[homeless_engi]

I think the real story here might be the line below:

"Durham University improved by 30 places year-on-year"

Seems a bit suspicious, no? What methodology change led to this result? How can a university that was previously not as well-regarded become the #3 in the country overnight?

[madaxe_again]

Durham is the oxbridge reject university, and it’s a standard opener during freshers week to ask which college rejected them. Me, Corpus Christi Oxford reject, Durham alumnus.

What has seemingly happened here is that oxbridge have ramped up their intake of overseas students, who pay a vast sum compared to a U.K. student, thus pushing more U.K. talent to Durham, as you’ll always preferentially give the place to the kid paying six figures rather than the one on a state bursary.

[jfengel]

I assumed one generally applied to both, no?

[madaxe_again]

Yes, and then when oxbridge reject you, you take your second choice, Durham. At any rate that’s how it worked 25 years ago, I think it’s much the same now.

[michaelt]

As I understand it, you can't apply to Oxford and Cambridge in the same year.

[fidotron]

My recollection from thirty years ago was a lot of people that were aiming for Oxford would have Durham as their backup plan. It's been hovering around there for a while although not so much in the the world tech people care about, for which Warwick and Imperial circle Cambridge far more closely.

[nickd2001]

There's a stereotype, possibly unfair but somewhat amusing, that Durham attracts some people who are less clever/bright than they and their families believe, who failed to get into Oxbridge despite expensive private education, personal tutors, every other privilege under the sun. Sometimes known as "rahs" possibly? ;

[metaphor]

What's the provenance of this "30 places year-on-year" assertion anyways? (TFA won't load on my end.)

The Times filed Durham 7th @ 859 in FY24[1], 5th @ 898 in FY25[2]. They're now 3rd @ 906 for the current FY.

P.S. Chuckling at the perception that a university which ranked top 10 for at least the past decade being characterized as "not as well-regarded"...strikes me as indefensibly elitist.

[1] https://archive.is/QN4Js

[2] https://archive.is/KyP48

[Closi]

I think they are referring to:

> Durham University improved by 30 places year-on-year in its students’ evaluation of teaching quality, which was the main driver in securing its third place in the overall university league table

Which isn't quite the same as 30 places in ranking as OP suggests, however I agree with their point that moving 30 places on that metric could be fairly suspicious.

For example - when I was at university in the UK we got a speech telling us basically that we were going to get sent a survey from the times, and the higher we ranked the university, the higher the universities ranking would be, and that would make our degree more valuable. If the main reason they jumped from 7th to 3rd could be a metric that is potentially 'influence-able' by the university, it could be more of a change in comms-strategy than actual university quality.

[homeless_engi]

Yes, seems I misunderstood the original text. Thanks for the clarification.

[metaphor]

Appreciate the clarification and perspective.