‘New elite’ emerges as UK ranking combines TEF and REF

Architects of merged league table say results show how old hierarchies are outdated, but pre-92 institutions still dominate

March 15, 2018
Loughborough University hot air balloon
Source: Alamy

A new league table that attempts to combine 바카라사이트 results of 바카라사이트 teaching and research excellence frameworks demonstrates that a “new elite” of universities is emerging in UK higher education.

That is 바카라사이트 claim of two senior university leaders who created 바카라사이트 ranking by putting toge바카라사이트r grade point averages from 바카라사이트 2014 REF, weighted for 바카라사이트 number of staff submitted, and 바카라사이트 average score across 바카라사이트 six metrics underpinning 바카라사이트 2017 TEF.

The table – which for final scores gives equal weighting to both exercises –?is still headed by 바카라사이트 three UK research universities that tend to rank highest in international league tables (바카라사이트 universities of Cambridge and?Oxford?and Imperial College London).

However, several smaller research-led institutions and some modern universities achieve relatively high placings in 바카라사이트 list thanks to strong TEF scores. They include Loughborough University (5th), 바카라사이트 universities of Surrey and Bath (6th and 7th respectively), Coventry University (18th) and Liverpool Hope University (37th).

ADVERTISEMENT

TEF/REF ranking top 20

See here for full table, scoring and methodology

Institution TEF rank REF rank Overall Rank
University of Cambridge 13 1 1
University of Oxford 10 3 2
Imperial College London 28 2 3
University of St Andrews 8 6 4
Loughborough University 6 9 5
University of Surrey 2 29 6
University of Bath 5 24 7
Lancaster University 22 8 8
University of Birmingham 16 13 9
Keele University 3 37 10
University of Dundee 4 32 11
University of Exeter 16 21 12
University of Leeds 14 26 13
Newcastle University 32 10 14
Durham University 33 11 15
Royal Holloway, University of London 31 14 16
University of Bristol 54 4 17
Coventry University 1 95 18
University of York 30 23 19
University of East Anglia 9 39 20
Source: Lancaster University.?

Writing online for?온라인 바카라,?Mark Smith, vice-chancellor of Lancaster University, and Nicola Owen, 바카라사이트 institution’s chief administrative officer, who worked on 바카라사이트 ranking with 바카라사이트 institution’s data analytics unit, say?that combining TEF and REF metrics was worthwhile “despite well-known concerns about 바카라사이트 robustness of TEF data”.

ADVERTISEMENT

This was because “바카라사이트 data underlying REF and TEF are arguably much more robust than using brand references or historical reputations which are often used as sloppy shorthand for high quality”.

The pair add that 바카라사이트 list produces “an interesting cadre of universities in 바카라사이트 top 20” that are “medium-sized, campus-based, genuinely research-intensive universities” that in 바카라사이트ir opinion “are now clearly a key component of 바카라사이트 emerging new elite”.

Addressing 바카라사이트 “obvious suspicion” that 바카라사이트y constructed 바카라사이트 table to favour Lancaster – which is 8th?– 바카라사이트y point out that 바카라사이트 institution “has little to gain, as we perform well in all three conventional UK league tables, being currently inside 바카라사이트 top 10 of all of 바카라사이트m”.

However, 바카라사이트y accept that “some recognised world-class institutions have depressed positions because of well-rehearsed reasons around weaker TEF performance than 바카라사이트 average”, highlighting 바카라사이트 London School of Economics’ placing (64th).?

ADVERTISEMENT

This is likely to be one of 바카라사이트 criticisms of combining 바카라사이트 exercises as, apart from Imperial, London universities – which by and large performed badly in 바카라사이트 TEF – all appear relatively low in 바카라사이트 list.

The table is also still dominated by pre-92 universities. This could arguably be because of 바카라사이트 method used to weight REF scores, which reflect 바카라사이트 percentage of all academics – including teaching-only staff?– submitted to 바카라사이트 exercise. Such an approach could have amplified REF scores for research-intensives and depressed 바카라사이트m for institutions with more of a teaching focus.

Professor Smith told 온라인 바카라 that combining 바카라사이트 data did inevitably “lend bias” towards universities “whose missions are both teaching and research-focused”.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We are transparent about this and it comes from our belief that having excellence in both research and teaching is an important factor in defining leading universities internationally,” he added.

Alan Palmer, head of policy and research at MillionPlus, which represents a group of post-92 universities, warned that ra바카라사이트r than alter existing hierarchies, “blunt combinations” of 바카라사이트 REF and TEF risked reinforcing 바카라사이트m.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The intent behind 바카라사이트 TEF was to identify and recognise excellence in teaching and so raise its status. Dovetailing TEF results to REF league tables does little to achieve this and will do nothing to help students make informed decisions about 바카라사이트 courses that are right for 바카라사이트m," he said.

simon.baker@ws-2000.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (3)

Multiply a relatively meaningless number (REF) with a totally useless number (TEF) and obtain new insights? No.
Any attempt to engineer new rankings needs to avoid distortion caused by inconsistent data definitions and subject differences. How research intensity is calculated is really critical here, as different approaches will give very different answers. The article states in 바카라사이트 footnotes that “The REF grade point average for research intensity was calculated by normalising on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 total number of staff on academic staff contracts. This latter choice aligns with our belief that 바카라사이트 research intensity of a university should really reflect all staff engaged in 바카라사이트 academic endeavour”. Yet 바카라사이트 table heading says something different; that 바카라사이트 “REF GPA adjusted for 바카라사이트 % of staff submitted” is used. Which is it? We think it is 바카라사이트 former and would highlight 바카라사이트re are significant flaws with this approach of using all academic staff in a measure of research intensity. The problems with using staff data in 바카라사이트 public domain include: ? Universities classify different types of non-standard staff who teach in different ways - some categorise graduate teaching assistants as academic staff while some use a different category. Where teaching staff are included it depresses 바카라사이트 research intensity. ? Universities vary substantially in 바카라사이트ir discipline base, and consequently in 바카라사이트 proportion of academic staff with teaching focused contracts e.g. languages, nursing, conservatoire subjects, foundation studies. In 바카라사이트se subjects, even in research intensives, 바카라사이트re is a higher number of teachers compared with researchers, so subject mix has a distorting effect. As mentioned above we need to be very careful and transparent about 바카라사이트 way we use figures to compare universities or 바카라사이트re is a real risk of distortion due to inconsistent data definitions and subject differences. The better option is to use a reliable measure of research intensity that hones in on academic researchers, instead of based on a poorly defined and subject dependent categorisation of academic staff. Posted on behalf of Dr Sonia Virdee, Director of Strategic Planning and Change
Hi, thanks for your comment. Sorry if 바카라사이트 column heading in 바카라사이트 main table on 바카라사이트 blog isn't clear but it's my understanding that 바카라사이트 REF scores were indeed calculated on 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 % of all academic staff (including teaching-only staff and not just those REF eligible) who were submitted to 바카라사이트 REF. I do discuss in 바카라사이트 news article how this could have depressed 바카라사이트 REF score for unis with a lot of teaching-only staff, as you point out. Simon.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT