to and I know several folk at other Uni's have a line set as to how many students will get such a grade. For example, no more than 5 will walk away with a first in whatever department.
Like an ex lecturer at the Uni I once went to said, if 10 people walked away with a first, the department would be investigated to know how come the number doubled within a year.
The Uni/department don't want this as marking would be investigated and other things so to keep things right, they keep the output results near to the previous year.
It's a shame but its what happens.
The top Uni's work the complete opposite as they need a high number of top grade students coming out. If you ever herd of getting a helping hand then you know how these Uni's work with the tables.
Personally, I would go to a Uni which is high as possible in the tables as you will have a bigger chance of getting a good grade but you still have to work for it as with the lower classed uni's, you could find your 1st becoing a 2-1 or 2-2.
When you talk to people from other Uni's, things start to make sense and when a few lecturers spill the beans.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,083
- Location
- Leeds/Cyprus
I won't say that league tables are completely irrelevant, but I put it to you that any league where the standards change so drastically from year to year that all 6 of your choices have dropped out of the top-20 is probably more than a little amateurish in the way they collect data and decide which parameters to judge their ratings on and how to balance them... I would go :/ at them. I would even go 
!
(In fact, I know they're a joke: every academic I've spoken to laughs out loud at the notion that the work they submit for those research assesment exercises gets read, and, as far as teaching assessment goes, the teaching observed is too few to be representative of the university, so, on the whole, the rankings they get are based on the reputation of the particular academics at the departmental level, and the university's clout, influence, friends in high places, and the budget and muscle fuelling their PR machine at the institutional level. However, you didn't ask if the league tables are representative, you asked whether they matter, so I'll get back on-topic now)
You're lucky, because on practical courses like engineering you've got other ways to gauge how good a course is: check the department's links with industry, which companies they collaborate with, whether they're doing research for them, if they send students off to placements at any big-name engineering firms, etc. For instance, someone I know who came to Leeds to do automotive engineering told me he chose it because his department have a team which competes in some nationwide universities' Grand Prix-type thing. I think he got to work on the racecar during his MSc even. I don't know specifically what you should be looking for, but I hope you get the kind of thing I mean.
All this is assuming you want to work as an engineer after you graduate, of course - if you don't care what kind of job you do then go to whichever you liked the most, as they're both pretty well-regarded unis so you'd be allright with a degree from either.
As for your Maths and Engineering alternative, in general I'd say that in general joint-honours courses really are harder, and I imagine that you'd miss out on courses which would be helpful to you as an engineer because you'll have your Maths courses to take instead.
Rather than taking the "difficulty" of maths, physics and engineering courses for granted, have you considered the possibility that science-based courses aren't difficult, but simply seem difficult to those people doing them because they're of sub-standard intellect, having gotten lower grades in school, whereas those smart people who got decent grades managed to get into one of the more competitive humanities or social sciences courses? 
I'm just kidding by the way, some of my best friends are feeble-minded pe-... er, I meant science graduates!
!(In fact, I know they're a joke: every academic I've spoken to laughs out loud at the notion that the work they submit for those research assesment exercises gets read, and, as far as teaching assessment goes, the teaching observed is too few to be representative of the university, so, on the whole, the rankings they get are based on the reputation of the particular academics at the departmental level, and the university's clout, influence, friends in high places, and the budget and muscle fuelling their PR machine at the institutional level. However, you didn't ask if the league tables are representative, you asked whether they matter, so I'll get back on-topic now
)You're lucky, because on practical courses like engineering you've got other ways to gauge how good a course is: check the department's links with industry, which companies they collaborate with, whether they're doing research for them, if they send students off to placements at any big-name engineering firms, etc. For instance, someone I know who came to Leeds to do automotive engineering told me he chose it because his department have a team which competes in some nationwide universities' Grand Prix-type thing. I think he got to work on the racecar during his MSc even. I don't know specifically what you should be looking for, but I hope you get the kind of thing I mean.
All this is assuming you want to work as an engineer after you graduate, of course - if you don't care what kind of job you do then go to whichever you liked the most, as they're both pretty well-regarded unis so you'd be allright with a degree from either.
As for your Maths and Engineering alternative, in general I'd say that in general joint-honours courses really are harder, and I imagine that you'd miss out on courses which would be helpful to you as an engineer because you'll have your Maths courses to take instead.
Riiiight... so all of us with non-science degrees are feeble-minded peons who couldn't be bothered to do a "real" course?M0KUJ1N said:
Rather than taking the "difficulty" of maths, physics and engineering courses for granted, have you considered the possibility that science-based courses aren't difficult, but simply seem difficult to those people doing them because they're of sub-standard intellect, having gotten lower grades in school, whereas those smart people who got decent grades managed to get into one of the more competitive humanities or social sciences courses? I'm just kidding by the way, some of my best friends are feeble-minded pe-... er, I meant science graduates!
I agree with manveruppd, league tables can fluctuate quite a bit from year to due to changes in how they rank universities. Also the different ranking categories can favour certain universities, even if they are related to undergraduates or the quality of the courses/treaching. As long as employers regard the university highly league tables aren't that important.
manveruppd said:Riiiight... so all of us with non-science degrees are feeble-minded peons who couldn't be bothered to do a "real" course?
I'm just kidding by the way, some of my best friends are feeble-minded pe-... er, I meant science graduates!
