Who got Nottingham?
Robin Hood.
UK departments, how would you rate them?
-
Lol, not really. Warwick and Cambridge are similar, probably an edge for Warwick due to its depth.
Nottingham best in the rest, followed by Edinburgh for its theory. Essex used to be best of the rest, but failing too far.
QMUL is going up, Bristol has always been there. York was the history, not deserve to be listed there. I wound rather put Surrey right after Bristol if have to.
1. LSE/UCL
2. Oxford
3. Warwick/Cambridge
4. Nottingham/Edinburgh/Essex
5. Queen Mary/Royal Holloway/Bristol/Surrey
6. Restblockquote>1. LSE/UCL
2. Oxford
3. Warwick
4. Cambridge/Bristol/Edinburgh/Essex
5. York/Nottingham/Queen Mary/Royal Holloway
6. Rest -
Bristol is a department of reg-monkeys.
Lol, not really. Warwick and Cambridge are similar, probably an edge for Warwick due to its depth.
Nottingham best in the rest, followed by Edinburgh for its theory. Essex used to be best of the rest, but failing too far.
QMUL is going up, Bristol has always been there. York was the history, not deserve to be listed there. I wound rather put Surrey right after Bristol if have to.
1. LSE/UCL
2. Oxford
3. Warwick/Cambridge
4. Nottingham/Edinburgh/Essex
5. Queen Mary/Royal Holloway/Bristol/Surrey
6. Restblockquote>1. LSE/UCL
2. Oxford
3. Warwick
4. Cambridge/Bristol/Edinburgh/Essex
5. York/Nottingham/Queen Mary/Royal Holloway
6. Rest -
Why would you rank them, is the question. In any case, PhD from anywhere else than LSE subjects you to UK AP misery, and 95 percent of research is just duck measuring, with no relevance or impact outside of the club you insist on calling "profession"
Take the 25 departments or so that will probably be submitted to REF. I'd say 90% of them have people who have top 5s and many top 10s and top fields. You will also see a low productivity tail in thise departments, but this hardly counts as duck measuring.
-
Also Russell group means nothing.
Russel Group is a holistic notion.
That's pretty meaningless. The Russell group is a self-appointed group of rent-seekers, who were established only 25 years ago as a response to Thatcher's decision to relabel polytechnics as universities. They saw that polys were cheaper and therefore more attractive to a government run by bean counters and philistines and therefore created a group that would push the idea that they were of higher quality compared to other universities and therefore the rules of funding should favour them.
In that they seem to be reasonably successful.
-
This.
Also Russell group means nothing.
Russel Group is a holistic notion.
That's pretty meaningless. The Russell group is a self-appointed group of rent-seekers, who were established only 25 years ago as a response to Thatcher's decision to relabel polytechnics as universities. They saw that polys were cheaper and therefore more attractive to a government run by bean counters and philistines and therefore created a group that would push the idea that they were of higher quality compared to other universities and therefore the rules of funding should favour them.
In that they seem to be reasonably successful. -
Anyone ranking Oxford at or near the top for ug really has no clue.
PhD:
1. LSE
2. Oxford
Rest = ultra toilet
Undergrad:
1. Oxford Economics and Managment = Oxford PPE = Cambridge Economics
2. LSE Economics
3. LSE all else
4. UCL/ Warwick
Rest = ultra toilet
(Note: lots of privately educated children go to Durham over the likes of LSE/ UCL/ Warwick, but they’re making a really bad decision)
Oxford and Cambridge STRICTLY dominate LSE/ UCL for undergrad. That is a fact.
It's all about the intelligence of students and input quality. NOT their 'training' or 'research' or whatever other BS
-
The ranking from the last REF are pretty accurate and not much has changed.
See unit 18 of:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/Attachments/2014/12/17/g/o/l/sub-14-01.pdf
Ps some of you please can you GTFO and have your chat about the strength of u/g programmes elsewhere.
-
^ at the top, nothing has changed much. At the middle and bottom, I believe it has. Many large departments will not submit to Econ anyways, displaying the cowardice of UK universities.
I think you’re maybe onto something re the bottom. I suspect the number of universities submittting to econ will fall. (Again, as it also fell significantly between 2008 and 2014). The ropier departments will be lumped in with business management, which will serve as a waste disposal Unit of Assessment for universities wishing to hide mediocrity.
I predict 20ish to be submitted and no more.
But I don’t see significant moves even in the middle (places 6-15/20 or so) and indeed certainly not the top.
-
The ranking from the last REF are pretty accurate and not much has changed.
See unit 18 of:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/sites/default/files/Attachments/2014/12/17/g/o/l/sub-14-01.pdf
Ps some of you please can you GTFO and have your chat about the strength of u/g programmes elsewhere.Jesus you are thick. More thick than a pig in a s**te.
Bristol top for impact? Rubbish.
Royal Holloway, Sussex, etc.? Rubbish.
The latest REF isn't worthy enough to wipe my ass.The REF was PLAGUED by issues with regards to non submission. It is the LEAST accurate of research rankings and hence is being totally overhauled.
The Research Fortnight REF Power Ranking tries to correct for issues and is more accurate than the tripe THE came out with.
See: https://www.researchprofessional.com/media/pdf/UoA18_Economics.pdfBut generally, the 2008 RAE is more reflective of real quality compared to the 2014 REF.