University Prestige Rankings

What about liverpooooool

Posted from TSR Mobile

You are mistaken. I have no love for Strand Poly but I will gladly use it to address you insecurities that you attended Warwick, which you thought was the next best thing to Oxbridge and you like to claim is now a rival to Oxbridge.

You put up a major fallacy there, insecure Warwick graduate. All academic league tables say KCL, Manchester, Edinburgh and Durham are superior to Warwick.

All these universities have a better history than Warwick.

Even Oxbridge students surveyed stated all these universities are better than Warwick.

St Andrews has a low supply of domestic places because it physically cannot support more places.

Plenty of unis have tons of international students, LSE is one for example. Why are there few complaints that LSE is basically an international school?

Meh, not really. Its entry requirements are artificially kept high because of the low supply of places to domestic students. St. A practically offers their right tit to international students (especially Americans) leaving domestic - not even Scottish places - at record breaking low levels.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why are you asking me where Strand Poly is?

You are another insecure Warwick student who can't accept Strand Poly is better than your university?

Does Strand Poly offer subjects relevant to IB?

What has a certain field's ranking got to do with overall prestige?

How can they artificially keep their entry requirements high?? Most international students would get in with the IB diploma which also equates to UCAS points.
And it makes sense, considering EU/Scottish don't pay fees. Anyways, LSE has an even higher proportion of international students (4.2% to be exact) so...



Was this your attempt at being funny?

You're kidding right? Of course KCL offers subjects allied to IB - they offer Mathematics w/ Finance and Economics. Please do some research to back up your points next time

IB Front Office jobs are some of the most competitive and highest paying salaries in the job markets. Of course, employers of that field would care about reputation of universities.

How did you arrive at the conclusion "no one" pays attention to international league tables when making decisions about their choice of undegraduate education?

Such unsubstantiated and illogical statement reflects badly on the quality of a Warwick student, you know?

One only has to look at TSR and see how university applicants talk about international league tables. Are you saying they are "no ones"?

Insecure Warwick graduate, let me refresh your mind on what prestige is:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3001705&page=28&p=52971999#post52971999

Explain how you came to the conclusion Warwick is on par with UCL and how Warwick is better than Durham.

Also explain how Warwick has more international prestige and brand than Manchester and KCL, insecure Warwick graduate.

Mr Roxas, I will honestly advise you to stop humiliating Warwick with your statements.

Please try to understand the difference between a "donation" and "joint investment".

Also Tata [Motors] is a company, not an Indian billionaire.

Here are figures for DONATIONS to UK universities:

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/9#19380589

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/9#24401696

Warwick is not a university billionaires donate to, KCL is.

You have not attended an Oxbridge level university. Don't be delusional.

How can they artificially keep their entry requirements high?? Most international students would get in with the IB diploma which also equates to UCAS points.
And it makes sense, considering EU/Scottish don't pay fees. Anyways, LSE has an even higher proportion of international students (4.2% to be exact) so...



Was this your attempt at being funny?

You're kidding right? Of course KCL offers subjects allied to IB - they offer Mathematics w/ Finance and Economics. Please do some research to back up your points next time

IB Front Office jobs are some of the most competitive and highest paying salaries in the job markets. Of course, employers of that field would care about reputation of universities.

what?

Was this your attempt at being funny?

You're kidding right? Of course KCL offers subjects allied to IB - they offer Mathematics w/ Finance and Economics. Please do some research to back up your points next time

IB Front Office jobs are some of the most competitive and highest paying salaries in the job markets. Of course, employers of that field would care about reputation of universities.

You’re the one that’s mistaken here.

All nationally covered, more legit, more relevant and trustworthy ranking games were saying WARWICK is superior to King’s College. The gap isn't even close. From The Complete University Guide, The Guardian and jointly by The Times and The Sunday Times to The Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times, amongst others, are ALL saying Warwick is superior to King’s College. And, again, the gap isn't even close.
Furthermore, Warwick is the only multi-faculty university apart from Oxbridge that has not been ranked outside of the top 10 by any credible league table. King’s has been outside of the top 20 unis for over a decade now. So saying it is better than Warwick is ridiculous.

LoL... It’s obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. But I do understand your position given that you have not attended a top UK university, never experienced being interviewed by a top bank, have never been hired by a well-established company, and the only knowledge you now have comes from hearsay of people who are just like you – bum and a complete idiot.

