Stop playing with us.
Which league table did you look at?
This league table tells us that Warwick is not only superior to King's in terms of student selectivity, it also is superior to King's in RESEARCH, that's aside from STUDENT SATISFACTION RATING.
2.80 of Warwick vs 2.69 of King's --
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=ResearchWhat made you say I'd argue UC Riverside is superior to Harvard??? Unless I'd have a brain like yours, I would never argue such a stupid claim.
Like I said (but which you didn't listen and/or you refused to listen), ALL the major league tables have unanimously confirmed that Warwick is miles superior to King's. Again, miles. There's a considerable gap that separates them. I'm not talking about ONE league table. I'm practically talking about every single league table published. Get the drift...
Perhaps in one of the many rankings. But when you summed them up together, Warwick would come out as the superior university.
Again, don't based it on one ranking.
WRONG!
I cited why you're so wronged again on my post above.
Many of these are irrelevant.
Source please?
Are you kidding me?
The top employers recognize Warwick as a superior university, and consider it to be a peer university of LSE, Imperial and UCL.
Warwick is a top target school for top bulge bracket firms. King's isn't, despite its London advantage.
You have to consider what kind of companies are you talking about. Mate, maybe King's grads are more proffered at some so-so companies. But when we talk about McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Blackstone and such, Warwick is a top target whilst King's is under the radar.
Again, you need to qualify the numbers and data.
At the current class at Harvard Business School, even LSE and Oxbridge grads are outnumbered by Warwick grads. I know this -- I'm in close contacts with some of these people now. And, if you don't believe me, you can check on HBS Class 2016 profile. No one has gotten into Harvard Business School (HBS) from King's, and the data coming from HBS would tell you that the last time they've accepted someone from King's was way back in 2002. Boy, that's more than a decade ago already, whereas, HBS has consistently accepted students coming from Warwick yearly. Again, if you do know someone who goes to HBS now (which I do, btw), he can provide you the numbers as he would have access to HBS data bank where it would tell you that there wasn't a year when HBS refused to admit a Warwick grad into their class for the last 25 years or so. At HBS, and in most top graduate programs in the US, or anywhere in the world, Warwick can toe-to-toe with the best in the UK, that is something that King's can only dream about.
Additionally, you can refer to this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/student-life/9796679/Warwick-University-top-target-for-graduate-employers.htmlAgain, that's a dumb way of interpreting the data.
Compare apples to apples.
Compare the management grads of Warwick to the management grads of King's. Compare the math grads of Warwick to the math grads of King's. Compare the computer science grads of Warwick and the computer science grads of King's, and so on. Don't compare the salary scale of Warwick History grads, for instance, to the salary scale of the medicine or dental medicine grads of King's. That would be a very stupid thing to do.
Yes and I wouldn't deny that. But King's is way older. When King's was founded, the key players in the academic world were very small. Meaning, it was facing a very few competition. It surely has had a leg up over Warwick which was founded only in 1950s. But today, King's dominance is over. And you don't choose school on the basis of the number of Nobel awards, do you?
I agree it has a higher endowment fund. But, come on. Warwick is not gasping at straw in terms of budget issues. In fact, it is an earning entity. It even bade to establish presence in New York, competing with other ginat schools in the likes of Columbia, Cornell, NYU and Stanford.
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-13042040If Warwick has no money like what you're suggesting, it would not have been able to afford to bid to establish a campus in NY, more so, afford to build a physical presence there.
Additionally, King's having a larger endowment fund than Warwick doesn't say much in the real world. You don't see this applied to the university. Look at the physical resources of King's. They aren't better than Warwick's. King's doesn't have a more attractive campus. It doesn't have much better programs either. In fact, Warwick has more physical resources, more programs, more faculty & staff than King's now.
And, hey, it's not like King's has a couple of billion pounds of endowment here. It only has over a hundred million, which would accrue an annual earnings insignificant to what Warwick receives from tuition. So, get real.
Oh, you wished!
If King's has a stronger brand than Warwick, it would have registered a higher entry requirement. But lo and behold -- It doesn't.
Even internationally, King's doesn't ring a bell. It doesn't have a world-class program where people world-wide would wish they've been a part of it. It's not like LSE has a famous economics program, Imperial engineering or UCL medicine. Warwick has a highly-ranked business school, ranked by both the Financial Times and Economists in the top 30 in the world, even beating programs offered by Cornell, UCLA and such giant schools in America. King's doesn't have a single program where it can honestly, seriously and confidently say, it can rival with the best in the world. Warwick has one, not just one, but many -- MBA, MSc Finance, MSc Management, Maths, statistics and economics.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Students at WBS aren't poor, or poorer than King's students.
On a personal level, I seriously doubt that you're making more than I do. Seriously.