New Ranking for UK by The Times

8 16

Posted May 27, 2005 13:32

The ranking game continues...
another list by the Times

1 Cambridge
2 Oxford
3 Durham
4 University College London
5 Manchester
6 London School of Economics
7 Nottingham
8 King's College London
9 Edinburgh
10 Leeds
11 Strathclyde
12 Glasgow
13 Aberdeen
14 Warwick
15 Queens, Belfast
16 Bristol
17 Kent
18 SOAS
19 Queen Mary
20 Newcastle

quote

gamayun

31 62

Posted May 27, 2005 14:26

Well, what can I say~~!
the more rankings appear, the higher UCL becomes..and who knows it might in the next ranking jump to 1st place :) just kiddin!

Durham became 3rd, that what is strange about it O_o ahead of LSE?!

anyway, couple of weeks more and all these rankings will become useless..most seats for 05-06 academic year taken, decisions made, applications sent... ^^

anyway, thanks for info!

quote

Nicky

30 60

Posted May 27, 2005 15:26

Just some thoughts on rankings...

Durham became 3rd, that what is strange about it O_o ahead of LSE?!
blockquote>

Isn't it interesting that most of us (myself included) have a certain ranking in our minds and think it strange if an actual ranking is different from what we expected? What do we need rankings for then, I wonder? Why shouldn't Durham be better than LSE? How can any of us really tell? I bet most of us haven't attended both universities...
Nevertheless, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on which school is ahead of which within the top ten or so anyway, especially since rankings - it cannot be repeated often enough - are only for undergraduate studies, not for LLM programmes. This becomes perfectly clear when you look at the University of London. Does anybody think a Queen Mary LLM with two courses from UCL is worth less than a UCL LLM with two courses from Queen Mary? Surely not, yet if we took undergraduate rankings seriously for our LLM choices, this would be the conclusion.

Just some thoughts on rankings...

<blockquote>Durham became 3rd, that what is strange about it O_o ahead of LSE?!
blockquote>

Isn't it interesting that most of us (myself included) have a certain ranking in our minds and think it strange if an actual ranking is different from what we expected? What do we need rankings for then, I wonder? Why shouldn't Durham be better than LSE? How can any of us really tell? I bet most of us haven't attended both universities...
Nevertheless, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on which school is ahead of which within the top ten or so anyway, especially since rankings - it cannot be repeated often enough - are only for undergraduate studies, not for LLM programmes. This becomes perfectly clear when you look at the University of London. Does anybody think a Queen Mary LLM with two courses from UCL is worth less than a UCL LLM with two courses from Queen Mary? Surely not, yet if we took undergraduate rankings seriously for our LLM choices, this would be the conclusion.

quote

Inactive User

23 46

Posted May 30, 2005 10:10

Well, at least now I am even happier that I ve chosen Manchester!!!

quote

anabell

2 4

Posted May 30, 2005 12:14

The ranking seems to be ok. Except that UCL should be above durham and lse and kcl above manchester

quote

Pieter

3 6

Posted May 30, 2005 15:12

The ranking seems to be ok. Except that UCL should be above durham and lse and kcl above manchester

That is a very interesting remark Anabell. Could you share the secret knowledge you appear to have with us?

<blockquote>The ranking seems to be ok. Except that UCL should be above durham and lse and kcl above manchester</blockquote>
That is a very interesting remark Anabell. Could you share the secret knowledge you appear to have with us?

quote

Russ

105 209

Posted May 30, 2005 20:31

Gregory, where did you find this ranking? Is it already available on the internet?

quote

gregory

8 16

Posted May 31, 2005 09:32

Yes, it is.

Go to the web-page of The Times www.timesonline.co.uk and then to the Student menu point. There you find the new university league table. They put it up last Friday.

Cheers,

Gregory