No, I will disagree with that.
The academic capability of the average Manchester undergrad student, I would suspect, will be higher than UW-Madison and more at the level of the average of NYU.
Don’'t know if this has changed recently, but that was my perception some few years ago.
In what way does KCL ooze as much prestige as NYU?
I think this is where your other faulty perception is rooted.
I always suspected that the only way anyone can state Warwick, Exeter or Durham are more prestigious than KCL is by relying heavily on UK-local rankings.
My extensive use of evidence has already proven to you that is a misled perception.
I think you need to realise that UK rankings (ALL 3 of them) are more a “Student Satisfaction” focused table, which you have mistakenly perceived as a “Prestige” focused table.
Trust me, Lancaster, Loughborough, Surrey, Sussex etc. that are in the Top 10 of such tables are not seen as prestigious in the UK.
They will not even be in the Top 20 for prestige.
Harper Adams will not even be in the Top 70 when it comes to prestige, but it is in position 27 on the league table you are using for prestige; above York, Liverpool and Aberdeen. That is ridiculous!
The league table mainly only tells you that the students that attend Harper Adams are more satisfied than the ones that attend York etc.
The UK local tables are more similar to the US’ Washington Monthly league table.
No one with good knowledge about US universities will look at this WM table and then state: “Brigham Young is more prestigious than Caltech, Johns Hopkins and Carnegie Mellon”.
WM league table is just not a table to rank prestige.
You don’t seem to know much about the UK university system.
Firstly, just like Cornell will not be in the Top 18 for SAT/ACT entry scores amongst the national universities because of its statutory colleges. That does not mean it is not a top Ivy.
KCL’s entry points in dragged down because it has the largest Nursing school in the UK. The Nursing courses generally require far lower entry scores; and government policy on Nursing staff needs determines and keeps volume high.
Removing the Nursing School entry scores and KCL will be in the Bristol to UCL range for entry scores.
Secondly, a lot of Scottish universities are above KCL because top Scottish students stay in Scotland because education for them in Scotland is free. So that has inflated the average entry scores for ALL Scottish Universities.
If you go back to my post #14, you will see that those Scottish universities are not the ones people are buzzing to go to.
Most of them’s threads are dead! The top students just go there because it makes them debt-free.
Just like many top US students from non-wealthy families will go to the university that offers them the best financial aid over one giving them none.
So, (1) you are not understanding what you are using to create your perception and (2) your metrics are too narrow hence faulty too.
I am sorry but this is just not logical at all and another faulty approach.
If this was logical, then MSL teams will be better than EPL teams.
UK Basketball teams will be 1/5th as good as NBA teams.
And 4 times more Chinese universities will be as good as US ones.
You can’t use volume relativity references for individual or collective prestige and competence assessment.
Again, to highlight another lack of understanding of the UK, the UK “offer rate” is not the same thing as the US’ “admit/acceptance rate”.
UK universities make offers with the expectations that some will not achieve that offer and that some will accept offers at other places with minimal to zero switch loss.
So the percentage of applicants that a UK university eventually admit is much lower than the offer rate you posted.
Secondly, the offer rate you posted is for 18 year old applicants only. Overall offer rate (for all applicants) at KCL is actually about 55%.
If you then do calculation of an “admit/acceptance rate” (based on number of those that enrolled divided by number of those that applied), you will get about 14%. This is actually roughly the same as Cornell’s acceptance rate.
Thirdly, apart from the completely different application processes between UK and US universities, UK universities do not engage in application-baiting tactics like US universities do so as to boost their acceptance rates/selectivity stats.
If you want to conduct a crude and simple analysis of this, without using the numerous prestige and international rankings tables that are already available, you can just go to online resources like Quora and then look at the number of “Followers” each UK university has.
You will find the Top 15 as follows:
Note: Again, the “Golden Triangle” dominate with two breakers, Manchester and Leeds.
I decided not to go beyond these Top 15 because after them, surprises are way too many and I would literally have to check up to 70 UK universities to be able to comfortably vouch that the Top 20 list is correct*.
For example, I was seeing the likes of Westminster (8.5K) and Kent (8.2K) having more followers than Durham (8.1K). And Durham is definitely not in the Top 20 from the ones I have seen so far. It will be in a position in the 20s.
St Andrews is not in the Top 25 and Exeter is definitely not in the Top 30, with the likes of Swansea, Surrey and Loughborough EASILY having multiples more followers than it does. Questions relating to Exeter is as low as the its number of threads on TSR.
So you can see the numerous metrics I use in judging prestige, and which have all been backing up my points. There is no way anyone can successfully argue those universities have more “cachet” than KCL. There is a reason the “Golden Triangle” are always in the leading pack.
