They post their sources on their website, iirc.
What they actually do as award 'stars' for the qualitative stuff like "Toughness to get in", so like 5 stars is top 20%, 4 stars is next 20% and so on. And then provide hard figures at other times.
Still struggling to find any mention of their sources.
Toughness to get in is generally quantitative (e.g. ATAR). I'm talking more along the lines of a person responding and actually explaining
WHY they responded in a certain way. Essentially you're just putting a number on that.
Do you believe that on average, USYD Law graduates make $8059 more on average or that there are absolutely no Law graduates seeking work after x months at UNSW? Why did they decide to omit information regarding USYD School of Mathematics? Let's look at my own faculty - Agriculture. The "seeking work" measure is totally off from the 80%+ that we commonly state. Are we lying?
I'm not trying to be bitter nor am I saying that the GUG is a load of bull, but a lot of these numbers seem to be plucked from thin air, especially data which is dependent on student input. I'd like to say GUG is a source that prospective undergraduates can use, but for some people on here to simply look at a number on GUG and claim it is a factual representation of the true condition of a certain university is honestly kidding themselves.
I would like to see more transparency shown by GUG when they release publications like this by clearly revealing how they quantified their numbers and how they sourced their opinions. Perhaps they could put quotes regarding a particular faculty which both praise and criticise their methods. Averaging it out and giving it a single number or assessment is simply wrong, and this isn't how opinions should be interpreted. If their is anything I've learnt in the university, it is that context key. If you fail to recognise all the little parts which make up a certain matter of contention, then any response to it will be flawed.
Now I'm not going to take this further and say that a publication is useless as I recognise something like this as a good motivator for a university to improve how they manage themselves on a macro and micro level. That being said, it is difficult to say that the GUG is anywhere near comprehensive to make such decisions as the way they express their data is rather limited. I will give more time to GUG if they can actually prove what their saying and not base their assumptions on "qualitative" data which has been so inefficiently quantified. Perhaps if they did that, I could take people more seriously when they quote said data during discussions.
Anyway, I'm not going to raise this issue again. If anyone states something from GUG as fact and as evidence that University X is better or worse than University Y, I implore you guys to take it with a grain of salt and not use it as your sole source of information. Always make sure you talk to staff members, current students and graduates yourself. You'll get a better picture of a particular field or university doing this rather than using a single number.
tl;dr Use GUG as a source if you want, but if you use it as your only source, you're being mislead.
