The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Newcastle456
There are 350 to 400 pure UG Economists a year alone. Nevermind all the joint courses.

The business school probably has 1500 to 2000 UG students across all its courses every year.

You will soon realise it's the bulk.

You have just shown me biochemistry; maths because of step is atypical, Warwick isn't known for science courses like biology.

You're officially a tool.

http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-warwick-w20/economics-3-years-9000-l100-79893

https://www.whatuni.com/degrees/philosophy-politics-and-economics-ba-bsc-hons/university-of-warwick/cd/55688244/3771/

http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-warwick-w20/law-3-year-programme-3-years-9000-m100

That's not 100%

Posted from TSR Mobile


I repeat, because you seemingly don't seem to get it- the university has OVER 25000 students. 1500-2000 students ACROSS the entire school is a small minority of the uni's total enrolment. How else can I explain this?

The statistic for Law is not accurate, considering Warwick has been in clearing that past two years. But even so, this doesn't change the fact that for the majority of its courses, Warwick offers places to all those who meet the offer. Do also note that for many of its courses, Warwick's students have on average fewer UCAS points than other unis whose offers are lower or equal.

But yeah, I'm the tool. It's not like someone is biased beyond oblivion.
Original post by *Stefan*
I repeat, because you seemingly don't seem to get it- the university has OVER 25000 students. 1500-2000 students ACROSS the entire school is a small minority of the uni's total enrolment. How else can I explain this?

The statistic for Law is not accurate, considering Warwick has been in clearing that past two years. But even so, this doesn't change the fact that for the majority of its courses, Warwick offers places to all those who meet the offer. Do also note that for many of its courses, Warwick's students have on average fewer UCAS points than other unis whose offers are lower or equal.

But yeah, I'm the tool. It's not like someone is biased beyond oblivion.


It's in each year, that's why i specially said each UG year, you are an idiot. You don't know how to analyse data, you chat **** and portray false information.

So official UCAS data is incorrect..... Yeah ok I'm done.

I give up.

I don't need to be biased, I've got nothing to prove. You've clearly been rejected by warwick with a chip.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Newcastle456
It's in each year, you are an idiot.

So official UCAS data is incorrect..... Yeah ok I'm done.

I give up.

Posted from TSR Mobile


And...? even if you multiply it by 3 or 4 times, it gets to 8k max - how is that the vast majority of students Warwick has? The irony of you calling me an idiot.

The data on there does not account for clearing offers for obvious reasons.

You gave up on your first post - you just only realised it. Thanks for the laugh doe :smile:
Original post by *Stefan*
And...? even if you multiply it by 3 or 4 times, it gets to 8k max - how is that the vast majority of students Warwick has? The irony of you calling me an idiot.

The data on there does not account for clearing offers for obvious reasons.

You gave up on your first post - you just only realised it. Thanks for the laugh doe :smile:


Enjoy your sad life. It's for one faculty, you've also got postgraduates, the other ones, it's easily 50 to 60% of student body.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Newcastle456
Enjoy your sad life. It's for one faculty, you've also got postgraduates, the other ones, it's easily 50 to 60% of student body.

Posted from TSR Mobile


You know who's life is sad when you have to say that...

No - you're telling me that 7-8 courses (and include join courses including these if you want) account for 50-60% of the student body? And since when does 'vast majority' mean simple majority? A vast majority would be 80% and more (thus, around 20000 students).

You clearly realised the sheer idiocy of that point and are now unsurprisingly backtracking. Warwick could have certainly done a better job. :rolleyes:
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
You know who's life is sad when you have to say that...

No - you're telling me that 7-8 courses (and include join courses including these if you want) account for 50-60% of the student body? And since when does 'vast majority' mean simple majority? A vast majority would be 80% and more (thus, around 20000 students).

You clearly realised the sheer idiocy of that point and are now unsurprisingly backtracking. Warwick could have certainly done a better job. :rolleyes:


Econ Faculty - 600/700*3 UGS + all PGS.

Business School - 1500-2000*3-4; take average 1750 *3.5 ~ 7000 UGS + all PGs

Maths - when you include maths, discrete maths, morse, etc again around 2000 UGS + all PGS.