Now, let’s go to the topic.
Warwick is a top target uni for top bulge bracket firms. The biggest names in the banking and financial institutions, such as, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Barclays, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Citi, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as well as, the top management consulting firms, such as, McKinsey, Bain, Deloitte, Accenture, among others, do ALL regularly recruit at Warwick. They all consider Warwick to be a top feeder school, along with Oxbridge and the elite London unis of LSE and UCL, plus Imperial. This is a feat that a 2nd-rate uni like King’s College can only wish to have.
Look, I'm not inventing this. This is reality that I'm talking about.
And, again, these are not so-so companies and firms that regularly recruit at Warwick. These are the biggest, most influential, more stable, most respected companies/banks which all consider Warwick as one of the only 6 core schools to recruit top talents from in the UK.

King’s is older, you mean. But it doesn't have the rich history that a great uni like Oxford, for instance, can boast of.
I admit it does have a leg up on this fight given it’s older. But to say it has a good history is a form of baloney. If anything, I’d take that against King’s, as this has only established my previous assumption that King’s College did not take advantage of its age (when it has fewer competitors back then which was the perfect time to gain momentum and speed up in the race) as King’s College's prestige and resources, as well as, the quality of the students, are declining now.
Maybe it’s true King’s was a powerhouse 100 years ago. But today, it’s not generally considered a top 10 UK university anymore. Thanks to its history then – it has slipped in all nationally-covered reputational surveys, lol...



Show me the survey results, if indeed, such surveys existed. But I know you can’t. It's because there’s wasn't a survey of such, in the first place.

Okay. Since you’ve asked for it how, I’ll tell you now how.

Take a look at how skewed rankings that cover universities located in different countries such as this one made by QS. Here’s how they ranked the unis: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=
At #2 was Imperial. Oxford was #5. Really? Even the most ambitious engineer wannabe would rather matriculate at Oxford than at Imperial, as the data have shown Oxford almost always winning in the cross-admit battles between the two, as Oxford's enrollment yield rate is quite high. Oxford has better name recognition, both in the UK and in the USA. It has a more powerful alumni, has bigger funding, more resources, etc, etc, how in the world would Oxford tail only to Imperial? Come on. Let’s get real. Imperial is a great institution for engineering and hard sciences, but Oxford is better. Yet in this ranking which you’re supporting says, Imperial is superior to Oxford. Is that really so? Well, I don’t think so.

Let’s take another example, as a case in point. In the same ranking table, it appeared that Michigan was ranked #23, several notches ahead of Brown, which was ranked at #52. Brown is an Ivy League school, very well-funded and has been able to attract better quality students than Michigan has. Yet, again, according to this league table that you’re supporting, Michigan is superior to Brown. In the USA, almost everyone would rather attend Brown than Michigan. That is the reality in the USA, which, apparently, you’re clueless about given you have not been to America.
In the same league table, Dartmouth didn't even make it to the top 100. Yet, I would wager that almost everyone who has been accepted to both Dartmouth College and King’s College (which was ranked #16, btw), would attend Dartmouth. Yet, on the league table that you’re supporting, King's would appear to be a more attractive school to go to than Dartmouth is. No way is King’s better than Dartmouth. You are fooling yourself when you seriously think that King’s is number 16 in the world is is superior to schools like Duke, UPenn, Northwestern, Cornell or the top Liberal Arts Colleges in the USA, which aren't even ranked, which, makes your claim even more ridiculous!!! Do you think King’s would rival in the cross-admit battles against Amherst, Williams or Pomona? You’re only fooling yourself if you think there would be more cross-admitted students choosing King’s over those colleges, lol...

And, it’s for those reasons why international league tables are more of a ranking for graduate and post-graduate schools where research output was measured and given more weight than undergrad-driven criteria, such as, schools offering better college experience, lower ratio of student-to-faculty, better facilities, more hands-on faculty, a more uniformly smarter student bodies, etc, etc…

LSE is different because it's arguably on par with Oxbridge reputation wise and academically. Even if it increased its number of domestic places, it would still retain its high entry requirements.

St. Andrews isn't quite at that level - even if they try to be. That's why I think limiting domestic places gives them a much greater advantage on the entry reqs side of these rankings.