text:
BMS Scuderia Italia

BMS Scuderia Italia SpA (sometimes referred to as simply Scuderia Italia) is an auto racing team founded in 1983 in Brescia by Italian businessman and motorsports enthusiast Giuseppe Lucchini. Originally named Brixia Motor Sport (BMS), the team initially competed in the World Touring Car Championship. The team's name was altered to BMS Scuderia Italia upon their entrance into Formula One in. After departing Formula One in, BMS Scuderia Italia has continued to be involved in other categories such as touring car racing and sports car racing.

Scuderia Italia has been associated with many automobile manufacturers, including Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Ferrari, Nissan, Porsche, and Aston Martin. The team raced Ferrari F430s in the FIA GT Championship, while their Brixia Racing arm competed in the FIA GT3 European Championship and Italian GT Championship with Aston Martin DBRS9's.

Brixia Motor Sport
Giuseppe Lucchini started his career in motoracing in the late 1970s with Osella. He later moved on to Mirabella Racing, where he oversaw the team's efforts in the Italian Group 6 Championship and the World Endurance Championship. In 1983 Lucchini decided to form his own team. Named after the original Latin name for the team's base of Brescia, Brixia Motor Sport campaigned an Alfa Romeo GTV6 in the Italian Rally Championship before replacing it with a Lancia 037 in 1985. Brixia returned to Alfa Romeo in 1987 as the team expanded to enter the new Alfa Romeo 75 in both the World Touring Car Championship and the Italian Rally Championship.

Formula One
When Alfa Romeo chose to withdraw from the World Touring Car Championship in 1987, Lucchini set his sights on entering the Formula One World Championship in the coming year. Brixia brokered a deal with Dallara owner Giampaolo Dallara to build a new chassis based on their experience as a Formula 3000 entry. Lucchini renamed his team BMS Scuderia Italia (with Dallara being the listed constructor for the purposes of the World Constructors' Championship standings) and hired former Scuderia Mirabella owner Vittorio Palazzani as sporting director. Sergio Rinland designed the new Dallara 188 and also served as the team's chief engineer. Cosworth provided their Ford DFZ V8 and Italian Alex Caffi was signed to drive the team's sole entry. The car was late being completed, forcing the team to bring a Dallara Formula 3000 car to the first meeting in Brazil. The team was unable to score any points, but qualified for fourteen of sixteen races during the year. Caffi earned a best finish of seventh at the Portuguese Grand Prix, one position outside of the points. Returning for, BMS Scuderia Italia entered a second car for the experienced Italian Andrea de Cesaris alongside Caffi. The team's new Dallara 189s were designed by new engineer Mario Tolentino. At the third race of the year, the Monaco Grand Prix, Caffi earned the team's first points finish when he came home in fourth. Later that season, at the Canadian Grand Prix, the team scored points with both drivers, De Cesaris earning the team's first podium by finishing third and Caffi by finishing sixth. There were no more point finishes for the rest of the season, although Caffi qualified an outstanding third in the Hungarian Grand Prix and both cars qualified in the top 10 in the season-ending Australian Grand Prix. De Cesaris and Caffi were thus ranked 17th in the Drivers' Championship, while the combined total of eight points earned Dallara eighth in the Constructors' Championship.

In, team manager Patrizio Cantù departed the team and was replaced by former Ferrari engineer Pierpaolo Gardella. Alex Caffi also left the team, moving to Arrows. Emanuele Pirro was signed as his replacement, although Gianni Morbidelli raced for the first two races of the season when Pirro was unwell. The team struggled throughout the year, unable to earn points in any races (although de Cesaris started 3rd in the season-opening United States Grand Prix) and was only able to complete seven of the sixteen Grands Prix on the calendar.

Disappointed with the Dallara 190, Lucchini replaced Tolentino with Nigel Cowperthwaite in for the design of the 191, and the team's Ford Cosworth engines were replaced by new Judd V10s. Jyrki Järvilehto, otherwise known as JJ Lehto, was signed to replace De Cesaris, who had moved to Jordan, and gained BMS Scuderia Italia their first points of the season by finishing third at the San Marino Grand Prix. Pirro scored his first points by finishing sixth at the Monaco Grand Prix. Dallara once again finished eighth in the Constructors' Championship standing.

In 1992 Lucchini was able to negotiate the use of year-old Ferrari V12 engines for the season and hired Pierluigi Martini as a replacement for Pirro who had been released by the team. Martini scored the team's only points of the year with two consecutive sixth-place finishes at the Spanish Grand Prix and San Marino Grand Prix, earning him sixteenth in the Drivers' Championship and Dallara tenth in the Constructors' Championship.

At the end of 1992, Lucchini announced that the cars for the season would be built by Lola Cars in Britain, with Ferrari remaining as the engine supplier. The team secured a sponsorship deal with Chesterfield cigarettes, and Lucchini signed Michele Alboreto and rookie Luca Badoer as drivers.

The team's switch to Lola, however, did not improve the team's results. The chassis was not competitive, and despite good engine power, Alboreto and Badoer struggled to qualify for several races. Badoer had the team's best finish of the year at the San Marino Grand Prix with a seventh place, ensuring the team finished ahead of Tyrrell Racing, whose best finish was Ukyo Katayama's tenth place at Hungaroring, in the Constructors' standings. By the end of the season the team was financially strained and chose to withdraw from the last two events in Japan and Australia. The team did however attend the 1993 Formula One Indoor Trophy, but were eliminated in the semi-finals.

At the end of the 1993 season Minardi was also struggling for money, and Giancarlo Minardi and Giuseppe Lucchini decided to merge their teams in order to continue into the season. The merged team returned to earning points in 1994 as well as before Lucchini chose to exit the venture in order to concentrate BMS Scuderia Italia on other programs.

Return to touring cars
When Lucchini's Formula One program came to an end in 1993, Nissan approached BMS Scuderia Italia to campaign the company's Primeras in the new German Super Tourenwagen Cup, which was announced for 1994. German Michael Bartels and Italian Ivan Capelli were hired and completed the season sixth and eleventh in the drivers' championship. The team expanded to three cars in 1995, with Capelli joined by Sascha Maassen and Kieth O'Dor. O'Dor won the team's only race of the season at AVUS and finished tenth in the drivers' championship; however, he was killed in a collision during the second race at AVUS that weekend.

Anthony Reid replaced O'Dor on the squad in 1996, but the team chose not to run the full season with all cars. Maassen led the team in the drivers' championship by finishing sixteenth, but by then Giuseppe Lucchini had decided to move out of the Super Tourenwagen Cup, leaving Nissan to move to Team Rosberg. BMS Scuderia Italia made a brief return to touring car racing in 1998 when they entered a pair of Alfa Romeo 155s for Christian Pescatori and Emanuele Moncini in the Italian Superturismo Championship, but withdrew once more the following season.

1997–2001
After the departure from the Super Tourenwagen Cup, Giuseppe Lucchini became one of the first customers of Porsche's new racing car, the 911 GT1. One of the team's former Formula One drivers, Pierluigi Martini, returned to the company and shared the new car with Christian Pescatori in the brand new FIA GT Championship for 1997. The duo scored a best finish of sixth at Helsinki, earning them a single point to tie for ninth in the Teams Championship. BMS Scuderia Italia also entered the 24 Hours of Le Mans for the first time with the 911 GT1, Brazilian Antônio Hermann de Azevedo joining Martini and Pescatori. The team finished in eighth place overall and fourth in their class.

In 1999, the company returned to sports car racing, this time purchasing a pair of Ferrari 333 SP sports prototype for use in the Sports Racing World Cup. Pescatori and Moncini were retained from the team's Italian Superturismo entry the previous year, while father and son, Angelo and Marco Zadra shared the second entry. Pescatori and Moncini scored a win at the Autodromo di Pergusa, eventually finishing third and fourth respectively in the drivers' championship. The team earned second in the Teams Championship, fourteen points shy of JB Racing.

For the 2000 season, Austrian Philipp Peter and Swiss Lilian Bryner and Enzo Calderari joined the two Zadras in the Ferraris. A class win was earned by Bryner, Calderari, and Angelo Zadra at the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, although they did not win the race overall. The team finished the season second in the Teams Championship once again, while Marco Zadra and Philipp Peter tied for third in the drivers' championship. Christian Pescatori briefly returned to the squad at the start of the 2001 season of what was now known as the FIA Sportscar Championship, winning alongside Marco Zadra in the first race of the year. Pescatori was eventually replaced by Jean-Marc Gounon, who also earned a victory for the team. BMS Scuderia Italia was able to secure the Teams Championship by a margin of 22 points, while Marco Zadra also won the Drivers' Championship.

