Cambridge tops ‘Table of Tables’ for fourth year
9 October 2014 | By Chris Parr
The combined results of this year’s three main UK university league tables are in
Source: Alamy
The University of Cambridge tops the seventh annual Times Higher Education “Table of Tables”, maintaining its position for a fourth consecutive year.
The top three, which is based on the combined results of the UK’s three main domestic university league tables, is completed by the universities of Oxford and St Andrews, while the London School of Economics and Imperial College London are tied for fourth place.
Imperial replaces Durham University in the top five as the North East institution slips to sixth position, while the universities of Bath and Warwick are both up one place to seventh and eighth respectively.
The University of Exeter, the University of Surrey and University College London claim joint ninth place, with Exeter climbing one place, Surrey jumping up two spots and UCL dipping two places.
Cambridge secured maximum points this year after topping the The Complete University Guide, rankings published by The Guardian and the combined Times and Sunday Times’ Good University Guide.
Cardiff University and the University of Leeds re-entered the table this year in 26th and joint 21st position respectively, after failing to make the top 30 last year.
The biggest climber within the top 30 was the University of East Anglia, which moved up by four places from 18th to 14th. UEA has now climbed an impressive 11 places in the past two years.
Also making significant gains this year are the University of Kent, Heriot-Watt University, the University of Nottingham, the University of Southampton and Loughborough University, all of which move up three places.
At the other end of the scale, King’s College London dropped out of the table altogether after finishing joint 25th in 2013, while the University of Manchester also left the table, after ranking in 29th place last year.
Just missing out on a place in the table were Coventry University and the University of Reading, both of which picked up points for featuring in The Guardian’s top 30.
The University of Glasgow was the biggest faller within the top 30, dropping seven places to 29th. Soas, University of London slipped five places to 30th. Three institutions fell four positions, the universities of Bristol, Sheffield and Leicester.
Table of tables 2015: top 30
| 2015 rank | 2014 rank | Change | Institution | Total points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | Cambridge | 90 |
| 2 | 2 | 0 | Oxford | 88 |
| 3 | 4 | 1 | St Andrews | 83 |
| 4 | 3 | -1 | London School of Economics | 78 |
| 4 | 6 | 2 | Imperial College London | 78 |
| 6 | 5 | -1 | Durham | 74 |
| 7 | 8 | 1 | Bath | 71 |
| 8 | 9 | 1 | Warwick | 69 |
| 9 | 10 | 1 | Exeter | 64 |
| 9 | 11 | 2 | Surrey | 64 |
| 9 | 7 | -2 | University College London | 64 |
| 12 | 12 | 0 | Lancaster | 60 |
| 13 | 16 | 3 | Loughborough | 52 |
| 14 | 18 | 4 | East Anglia | 50 |
| 15 | 13 | -2 | York | 47 |
| 16 | 15 | -1 | Birmingham | 44 |
| 17 | 20 | 3 | Southampton | 40 |
| 18 | 14 | -4 | Leicester | 33 |
| 19 | 19 | 0 | Edinburgh | 32 |
| 20 | 23 | 3 | Nottingham | 26 |
| 21 | 17 | -4 | Bristol | 25 |
| 21 | – | New | Leeds | 25 |
| 23 | 21 | -2 | Newcastle | 23 |
| 24 | 27 | 3 | Kent | 21 |
| 25 | 28 | 3 | Heriot-Watt | 18 |
| 26 | – | New | Cardiff | 17 |
| 27 | 23 | -4 | Sheffield | 15 |
| 28 | 30 | 2 | Aston | 13 |
| 29 | 22 | -7 | Glasgow | 12 |
| 30 | 25 | -5 | Soas, University of London | 7 |
How the table is set
Each year since 2008, Times Higher Education has compiled a “Table of Tables” to offer a snapshot of how universities are viewed by national newspapers. It is calculated by giving the 30 top-ranked institutions in league tables compiled by the Good University Guide (published by The Times and The Sunday Times), The Guardian and The Complete University Guide points corresponding to their position (30 for first place, 29 for second and so on). The total scores determined the positions. We make no claims for statistical rigour and acknowledge the methodological limitations.
0 Comments