11 Plus Exams Forum

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/ne ... 63148.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is the Russell group more of reputation over quality?

Another meaningless League table...

Isn't this just a list if those with the highest average UCAS points of people taking up places, or something like that? Not necessarily the hardest if you have the grades.

DD applied to four of them and got four places - presumably lots more will have done the same, but will only take up one place - hence all of them will appear oversubscribed.

hermanmunster wrote:Isn't this just a list if those with the highest average UCAS points of people taking up places

That's exactly what it is, yes. Plus a bunch of other measures to achieve a rank according to "our independent and trusted methodology, comprising entry standards, student satisfaction, research assessment (quality and intensity), graduate prospects, student–staff ratio, academic services spend, facilities spend, good honours, and degree completion."

hermanmunster wrote:...presumably lots more will have done the same, but will only take up one place - hence all of them will appear oversubscribed.

It doesn't make any mention of oversubscription; entry standards are all about UCAS points.

Two of the criteria used are the "average UCAS tariff score of new students entering the University" and "how satisfied students are with the quality of teaching they receive". It is the disparity between these two measures which the Independent article is picking up. They seem to be surprised that the universities which accept students with the most UCAS points don't necessarily have the highest quality of teaching (as measured by the opinion of their students). Frankly I've have been surprised if there was a direct correlation between the two.

The one item I picked up from the table was that out of a possible score of 1000, Cambridge scored... 1000. However, although it ranked top in terms of UCAS scores of students, it didn't rank top in terms of student satisfaction with teaching quality - that honour went to Coventry. Bizarre.

All the average UCAS points of entrants is telling us is exactly that - saying that such data also tells us which are the hardest to get into is a leap.
Another measure - perhaps more helpful- would be the number of applications v the number of places.
However, as mentioned above each student makes multiple applications so we would really need to know number of applicants for whom it is first choice v number of places.

Quality of teaching as perceived by students is hardly a scientific measure. Expectations must have a huge impact surely?

Never the less the issue of institutions which focus on undergraduate teaching v those where academic staff find undergrads a distraction from their own research is not new.

Once again I suspect its about round pegs in round holes

it depends on the course one chooses

e.g at Manchester min entry for Physics is A*AA and Computer Science A*AA-AAA but the university is huge(one of the largest in the world) it has hundred of courses some as low as CCC entry!

average UCAS points is meaningless imo.

At Manchester due to the popularity of its physics course generally and specifically at the University for its 275 places they have about 1200 applicants. The typical offer is between A*A*A and A*A A higher than Oxbridge partly due to Professor Brian Cox partly due to Jodrell Bank(which has just got a new lease of life) and the work generally on the Hadron Collider and Cern which has popularised work in this area.It also has its Nobel Laureates in this area with a long line of physicists and the current ones in the area of Graphene.

What's an A* between friends

Recently I drove past the £60mill Graphene Centre at Manchester Uni, an architectural wonder they, reckon 1/2billion pounds of investment is being put into it