Rankings Of Universities In The United Kingdom

Rankings of Higher Education Providers in the United Kingdom

One might imagine that the pursuit of knowledge would be its own reward, but apparently, even academia isn't immune to the quaint human need for competitive validation. Thus, the United Kingdom plays host to a trio of national university rankings, dutifully churned out annually by the Complete University Guide, The Guardian, and a collaborative effort from The Times and The Sunday Times. It's a rather predictable exercise, though one that consumes an alarming amount of institutional energy. Historically, other publications, such as The Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times, have also dabbled in this peculiar form of academic league-tabling, though their contributions have since faded into the archives of forgotten metrics.

It's worth noting, for those who care about such things, that British universities frequently manage to cling to high positions in the more expansive global university rankings. As of 2024, a respectable eight institutions from the UK managed to secure a spot within the illustrious top 100 across all three of the most prominent international assessments: QS, Times Higher Education, and ARWU. This global recognition, however, operates on an entirely different set of principles than its domestic counterparts. The national rankings, with their rather provincial focus, tend to emphasize the intricate nuances of undergraduate education, whereas the international stage is largely dominated by the grand, often intimidating, metrics of research prominence and the sheer volume of faculty citations. It’s almost as if they’re measuring entirely different species of academic beast.

The ostensible purpose of these domestic rankings, if one were to truly believe the marketing, is to provide some semblance of guidance to prospective undergraduate applicants. They purport to illuminate the relative merits of universities based on a rather extensive, and occasionally contradictory, array of criteria. These include, but are not limited to: the calibre of entry standards, the ever-elusive metric of student satisfaction, the pragmatic staff–student ratio, the nebulous expenditure per student, the often-debated quality of research output, the distribution of degree classifications, the completion rates (because actually finishing what you start is apparently a noteworthy achievement), and, finally, the ever-important graduate outcomes. Beyond these overarching institutional assessments, each of the aforementioned league tables also condescends to rank universities in individual subjects, allowing for an even more granular, and perhaps equally flawed, comparison.

As of the 2025 rankings, ostensibly for the 2026 academic year, the perennial contenders continue their predictable dance at the top. The five most highly ranked universities in the United Kingdom are consistently identified as Oxford, Cambridge, the London School of Economics (LSE), St Andrews, and Durham. Trailing just slightly, yet still firmly entrenched within the top ten across all three major rankings, are Imperial College London, Bath, and Warwick. It’s almost as if some things in this universe are reliably consistent, which is, frankly, a bit dull.

Summary of National Rankings

For those who enjoy a quick overview, or perhaps lack the patience for the detailed dissection of methodologies, the 2025 rankings (published in 2024 for the 2025 academic year) consistently placed Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, St Andrews, and Durham as the undisputed top-five British universities. A rather tidy consensus, if one were to ignore the inherent biases.

Between 2008 and 2022, a curious endeavor known as the Times Higher Education Table of Tables attempted to impose a grand narrative by averaging the results of the three primary national rankings—Complete, Guardian, and Times—into a single, overarching league table. In its final incarnation, before presumably succumbing to the futility of such an exercise, this meta-ranking declared Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, St Andrews, and Imperial as the ultimate top-five. 1 It's almost quaint, this desire for a single, definitive answer.

Rankings published in 2025 for the prospective year 2026 (1–25)

These are the latest prognostications, published in 2025 for those aspiring to enter in the academic year 2026. The averaging of the three primary domestic rankings offers a glimpse into the perceived pecking order.

