UK Top Universities – The World’s View

Previous posts have attempted to identify what politicians like to call the UK’s ‘top universities’ or ‘most competitive universities’. Having recently come up with a Top 30 for 2012 by combining the four UK league tables, it seemed a useful check to see where our elite institutions stood in the various world-wide university rankings. Of these, the three most credible seem to be the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2011-2012 (400 institutions), the QS World University Rankings 2011/2012 (700 institutions) and the Academic Ranking of World Universities – 2011 (500 institutions, and is sometimes known as the Shanghai Ranking).

The first Table below takes the UK's 2012 Top 30 and shows where they stand internationally (TH, QS and AR as above):

Be warned, the economist David Blanchflower has a low opinion of the QS rankings and has pointed out:

Note that since 2000, the faculty of the University of Cambridge has been awarded one Nobel Prize, in 2010, which was its first since 1984, while UCL and Oxford have both had none. Indeed, the University of Oxford's faculty hasn't received one since 1973. By contrast, MIT and Columbia have both had five; UC Berkeley has had four while Stanford, Rockefeller, Johns Hopkins, Chicago and Princeton have each had two and Harvard one.

He favours the Shanghai Ranking and thinks the QS one should be ignored. Nonetheless, the international rankings can be combined (see note below) and a differently-ordered UK Top set results (Russell Group and Sutton Trust shown as before):

Interestingly, certain universities which have become increasingly highly regarded domestically in recent years, for example Bath and Exeter, have a fairly low international standing by comparison with say, Bristol (all three in SW England, as it happens). Manchester, on the other hand, which had dropped out of my Top 30 since 2011 (and more significantly was ranked 29, 32, 37= and 41 in the four UK 2012 league tables) reappears well up. As well as Manchester, Aberdeen and Queen’s Belfast appear in all three international tables, and so have been added to the original Top 30. Perhaps something to think about, if you intend to make a career in a multinational or international academia.

NOTE ON RANKINGS

As usual rankings are added to give totals, and the lower that total the higher the combined rank. Banded scores have been mid-pointed, so 301-400 is taken as 350.5. SOAS and Aston do not appear in the AR 500 so have been nominated 501=, and again SOAS has had to be nominated 401 in the TH table. Perhaps they should be excluded altogether.

None of this should be taken too seriously. In neither the UK nor the international rankings, have I gone into the different criteria being used. Firstly, the rankings don’t vary that much, at least in the national tables. Secondly, as I hoped I made clear at the outset, it’s been an attempt to combine perceptions as to what might be a “top” university, the reality almost certainly being beyond measurement from the point of an individual student on a particular course of study.

University League Tables (2012 update) and Participation

One of the most popular items on this blog has been University League Tables and Participation, posted in January 2011:

In a previous post (University Entrance - Today's 11+? ) I pointed out that the current participation rate in higher education in the UK was at a similar level to 11+ success and grammar school attendance in the 1960s. At that time, however, university was for an elite minority – less than 10% of the under 21 age group. Although this is no longer the case, there is a perception of there being an institutional elite, and arguably, for those choosing which universities to apply to, and for recruiters of graduates, the perception can be more important than the reality. This post looks at some possible shapers of these perceptions (league tables and elite groupings), and then revisits the statistics of participation.

The post combined the results of four published league tables (each one using its own assessment criteria, but with inevitable overlaps) to produce a listing of the top 30 universities. The league tables have been reissued for 2012 (by The Times, Sunday Times, Guardian and Complete University Guide) so I have taken the opportunity to update the table, again identifying the Russell Group, and the Sutton Trust’s ‘elite’ (ST13) and ‘highly selective’ (STHS) groups. Access to the ‘top universities’ continues to be a significant political issue and has come to be regarded as a key determinant of social mobility. For example, Ed Miliband used the words ‘top universities’ once, and ‘most competitive universities’ twice, in his speech at the Labour Party conference last week.  (UPDATE: However, David Cameron made no reference to universities in his speech to the Conservative Party conference on 5 October, with the education passage focussing on schools).

At the bottom of the 30, Manchester and Liverpool have been replaced by Surrey and Reading. Otherwise changes in ranking are probably not significant, particularly in the top 10.

The graph showing the capacity of the elite groupings alongside historic participation rates is taken from the earlier post – it is only meant to be illustrative and I have assumed that, for that purpose, the changes to the relevant data in one year are insignificant.

To find out how this Top 30 rates in the three international league tables, see my later post.

University League Tables and Participation

The data in the Table below has been updated in a later post.

In a previous post ( University Entrance - Today's 11+? ) I pointed out that the current participation rate in higher education in the UK was at a similar level to 11+ success and grammar school attendance in the 1960s.  At that time, however, university was for an elite minority – less than 10% of the under 21 age group. Although this is no longer the case, there is a perception of there being an institutional elite, and arguably, for those choosing which universities to apply to and for recruiters of graduates, the perception can be more important than the reality. This post looks at some possible shapers of these perceptions ('league tables' and elite groupings), and then revisits the statistics of participation.

There are currently four league tables of UK universities published by the Independent, Guardian, Sunday Times and Times newspapers. Taking the top 30 in each case, they consist of 41 different institutions. However, 22 of the 41 feature in all four tables. Also, 11 of the 41 feature in only one, so an overall top 30 can be identified as those institutions appearing in more than one league table, and their rankings can be combined as below. There are three other groupings of highly-rated institutions which can be put alongside the league tables. The Russell Group of 20 major research universities is regarded as being an elite. Also, the Sutton Trust, which looks at issues of social mobility and access to higher education, has identified for its purposes a group of 13 elite universities and a larger group of 30 which it regards as highly selective. The table below indicates which of the 'Top 30' universities fall into these three groups (RG, ST13 and STHS respectively).

A graph in the previous post showed how university participation has increased since the 1960s. Using UCAS statistics for the undergraduate numbers at each university, the proportion of the under 21’s which various groupings of universities within the 'Top 30' are recruiting can be calculated, and the levels are indicated on the new graph below.  The 4.2% for the 'Top 12' cater for the mid-60s level of participation

Of course, there are obvious limitations in drawing up a league table of universities – there are going to be excellent courses and very able students in the many unlisted institutions. Individual circumstances can be overriding as well – if your family owns a chain of golf courses, you might well want to go for the best golf course management degree wherever it may. However, if your aspiration is to take a humanities degree – one of the many flavours of history, say – but then move into management, the perception a future employer may have of your university is a factor which can’t be ignored. Being at one of the universities in the table above, particularly in the top half, is unlikely to stand in your way; although it won’t be the only thing they will be looking for.

Notes on the Table and Chart

As last time, this is a blog post not a PhD thesis, so I have used a broad brush with the data.

From 1950 to 1998 the graph shows the Age Participation Index (API) which was defined as the number of UK-domiciled young (aged less than 21) initial entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses of higher education, expressed as a proportion of the averaged 18 to 19 year old GB population. After 1999 the data is for the Higher Education Initial Participation Rate HEIPR20 (17-20 year olds English domiciled and in English Welsh and Scottish institutions).

Positions in the individual league tables were added (Oxford, 1st in all four, scoring 4 etc). A university unplaced in a particular league table was assumed to be 31st equal if it appeared in the other three tables, 32nd equal if it appeared in only one other table. UCAS provides numbers for undergraduates for each university, (all courses are assumed here to be of three years), and percentages for mature and international students. Hence the places available to the HEIPR20 contingent, the recent overall size and participation rate for this being provided by the BIS Department. The decimal place in the statistics for the groupings (eg Russell Group 9.2%) should probably be ignored.