Brown University (US) versus Warwick (UK)

Ok Knogle firstly, calm the hell down!

Secondly, a lot of UK 'folks' actually argued in favour of Brown.

Thirdly, Warwick hasn't got nearly as good an international reputation. Yes, it is an up and coming place. Yes, it has done well to get where it has today. Yes, lots of British employers regard it well. But let's face it, Brown is probably better (and, importantly, better viewed) than Warwick in many ways.

International reputation is a funny thing - I haven't heard of any German universities but if I were an employer I wouldn't automatically dismiss German graduates for this reason.

Knogle: Where's your evidence which somehow proves otherwise?

Money, reputation.. it's all important in deciding which university to go to.

You're asking me for evidence that you can't quantify international rep? Uhhh, no.

No, I'm asking you for evidence that Brown isn't better than Warwick.

International reputation is a funny thing - I haven't heard of any German universities but if I were an employer I wouldn't automatically dismiss German graduates for this reason.

How do you quantify international reputation? The fact is that lots of people in the UK know of Brown university; the same is not true of Warwick in America. That is a fact. QED. (If you dispute it's a fact, without having lived or spent time in the US, there's little we can do to convince you; ask American members on here - one of which, shadylane, already commented she hadn't heard of Warwick prior to TSR.) I'm told both are well-known in Asia.

As to the only thing he's riding on being 'international reputation', what's wrong with that? You've said yourself both have a good domestic rep, sufficient to get a decent job; the OP wanted to differentiate the two - if national reps are both good, the international rep is the next logical step.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying one is better than the other. YOU are proposing that Brown > Warwick, and are riding on the 'better international rep' edge. YOU should be the one quantifying international rep, and hence use that to convince us of your beliefs.

A lot of employers would though, that's the point surely?

YOU should be the one quantifying international rep, and hence use that to convince us of your beliefs.

Spurious. If a candidate's country has top quality, world-class universities (H,Y,P etc in America or Oxbridge, LSE in UK) and they didn't go to one of them, that's different to not going to a well-known university in a country where there are none - the second scenario doesn't mean that the candidate couldn't get into a top university, merely that there were none.

Brown is in World's top 100 list, Warwick isn't.* Brown is well-known in UK, Warwick is not well-known in America.

*http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm

You really think so? You think all Germans would struggle to get jobs abroad because they went to a German university? This isn't some backwater, it's Europe's major economic power.

Not really. If you can't prove otherwise, you have no right to say that I'm wrong about Brown being better than Warwick.

And you're using rankings that don't discuss international rep.

Brown is in World's top 100 list, Warwick isn't.* Brown is well-known in UK, Warwick is not well-known in America.

*http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm

EDIT: I should add that I'm basing my assertation that Warwick is not known in the US on time spent there, talking to students. Of course it's not a massively huge sample, but I think it's fair game; you'd expect at least one person to have heard of it...