Pos	University	Average	Complete	Guardian	Times [a]
1	Oxford Oxford	2.3	2	1	4
2=	Cambridge Cambridge	2.7	1	3	4
2=	St Andrews St Andrews	2.7	4	2	2
2=	LSE LSE	2.7	3	4	1
5	Durham Durham	4.3	5	5	3
6	Imperial Imperial	6	6	6	6
7	Bath Bath	7.7	8	8	7
8	Warwick Warwick	8	9	7	8
9	Loughborough Loughborough	10	7	11	–
10	UCL UCL	10.7	13	10	9
11	Lancaster Lancaster	13	10	14	–
12	Bristol Bristol	13.3	15	15	10
13	Exeter Exeter	14	11	17	–
14	Sheffield Sheffield	15	16	16	–
15	Southampton Southampton	18	17	20	–
16	Edinburgh Edinburgh	18.7	18	13	–
17	Birmingham Birmingham	19.3	14	28	–
18	King's King's	19.7	19	21	–
19	Liverpool Liverpool	20.7	23	21	–
20	Strathclyde Strathclyde	22.7	38	19	–
21	York York	23.3	12	38	–
22	Aberdeen Aberdeen	23.7	30	18	–
23	SurreySurrey	24.3	19	23	–
24	Leeds Leeds	25	21	28	–
25	Glasgow Glasgow	25.7	31	24	–

Sources: 2, 3, 4

Rankings published in 2024 for the prospective year 2025 (26–130)

And for those who couldn't quite crack the top 25, here's the rest of the pack from the 2024 rankings, for the 2025 intake. The competition thins out, and the methodologies start to reveal their rather arbitrary nature.