Heh, your post just brought a wee smile to my face (possibly at the shock of someone actually reading one of my posts! )
No, I'm not suggesting that people who do humanities/ social science courses are stupid by any means (hell, at this level we've all competed to get into University with good school results). However science courses are more rigourous (30 hours of timetabled classes for 1st and 2nd year as opposed to 10 for a typical English Lit course).
Of course humanities courses are expected to do more reading outside of class but then, their reading material isnt quite as dry and boring- Ask even a hard-ass physics geek whether theyd prefer to read Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism or the Pride of Miss Jean Brodie for 3 hours and 99% of the time they would pick the latter, unless they have an EM exam the next day!
And of course, for any given institution compare the final results of Arts students with those of Science students (this could have course back up your theory, esp if favourably correlated with students entrance results!)
Personally, I think that all science students should be forced to take non-science subjects which actually involve a lot of reading outside class and all arts students should be forced to take a semester of pure maths or physics.
Of course, the life lesson here could be that whether you're a scientist or a social scientist, if you take one thing from University into the real world it should be how to misinterpret statistics to fit your argument
Chris1712 said:Yeah just like my lousy BTEC Pass is 120 ucas points, when really its about 360.
[/sarcasm]
Umm no what he actually said was true, whereas your BTEC pass is probably pretty useless. Not quite sure where you confused the fact with the sarcasm there, maybe i've missed something?
Edit:
Guardian score/100 Staff score/6 Spend per student score/10 Student:staff ratio score/6 Job prospects score/10 Value added score/6 Entry score/10 Inclusiveness score/6
Bath 73.30 6 4 5 9 3 8 1
Thats from the guardian table, spend per student = 4/10 which is very poor, but that doesn't mean the course is poor now does it, considering it has a staff score of 6/6, job prospects of 9/10 and staff:student ratio of 5/6 ?
I don't do comp sci btw and have no reason to defend it really, I just know some guys on the course and it's one of the harder courses at bath yet I know it ranked poorly in some of the tables for no good reason, what the guy above said makes good sense!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 6,901
- Location
- London
Wallace said:
Hey Carlo,
When I started Computer Science, I wasn't entirely amazed at the facilities, however the department had a good reputation despite it being a small one (60 intakes for CS) And yes, Computer Science along with Maths are some of the hard ones at Bath.
What makes Bath a good university is the teaching quality, however you are certainly pushed in the deep end. Bath also has good links with the majority of the blue-chip firms and large organisations. I am jealous at the pay some of my friends are getting during their placement this year.
As for the BTEC comment, its not worthless if you get a Distinction
I was luckily enough to get an offer on the course.As for the league tables, I think to some extent the place you got your degree from can make a difference. However saying this, if you can prove that you can do the job and you are just as capable, or even better, depsite the fact some of the people applying for the same role as you are, come from red-brick universities, you can stand a good chance.
A friend of mine (who got a First from Bath) who is currently doing his placement at Goldman Sachs has a colleague who managed a 2.2 from southampton. Maybe because he went to southampton, I don't know. Maybe because he did really well in the interview / assessment days, possibly.
Last edited:
The guardian in particular are attracting a lot of flack from various universities at the moment for the stupid methodologies for calculating their league tables. For example, Nottingham advanced 40 places in one year and there are similar stories across the entire table. This is causing various unis to think that certain establishments are fudging the returns to ensure that they get the most favourable scores possible. One thing to remember is that they actually use data which is a year old so when the Guardian publish the league tables you are looking at the findings from the previous september. I'd definitely pay attention to the tables but perhaps not the guardians
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 6,901
- Location
- London
wango2 said:I'd definitely pay attention to the tables but perhaps not the guardians
Which tables do you recommend?
About the only other one I know of the Times league table. However, even then Loughborough managed to get to about 6th place because of it's exceeding good reputation for sport and posrt sciences. I've got nothing against Loughborough, it's a very good uni.
triggerthat said:
Yeah, I lot of people assume that you must have a 1st from a top 10 uni to any chance to getting into big, well known companies. It's not really the case though as just because you went to a top uni and got a good mark doesn't necessarily mean that your any more suitable than a candidate with a lower grade.
sh4rk said:
If two candidates applied for a graduate placement at goldman sach, one with a first or a 2.1 from a russell group uni, and the other with a 1st or 2.1 from an ex-poly, application number two will go in the bin because every other applicant is like the former, and thats what GS expect. Big well known companies can afford to be arrogant, and pick the cream, because they can.
But if they both went to the same university, and applicant one got a 2.1, but was the president of a society, and was well rounded, and applicant two got a first, but did nothing but study, applicant one has a much better chance.
sh4rk said:
Loughborough also has very good links with industry and fantastic engineering departments. It's also come on a lot in research and is joint first with Oxford for teaching quality. Yes, sport is a big thing, but there is a lot more to the success of Loughborough University than that.
It has a generally good reputation. I did a years internship with a large IT and management consultancy company. They took on 9 students, and 5 of these (including me) were picked from my course at Loughborough.
I love the way Oxford come top nearly every year only because they apparantly spend a lot more money on their students than Cambridge. They come off worse in pretty much all other catagories (look at the times table for example).
This is infact due to the way Cambridge and Oxford handle funding. In Cambridge the individual colleges spend a lot of money on their own libraries and facilities, which isn't included. In Oxford the funding is all centralised and so is included.
This is one example of why league tables can't be taken too seriously.
This is infact due to the way Cambridge and Oxford handle funding. In Cambridge the individual colleges spend a lot of money on their own libraries and facilities, which isn't included. In Oxford the funding is all centralised and so is included.
This is one example of why league tables can't be taken too seriously.
Last edited: