"Warwick" cannot be compared with "Imperial" brand name !!!!!

Scroll to see replies

I would think that each would require a minimum of a 2:1 but I would be wrong:

From The Warwick Postgrad Prospectus:

Applying for a Taught Course
You will normally need at least a lower second class degree (2:2) or equivalent qualification in an appropriate subject. Some departments may also ask for relevant work experience. If you do not have a degree of the required grade you may be considered on the merits of previous experience. You should contact your preferred department at an early stage to discuss eligibility.

How to apply for Taught Courses

From the Imperial Postgrad Prospectus:

They are a bit more cagey about their postgrad requirement, I haven't found any specific indication as to their minimum requirement.

Reply 41

billydisco

vnupe

Says in Warwick's prospectus that their typical offer for Classics is AAB... same as many courses at Imperial... would you penalise the students for not having AAB in two science courses when they are taking a Humanities degree?

I didnt imply penalising, im talking about how difficult it is. Sciences ARE more difficult, thats why LSE has a good honours of 88% and imperial has 72% when Imperial has a higher calibre of student.

When i said 'classics' i was being vague, warwick has courses which are easier to get on than imperial. When someone graduates from imperial its guaranteed they have endured hell and done well, when speaking to a warwick graduate you usually need to determine whether they did maths, economics or computer science before you say 'wooooah'.

Reply 42

billydisco

vnupe

It'd be 1st or 2.1, all the postgraduates ive met have had 1sts.

Reply 43

billydisco

hobnob

Guys, could you please try to stick to the original topic of this thread, i.e. a comparison between Warwick and Imperial for postgraduate courses? :erm:

If you want to compare them by the standard offers they give for undergraduate courses or their results in a student satisfaction survey which only targets undergraduates etc, that's fine, of course, but that kind of discussion belongs in GUD.

Yeh but we're using undergraduate stats to assess the overall reputation of the universities, which is relevant to the OP's question. Most reputation is based on undergraduate studies.

Reply 44

vnupe

billydisco

Your LSE and Imperial analogy is comparing apples to oranges, maybe the reason they have more honours at LSE than Imperial is because the students have been culled better at admissions. Therefore they tend to have a better aptitude for their studies, which is manifested as a higher percentage of 'good honours'.

Furthermore, you mean to say it is implied that 'they have endured hell'... it is not guaranteed. In addition, Warwick is a comprehensive university, offering courses in all endeavours not just business and scientific, yet still require a tariff equal to Imperial which is AAB. Their standings with employers and headhunters is impeccable, and the general buzz surrounding the university and its courses would prove your supposition (cause it is not fact) wrong.

This is coming from someone who has obtained two masters and one undergrad more difficult science degrees (Biology, Molecular Biology and Forensic Science: concentration in Chemistry and Toxicology), none from either university.

Reply 45

vnupe

billydisco

It'd be 1st or 2.1, all the postgraduates ive met have had 1sts.

How many have you met? All of them? And if it as you say, why not clearly state it in your online prospectus, why try and obfuscate?

Reply 46

tentop6521

why are you so furiously trying to defend Imperial. If a university is top notch, you don't really need to defend as it will eventually show, just as OX, Cam, and LSE don't need any introductions or vindication. Imperial hasn't reached that level, and so it's closer to Warwick level in terms of prestige and employability.

Reply 47

hobnob

billydisco

Yeh but we're using undergraduate stats to assess the overall reputation of the universities, which is relevant to the OP's question. Most reputation is based on undergraduate studies.

Fine by me, but overall reputation of universities is a topic for GUD, not the postgrad forum, so I'm moving this thread across.

Reply 48

megaduck

billydisco

You're so full of it! You pick a course out of you head just assuming its entry requirements are low and then look a tool when it transpires they're not (and they are, in fact, the same as the entry requirments for several Imperial courses). You compare LSE and Imperial as though they're doing the same thing when they have different specialisms. You talk as if everyone automatically puts Imperial and Oxbridge on a par when the only people who do that are Imperial grads. You claim Imperial has a higher calibre of student when there's nothing in it. You talk as if going to Imperial automatically confers some immense prestige on a person and is evidence of triumph over the greatest academic odds, when in fact most science courses are less competitive to get onto than many arts courses and people who've got into, say, English or History at top unis have done so in the face of much stiffer competition than the engineering of computer science entrants.

You look kind of desperate. Imperial's a great uni and doesn't need the defence of people with massive chips on thier shoulders and a lot of misinformation and prejudice at their fingertips.

OP, reputationally-speaking there's very little in it. You should go with the institution and course you are most attracted to - either will be an amazing basis for your career.

Reply 49

Focus08

vnupe

vnupe: The voice of reason on TSR. Always has been, always will be! :cool:

Reply 50

AfghanistanBananistan

tentop6521

Quite right.

Billydisco needs to face it.

LSE is more famous and we all know that nowadays popularilty is half the battle in life.

The difference in entry standards is never more than 10 points and often less than 5 (in fact LSE always beat Imperial for entry standards upto 4 years ago). A-levels work in differences of 20's, so if Imperial has 489 and LSE has 484 (according to the stats im looking at now), both their students have over AAAA at A-level.

It has been categorically stated that sciences are not harder than everything else, or more respected.

Finally, i find it quite remarkable that LSE often beats Imperial in employmet rankings, both domestically and internationally. Bearing in mind that science grads tend to be more 'employable' compared to say history or sociology, it is a credit to LSE that it has the best employment prospects even though it teaches just the social sciences. Afterall, LSE has always been in the top 5 universities in the worl for employability according to the THES world ranking. Suffice to say Imperial has not.

Reply 51

achard

I'm sure you'll cope with a Warwick degree just fine.

Reply 52

hobnob

Focus08

vnupe: The voice of reason on TSR. Always has been, always will be! :cool:

"Always"? He has been around for all of four months. :p:

Reply 53

vnupe

hobnob

"Always"? He has been around for all of four months. :p:

SO true Hobnob, so true...

Reply 54

Focus08

vnupe

SO true Hobnob, so true...

Reply 55

vnupe

Focus08

Thank you for your sentiment Focus... I just try to understand statements, and if I think it is mis-information or dis-information, I will challenge it...

Reply 56

Focus08

vnupe

Thank you for your sentiment Focus... I just try to understand statements, and if I think it is mis-information or dis-information, I will challenge it...

Self-regulating TSR :awesome:

Reply 57

vnupe

And that is what debate and discussion is all about on a forum of this type... engaging in positive dialogue, which at times can be confrontational, but it should never be personal

Reply 58

Focus08

vnupe

And that is what debate and discussion is all about on a forum of this type... engaging in positive dialogue, which at times can be confrontational, but it should never be personal