British University Rankings

[Zinhead]

A couple of years ago, The Economist performed a statistical ranking of the US universities which did the best job of increasing incomes for their graduates. Now they have completed the same analysis for colleges in the UK.

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21726100-our-new-guide-answers-which-british-universities-do-most-boost-graduate-salaries

Two years ago we built an American ranking using a similar methodology. In comparing the two countries, we find that the school grades of 18-year-olds are a closer predictor of future earnings in Britain than in America. This helps students, because earnings data can provide guidance about what to study, and where. It also helps policymakers, because the analysis shows that it is not always the famous universities that make the biggest difference. Focusing too much attention on elite universities may be ill-advised if much of their success is attributable to the calibre of students they attract. It can be better to study what goes on in Portsmouth and Aston than in Oxford and Cambridge.

FYI, Saint Andrews, a perennial favorite among US high schools grads, was the worst performing school.

They also did an analysis of median incomes by school and major.

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/2017/08/articles/body/20170812_woc900_0.png

Economics, Law, Business and Computer Science did the best, with Creative Arts, Education, Nursing and Architecture bringing up the rear.

[VickiSoCal]

I’m a little skeptical of the value of “salary after 5 years” for some majors/schools.

I don’t know anyone who was making good money 5 years after graduating with a physics BS for example. They were all in low paid grad assistant/post doc positions. The more elite the school the more likely they were in grad school!

[collegemom3717]

Also, the focus of the Economist article was the relative level of increase. Schools whose intake has a higher proportion of privileged, high achieving kids are necessarily at a disadvantage, as the scope for relative increase is lower to start with. Somebody who sits the SAT with no prep and scores a 1000 is going to find it easier to get their score to go up 200 points / get a 20% increase than somebody who is well prepped and scores a 1400. The point of the Economist article is where you get the most ‘return’ on your tuition pound.