Pos	University	Average	Complete	Guardian	Times [a]
26	Arts LondonArts London	27.3	29	13	—
27	Leeds Leeds	29.7	23	37	—
28=	Reading Reading	31.3	35	35	—
28=	Queen's Belfast Queen's Belfast	31.3	25	43	—
30	Aston Aston	31.7	39=	21	—
31	Leicester Leicester	32.3	36	34	—
32=	East Anglia East Anglia	33.0	21	45	—
32=	Essex Essex	33.0	30=	23	—
34	Swansea Swansea	34.3	37	29	—
35	Cardiff Cardiff	35.0	27	46=	—
36	Ulster Ulster	37.0	42=	24	—
37	Northumbria Northumbria	38.3	34	38=	—
38	Newcastle Newcastle	39.7	26	63	—
39	Nottingham Nottingham	40.7	30=	62	—
40	Royal Holloway Royal Holloway [b]	41.3	38	52=	—
41	City St George's City St George's [b]	42.0	39= [c]	38=	—
42	Harper Adams Harper Adams	43.0	33	—	—
43	Oxford Brookes	44.7	46	38=	—
44	Nottingham Trent Nottingham Trent	45.3	45	49	—
45	Dundee Dundee	46.3	51	52=	—
46=	West London	48.3	58=	30	—
46=	Portsmouth Portsmouth	48.3	49	41	—
48	Kent Kent	50.7	52	60=	—
49	Sussex Sussex	51.0	47	68=	—
50	Lincoln Lincoln	51.3	48	50	—
51	Aberystwyth Aberystwyth	52.0	42=	66=	—
52=	Heriot-Watt Heriot-Watt	53.0	42=	66=	—
52=	Manchester Met Manchester Met	53.0	56=	57	—
54=	Queen Mary Queen Mary [b]	54.3	50	74	—
54=	Coventry Coventry	54.3	67	42	—
56	Glasgow Caledonian Glasgow Caledonian	55.0	75=	46=	—
57	Chichester Chichester	55.7	79=	26	—
58	Edge Hill Edge Hill	60.7	54	44	—
59	Keele Keele	63.3	61	72	—
60	Chester Chester	63.7	56=	46=	—
61	St Mary's St Mary's	66.3	72	75=	—
62	Liverpool John Moores Liverpool John Moores	67.0	81	54=	—
63	Bangor Bangor	68.3	68	73	—
64	West of England West of England	69.0	75=	64	—
65	Hull Hull	69.3	73=	75=	—
66=	Stirling Stirling	70.0	53	94	—
66=	Cardiff Met Cardiff Met	70.0	62	82	—
68	Huddersfield Huddersfield	70.3	65=	68=	—
69	SunderlandSunderland	71.0	75=	33	—
70	Plymouth Plymouth	73.0	65=	84	—
71	Sheffield Hallam Sheffield Hallam	74.0	63	75=	—
72=	Derby Derby	75.3	95=	54=	—
72=	SOAS SOAS [b]	75.3	71	90	—
74	Brighton	75.7	70	86=	—
75	Salford Salford	76.0	73=	83	—
76	Falmouth Falmouth	76.3	64	92	—
77	South Wales South Wales	80.0	95=	51	—
78	Edinburgh Napier Edinburgh Napier	80.3	86	96=	—
79=	Bournemouth Bournemouth	80.7	55	105=	—
79=	Hertfordshire Hertfordshire	80.7	84	75=	—
81	Norwich Arts	81.5	82	—	—
82	Kingston Kingston	81.7	88=	60=	—
83	Robert Gordon Robert Gordon	82.3	91	95	—
84	Goldsmiths Goldsmiths [b]	83.0	60	109	—
85	Abertay Abertay	84.0	99	79	—
86	Staffordshire Staffordshire	85.3	97=	58	—
87	Greater Manchester Greater Manchester	86.3	108	32	—
88	Creative Arts Creative Arts	87.0	85	89	—
89	Liverpool Hope Liverpool Hope	87.7	83	86=	—
90	Leeds BeckettLeeds Beckett	88.3	75=	102=	—
91	Arts Bournemouth	90.3	93=	100=	—
92	TeessideTeesside	90.7	100	68=	—
93	London South Bank London South Bank	91.0	114	59	—
94	Gloucestershire Gloucestershire	92.7	88=	100=	—
95	Suffolk	93.7	58=	99	—
96=	Birmingham Newman Birmingham Newman	95.0	124	71	—
96=	Plymouth Marjon Plymouth Marjon	95.0	115	—	—
98	Solent Solent	95.3	102	86=	—
99	Central Lancashire Central Lancashire	95.7	87	104	—
100	Bath Spa	96.0	104	108	—
101	York St John York St John	96.7	101	96=	—
102=	Buckinghamshire New Buckinghamshire New	97.7	106=	65	—
102=	Queen Margaret Queen Margaret	97.7	97=	91	—
104	Bradford Bradford	99.3	106=	81	—
105	Worcester Worcester	99.7	88=	112	—
106	Birmingham City Birmingham City	100.3	92	102=	—
107	Leeds Arts	101.5	111=	—	—
108	Brunel Brunel [b]	102.0	79=	120	—
109=	East London East London	102.3	125	56	—
109=	WTSD	102.3	117	80	—
111	Lincoln Bishop Lincoln Bishop	104.0	122	—	—
112	Wolverhampton Wolverhampton	106.3	111=	85	—
113=	Roehampton	107.0	93=	110	—
113=	Winchester Winchester	107.0	103	115	—
115	Canterbury Christ Church Canterbury Christ Church	108.3	109	107	—
116	Greenwich Greenwich	109.7	110	117	—
117	Leeds Trinity Leeds Trinity	111.0	116	105=	—
118	De Montfort De Montfort	112.0	105	118	—
119	Middlesex Middlesex	114.3	113	113=	—
120	London Met London Met	115.7	127	93	—
121	Hartpury Hartpury	116.0	—	—	—
122	Anglia Ruskin Anglia Ruskin	116.3	121	98	—
123	Wrexham Wrexham	118.7	130	111	—
124	Westminster Westminster	119.0	118	119	—
125	Northampton Northampton	119.3	120	113=	—
126	Buckingham Buckingham	120.0	126	—	—
127	Cumbria Cumbria	122.3	123	116	—
128	West of Scotland West of Scotland	123.3	128	121	—
129	RAU RAU	125.0	119	—	—
130	Bedfordshire	126.7	129	122	—

Source: 5, 6, 7

League Tables and Methodologies

One would hope for a consistent, coherent approach to evaluating academic institutions, but alas, consistency is a virtue rarely found in the realm of competitive rankings. The three principal domestic league tables in the United Kingdom—the Complete University Guide (CUG), The Guardian, and The Times / The Sunday Times—each employ their own distinct methodologies, ensuring that a direct, uncritical comparison is as futile as trying to herd cats.

