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

51–60 of 73 posts

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

#51

Post by Jensson »

chrisseaton wrote: post #15
jack_riminton wrote: post #2

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

> I'm sure that St Andrews is a brilliant college. It's not a 'college' at all.

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?

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

#52

Post by blitzar »

mathieuh wrote: post #41

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 scienc…

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.

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

#53

Post by bluenose69 »

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?

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

#54

Post by padthai »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #6
bencollier49 wrote: post #3

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

Only if you're Scottish though, if you're English, Welsh, or Northern Irish you still have to pay full fees.

Before Brexit it was free for all the EU/EEA/CH... but not for England, Wales, Norther Ireland.

I always though it was quite fun detail.

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

#55

Post by arethuza »

Jensson wrote: post #51
chrisseaton wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure that St Andrews is a brilliant college. It's not a 'college' at all.

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 includ…

Because in the UK "college" means a variety of things, none of which apply to St Andrews?

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

#56

Post by chrisseaton »

Jensson wrote: post #51
chrisseaton wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sure that St Andrews is a brilliant college. It's not a 'college' at all.

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 includ…

> You go there to do college studies

An undergraduate degree isn't 'college studies' in British English. Nobody would say that.

> why say it is wrong to call it a college?

Why is it wrong to call it a fish? Because it's not a fish.

Why is it wrong to call it a college? Because it's not a college.

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

#57

Post by Jensson »

arethuza wrote: post #55
Jensson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 includ…

Because in the UK "college" means a variety of things, none of which apply to St Andrews?

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.

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

#58

Post by Jensson »

chrisseaton wrote: post #56
Jensson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 includ…

> You go there to do college studies An undergraduate degree isn't 'college studies' in British English. Nobody would say that. > why say it is wrong to call it a college? Why is it wrong to call it a fish? Because it's not a fish. Why is it wrong to call it a college? Because it's not a college.

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.

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

#59

Post by wanderingmind »

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…

Or even better is just not do a PhD. Doing a PhD is one of the worst things that most people do to themselves. It mainly exists to provide cheap labour to exploitive universities while creating a huge opportunity cost for students. And worse does not provide any employable skills to more than 9 out of 10 PhDs who need to find a job outside academia. If you are thinking of doing a PhD you are better off just doing a master's.

[1] https://medium.economist.com/why-doing-a-phd-is-often-a-wast...

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

#60

Post by [deleted] »

Jensson wrote: post #57
arethuza wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because in the UK "college" means a variety of things, none of which apply to St Andrews?

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]
Post reply on HN