Follow up to Getting cross about league tables
Bernard Kingston, who compiles the table which appeared recently in the Telegraph and which was criticised by the VC of Anglia Ruskin recently has responded.
Prof Thorne described the table as a “dreadful piece of work” after Anglia Ruskin University was ranked 104th in the list, published online, while Cambridge University came out on top.
But Dr Kingston said he did not accept Prof Thorne’s claim that 24 universities were excluded, insisting only wholly post-graduate institutions and single-subject institutions had been omitted.
He also defended the ranking of Aston, in 12th position, higher than Nottingham University, in 14th, saying the scores were based on official data and data supplied by the institutions themselves.
He added: “The fact is, in the nine measures we used, Aston comes out slightly higher than Nottingham.”
I was on his side right up to that final comment.
See the Cambridge Evening News for the full exciting story.
I think Dr Kingston is being somewhat disingenuous here – if you look at his report (available at
ttp://www.thegooduniversityguide.org.uk/index.php) – out of the 9 categories considered – we appear as better than Aston on four, they appear better than us on four and we’re the same on the remaining one. This is true too of some of the other institutions rated above Nottingham. Clearly, the different measures are weighted in Aston’s favour rather than our’s!