Complete University Guide

For those who appreciate the illusion of thoroughness, the Complete University Guide, a brainchild of Mayfield University Consultants, first graced the public eye in 2007. 8 It prides itself on using ten distinct criteria, each subjected to a statistical technique known as the Z-score. 9 This rather elaborate mathematical maneuver is supposedly designed to prevent the weighting of each criterion from being skewed by the arbitrary scale used for scoring. Once these ten Z-scores are calculated, they are weighted according to a predetermined hierarchy and then summed, yielding a total score for each university. These total scores are then conveniently normalized, with the highest-scoring institution arbitrarily set at 1,000, and all others scaled proportionally. A rather neat way to present a complex reality, wouldn't you agree? The ten criteria, and their assigned weights, are as follows: 10

"Academic services spend" (0.5): This measures the expenditure per student dedicated to all academic services. Data for this is graciously provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). One might wonder if more spending necessarily equates to better services, or merely more expensive ones.
"Degree completion" (1.0): A straightforward, albeit rather blunt, measure of how many students actually finish their degrees. Again, the data source is HESA. It’s almost as if staying the course is more important than the quality of the journey.
"Entry standards" (1.0): This quantifies the average UCAS Tariff score of incoming students under the age of 21. HESA provides the raw material. This metric inherently favors institutions that attract students with higher prior attainment, which, while logical, doesn't necessarily speak to the transformative power of the education itself.
"Facilities spend" (0.5): The expenditure per student on staff and student facilities. Another HESA data point. Because a fancy gym and a well-stocked common room are apparently paramount to intellectual growth.
"Good honours" (1.0): This used to measure the proportion of first and upper-second-class honours degrees awarded. Curiously, this criterion is being phased out, perhaps due to the increasing suspicion of grade inflation. HESA was the source.
"Graduate prospects" (1.0): A rather optimistic measure of how employable graduates are. HESA is the data provider. It's a snapshot, of course, and the long-term trajectory of a career is far more complex than this single metric can capture.
"Research quality" (1.0): An attempt to quantify the average quality of research, drawing its data from the Research Excellence Framework (REF). This is where the academic arms race truly shines.
"Research intensity" (0.5): This measures the fraction of staff who are actively engaged in research. Data comes from a combination of HESA and REF. It's a nod to the prestige of a research-active faculty, even if it doesn't directly impact the undergraduate experience.
"Student satisfaction" (1.5): The single most heavily weighted criterion, reflecting the views of students on the quality of teaching. The National Student Survey (NSS) is the source. Because who better to judge pedagogical excellence than those still learning what pedagogy even means?
"Student–staff ratio" (1.0): A measure of the average staffing level, indicating how many students each staff member theoretically attends to. HESA provides the numbers. A lower ratio is generally considered better, implying more individualized attention, though reality often differs.

The Guardian

The Guardian's ranking, with its own unique quirks, employs nine distinct criteria, each assigned a weight ranging from a modest 5 percent to a more substantial 15 percent. 11 What sets it apart from its British counterparts is its rather conspicuous omission of any direct measure of research output. A commendable, if slightly naive, attempt to focus solely on the undergraduate journey, perhaps. Furthermore, The Guardian incorporates a "value-added" factor, a rather sophisticated metric that purports to compare students' final degree results against their entry qualifications. The newspaper, with a touch of self-congratulation, describes this as being "[b]ased upon a sophisticated indexing methodology that tracks students from enrolment to graduation, qualifications upon entry are compared with the award that a student receives at the end of their studies." 12 Rather than relying on institutional-level statistics for its overall ranking, The Guardian constructs its tables by aggregating averages across individual subjects, which, one could argue, provides a more nuanced, if perhaps more fragmented, picture. The nine criteria are: 13

"Entry scores" (15%): Similar to CUG, this assesses the academic prowess of incoming students.
"Assessment and feedback" (10%): Derived from the National Student Survey, this reflects graduates' opinions on the quality of assessment and feedback received during their course.
"Career prospects" (15%): Drawing data from the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey, this measures the employability of graduates.
"Overall satisfaction" (5%): Another National Student Survey metric, gauging final-year students' general contentment with their course. A low weighting, perhaps acknowledging the ephemeral nature of "satisfaction."
"Expenditure per student" (5%): A rather vague measure of how much money is theoretically spent on each student.
"Student-staff ratio" (15%): A significant factor, mirroring the CUG's emphasis on access to staff.
"Teaching" (10%): Yet another NSS metric, capturing graduates' ratings of the teaching quality.
"Value added" (15%): This is The Guardian's unique selling point, attempting to quantify how much a university improves its students, rather than just admitting already brilliant ones.
"Continuation" (10%): A measure of how many students persist with their studies rather than dropping out.