2002–2005
With the 333 SP outdated, BMS Scuderia Italia returned to the FIA GT Championship, continuing to campaign for Ferrari by racing two Prodrive-built Ferrari 550 Maranellos in the series. Andrea Piccini and Jean-Denis Délétraz shared the team's primary car, while the other car featured Lilian Bryner, Enzo Calderari, and Frédéric Dor, who was eventually replaced by Jean-Marc Gounon. After only three races, Piccini and Délétraz began a streak of consecutive victories, winning at Jarama, Anderstorp, and Oschersleben. A further fourth victory ended the year at Estoril. Even with four race victories, multiple races without points hurt the team and they were scored fourth in the Teams Championship. Piccini and Délétraz shared third in the drivers' championship. Under the guidance of new Technical Director Marco Gadola, the team expanded greatly in 2003 as a third car was added to their effort, running under the Care Racing banner. The team's driver pairings included Matteo Bobbi and Thomas Biagi, Fabrizio Gollin and Luca Cappellari, and Bryner and Calderari sharing the Care entry with Stefano Livio. The team opened the year on top by finishing first, second, and third at their first race. Bobbi and Biagi dominated the field by winning the next four races in a row, followed by a class win and second overall at the Spa 24 Hours for Gollin, Cappellari, Bryner, and Calderari. Two more wins were earned in the remaining events of the season, giving the team a total of eight victories in ten races, not only earning the Teams Championship for BMS Scuderia Italia, but also third for the Care Racing banner as well. Bobbi and Biagi shared the drivers' championship, Gollin and Cappellari second in the championship, and Bryner and Calderari third.

The three Ferraris returned to defend their Championships in 2004, retaining much of their driver lineup. Gabriele Gardel was the only replacement, taking over from Thomas Biagi as Bobbi's co-driver. The year started well for BMS Scuderia Italia once more as Gollin and Cappellari earned two consecutive victories, while Gardel and Bobbi earned their first at the fourth round of the season. The team also improved on their previous result at the Spa 24 Hours, winning the race overall with Gollin and Cappellari sharing with Bryner and Calderari. Lilian Bryner was therefore the first female driver ever to win an international 24 hours event. The team finished the season with five total victories, winning their second Teams Championship, while Gollin and Cappellari earned the drivers' championship that year.

Although BMS Scuderia Italia was the defending two-time FIA GT Champion, Giuseppe Lucchini decided to switch series in order to concentrate on endurance racing. Two of the team's Ferraris were entered in the new Le Mans Endurance Series as well as the national Italian GT Championship. Christian Pescatori returned to the team, joined by newcomers Michele Bartyan, Toni Seiler, Matteo Cressoni, and Miguel Ramos. The Gollin, Cressoni, and Ramos trio won the opening Le Mans race of the year while Pescatori, Bartyan, and Seiler won two of the remaining four events. In Italian GT, the team won five of the seven races over the year, as well as two races in the GT2 class with a Ferrari 360 Modena GTC run in partnership with Racing Team Edil Cris. Teams Championships were secured in both Le Mans and Italian GT's GT1 classes, earning the squad their third consecutive victorious year with the Ferrari 550. The two 550s were also entered in the 24 Hours of Le Mans for the second time in the team's history. Both however failed to finish the race, retiring early.

2006–2007
After the team's success with Prodrive's customer version of the Ferrari 550, BMS Scuderia Italia was one of two teams selected by Prodrive to become a factory-backed entry for Aston Martin and their new DBR9 race car. Prodrive's own team was concentrating on the 24 Hours of Le Mans, while Larbre Compétition was tasked with competing in the Le Mans Series. This left BMS Scuderia Italia, now running under the Aston Martin Racing BMS banner, to return to the FIA GT Championship as Aston Martin's representative. Former FIA GT champion Fabrizio Gollin was partnered with Fabio Babini, while former Le Mans Series champions Pescatori and Ramos shared the second Aston Martin. A trio of new Aston Martin DBRS9s were also entered by the team in the new FIA GT3 European Championship for amateur drivers. The squad however did not return to the FIA GT Championship in the same fashion in which they had left it in 2004. The team was unable to score any victories, and in fact was unable to finish any better than third on multiple occasions. However, even though the team lacked victories, they were able to consistently score points, enough to finish second in the teams' championship. Fabio Babini was the team's highest scoring driving, earning ninth in the drivers' championship. The team's 24 Hours of Le Mans entry was also short-lived as their lone Aston Martin crashed heavily after only three laps. BMS Scuderia Italia's FIA GT3 effort earned a single win for fourth place in the teams' championship.

