Guardian University guide

[save our uni]

Hello everybody, I was just comparing the Guardian University Guide with that of the Times and realised something very strange and worrying. In the business/management field St.Andrews is ranked number 17 with entry requirements of just under 25.5 points. In the Guardian it ranked number 74 with entry requirements of 20.3 points. I'm a little confused? The entry requirements are obviously higher in St Andrews but why is ranked so low and why does the Guardian seem to dislike this Uni??? does anyone have any ideas??? I am really confused! This is the link to the Guardian Page:http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/unitable/0,11985,-4421071,00.html?view=1&start=70

Please take the time to have a look at it. It is important to find out why the uni is ranked so low according the Guardian. I mean really bad Unis are ranked better than us. It makes absolutely no sense!

Thank u!

[ever_nocturnal]

.

[Pilmour Boy]

[s]ever_nocturnal wrote on 01:10, 27th May 2004:
Would this be the same Guardian team that said St Andrews was in Edinburgh?

But quite frankly a University with such accommodation problems and greedy management - no wonder.



I think that that was your favourite paper, the Telegraph.

My particular bone of contention with the Guardian this time is that they claim they are attempting to evaluate teaching quality- and then stick in a score for access!

I can understand why it might be put into a final score for how "good" the university is deemed to be, but having it as part (together with things like value added, etc) of a "teaching quality" assessment seems mad.

[ever_nocturnal]

.

[tintin]

The Guardian league table was a complete sham. I fail to see how St. Andrews came so low down in almost all subjects. What is bizarre is that a similar table in October from the same paper puts St. Andrews second for Mod Langs behind Glasgow, but then this one shoves us right down below the "University" of Northumbria at Newcastle. Something HAS to be wrong when this happens.

The Times' tables were much different and put us higher up.

For Physics we come in at number 26 which is no reflection of the department because they have not considered "Physics and Astronomy" at all; indeed they have neglected to even figure Astronomy. For this combined category we came very high in the Times table. They do at least give us third in the Maths one.

[romantic]

[s]tintin wrote on 08:18, 27th May 2004:
For Physics we come in at number 26 which is no reflection of the department because they have not considered "Physics and Astronomy" at all; indeed they have neglected to even figure Astronomy. For this combined category we came very high in the Times table. They do at least give us third in the Maths one.


yep, the astronomers make the physicists look good

[Saki]

Looking at the table, I think it must have been the very very low amount spent per student that put it so low. Don't dimiss these things - in St. Andrews you tend to assume you're a top university when that isn't necessarily the case. (as someone who did an Mlitt in St. Andrews but BA & started PhD elsewhere.)

[Marco Biagi]

Controversial decisions by the Guardian tables:

1) the don't consider research at all, which is far stronger in the older universities
2) they consider access in terms that include ethnic minority composition, without taking into account ethnicity in the university's recruitment area
3) they use the government Teaching Quality Assessment scores to rate teaching, which are up to 10 years old, and also recently have not been marked under the same system in Scotland
4) their 'value-added' score would benefit universities that give out disproportionately high marks in degrees through insufficiently rigorous assessment

In America, US News ranks departments by asking all the corresponding departments at other institutions to rank them out of 5, and sorting them then by average. It is entirely a reputation score, and makes no pretensions at being mathematical and scientific, unlike both the Times and the Guardian.


[hr]"our very own Slobodan Milosevic"
- Saint Sal, first generation Sinner, 2001.
When you're down and out, just remember... you were the fastest sperm in your group once!!
http://www.marcobiagi.com

[Neferet]

[s]Saki wrote on 10:02, 27th May 2004:
Looking at the table, I think it must have been the very very low amount spent per student that put it so low. Don't dimiss these things - in St. Andrews you tend to assume you're a top university when that isn't necessarily the case.


I awlays found that a little odd. St Andrews has a reputation for being an old and unique uni but I never understood where the reputation of it being goodone of the best came from. Best in Scotland isn't really saying much to be honest and even the most favourable ranking by the Times I think it was had us at something like 16th overall in the UK.

St Andrews comes in the top 5 in a few subjects, number 2 after Cambridge in at least one but some of them rank really quite lowly and it is incredibly easy to get in save for a couple of subjects. Yet still it looks good if you went to St Andrews I suppose.

[Buzzboy]

[s]Marco Biagi wrote on 11:06, 27th May 2004:
Controversial decisions by the Guardian tables:

1) the don't consider research at all, which is far stronger in the older universities

Which is pretty much irrelevant to undergraduate teaching standards.


2) they consider access in terms that include ethnic minority composition, without taking into account ethnicity in the university's recruitment area


Recruitment area? What are you talking about, Biagi? Student come from all over the world to study at St Andrews.


3) they use the government Teaching Quality Assessment scores to rate teaching, which are up to 10 years old, and also recently have not been marked under the same system in Scotland


Yep you're right there


4) their 'value-added' score would benefit universities that give out disproportionately high marks in degrees through insufficiently rigorous assessment


Recent studies show that red-brick universities give out, on average, many more first and 2:1's than their newer counterparts.


In America, US News ranks departments by asking all the corresponding departments at other institutions to rank them out of 5, and sorting them then by average. It is entirely a reputation score, and makes no pretensions at being mathematical and scientific, unlike both the Times and the Guardian.



The Times is trying to rate department holistically, which is good, but a bit misleading for students wishing to go to institutions with good teaching quality. The guardian, I think, is trying to highlight that more modern universities are providing better teaching facilities. This is actually the truth, I was quite amazed at the standards of facilities at Univerisities such as nottingham trent and leicester, compared to St Andrews and Nottingham (my current abode).

[iohannes]

Speaking as a History graduate (and postgraduate) I have no problem with where the Guardian has put my department.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 96,00.html
It's above Oxford, for a start.

[hr]http://www.crumble.org
That is all ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.