This is well over 50% of student body. You came out with 1000 out of 25k.
You've been chatting **** throughout.

God bless you.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Newcastle456
Econ Faculty - 600/700*3 UGS + all PGS.

Business School - 1500-2000*3-4; take average 1750 *3.5 ~ 7000 UGS + all PGs

Maths - when you include maths, discrete maths, morse, etc again around 2000 UGS + all PGS.

This is well over 50% of student body. You came out with 1000 out of 25k.
You've been chatting **** throughout.

God bless you.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I'm not sure if this is meant to be a joke or if it's serious...

You're telling me that the Business School alone has 7k students on its own(!), the Econ department has 2.1k students on its own and the Maths department 2k students plus the postgrads. Am I reading this correctly?

Fine, now that you've ridiculed yourself, let me show you just how wrong you are:
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/about/profile/people/

In 2015, Warwick's Social Sciences Faculty corresponded to 46% of the total student population. The Social Sciences Faculty includes both the Business School and Economics, on top of: Linguistics, Lifelong Learning, Education courses, Law, Philosophy, Politics and International Studies and Sociology.

IF we take your calculations into account, Econ and the WBS ALONE would total over 10.1k students - that would mean that all remaining courses in TOTAL would have just 1300-1500 students, including both undergraduates and postgraduates. For Law alone, Warwick takes about 200 UNDERGRADUATE students a YEAR. That would mean that, if you multiply that by 3 and 4 (depending on course duration), AND add the postgraduates, the other courses would simply have no students (according to your calculations).

So, I'm asking again - is this a joke? Or is it perhaps that you're pulling numbers out of your arse?

Well well...
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by *Stefan*
I'm not sure if this is meant to be a joke or if it's serious...

You're telling me that the Business School alone has 7k students on its own(!), the Econ department has 2.1k students on its own and the Maths department 2k students plus the postgrads. Am I reading this correctly?

Fine, now that you've ridiculed yourself, let me show you just how wrong you are:
https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/about/profile/people/

In 2015, Warwick's Social Sciences Faculty corresponded to 46% of the total student population. The Social Sciences Faculty includes both the Business School and Economics, on top of: Linguistics, Lifelong Learning, Education courses, Law, Philosophy, Politics and International Studies and Sociology.

IF we take your calculations into account, Econ and the WBS ALONE would total over 10.1k students - that would mean that all remaining courses in TOTAL would have just 1300-1500 students, including both undergraduates and postgraduates. For Law alone, Warwick takes about 200 UNDERGRADUATE students a YEAR. That would mean that, if you multiply that by 3 and 4 (depending on course duration), AND add the postgraduates, the other courses would simply have no students (according to your calculations).

So, I'm asking again - is this a joke? Or is it perhaps that you're pulling numbers out of your arse?

Well well...


10.1k of 25k is 40%, it might be slight over estimation but it isn't a lot. The other faculties are small.

That's highly different to the 1000 out of 25k you were banging on about. :mmm::mmm::mmm::mmm::mmm:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&ei=TG_uV4iREoGsswG4hai4Dw&q=warwick+business+school+number+of+students&oq=warwick+business+school+number+o&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.1.0.0i22i30k1l5.489.5071.0.6844.15.11.0.0.0.0.409.815.0j1j1j0j1.3.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..13.2.629...0i13i30k1.a6x9iPdFqoQ - over 6k

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)


Here he go again.

That would leave just 6% for all other schools within the faculty of social sciences - ranging from politics to law. 6%. If you think this is realistic, you definitely haven't been to uni yet.

On top of that, not all courses of the WBS are Warwick's flagship courses - definitely not Digital Innovation, International Business and whatnot. By the 1000 figure I was referring to a single year for its most reputable courses. I did not include the entirety of the business school, nor postgraduate courses, because at that point we were talking about undergraduate studies (as per the OP).

Yeah, and? 6k is circa 24% of the student population (including the ENTIRETY of the business school). If you think Economics and Mathematics make the remaining 26% (just for the simple majority, NOT the VAST majority you claimed), you're joking yourself.

