Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

thetimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#41

Post by mathieuh »

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.

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#42

Post by dagw »

mettamage wrote: post #28
ThePhysicist wrote: post #10

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 pa…

> 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'…

PhD to industry doesn't translate well

Really depends on the field. On the whole people who have a PhD in Not-Computer Engineering tend to end up working in fields connected to what their PhD was in.

I work in Civil Engineering and not only are there lots of PhDs around here most of them are working on things pretty close to what their research topic was, and where in fact specifically hired to do so. The PhDs who aren't working in their 'field' are generally more senior people who used to work or more relevant stuff but are now in more management roles.

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#43

Post by etothepii »

biofox wrote: post #25
arethuza wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

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.

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.

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#44

Post by arethuza »

biofox wrote: post #25
arethuza wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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...

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.

And, of course this being the UK, there is more than one QAA :-)

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#45

Post by rich_sasha »

mettamage wrote: post #28
ThePhysicist wrote: post #10

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 pa…

> 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'…

> In most cases though, industry doesn't care about any of this.

That's not my experience, actually. There is a lot of snobbery in some cases. Some places (UK) make a point of only hiring from certain universities. A friend of mine did his PhD at Birmingham - good university, and excellent at his field, but not a top-5 one. He was on the LIGO experiment, and on the first gravitational wave detection. Got grilled about "why on earth did you go to study at Birmingham???" at a job interview.

You might say, not a good place to work, and you'd be right, but the trend is real.

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#46

Post by Jensson »

andrewingram wrote: post #23
n4r9 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What do you mean by easy in this context?

Students are happier with courses they get good grades in. Students who fail aren't very happy.

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#47

Post by blitzar »

etothepii wrote: post #43
biofox wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Only the person who went to cambridge would know what a slide rule is.

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#48

Post by arethuza »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #36
ThePhysicist wrote: post #10

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 pa…

On the other hand, the fact there were so many different universities in Paris in the late 20th century was also pretty artificial: De Gaulle got sick of all these spicy students having opinions and split the whole thing up. But it's all just rather arbitrary rankings of rather arbitrary social constructions anyway, and as you say it's not that helpful for making accurate decisions for where you should apply anyway a…

Aberdeen used to be very proud of the fact that for a long time they had the same number of universities as England:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_universities_of_Scotla...

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#49

Post by blitzar »

jna_sh wrote: post #19
eptcyka wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind you, these are not colleges, these are universities. Colleges are not as highly esteemed in the UK.

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. Th…

> 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.

Re: For the first time in history, St Andrews outranks Oxbridge

#50

Post by blitzar »

jna_sh wrote: post #32
arethuza wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"UK education" Nitpick: not all of the UK uses A-levels.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN