It's not. Oxford and Cambridge are among the top ten in the world. Durham is not even in the top ten in the UK, according to the World University Rankings: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2015#sorting=rank+region=+country=208+faculty=+stars=false+search= Furthermore, its business school is not of the same high standing: it is perhaps 15th in the UK according to Eduniversal http://www.eduniversal-ranking.com/business-school-university-ranking-in-united-kingdom.html or 13th http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/european-business-school-rankings-2015

Hi Duncan, Sorry to say that I need to disagree with ur opinion, because I think the real ranking in the UK is always same as the world ranking from QS or Times. If the worlds ranking is always right, it means that the level of Manchester university is much higher than Durham, ST Andrew's, Warwick, and Bath which are considered as the top 10 universities in the UK.
Regarding the MBA ranking, if the MBA is not from The U.S., the world top 100 ranking from Economist and FT are mostly considered as the MBA ranking all over the world. I never see the Eduversal ranking before at least in the U.S, and other Asia countries.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. It's not my opinion, but a fact that "Durham is not even in the top ten in the UK, according to the World University Rankings." I'm not sure what you mean by "real" rankings: are some unreal? There are different rankings which use and combine criteria differently. Almost all the world rankings of universities put Manchester well above St Andrew's.

Eduniversal does not produce a notable ranking of MBAs (its best-masters site does, but it's not used or referenced seriously). It produces a ranking of business schools. The fact that you have not seen it might not mean anything specific.

It seems to me that there's nothing I have written that you are disagreeing with specifically.

PS I just saw a slideshow on The Independent, a British news website that places Durham as the tenth UK university but does not offer a source. Out of the four global university rankings (QS, THE, Leiden and ARWU) only the THE puts Durham in the top ten in the UK (at tenth). Perhaps because the THE is British, it puts 16 UK universities in the top 100. The others have 14, 13 and 9 respectively. I think we can say, quite neutrally, that is it generally not the view of experts that Durham is in the top ten UK universities. That said, I think the answer could be different if we were do rankings only of undergraduate teaching. On that measure (which the national rankings tend to focus on) Durham does better.

[Edited by Duncan on Apr 05, 2016]

Hi Duncan,

what do you think about the MBA ranking of Eduniversal?

http://www.best-masters.com/ranking-master-mba-full-time-in-western-europe.html

Thanks Duncan for your clarification. If that's case, why don't they try to impose GMAT as one of its entry requirement? After all, it's almost as prestigious as Oxford and Cambridge.

I don't think its methodology is well designed. Within countries it is good for broad bands but comparing schools across countries produces curious results.

I use eduniversal myself a lot for the comparison of schools as institutions, and best-masters is the only global ranking for so many business specialisations. But the cost of replicating the FT-type audited surveys is huge. Luckily MBA, MiM and MiF candidates do have the more reliable FT rankings.

In reference to the business school rankings in the UK, why the likes of Aston, Glasgow, Bradford are rated as 4 Palmes of Excellence when they are supposed to be 3 Palmes of Excellence and Cardiff at 3 Palmes of Excellence?

I don't understand what you mean. Are you asking why their methodology is what it is, or are you suggesting that their rank the same schools differently?

I was unconvinced with how Eduniversal ranks the UK business schools in reference to the below ranking.

http://www.eduniversal-ranking.com/business-school-university-ranking-in-united-kingdom.html

Well, it looks more or less okay to me. Some of these school are hard to compare in any ranking: Ashridge is a bit odd, since it has no full-time students. But are there any schools that seem totally in the wrong class you to? It's not too different from the RAE results, for example.

But, of course, it a ranking of business schools and not only of their MBA programmes.

PS Of course the ranking is affected by the different sizes of these schools. MMU is massive, for example, and St Andrew's is tiny.

[Edited by Duncan on Apr 05, 2016]

Hi Duncan.

Sorry for this, if u r confused.

The real ranking i am talking is the ranking in UK, not the world ranking.

U would be better to see this to understand what i am saying.

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings

http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2014/jun/02/university-league-tables-2015-the-complete-list

This is the ranking most of people in UK consider as real Uk ranking.

The world ranking is based on the articles and research method things, which is more like for postgraduate ranking, not undergraduate ranking.

In term of the Edu ranking, i have been researched how they evaluate the schools.

I guess the ranking reflects totally the recommendation of Dean....

i don't understand how to evaluate those school only on the basis of Dean's recommendation....

In FT case, there are over 20 methods to evaluate the MBAs....that's why i guess it looks more fair to me.

The CUG and Guardian rankings are no more or less real than the other rankings. For example, look at the CUG ranking. If you tell British A level students that Surrey (#8) and Loughborough is better than UCL (#13), Edinburgh (#20) and Bristol (#15) they will laugh at you: everyone knows that you need 400 or less to get into Loughborough, and 20% more to get into UCL, Edinburgh or Bristol. These are more selective schools, in more demand. If you tell anyone outside sport science that that Loughborough (#11) is better than King's (#23) or Manchester (#28, astonishingly) then they will think you are mistaken. This year The Guardian ranks Surrey at 4th (!) and Imperial at only 8th, but Imperial demands 568 points, one-third more than the 424 needed at Surrey (http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2015/may/25/university-league-tables-2016).

So, these undergraduate rankings can be contested and are not showing the "real" national perception in the way that the world rankings are now. They are not how ordinary British people see the rankings, since Surrey above Imperial is simply bizarre. They are simply different pictures, and you need either to be a skilful user of them, or accept the risks. I think the entry qualification is a much better guide to general perception than the national rankings.

I agree that the FT ranking is better, but the FT ranking is limited to slighly over 100 schools while Eduniversal ranks many more. I don't think you have really looked at their methodology, because the number of palms given to schools does not reflect the Deans' scores at all.

[Edited by Duncan on Apr 06, 2016]

I think you have to be careful about priorities. If one school is better for leadership, but the other is better for pharma placement because those recruiters want team players not leaders, are you still right to prioritise leadership?

However, the truth is an an online MBA will be much less useful to you in terms of finding work or developing soft skills. Is there a part-time MBA near you where you could study on campus? Or a modular MBA where you could attend on campus for blocks, like Warwick or the Euro*MBA?

[Edited by Duncan on Mar 20, 2017]

PS I don't understand why you say the rankings are 'a bit' higher for Durham. Its online MBA is fourth in the world. Strathclyde's online MBA isn't ranked by anyone, is it? http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/online-mba-ranking-2016

Hi Duncan,
It would be grateful if you could give me an advice on my current issue. I have two offers from Strathclyde and Lancaster, both for MSc Finance. I slightly lean towards Lancaster because of its higher ranking on FT and the peaceful location which will enable me to focus on studying. However, in terms of employment Strathclyde shows stronger stats (95%) i believe and Lancaster 68% (quite low for a high-ranked university), this matter kinda makes me wonder if Lancaster would be a right choice.

I would say the difference in the rank is rather negligible. Strath certainly shows better employment stats as well as international mobility.

What are your goals?

I would say the difference in the rank is rather negligible. Strath certainly shows better employment stats as well as international mobility.

What are your goals?

The international mobility score suggests that they are finding work in other countries, as does the excellent salary.