So yeah, it's not a 'slight overestimation' - it's a massive exaggeration. MASSIVE.
Given that Warwick have always been a top 10 uni in all national ranking since record began, it must be pretty bad.

The haters can keep hating though.
Original post by *Stefan*
And...? even if you multiply it by 3 or 4 times, it gets to 8k max - how is that the vast majority of students Warwick has? The irony of you calling me an idiot.

The data on there does not account for clearing offers for obvious reasons.

You gave up on your first post - you just only realised it. Thanks for the laugh doe :smile:


Are you trying to be dumb or?

Total Undergraduate Population:
13,864

8k/13k isn't a lot? wtf

And what does clearing offers have to do with anything?

I don't have a bone to pick I'm just confused as to why you're being oblivious.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 571
On an international level, LSE and Oxbridge are by far top on reputation.
Original post by Morrisseya
What did you pick your unis based on?


Actually going to the universities and researching them for myself. Speaking to the lecturers, the students there, etc.

I got into all of my choices and I went to the university that I felt I would be happiest at, I've just started this year doing a dual honours degree but haven't had any classes yet (still in Fresher's Week).
I've already got my Summer placement for 2017 and I know I'll be okay for jobs later :smile:

After speaking with lots of people and seeing job interviews of people from what some of you are considering as top universities I realised that it doesn't really matter about the university, it matters more about the individual. Thinking you're going to get anywhere just by counting on the reputation of university isn't going to get you very far :biggrin:
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Princepieman
Are you trying to be dumb or?

Total Undergraduate Population:
13,864

8k/13k isn't a lot? wtf

And what does clearing offers have to do with anything?

I don't have a bone to pick I'm just confused as to why you're being oblivious.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Given you have me on linkedin, I'm sure you can attest the fact I've not only got an UG and a PG and am not bsing.

The guy is generally off his head and has been chatting **** about warwick for months.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
Are you trying to be dumb or?

Total Undergraduate Population:
13,864

8k/13k isn't a lot? wtf

And what does clearing offers have to do with anything?

I don't have a bone to pick I'm just confused as to why you're being oblivious.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Erm... you're giving me the total undergraduate number yet the 8k figure (which isn't really 8k) includes ALL students, undergraduates, postgraduates and above. What am I to make of this?

Warwick has, in total, circa 24.600 students. The WBS has circa 6-6.5k students. That makes in total about 24%. I can't make it clearer than this.

But, just to ask, you agree with him that Warwick's flagship courses, i.e. Econ, Maths and let's say all its Business courses too, constitute the 'vast majority' of its students, and that therefore law, history, sociology, classics and whanot students are but a very, very small minority?

Original post by Newcastle456
Given you have me on linkedin, I'm sure you can attest the fact I've not only got an UG and a PG and am not bsing.The guy is generally off his head and has been chatting **** about warwick for months.Posted from TSR Mobile
Solid answer to the facts I've given above. Lol.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CherishFreedom
Given that Warwick have always been a top 10 uni in all national ranking since record began, it must be pretty bad.

The haters can keep hating though.


It's worth noting that this is broadly down to a prestige elements rather than out and out quality given it never came close to #1 under 50 where the prestige element of the score is massively reduced. Consistently second or third but didn't get too close to the top spot at any point.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
It's worth noting that this is broadly down to a prestige elements rather than out and out quality given it never came close to #1 under 50 where the prestige element of the score is massively reduced. Consistently second or third but didn't get too close to the top spot at any point.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I would say being ranked 3rd in the world in the 'under 50' category is pretty good considering it is only behind research powerhouses CUHK and HKUST, and also the highest amongst European universities. Another thing to note is that Warwick is ranked highly in employer reputation, ranking 20th globally last year and 26th this year.

Whether this boils down to prestige or teaching quality, it doesn't matter. What matters is that it is highly regarded by employers internationally because let's be real, most people study at university because they want a good job.

I'm not trying to say it is Oxbridge standard, but I think it being in the top 10 is totally justified. And it certainly isn't average or rubbish as some people here suggested.
Original post by CherishFreedom
I would say being ranked 3rd in the world in the 'under 50' category is pretty good considering it is only behind research powerhouses CUHK and HKUST, and also the highest amongst European universities. Another thing to note is that Warwick is ranked highly in employer reputation, ranking 20th globally last year and 26th this year.

