Final UK undergrad ranking is out as if last night (The Times)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Good info. Thank you. |
Anonymous
Except it’s #4 in OP’s list |
Anonymous
|
people on this board ONLY care about these rankings because they hate St Andews and are annoyed that it's ever near the top.
why do they hate it? who the f knows. I live in the unites states and care very little about this. rank the best colleges in India or South Africa and I'll also have no option there. China? No opinion. but here, about the UK, they care. and it's all about one small school. it's BIZARRE behavior |
Anonymous
OP DIDNT ask for anybody’s opinion. She was simply posting the results of the new rankings…. |
Anonymous
That was not OP’s list. It was THE Times list. When the other post averaged the 3 main UK rankings Oxford comes out top (no surprises). |
Anonymous
Thank you for doing this. averaging these 3 rankings is a good process. maybe tweak the weights a little since most think the CUG is a little more comprehensive. Maybe 40% CUG, 30% Guardian/30% The Times. Shouldn’t change anything in the top5, but would be interesting to see. |
Anonymous
It is very simple. Despite having very high tariffs for UK students, it is admittedly easier for good US students from good private schools to gain acceptance there. And for more American brains, they cant reconcile the fact that an easier admissions for American is different than the school being a decent school. I understand. Even if I disagree. Most Americans have been pre-condition to believe low admissions rate equals amazing education…. |
Anonymous
it's easier to get into every Oxford and Cambridge from the US too. UCL is much easier. holistic admissions in the US makes admissions to top 20 colleges HARD for everyone, including unhooked UMC white kids. |
Anonymous
It is not easy for US students to get into Oxford or Cambridge as undergraduates. It is possible, but it is not easy. |
Anonymous
DP. The word "easier" is comparative. The word "easy" is absolute. It is not "easy" for any unhooked student to get into Oxbridge. Partly for financial reasons (i.e., much higher international fees), it really is "easier" for an international fees applicant to be accepted at Oxbridge than an equally qualified UK applicant. Nearly all UK universities, including Oxbridge, operate at a loss with their UK students. They need enough international fees students to make up the budget deficit. |
Anonymous
You are still applying American terms. The UK does not have a "hook" or "non-hook" system. That's exclusively US. And I know about the finances in the UK, thanks. I am from the UK. |
Anonymous
That post was really not intended for you, but instead to the many others who are reading DCUM. Separately, I promise you that hooks do exist in the UK (trivial example: Prince William would have been accepted to any UK uni where he applied). I also know of cases where UK faculty kids were accepted when equally qualified UK students did not, due to faculty parent calling in a favor. The ethics of that might be murky, but it has happened. The UK hooks are different, and fewer, than in the US but they exist. |
Anonymous
DP: you don't know what you are talking about, and you are wrong. Prince William would definitely have been accepted to Cambridge, yes, bc his forebears put that clause into the donation that founded one of the colleges (can't remember which one). No other "hooks", in the US sense, matter, other than a thumb on the scale for UK kids from low SES backgrounds. Tutors, in deciding who to admit to each course, do consider gender balance but don't consider geographic representation (within or outside the UK). Tutors have reported being somewhat biased against US applicants, bc they are likely to have HYPSM offers and therefore much less likely to yeild to Oxbridge (which messes up some weird internal calculations btw the colleges). At the tutor level, they report that they do not consider additional tuition from overseas students. That extra money doesn't go to the college, but to the university. Here's the biggest difference, reported to me recently. A friend of a friend made a large donation to one of the colleges at Cambridge. (That alone is unusual, bc alumni support in the UK is not typical.) After signing the final papers, the college official said, "It's too bad your DC can't apply to this college, bc that would be a conflict of interest." It is certainly true that acceptance rates at Oxbridge are at least double those of top US schools. However, being a US applicant is not a 'hook'. |
Anonymous
This is true for Oxford and Cambridge. LSE on the other hand….my son had a a couple of “royal” kids in his class (from middle eastern countries) who had no business being there. Barely graduated with a 2:2. Only reason they were there were due to donations from their countries to LSE. |
Anonymous
These averages make a lot more sense. I went back 10 years of CUG, Guardian and The Times. Despite minor movement here and there on the top 10, these have been pretty much static for 10 years. |