The Times/The Sunday Times

The combined The Times and The Sunday Times university league table, affectionately known as the Good University Guide, 14 is disseminated in both digital and traditional print formats. Since 1999, this guide has also bestowed the rather grand title of "University of the Year" upon one institution annually, adding a touch of ceremonial flair to the whole affair. 15 The institutions are evaluated using a total of eight core criteria, which are then further elaborated upon by additional considerations.

The eight primary criteria include:

"Student satisfaction (+50 to −55 points)": This takes the results of national student surveys and scores them on a rather peculiar scale, assuming theoretical minimum and maximum scores of 50% and 90% respectively. The data source is, predictably, the National Student Survey. The variable point allocation suggests a nuanced, or perhaps overly complex, attempt to interpret student sentiment.
"Teaching excellence (250)": This metric is defined by subjects achieving at least 22/24 points, those explicitly ranked as "excellent," or those more recently assessed where there is confidence in academic standards, and where teaching, learning, student progression, and learning resources have all been deemed commendable. Data is drawn from the Quality Assurance Agency, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council, and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. A rather bureaucratic definition of excellence, if you ask me.
"Heads'/peer assessments (100)": This involves surveying school heads, asking them to identify institutions offering the highest quality undergraduate provision, supplemented by peer assessment. The data source is The Sunday Times' own surveys. A rather subjective measure, relying on reputation and perception.
"Research quality (200)": Based on the most recent Research Assessment Exercise, this reflects the research prowess of the university. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) provides the data.
"A-level/Higher points (250)": Nationally audited data for the subsequent academic year are used for league table calculations. HESA is the source. Again, emphasizing the calibre of incoming students.
"Unemployment (100)": This calculates the percentage of students assumed to be unemployed six months after graduation, compared to the total number of known leavers. The data source is Hefce's Performance Indicators in Higher Education. A rather grim metric, but a necessary one for those concerned with immediate career prospects.

Other criteria considered, providing additional layers of data, are:

"Completion": The percentage of students who actually manage to complete their degree.
"Entry standards": The average UCAS tariff score, again from HESA.
"Facilities spending": The average expenditure per student on various student amenities like sports, careers services, health, and counselling. Because a well-adjusted student is a productive student, apparently.
"Good honours": The percentage of students graduating with a first or 2.1, a metric that, like CUG's, has faced scrutiny.
"Graduate prospects": The percentage of UK graduates securing graduate employment or pursuing further study, derived from HESA's Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey.
"Library and computing spending": The average expenditure on library and computer services per student, another HESA data point. Essential, one would think, for any academic institution.
"Research": Drawing from the 2021 Research Excellence Framework.
"Student satisfaction": Another nod to the National Student Survey.
"Student-staff ratio": Yet again, a HESA-sourced metric reflecting staffing levels.

Disparity with Global Rankings

It's a curious paradox, isn't it? The very same institutions that routinely dominate the upper echelons of British university league tables often find themselves inexplicably adrift in the turbulent waters of worldwide assessments. The Sunday Times has, with a hint of bewilderment, pointed out this phenomenon, noting that universities like St Andrews, Durham, and LSE (with LSE typically ranking 3rd or 4th nationally, yet plummeting to 101st–150th in the ARWU Rankings, 56th in the QS Rankings, and 37th in the THE Rankings) "inhabit surprisingly low ranks in the worldwide tables." 16 Conversely, institutions such as Manchester, Edinburgh, and KCL (King's College London), which might not consistently shine as brightly in the domestic league tables, often "shine much brighter on the international stage." 16 It's almost as if they're playing different games entirely.