For the 2007 season, BMS Scuderia Italia remained Aston Martin's primary team in the FIA GT Championship, but the team also purchased a Porsche 997 GT3-RSR for the series' lower GT2 class. Porsche factory driver Emmanuel Collard drove alongside Matteo Malucelli, earning a class win at the Spa 24 Hours and finishing the season second in the GT2 Teams Championship. The primary GT1 team however struggled throughout the year, earning no victories and earning sixth in the Teams Championship. The team's DBR9 however was able to have a strong performance at the 24 Hours of Le Mans by finishing eleventh overall and sixth in GT1. In FIA GT3, the DBRS9 won the final event of the year and the team secured third place in the Teams Championship.

Following the 2007 season, Aston Martin and Prodrive's changing efforts in GT1 led BMS Scuderia Italia to end their partnership as a factory team. However, BMS Scuderia Italia's private efforts with Aston Martins in the FIA GT3 European Championship remain as the team has resurrected the Brixia Racing name. Drivers Marcello Zani and Matteo Malucelli founded the team to concentrate solely on not just the FIA GT3 series, but also the smaller national Italian GT Championship with the company's Aston Martin DBRS9s.

In FIA GT, BMS Scuderia Italia has moved on from both Aston Martin and Porsche, as the team purchased two Ferrari F430s for the GT2 Championship. Paolo Ruberti and Matteo Malucelli share the team's #77 entry, while Davide Rigon is partnered with Joël Camathias in the #78. The team also entered one of their Ferraris in the 2008 and 2009 24 Hours of Le Mans races finishing second in the GT2 class in both those years' races, aided by the return of Fabio Babini.

Complete Formula One results
(key) (results in bold indicate pole position)

title: BMS Scuderia Italia


text:
Talk:Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom

Southampton
I have re-introduced Southampton which was ranked higher than either Bristol or Edinburgh, and was just 1 point below Bath (Sunday Times league table, 2002). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.18.145 (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2004 (UTC)
 * But Southampton only did well in the Sunday Times table. It does not usually make the top 20 in any other tables. The Sutton Trust results should be used as they constitute a formal calculation. Please don't alter or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.128.73 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2005 (UTC)

Same tables?
Isnt the Sunday times and the Times league tables the same? MikeyB! 20:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The Times and Sunday Times produce different rankings. Personally id say the ST ones are slightly better but either is infinitely more reliable than the ludicrous Grauniad effort. I do find it suspicious that Oxford can be so consistently ranked no.1 overall when it is nowhere near Cambridge in terms of number of subjects for which it is ranked as no.1 . siarach 18:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Cambridge fares better?
For the fifth consecutive year Oxford has been placed first in the United Kingdom in the Times Good University Guide (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (sic)). Further, is the Times Good University Guide not the most respected guide? I just wonder if there is a bit of pro-Cambridge casuistry going on with this argument about the Times GUG concentrating more weight on central funding and hence under-estimating Cambridge. Oxford has the monopoly on Jesuitical practices!--195.92.67.74 01:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Have to agree there's a pro-Cambridge bias in this article... it's rather blatant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.66.110 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge
The article claims that their top ranking "allows them to attract the best students...". Any evidence for that? I would presume that they would carry on attracting the best students as they always have with or without league tables!Billlion 06:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sutton trust top 13
Ive noticed this is not sourced or citied, nor can I find on the web this calculation both from search engines, or from the sutton trust site itself.194.176.105.40 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading it in the papers so it is true but i will try and find a citation for it. 172.215.89.169 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

www.suttontrust.com/reports/Stateschooladmissionstoourleadinguniversities.pdf - the table listed her are what the sutton trust considers the top 13 172.215.89.169 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How many criteria for Guardian rankings?
The text says "six" but seven are listed as bullets - it's a bit confusing. Any idea which is correct? 90.196.191.143 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuous changes of the article by one dominant person
Ragoon directly and indirectly (through IP address) became the dominant editor of the article not allowing other members of Wikipedia to make changes. This user is trying to eliminate importance of the British league tables by putting more emphasis on international rankings. This article is about the British system of ranking and disparity with international rankings must be clearly identified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.81.158 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Firstly I don't appreciate the way in which you immediately accused me of violating the policies of Wikipedia on my talk page.