Whether this boils down to prestige or teaching quality, it doesn't matter. What matters is that it is highly regarded by employers internationally because let's be real, most people study at university because they want a good job.

I'm not trying to say it is Oxbridge standard, but I think it being in the top 10 is totally justified. And it certainly isn't average or rubbish as some people here suggested.


Oh, they've finally made UK #1? And if we're going to be real for a Uk student employers internationally is somewhat irrelevant, domestically is far more important, i doubt many domestic students are going to be having their first jobs abroad, so if they are ever looking at working abroad it will be when university is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the employer

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Oh, they've finally made UK #1? And if we're going to be real for a Uk student employers internationally is somewhat irrelevant, domestically is far more important, i doubt many domestic students are going to be having their first jobs abroad, so if they are ever looking at working abroad it will be when university is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the employer

Posted from TSR Mobile


I'm not talking about being number 1, that's not Warwick. It is firmly in the Top 10.

Global employer reputation reflects how well the university is regarded internationally, this includes domestic employers. The High Fliers report is a good demonstration of its domestic employer reputation and the success of its graduates.

A sign of a good university is that its graduates are highly regarded in the world. This is arguably Oxbridge's biggest asset. Again not saying it is their level, but you simply cannot dismiss international employer reputation as irrelevant.
Original post by *Stefan*


No. Warwick has made itself a great reputation for IB, but other than that it's your regular good university.


Well, I think we can also say the same thing for UCL.

And that's the whole point here. The litmus test of the university's true prestige is the marketability of its graduates. These universities are special because they're attractive to the sight of the top employers. That's what sets them apart.

Take a look at Dartmouth College in the US as an example.
Is it well-known? No, it's not. (Maybe you even haven't heard of it up until this point, right)
Does it mater? It depends. Maybe yes, maybe not.

If your goal of obtaining a degree is so you can work as a supervisor of Tesco or McDonald's, then I'm afraid your Dartmouth degree doesn't offer any cost-benefit, considering how rigorous the programs there are and how expensive the cost of going there is. And, because it isn't popular or well-known in your city, chances are, the local HRD people of Tesco or Mcdo in your city haven't heard of it, but have heard of the popular ones that have presence around your place, and maybe would target those local-based unis than they would Dartmouth.

However, if two applicants are applying to a top management consulting firm, such as, McKinsey, or a prestigious bank, such us, Goldman Sachs, then I'm willing to bet the Dartmouth degree would carry much more weight and would be looked up very highly more so than they would all those unis in your place, regardless how popular your unis are in your community.

In short, these top employers do have a "virtual" list of schools they consider as, "top targets" and, surely, they never guessed these schools just so they would have a list. They did their homework well so they can attract the best. And, in the UK, these so-called, "top 6" for these top employers are: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Warwick, UCL and Imperial. Yes, it's true you can get into one of these prestigious banks coming out of your local-based uni. However, the chances of these top 6 of getting picked are way higher.




The 'bracket firms' do not just consider 6 unis - who told you that? Yes, the top 6 provides a steady stream of people, but it's far from being the only thing IB banks consider.


I never said the bulge bracket firms recruit exclusively at the top 6. I only said -- these top 6 are the top targets or top feeder schools to bulge bracket firms. They all stand "head-and-shoulders" above all the rest of the schools in the UK.


In all other careers, Warwick performs okay. Nothing too spectacular.

Well, we can all say the same thing for UCL, despite it being one of the top targets for banking/finance. How would, say, a CS grad of UCL be any special to a CS grad of Warwick, or a German language major of UCL to a German language grad of Warwick, or a Physics grad of UCL to a Physics grad of Warwick, and so on?

The presence of the top bulge bracket firms, their high salary rates, and their notorious discriminatory selections process of hiring are what determines prestige to me. These employers are willing to pay whom they attract (regardless of academic field) way above what other employers could offer, so plenty of top students are naturally attracted to them. And, for these "top 6" unis, their graduates (regardless of major) are given that opportunities, something that grads of those "ordinary" unis aren't really blessed with.