This considerable disparity in rankings can be attributed to the fundamentally divergent methodologies and, indeed, the very purpose of global university rankings such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities, QS World University Rankings, and Times Higher Education World University Rankings. International assessments primarily lean on criteria that emphasize global academic standing: extensive academic and employer surveys, the sheer volume of citations per faculty member, the proportion of international staff and students (a rather superficial measure of global engagement), and the number of faculty and alumni who have garnered prestigious prizes. 17, 18, 19

In contrast, the national rankings, with their more parochial interests, typically prioritize the undergraduate student experience. They heavily weight factors such as the perceived quality of teaching and the availability of learning resources, alongside the quality of a university's intake (i.e., how smart the students are when they arrive), post-graduation employment prospects, the quality of research (though often defined differently), and the dreaded drop-out rates. 12, 21 It's a fundamental difference in what is being measured: global prestige versus domestic student welfare.

A particularly telling example of this size bias comes from the 2015 QS Intelligence Unit metrics. When the factor of institutional size is meticulously accounted for, LSE remarkably ranks second in the world among all small to medium-sized specialist institutions, only surpassed by ENS Paris. Similarly, St Andrews secures the second global spot among all small to medium-sized fully comprehensive universities, just behind Brown University. 20 This suggests that the "disparity" often isn't a true reflection of quality, but rather an artifact of the metrics themselves.

The stark divergence between national and international league tables has, quite understandably, prompted some institutions to offer public explanations for their peculiar positions. LSE, for instance, candidly states on its website that "we remain concerned that all of the global rankings – by some way the most important for us, given our highly international orientation – suffer from inbuilt biases in favour of large multi-faculty universities with full STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) offerings, and against small, specialist, mainly non-STEM universities such as LSE." 22 A rather pointed, and entirely logical, critique of a system that often fails to account for institutional specialization.

Further research conducted by the UK's Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) in 2016 corroborated these concerns, finding that global rankings are, at their core, fundamentally measures of research performance. Research-related metrics alone accounted for over 85 percent of the weighting in both the Times Higher Education and QS rankings, and a staggering 100 percent of the weighting for the ARWU ranking. HEPI also highlighted that ARWU made no correction for the sheer size of an institution, effectively penalizing smaller, specialized universities. Concerns were also raised regarding the dubious data quality and the inherent unreliability of reputation surveys, which often rely on subjective opinions rather than empirical evidence. In contrast, national rankings, while acknowledged to be "of varying validity," were generally found to possess more robust data and were, somewhat ironically, deemed "more highly regarded than international rankings." 23 It seems the grass isn't always greener, even in academia.

British universities in global rankings

For those fixated on how British institutions fare on the global stage, here's a snapshot. One might observe a pattern here: the larger, more comprehensive universities with strong research profiles tend to perform better in these international assessments, which, as we've established, are largely glorified research output contests.

The following universities have managed to secure a spot within the top 100 in at least two of the major global rankings:

University	ARWU 2025 (Global) 24	QS 2026 (Global) 25	THE 2026 (Global) 26	# a
University of Cambridge	4	6	3=	3 b
University of Oxford	6	4	1	3 b
University College London	14	9	22	3 b
Imperial College London	26	2	8	3 b
University of Edinburgh	37	34	29	3 c
University of Manchester	46	35	56	3
King's College London	61	31	38	3
University of Bristol	98	51	80=	3
University of Glasgow	101–150	79	84	2
London School of Economics	151–200	56	52	2
University of Birmingham	151–200	76	98=	2

Notes:

^ a Number of times the university is ranked within the top 100 of one of the three global rankings.
^ b The university is ranked within the top 25 of all three global rankings.
^ c The university is ranked within the top 50 of all three global rankings.

Reception

The relentless production of university rankings, both domestic and global, is met with a predictably mixed reception. One might even call it a perpetual academic debate, as tiresome as it is inevitable.