 * The edits which you wish to make to this page reflect clear original research and are not neutral in point of view. You have a clear point of view about the deficiencies of international league tables and the strengths of domestic league tables which you are trying to promote via this article. There is nothing wrong per se with a reference in this article about international league tables and how they vary from domestic league tables. However that reference must be in a neutral and encycopedic form.

 * A very neutral reference to international league tables in my view seems appropriate for the opening as it brings these to the attention of many readers who may otherwise be unaware of them. The reference as it stands makes no comment on the relative quality of international versus domestic league tables (unlike your new paragraph, which clearly does) but merely says that they exist. Since you have now introduced a full paragraph in the main article about international league tables, you have actually made the argument for such a reference in the opening stronger.

 * Why do you keep attempting to introduce the word 'prestige' in the first paragraph? This is a clear case of POV and is not cited.

 * I am very happy to discuss how we can best deal with these issues. I appreciate that this article is one which touches upon controversial issues but the best way of dealing with this, in my view, is to try to keep the article as neutral and factual as possible.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Firstly thanks for your contributions to this article, you made significant improvements since it was created. At the same time, your continuous changes without accepting views of other participants (and not discussing with them) made me act in such a way. ::: As all of members of Wikipedia, I would like to make this article as neutral and encyclopaedic as possible.

 * After reading your arguments in favour of mentioning world rankings I agree with you. However, I think it's sensible to make it as short as feasible, e.g." Due to the different methodologies and purposes of the rankings, British university rankings differ widely from global university rankings". There is no need to say more about measure because they will be covered in a new section.

 * I disagree with you that we cannot use "prestige" and "teaching quality". If it were just listing of institution, I would agree that wording "inform about UK universities " could be acceptable. However, it's a ranking so it assumes it shows perceived reputation / standing / teaching quality. There is a very good reference to "Facts and Figures about League Tables" by Edinburgh University (which you removed somehow) that says "it's clear that rankings can have a significant impact on the reputation and perceived standing of institutions"http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/governance-strategic-planning/facts-and-figures/league-tables. So based on that I believe we can use reputation / standing / teaching quality.

 * I don't want to show better quality of national rankings, however, I would to demonstrate a clear difference between ranking systems. Honestly, I'm not very happy with current wording because it uses many biased phrases. At the same time, I would like to show clear differences why domestic order if universities is so different from international one. If you have any ideas about that, let me know. There are a couple of good paragraphs from the link mentioned above so we can use them as well.

 * "To construct World rankings, however, compilers have to use measures that translate as reliably as possible across different countries/regions - i.e. for which comparable data, which are not inextricably linked to national prosperity or other local/regional issues, can be found. For this reason, the measures used in the World University rankings are quite different to those used for UK rankings and cover prizewinner affiliations, research bibliometrics, student:faculty ratio, peer review responses, and percentage international students/staff.

 * Ranking methodologies have always been open to criticism due to the inherent arbitrary nature of weighting scores from different measures and then summing these to give an overall measure of ‘quality’. Some measures are also more controversial and open to bias (e.g. by institution size/subject profile/location etc) than others." 188.223.81.158 (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * First off let me say that I appreciate you discussing this article and your thoughts about it constructively. For what it's worth let me also say that I accept that all university rankings (both domestic and global) are imperfect.

 * After mulling it over I'm happy for the new section in the article which you have introduced to both remain and to be separate (rather than as a sub-section of 'Criticism of the rankings concept'). I accept that the paragraph is not purely a criticism of rankings per se and does justify a separate section. However I propose that it be titled 'Comparison with global rankings' as this is both more neutral and more encompassing of the content of the new section.

 * Regarding the second paragraph of the opening of the article I still feel that it was fine as it was and that it was very neutral and purely factual. However, since the new section which you have introduced will include some of the details which were in that paragraph I accept that it can be shortened slightly to avoid duplication. I therefore propose the following wording:

 * "British university rankings differ widely from global university rankings such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities, QS World University Rankings and Times Higher Education World University Rankings, which use different methodologies and have a different purpose.  "

 * I do have a fundamental issue with the use of the word 'prestige' in the first paragraph. I accept that prestigious universities tend to feature at the top of league tables, and that a consistently high ranking in league tables may increase the prestige of a university over time (and vice-versa), however prestige is a highly subjective characteristic as applied to universities. There are examples of institutions which, in my view at least, are not particularly prestigious but have been ranked highly in certain league tables. For example Lancaster is ranked sixth in the current Guardian league table. Equally, King's College London is only ranked 25th in the same table. I make no comment on the actual quality of either Lancaster or King's, but am certain that King's is generally seen as more prestigious than Lancaster, both in the UK and overseas. League tables do not, in my view, measure university prestige.

