Should prospective students take any notice of the RAE ratings?
By John O’Leary
The papers are full of league tables comparing the research strengths of universities. But should prospective applicants take any notice of them in choosing a course?
Professor David Eastwood, chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which published the research grades, was ambivalent (or perhaps evasive) on this point yesterday. He said it was for readers to decide what weight to put on the results.
His reticence may have been because many in universities where research is a low priority argue that the grades are irrelevant to undergraduates. A lot of the big names do little teaching, they say, leaving first degrees to their postdoctoral, or even postgraduate, students.
I would take a different view because success in the Research Assessment Exercise carries so much money, as well as the ability to attract high-quality academics. The relationship between teaching and research is the subject of frequent argument, but the power of money is not. Harvard invariably emerges as the top university in the world, largely because it has more money than most of ours put together.
As usual with league tables, however, there are caveats. These ones only measure the quality of the work submitted for assessment – they take no account of the academics whose research was considered too weak to produce good results. By the time that The Times Good University Guide appears, in June, it should be possible to factor in the absentees, but there is no way of doing so accurately today.
The other question is the perennial one of whether to place more weight on institutional scores or those for individual subjects. There is no doubt that the subject tables give a more accurate picture of academic strength for the degree that a student intends to take. But it is equally clear that most future employers will be more aware of institutional reputation than any achievements at subject level.
This may not be true in vocational subjects, where the knowledge acquired at university is in demand, rather than generic skills. In law, for example, the London School of Economics and University College London will be trumpeting the fact that they outperformed Oxford and Cambridge (see table). The same will go for Lancaster and Bath for physics (see table) even in a more theoretical area.
For most subjects, however, today’s grades will be useful as a guide to academic strengths, particularly at the leading universities. The usual suspects – Cambridge, Oxford and the London research powerhouses (see table) - take the honours, but the results show pockets of excellence at every university.
See the best universities for research on Times Online.
Read John O'Leary at School Gate on:
The world's best universities and why the UK should be proud
I would say that they are not very important for undergrads: as I understand it, the RAE rewards not only the quality of the research that a university churns out, but also the quantity: surely professors that are spending every waking hour churning out new books and papers will be less available to their students? Plus, undergraduates still ultimately need good teachers, and knowing your stuff does not automatically make you a good educator: there is an important difference!
Posted by: BDS | 5 Mar 2009 13:48:19
Yes, a "redbrick" University is great and all, but in reality are you really learning the skills to succeed in the job market?
I'm Northern Irish and I'm torn between Queens University and Salford Uni. Queens may be higher on the table for my subject but it doesn't teach practical work skills like Salford.
It's quite clear these tables are just to let people boast and feel smug, as if they are "Better" than those who go to a Uni further down the tables.
Posted by: RiCo | 17 Jan 2009 23:10:38
The very brightest students certainly should look very carefully at the RAE, especially those who want to go into research or academic careers themselves. You need to be where the action is. Even as an undergrad, it's vital to be exposed to the top researchers (and/or their grad students) - only they can take you to the frontiers, allowing you to assess whether you are truly interested using the most up-to-date methods to pursue the open questions in your field. The problem in lower ranked departments is that they are often teaching outdated methods and outdated topics. Also, the recommendations of top researchers - even if you only had them for one class - are hugely useful for getting into the top doctoral programs.
Moreover, being taught by the much maligned postgrads at the top departments is not such a bad deal. They are themselves the best and brightest, drawn to the place by those top researchers. Remember that postgrads were only very recently undergrads themselves, and are often better than more mature faculty members at guaging what course material is difficult to understand.
For the majority of students who just want a degree and then a nice middle class job somewhere, however, the RAE results are probably not so important.
Posted by: Rachel | 19 Dec 2008 09:35:20
The RAE are pretty complicated. There's an explanation of its faults here (http://tinyurl.com/4c9cl5).
Students must remember, however, that good research does not necessarily mean good teaching. The fact that a prof is the world's leading expert on medieval drainage systems does not mean that he's a good lecturer.
In general the RAE proves what we already knew - Oxbridge and London unis are best, followed by the Victorian redbricks in the north. But they also highlight the excellent work down by former polys in making some of their departments into world class ones.
Posted by: A Lazy Student | 18 Dec 2008 19:58:01