Should I choose Warwick over Manchester??

Warwick cannot be compared to KCL, as KCL is simply in another league academically, and is usually ranked much higher in World rankings. KCL was many more leading professors, and is based in the heart of London.

It is a tradegy that many students on TSR really think that the likes of WarwicK, Durham, St Andrews, Exeter etc.are at a similar level to the likes of KCL and UCL for prestige and academic reputation. I am afraid the UK rankings fool the younger students for a good few years, unitl later they realise what really matters is REF by research power and the World rankings.

Check the REF rankings, your argument is extremely flawed. It is joint 8th with UCL. Please, read before you argue.

On top of that, Warwick is in top 50 in the QS. King's is above LSE, does that make King's stronger than LSE? Warwick is above LSE in the Shanghai rankings and even in the Economics rankings? Does that make Warwick stronger? Warwick beats King's and UCL in all the national rankings? That doesn't mean to say Warwick is stronger. It means to say they are equally as competitive. Warwick is above Brownin the world rankings alongside other powerful unis.

So your argument is flawed. REF rankings matter the most and Warwick is there. Stop being a child and understand that after Oxbridge, Imperial and LSE, the following unis in the top 10 are the same. Look at the reputation rankings too, the elite university rankings, these rankings made by firms. Look at the international firm UK target uni rankings, you also just missed the LinkedIn rankings.

There are some bad haters on TSR. Stop hating when your mind is in the wrong. Next thing you'll be saying is that University of London colleges are all equal and Royal Holloway has the same rep as UCL.

At the end of the day, if you look at the rep and target rankings, it is always the same unis. Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, Warwick, Durham, UCL, Bristol and Edinburgh.

By research power, otherwise REF has little value. If you only enter your strongest departments, this does not tell us how much depth the university has for the quality of it's departments.

Kings is internationally much stronger than Warwick according to all the major World rankings, and REF by research power. KCL also has a much bigger annual income. Only a fool would actually claim that Warwick is on par with KCL.

my friends dilemma: Got an offer from warwick but manchester called him and said they'd like to offer him a place too (originally he wasn't in warwick). This is for english literature.

He's visited both and liked them both.

Is warwick the obvious choice?

No factual argument, biased opinion and ignorant to data. One minute you say REF is the strongest, next minute you say the REF has little value after finding out Warwick is joint with UCL. You should never enter debating, you'd get caught out in seconds. Half of what you're saying is self-contradictory.

You do you, Magic Streets... You do you.

I'd go for Warwick, I already went for Warwick, I am going Warwick baby! But seriously, it's what you like, ignore the rankings. I mean tbh, Manchester and Warwick are the same for prestige and quality.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I never knew people like you exist on TSR. Can't believe you actually gave Manchester some credit by saying it has some prestige. Even if people look past the shangai rankings (which Manchester is ranked higher than Warwick in) and claim Warwick is superior, it is by the smallest of margins. Manchester is underrated on TSR. Finally thank you for acknowledging Manchester

Manchester is great, you shouldn't be suprised, there are many who would agree with you... I certainly think it's underrated by TSR'ians in general, but overall the truth speaks for itself... both Uni's are fantastic in their own unique ways.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well if you get rejected by Oxbridge, then Warwick is hardly going to relieve the disappointment is it? The same applies to Durham and many other so called top tier universities (i.e. they are nothing special in reality). If you want to quench the bitter hurt of losing out on Oxbridge, only Imperial, LSE, UCL, KCL and Edinburgh could do that. I know Warwick is strong for Maths and Economics, but on the whole it isn't anything special.

Haha.. in my country everybody already knows that Warwick is much better than KCL and slightly better than UCL. That is the reason I chose Warwick for my masters degree over UCL. It's quite famous in academic world.

That is absurd. Even for Maths I'd rather go to UCL than Warwick, because UCL is a £1 billion a year university, with a top 10 QS World ranking. UCL is also quite an attractive university, with a feeling of genuine prestige.

Definitely Warwick, it has a prestigious name around the world- I'm from the states and that's what I hear.

And to the argument of who's better between UCL, KCL and Warwick, they're the same. Top 10 universities are always the same, and if you're not Oxford or Cambridge, you're a top 10, no need to get specific about names. That's how it is really.

Oxford and Cambridge collaborate closely with UCL for medical research. I have not heard of them working with Warwick for anything?

Oxford and Cambridge collaborate closely with UCL for medical research. I have not heard of them working with Warwick for anything?

Oxford and Cambridge collaborate closely with UCL for medical research. I have not heard of them working with Warwick for anything?