 * I have no issue with the insertion of a reference to teaching quality in the first paragraph, which I propose could be inserted as follows (bold to show change only):

 * "League tables of British universities are published annually by The Guardian, The Independent, The Sunday Times and The Times. The primary aim of the rankings is to inform potential undergraduate applicants about UK universities based on a range of criteria, including entry standards, student satisfaction, staff/student ratio, academic services and facilities expenditure per student, teaching and research quality, proportion of Firsts and 2:1s, completion rates and student destinations. All of the league tables also rank universities on their strength in individual subjects."

 * Regarding your proposed wording for the 'new' section, I suggest the following amendments:

 * "Global university rankings differ from British university rankings in both purpose and methodology. Whilst British university rankings are primarily designed to measure the quality of the undergraduate experience, global rankings are primarily designed to measure the quality of institutions as a whole. The compilers of global university rankings are more restricted in the criteria which they can use to compile their rankings, as they are limited to criteria which translate reliably across different countries and regions and for which comparable data is available. For these reasons, the criteria used to compile global university rankings are very different to those used for British university rankings."

 * After this paragraph I suggest a further paragraph which, very briefly, describes the criteria used in each of the three main global rankings (since these are each different, although the paragraph above applies equally to all three).

 * Did you intend the following paragraph to be in the same section, or to go in the existing 'Criticism of the rankings concept' section?

 * "Ranking methodologies have always been open to criticism due to the inherent arbitrary nature of weighting scores from different measures and then summing these to give an overall measure of ‘quality’. Some measures are also more controversial and open to bias (e.g. by institution size/subject profile/location etc) than others."

 * I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Rangoon11, I completely agree with the lead paragraph, except the word "undergraduate". There are several indicators (such as research output, Staff / student ratio, spending on facilities) which cover both undergraduate and graduate students. So it's better to leave just "potential applicants".

 * For the same reason "measure of the undergraduate experience" will not be completely correct wording. I would suggest the following: "Whilst British university rankings are primarily designed to measure the quality of the domestic student experience, global rankings are essentially constructed to assess the quality of national education systems and institutions on a worldwide scale"

 * The last paragraph better fits the criticism section. All the other suggestions and changes are fine. Very well done. 188.223.81.158 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Something substantial to add to the Criticisms section
Below is University College London's President and Provost concise and poignant opinion on university league tables. I think it should be added to the article's Criticisms section. http://soundcloud.com/uclsound/ucl-president-and-provost-on/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.138.150 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Guardian section
"The Guardian league table has a peculiar habit of ranking quite highly courses given by departments that have recently closed down. For example mathematics at Bangor[22] which closed in 2006 was rated fifth in the UK in the "2008" league table, Hull also did reasonably well considering it too no longer had a mathematics department or degree.[23] The Guardian later published a correction.[24]"

I'm not so sure that to say "the Guardian league table has a peculiar habit of ranking quite highly...." is particularly encyclopedic - to me it comes across as a slightly snide remark...

--Maxjjazz (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed it, it was trivial and undue in any case, and not really a criticism of the ranking merely an error in one in a single year.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange "The Sunday Times" rankings
Could someone explain why Heriot-Watt University does not appear in the last year's "The Sunday Times University Guide" as the 29th best university in the UK? This year it was announced as the best Scottish university for the second year in a row and as the fourth best UK university. Yet there is no mention of this in this article at all. Here is a link to BBC which cites the Sunday Times: Heriot-Watt University: Scottish University of the Year I have also received confirmation of this from our Principal (Heriot-Watt). Flamdring (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

 * I think you are confusing the student satisfaction ranking with the overall ranking by the Sunday Times, of which the student satisfaction ranking is just one input.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Content removed in compliance with DMCA
The Wikimedia Foundation (“Wikimedia”) has taken down content posted in this article that was alleged to infringe on a copyright.

You can see their communication here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:DMCA_News_International.pdf

Their correspondence relates to material published in the Times Good University Guide and The Sunday Times University Guide.

When someone makes a validly formulated notice of copyright infringement, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) requires Wikimedia to take the content down and to notify the poster that we have removed the content.

