"I'm not going to York!"
Little surprises me much these days, but I was slightly taken aback by the vehemence of the student’s objection. I mean, OK the Stonebow centre is a monstrosity, but by and large I had thought York to be a decent enough city when I lived there for a few years as a teenager. What’s more, several of my former students have recently come back to tell me how much they are enjoying their economics course there.
“Why not?” I enquired mildly.
“Because,” came the ringing reply, “They are ranked 23rd in the UK for economics!!!
This was a couple of weeks ago, as we had been beginning the process of university application for 2010, and I had (clearly mistakenly!) suggested that the student have a look at York.
Not willing to leave it at that, I probed further:
“Ranked 23rd in terms of what? What criteria were they were using?”
“Er. They were just 23rd.”
“23rd in terms of the quality of gherkins in the student restaurant? 23rd for the loudness of music in the bar? 23rd for the dress sense of the lecturers?”
“Don’t think so. Dunno really.”
This encapsulates in a nutshell the problem with university league tables. It’s not that the Times (the one used by the student in this case) hadn’t made its methodology patently clear (it had). It is simply that we seem drawn to look uncritically at the rankings like moths to flames.
As the student and I investigated further, it turns out that the Times looks at Research Quality, Student Satisfaction, Graduate Prospects and Entry Standards (the average A level grades of students on the course). The problem is that not all these matter equally to all applicants, some of them are subjective and variable over fairly short periods of time, and others rely on data from some time ago. Whilst we can probably all agree that Oxford and Cambridge are good places to study, it is less clear that it is easy to tell the difference between say York’s economics department in 23rd place (83.3 points) and Bristol’s in 11th (86.6 points), a difference of 12 places for 3.3 points. Looking at the two, we find:
xxxxxxxResearch xxxxEntry xxxSatisfaction xxxProspects xxxTotal
Bristol: xxx 3.9 xxxxxxx457 xxxxxx70% xxxxxxxxx86% xxxxxx86.5
York: xxxxx3.2xxxxxxxx457 xxxxxx74% xxxxxxxxx72% xxxxxx83.3
Bristol: xxx 3.9 xxxxxxx457 xxxxxx70% xxxxxxxxx86% xxxxxx86.5
York: xxxxx3.2xxxxxxxx457 xxxxxx74% xxxxxxxxx72% xxxxxx83.3
York’s score is therefore lower than Bristol’s because when research quality was last assessed (2008), Bristol’s was better (whether this makes much difference to undergraduate students, however, is a matter for debate) and secondly, better ‘Graduate Prospects’, an item based on the job destinations of 2006 and 2007 economics graduates (a relatively small sample), and where the methodology behind the calculation was unclear.
What about all the other relevant factors? Bristol is a city-based university, York is on a campus. Bristol is a big city, York isn’t. What about accommodation, student life, safety and a million other factors which cannot possibly be crammed into the economics subject league table?
And the problems don’t just end there. Other league tables exist too, measuring slightly different factors, but on occasion producing wildly differing outcomes:
- Edinburgh: A poor 20th= in the Times, but a cracking 4th in the Guardian.
- East Anglia: A respectable 13th in the Times, but fails to trouble the Guardian’s scorers at 49th.
Who should we believe? Are we diligent enough to check the methodology?
I hope so, but the reality is that laziness leads to far too many students making decisions based on a relatively narrow and subjective set of data, a decision that will make a huge difference to their next three years and possibly the rest of their life. At the very least, it could be an expensive mistake, with 1 in 5 students failing to complete their degrees.
League tables are obviously helpful, but an understanding of their limitations is crucial. They should form only a small part of any decision – anyone who hasn’t actually been to visit universities, spoken to some current undergraduates, and thought carefully about exactly what they want, but has instead simply worshipped at the altar of league tables, is far more likely to be in the 1 in 5 that drop out than the 4 in 5 who complete, with a debt of around £22,000 to repay for their troubles; A high price to pay for laziness.
Posts
I think we are all vulnerable to the bright lights of headline figures at one point or another and all league tables are potentially dangerous to an unsuspecting consumer. I suppose it is "laziness" in that the methodology is there but possibly it is asking a lot for students to unravel how the table was put together and decide on the relative importance of the different elements. After all it might be understandable to think that good research feeds into good teaching. An experienced shopper who may have been caught out before will be suspicious and have a much better idea of what to look for than a first time buyer. So laziness possibly or more sympathetically I see it highlighting the dangers to students of choosing universities when they themselves don't necessarily know the relative importance of different factors included in the league tables and others factors not even rated. It's the role of the advisers at schools not to make the decision for students but to highlight the factors that should influence it.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, but many students remain firmly wedded to the idea of league tables, regardless. Somehow the tables are treated as the word of God in spite of the changes there are year on year. Looking back, Birmingham was 18th two years ago, now 10th. York was 9th in 2008, now it is 23rd. But of course the students who applied two years ago are still there now! But yes, as advisers, everything we can do to dilute the impact of league tables is critically important!
ReplyDelete