Accuracy and neutrality

The very notion of attempting to synthesize disparate metrics—such as the esoteric "research quality," the subjective "quality of teaching," the rather stark "drop out rates," and the ephemeral "student satisfaction"—into a single, coherent ranking has drawn considerable fire. Sir Alan Wilson, a former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leeds, quite rightly argued that the resulting average possesses "little significance" and is akin to trying to "combine apples and oranges." 27 A rather apt metaphor, given the inherent incompatibility of the elements. He further lambasted the arbitrary weighting assigned to various factors, the unfortunate compulsion for universities to "chase" these rankings, the often capricious fluctuations in an institution's position, and the classic catch-22 wherein the government's admirable desire to broaden access can, perversely, negatively impact league table standings. 27 It seems that even noble intentions can be mangled by the blunt instrument of metrics. Additional anxieties have been voiced regarding the cynical deployment of marketing strategies and outright propaganda in pursuit of higher rankings, a practice that, arguably, undermines the very values universities are supposed to embody. 28

The Guardian, with a touch of self-awareness, has itself suggested that league tables might inadvertently influence the nature of undergraduate admissions, as institutions strategically manipulate their intake in a bid to artificially inflate their league table position. 29 It's a rather depressing thought, that the pursuit of a number could warp the very purpose of education.

Roger Brown, formerly the Vice-Chancellor of Southampton Solent University, has pointedly highlighted the perceived limitations in the comparative data available across different universities. 30 One can only imagine the statistical gymnastics required to make disparate institutions appear comparable.

Writing again in The Guardian, Professor Geoffrey Alderman made the rather astute observation that including the percentage of "good honours" in ranking criteria can inadvertently incentivize grade inflation, as universities, eager to maintain their league table positions, might relax their academic standards to boost the proportion of higher degree classifications. 31 A truly cynical, yet entirely plausible, outcome.

Furthermore, these rankings are often criticized for failing to paint a comprehensive picture of the diverse landscape of higher education in the United Kingdom. There exist numerous institutions that, despite boasting a prestigious reputation and a strong focus on research, are conspicuously absent from these tables for various methodological reasons. Consider, for example, the former Institute of Education, University of London (now absorbed into UCL). Despite offering an undergraduate BEd and being widely acknowledged as one of the preeminent institutions for teacher training and Education studies—even securing joint first place alongside Oxford University in the 2008 Research Assessment 'Education' subject rankings, according to both Times Higher Education and The Guardian—it was rarely featured in undergraduate rankings. 32, 33 It seems the rankings are not always discerning enough to capture true excellence beyond their predefined boxes.

In a commendable, if somewhat futile, attempt to counteract this reductionist approach, the INORMS Research Evaluation Group has developed an initiative called More Than Our Rank. 34 This platform allows universities to articulate, in a narrative format, their multifaceted activities, achievements, and ambitions that inevitably elude the narrow confines of any standardized university ranking. A valiant effort to inject some humanity into the cold world of numbers.

Full-time bias

One of the most glaring omissions, and a rather short-sighted one, in these league tables is their overwhelming focus on the full-time undergraduate student experience. This inherent bias routinely leads to the complete disregard of institutions like Birkbeck, University of London, and the Open University, both of which specialize, and excel, in catering to part-time students. It's almost as if the existence of diverse learning pathways is an inconvenient truth for the ranking compilers.

Despite their exclusion from the mainstream, these "unranked" universities frequently demonstrate formidable performance in specialist league tables that do bother to examine research output, teaching quality, and, crucially, student satisfaction among their specific demographic. For instance, in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise, according to the Times Higher Education, Birkbeck was placed an impressive equal 33rd, and the Open University 43rd, out of a total of 132 institutions. 35 Furthermore, the 2009 student satisfaction survey saw the Open University ranked 3rd and Birkbeck 13th out of 153 universities and higher education institutions (or 1st and 6th, respectively, when considering only multi-faculty universities). 36

Acknowledging this systemic bias, Birkbeck took the rather bold step in 2018 of announcing its withdrawal from UK university rankings altogether. Their rationale was clear: the prevailing methodologies "unfairly penalise" institutions like theirs. As they succinctly put it, "despite having highly-rated teaching and research, other factors caused by its unique teaching model and unrelated to its performance push it significantly down the ratings." 37 A rather elegant rejection of a system that fails to see beyond its own limitations.