Looking at the US universities on Quora, HYPSM dominate in number of followers with Berkeley being the only breaker.
Talking about this, I definitely have more respect for Sajid Javid that grew up in the North of England in an immigrant family, as a son of a bus driver and a mother that could not speak English, he attended state schools were attempts were made to brainwash him to “know his place” (i.e. don’t go to university and be a TV repairman) and he ended up in University of Exeter but still rose to the top in Investment Banking.
Than I have respect for Rishi Sunak, whose father was a doctor and his mother a pharmacist, he attended elite private schoool Winchester College (where he was the Head Boy), before proceeding to Oxford to study PPE, followed by Stanford for his MBA (as Fulbright Scholar) and then ending up in Goldman Sachs.
Rishi is the typical “this privately educated Oxbridge candidate” getting his birthright at 39.
I respect Sajid more in regards to natural ability and achievements despite odds. Just 15 years ago, with his profile and ethnicity, his chances of being Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been virtually nil. It had to be an “Oxbridge graduate”.
It is just ridiculous that there has also only ever been one LSE graduate appointed as Governor of the Bank of England. LSE has been a leader and stalwart in Economics for many decades. No one can argue that many of its graduates cannot do the job as well, but because of classism, it almost always has to go to the Oxbridge person in the last 100 years (many whom have also graduated from just one secondary school, Eton).
Intense Classism!
Things are beginning to change with the diversity of racial and educational backgrounds getting these top jobs. But it will take a long time to reduce it to a sane level of Oxbridge graduates getting the top roles. A sane level that rightly reflects, not exaggerating, their average graduate’s intellectual superiority.
Based on my post #14, following up on this tracking. You will see that after 2 solid weeks, the activity on Exeter thread is still dead! It has remained at 13 pages with only 1 post made in 2 weeks.
In the same period:
Durham has moved from 160 pages to 177 pages. 17 up!
KCL has moved from 107 pages to to 127 pages. 20 up!
St Andrews has moved from 84 pages to to 95 pages. 11 up!
Warwick has moved from 52 pages to to 54 pages. 2 up!
This simple tool I suggested is one of the tools one can use to conduct a rough and brief assessment of prestige of universities. It indicates which universities the top local university applicants care about getting offers from (and want to go to) and those they just applied to as back-up.
So we can now be clear that Exeter is not a university with so much “cachet” locally in the UK. That was just a wrong statement for someone to make.
It appears people are not particularly getting that much excited about Warwick either. It is still doing good though and far much better than Exeter.
I actually saw this news article of the number of staff at UK universities earning £100K and above.
I decided to cross-reference this with the total number of academic staff at the top universities using data of staff submission percentages for 2014 REF, hence working on the presumption that top academic staff will form the bulk of these top earning staff, and I found the following universities were the ones paying the highest percentage of their academic staff £100K plus:
Note: Top 6 is entirely the Golden Triangle without any breaker university.
So, it is not too surprising these 6 universities, along with Cardiff, were top of the REF 2014 chart of those with highest percentage of research work submitted that are classed as “World Leading”.
Durham had 7.7%, while St Andrews had 6.2% and Manchester was 6.0%. At least 3 other universities are between them and the Top 20 above.
Maybe I should also make the list of those with the highest volumes of those paid £100K+ (i.e. to reflect absolute numbers):
Note: So breaker universities of Golden Triangle dominance are Glasgow and Nottingham. LSE is really a small university, hence why I used percentages earlier.
Exeter is at number 24 (113), Durham is at best at 30th (72) and St Andrews is at best at 35th (37).
I used “at best” for the latter two because I can’t be bothered to check all universities as I am seeing surprises above them. Exeter is safe at 24th.
@LutherVan I appreciate the work you’ve put into this, and it’s certainly interesting. But I’m not sure I see what it’s supposed to tell us? The London Unis are obviously skewed for cost of living; whereas Durham and St Andrews are remote and the cost of living is much lower.
I also wonder how salaries have changed since 2015.
Apt timing on your part though given the state of universities and their concerns over student numbers. Have you seen the VC’s proposal at Durham?
Thanks, @NYU2013.
You are indeed right that London is obviously skewed in terms of cost of living, but I don’t think that is the major factor for this huge disparity in salaries between London Unis and Durham/St Andrews, and I will explain why.
In the UK public sector, London weighting is paid for jobs. The typical maximum extra in pay for this London weighting is less than £4,000.
Even in the UK private sector, this London weighting does not exceed £7,000 in extra pay. See page 32 (line 118) in the link below.
There is a 3rd document that I will not post the link as it might trigger CC’s moderation bot and this will not be posted. You are free to google it with the quote I am about to give below.
In that 3rd document, it says:
“As we reported in previous years, research carried out for us by Hay suggested that in the private sector London allowances are not usually paid for jobs attracting a salary of £100,000 a year or more.”