If you would like to learn more about Wikimedia’s policies, please refer to the Wikimedia Terms of Use, available at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use and the Wikimedia Legal Policies, available at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/Legal_Policies. More information on DMCA compliance may also be found at:

 * http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq
 * https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
 * http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/

See also WP:Office.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this notice.

Sincerely, Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The Sunday Times 2014 University Rankings Removed
I edited in the rankings as of 2014 for the Sunday Times but it says that my content was removed because "someone alleged that your post infringes on a copyright." Can anyone expand as to why? I cited my sources and didn't claim it as mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiatkit (talk • contribs) 17:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

University of Karachi
Someone has placed the "University of Karachi" as second place in the rankings when it obviously is not. Having looked at the change logs it seems to have happened before as well. I am not well versed enough in Wikipedia editing to make the changes myself, though I suggest someone do it. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.180.3 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion: is there any point in anything but Unistats?
Discussion: Is a Top 50 really needed? The Top 30 before provided adequate information for interested readers - links are provided to the source for those interested to see the full league table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kioj156 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have just read the discussion point about what's needed, that was posted under another heading and I moved here. Answer: from what I remember about being that age: more ranks are needed ahd more criteria: Unistats rather than a table. Here are some reasons. - Fees or paid for real if you earn over £21,000 in future and start paying them back. - Living costs like rent and food are paid for real and cheaper in some towns than others (commuting to an job you pay for isn't a great experience). - Options are constrained for real, with the most procicious (however that's spelt) students from the most over-coached schools getting the best offers and exam-flunkers, as I was 30 years ago, getting fewer options through clearing. - Quality of what you want and what's on offer varies for real. Economics is a contentious subject, for example, with Leicester University scoring 37% overall satisfaction for their BSc Economics course but double that for their BA Economics course. That suggests that tweaks to the syllabus and the way it is taught are important to students. For details check Unistats.gov.uk for the course you are interested in rather than bother with the league tables which should be dumped in the river I think — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.93.139 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To 2a02:c7d:820e:1d00:acc3:c86f:608b:f221
Thank you for your contributions to this wikipedia page regarding Boliver's research on the clusters of universities. I have seen that you have made various edits on a number of pages regarding her research, however I have removed your edits from the Russell Group and this page because of the over-reliance on one source. This page focuses on 'rankings' published by organisations, both from commercial and academic sources, rather than just the research of one individual and aims to rank by number rather than by clusters. If you are able to find further primary sources supporting the 4 clusters, please add a small excerpt to the criticisms section. EmyRussell (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of National Rankings Edits
Although The Time's data may not be displayed, it is STILL one of the 3 major national league tables and should not be removed. The milkround has a list of the most updated list for The Times/Sunday Times league table. For reference, Bath is not in the top 10 in the Times/Sunday Times leauge table and please keep the colours in consistent with the number they are assigned to.

If you would like to make further edits, please discuss it in this section before doing so.EmyRussell (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary of national rankings
Would the table in this section make the slightest sense to any reader? We are told in the last column that the London School of Economics ranks "3c" which means that "The university is ranked within the top 5 of all three national rankings." But in the three columns to the left it is ranked "9, 4, 5", so not in the top 5 in all three columns. So presumably these three columns are not the "three national rankings"? In which case why do we list them here? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 * What we list are the THE Table of Tables (which is an average of the three national rankings) and two of the three national rankings: the Guardian University Guide and the Complete University Guide. The Times Good University Guide is not listed for copyright reasons. The three national rankings are discussed in the sections above, where top 50s are given for the two that allow it. It would certainly be better to list all three of them, but unfortunately that's not possible so we list what we can. Robminchin (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

 * So either add an explicit description to the footnote, or more simply just delete the right hand column. As things stand it is horribly confusing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Sunday Times?
The two most recent league tables are free to access. I'm not sure the copyright still holds in that context 31.94.30.147 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ordering of summary of national rankings
The 2022 Table of Tables is now quite out of date (published in 2021). As the methodology is well known and simple (basically, the average of the three national rankings), would it be better to order this table using the average of the rankings for the year once these have all been published? Robminchin (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Here is the 2024 averages of the three tables:

 * Given that there has been some change in ordering and the methodology is simple/easily understandable, I would be in favour of updating. EmyRussell (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:Gme~enwiki

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Gme. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Gme~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gme~enwiki