So considering all these facts, and the fact that all these UK universities are public universities, one cannot attribute the £50K disparity in public jobs that pay £100K+ salaries to London’s cost of living.
Secondly, if one looks at the salaries in London’s Top universities vs those of the London Former Poly universities, you will see a wide disparity; even Durham and St Andrews pay better than these latter universities.
One can repeat the same for University of Manchester/Birmingham/Bristol/Newcastle/Nottingham/etc. vs their respective local Metropolitan/Former Poly Universities and you will notice the same high disparity trend. The difference between the formers and latters is that the former do more research work.
Hence, I think I was right in my presumption that it was because of the acquisition of top research talent that leads to these disparities.
Durham and St Andrews don’t have as much top research talent as the Top London Universities. They do have more research talent than the London former poly universities though, hence why they pay more than those ones.
And I don’t think UK public sector salaries would have changed more than 2% since 2015.
Unfortunately I have not.
What was the proposal?
@LutherVan perhaps I missed it in your above posts, but was there data showing how much less staff are paid at other places?
Also, take a look at the LSE pay scales versus Durham’s. LSE just pays more. By a significant margin. (Disclaimer: I tried to find St A’s pay scales but was unsuccessful, so used Durham as you listed it near the bottom of the list and it likely has among the lowest costs of living?)
Durham assistant professor is grade 7, £33,797-44,045. Compare this to LSE £54,985-£60,040.
That’s a £10k+ difference. More than the amount you speculated for cost of living adjustment. I don’t think that all of the faculty at LSE are worth more than all of the faculty at Durham.
Durham pay scale: https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/hr/payandreward/2019-2020payscalesupdated010420.pdf
LSE pay scale: https://info.lse.ac.uk/staff/divisions/Human-Resources/Assets/Documents/AdvertOnly.pdf
BUT Exeter lists their associate prof at £57,697-72,792.
Are Exeter assistant profs better than LSEs?
Additionally, how do the non-monetary benefits packages at these universities look? How much research leave is standard? How much funding do they need to apply for? Etc. I’m just not sure that pay scales can tell us much of anything when they’re not very standardized.
Durham’s V.C. proposed the following: https://www.palatinate.org.uk/exclusive-university-proposes-online-only-degrees-as-part-of-radical-restructuring/ It apparently hasn’t gone over very well.
I think this is what you missed. This link:
If you have a look at the link, there is a tool there where you can look at the number of staff at each, and every, UK university who earn £100K+; broken down into four categories
I had no look at, nor did I have interest in, what lesser staff are paid at other places. And no link I provided supplied such information.
My singular interest was to know which universities were attracting the topmost talents. And looking at the huge pay is what will supply one with that view. They are competing for global talent and experience at that level.
I don’t think anyone can logically argue that it is by pure coincidence that the elite and Russell Group universities top such a table and the less prestigious/former polys will congregate at the bottom of the table.
And, by the way, I never speculated what cost of living adjustment is being paid. I just used information to highlight that cannot be the reason/explanation for the volume of far higher paid staff in the top London unis.
I am sure some elite universities might get away with not being the highest payers at junior levels because many junior talent will be very happy just to have that brand name on their CV or get involved in better funded research environments with the best/superstar minds. It will open doors for them in the future.
If any university is not paying top bucks and not engaging in the highest quality reseach, then it will struggle to attract top research talents.
If implemented, it can be a good way to reduce costs and redirect money for other uses.
This is a table published by Google in 2014 of the most searched for UK universities by US students.
I can’t find a more recent release of the same information by Google. If anyone can, then that would be great.
Note: Again “Golden Triangle” dominates with Edinburgh as the breaker.
At least, this along with where the Ivies send their study abroad/exchange students, gives us a little indication of which UK universities are well known/regarded in the US.
Quite incredibly shocking that St Andrews is not on the list. This is why I always say it is misleadingly wrong to us a sole metric, otherwise your conclusions will be wrong all day, everyday.
Good analysts use multiple metrics that align with what they want to judge. And from these they start finding trends that gives them a good insight for better conclusions.
I was watching the “History of Modern Britain” by Andrew Marr yesterday.
In Episode 2, he stated how Harold Macmillan’s (the Prime Minister of UK in the late 50s and early 60s) government was made up of 85 ministers, out of which
If that is not classism, I don’t know what can ever be.
Surely they can’t be the only ones intelligent and capable in a country. Surely nature can not be so that the most intelligent and capable people are concentrated into a group of related rich people.
If that is how nature works, then we will only let the children of Nobel Prize winners like Einstein be Professors and academics.
In the UK, these high-status people just love to keep the roles for themselves after they have applied a private school and Oxbridge gloss.
Pretty much all high-status people just love to keep their roles 
Oxbridge has a long long way to go in terms of broadening their student base, but there has been substantial progress made in the last 50 years, and many of the Colleges are making genuine, good faith efforts- with some real, quantifiable results- to find the most able students, not just the most privileged.
Yes, I do agree with your entire statement.
I have just never seen it so deep and embedded in other nations, and the system so structured (i.e. centrally concentrated power) that it is difficult for the people to change, as it is in the UK. It is something that was practiced for centuries and fixed into the psyche.
In the UK, it was only recently that power was devolved to the regions. Prior to this, it was entirely centralised in Westminster. Now, Scotland can appoint graduates from Edinburgh, St Andrews, Aberdeen etc. to take top Scottish positions. Even with the devolvement, it is still not as good as other nations at the UK centre in Westminster.
Places like the US have always had states, so people cannot go to study at Harvard, Brown, Yale or whatever elite school and then return to take all the appointed and elected positions in Nebraska for example. People can easily attend local universities and prove themselves in state roles before moving to federal level jobs.
The UK is structured in such away they give virtually all the opportunities to these privately-educated Oxbridge cliques and then they can say “they are the only one that have proven themselves, hence only ones qualified and can do it”. These elite can even be MPs for places they have never lived or grown up in. For example, Boris has been MP for Uxbridge or Henley, both of which he has lived in.
Also imagine, when Boris was Mayor of London, he gave the high-paying positon of Chief Commissioner for Cycling in London to some Cambridge-graduate broadsheet journalist on the argument he was qualified for the job because “he cycled to work everyday”. Lol. This guy had been a journalist in the private sector all his life.
https://www.bikeradar.com/news/andrew-gilligan-appointed-cycling-czar-by-mayor-johnson/
There are many qualified non-Oxbridge people with years of experience in city and transportation planning that would not have been given the job with the argument “he has no experience in cycle route planning. He only has it in library set-up planning”.
I remember Theresa May burgling the “Child Abuse” enquiry setting-up because she kept appointing people in elite circles to investigate allegations against those in the same circles, leading to allegations of bias and cover-up.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/theresa-mays-child-abuse-inquiry-5038236
I was wondering why she found it hard to find people, who were not close to the alleged perpertrators, to chair the enquiry. But it was like she had “only people in our elite circle are competent to do anything in the UK” narrow vision.
That is UK for you!
That said, yes, you are right that substantial progress has been made since 50 years ago. The likes of Savid Javid being chancellor and John Major & Gordon Brown being PM are examples. Such would not have happened in the 50s.
It has moved from about 95% Oxbridge to about 60% Oxbridge for top roles. And it is the London universities and the 2 top Scottish universities that are the main beneficiaries. I hope to see it reduce to about 20-25%.
A-Level results morning today.
Selected leading universities that have no place in clearing and adjustments are:
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL, KCL, Durham and St Andrews.
Selected leading universities that do have place in clearing and adjustments are:
Edinburgh, Warwick, Bristol, Manchester, Glasgow and Exeter
The key factors that determine if a university participates in clearing are:
Having issues in one of those factors might lead to a university participating in clearing. So a prestigious university with large undergraduate intake could have places in clearing. While a non-highly prestigious university with tiny intake may not have any places in clearing.
So it will always favour top universities with small undergraduate intake and popular courses, hence why the likes of LSE and Imperial never participate, and also a remarkable achievement and indicator of UCL’s high reputation that it never participates despite the huge size of its undergraduate intake and having some not-so-popular courses.
Durham and St Andrews hardly ever participate primarily because they have a small intake and have popular courses, with good reputation as well but that is a less factor.
Suprises:
Exeter, on the other hand, is really no surprise it has clearing and adjustment places. It lacks the prestige. Manchester too is not a suprise, it has a huge intake and lacks the prestige level similar to the one UCL has.
It’s also about how the students with offers actually did, and how willing the universities are to accept students with lower grades than their offers. And this year is exceptional anyway.
You are right.
But that factor is only really relevant for middle and lower universities, hence why I did not consider it. Only a negligible proportion of applicants given offers at the top 15 or so universities will not make the offer.
Very rare for the volume not making an offer to be large enough to push such universities into clearing and adjustments. They tend to know if they are going into clearing and adjustments (and for what courses) well before results are out, while the lower universities know it will be a majority annual fill the spaces activity for them, as they hardly get sufficient people picking them as firm or insurance.
Adjustment has even made it worse for lower and middle universities as students that firmed them and then end up with better grades have a chance to dump them for more prestigious universities.
True in most years- but remember that this year both predictions and offers were made pre-Covid. Estimates of predictions to be downgraded this year were up to 40%: