Warwick University or Kings College London

I can't say anything about the program and the program content, but about the university, Warwick is in a league above King's. It is more respected, has smarter students, in general, and has better connections with industry and top employers. CS grads from Warwick are able to work in banking and finance, if they opted to not pursue a career as a software engineer.

Reply 4

Original post by Mr. Roxas

I can't say anything about the program and the program content, but about the university, Warwick is in a league above King's. It is more respected, has smarter students, in general, and has better connections with industry and top employers. CS grads from Warwick are able to work in banking and finance, if they opted to not pursue a career as a software engineer.

And here again you are caught lying.

All the surveys of employers, academics and CEOs repeatedly shows that KCL is far more respected than Warwick in regards to student quality, graduate prospect, the research and brand.

So why are you lying?

Reply 5

username738914

21

Original post by LutherVan

And here again you are caught lying.

All the surveys of employers, academics and CEOs repeatedly shows that KCL is far more respected than Warwick in regards to student quality, graduate prospect, the research and brand.

So why are you lying?

Original post by Mr. Roxas

I can't say anything about the program and the program content, but about the university, Warwick is in a league above King's. It is more respected, has smarter students, in general, and has better connections with industry and top employers. CS grads from Warwick are able to work in banking and finance, if they opted to not pursue a career as a software engineer.

You guys are like a married couple, seriously, no one cares this much.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 6

Original post by LutherVan

And here again you are caught lying.

All the surveys of employers, academics and CEOs repeatedly shows that KCL is far more respected than Warwick in regards to student quality, graduate prospect, the research and brand.

So why are you lying?

People, let's just ignore this troll.

This guy is from India and has not been in the UK. He has no idea what UK is like or what the universities in the UK are like. He hasn't attended a top UK university. He's just a troll lurking on this forum pretending he knows something. The only information he has were gathered from the tabloids he reads back in his home country in India. He's a disgrace to the Indian community in the UK. It's pathetic he's living in a lie and he pretends he knows the universities in the UK.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 7

OP, King's is a decent university. But it is in a league below the top London U's. It's a dumping ground for those who do not have the stats to get into UCL, LSE and Imperial. Warwick doesn't have that stigma. It offers a different ambiance, atmosphere, campus lifestyle and college experience.Warwick facilities are new and well-maintained. The CS dept at Warwick has its own dedicated department, ranked 2nd in UK Research Assessment, and the faculty and students at CS collaborate with those from maths.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/dcs/news/?newsItem=094d43454a4e707d014a5e0fdf596ec5
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/dcs/

There is no way King's is more regarded than Warwick by the employers. Maybe if we're talking about so-so companies, such as a crew for Burger King, that could be very well true. But for the top employers in the UK and outside of the UK, like Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Citi, Google, and the like, Warwick trumps King's big time. There isn't even a comparison. Warwick is one of the only 6 UK universities where the top employers target for recruitment. The other 5 are: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial and UCL. King's sad to say, isn't in the elite list. It's not in the radar of the top employers. Their graduates are not well recruited by big-time companies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/student-life/9796679/Warwick-University-top-target-for-graduate-employers.html

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/warwick_students_3rd/

Take a look at those tables and notice how huge the gap was that separates between Warwick (a top-tier university) and King's College (a 2nd-tier university).

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 8

Original post by Mr. Roxas

People, let's just ignore this troll.

This guy is from India and has not been in the UK. He has no idea what UK is like or what the universities in the UK are like. He hasn't attended a top UK university. He's just a troll lurking on this forum pretending he knows something. The only information he has were gathered from the tabloids he reads back in his home country in India. He's a disgrace to the Indian community in the UK. It's pathetic he's living in a lie and he pretends he knows the universities in the UK.

Stop lying to people because you are an insecure Warwick graduate.

KCL is a better research university than Warwick. The REF 2014 results tell us that:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2014/dec/18/university-research-excellence-framework-2014-full-rankings

The UK government gives more money to the better university:

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/10#32177470

KCL students have better employment prospect than Warwick students and get a higher salary:

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Prospects

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/10#26786260

Employers, academics and high flying students all regard KCL as better:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2015/reputation-ranking

http://emerging.fr/rank_en.html

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/9#13802115

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/9#25396456

KCL is a better funded and far richer university than Warwick because it is better and more respected university. It has 20 times Warwick's endowment, higher income and has raised, in 4 years, 10 times what Warwick will only be able to raise in 35 years. This shows it has better connections with industry and makes more money from its research and concultancy:

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

So stop lying. :rolleyes:

Instead of your ad hominem, why don't you just show us you are not lying?

Reply 9

Original post by Mr. Roxas

OP, King's is a decent university. But it is in a league below the top London U's. It's a dumping ground for those who do not have the stats to get into UCL, LSE and Imperial. Warwick doesn't have that stigma. It offers a different ambiance, atmosphere, campus lifestyle and college experience.Warwick facilities are new and well-maintained. The CS dept at Warwick has its own dedicated department, ranked 2nd in UK Research Assessment, and the faculty and students at CS collaborate with those from maths.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/dcs/news/?newsItem=094d43454a4e707d014a5e0fdf596ec5
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/dcs/

There is no way King's is more regarded than Warwick by the employers. Maybe if we're talking about so-so companies, such as a crew for Burger King, that could be very well true. But for the top employers in the UK and outside of the UK, like Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, Citi, Google, and the like, Warwick trumps King's big time. There isn't even a comparison. Warwick is one of the only 6 UK universities where the top employers target for recruitment. The other 5 are: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Imperial and UCL. King's sad to say, isn't in the elite list. It's not in the radar of the top employers. Their graduates are not well recruited by big-time companies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/student-life/9796679/Warwick-University-top-target-for-graduate-employers.html

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/warwick_students_3rd/

Take a look at those tables and notice how huge the gap was that separates between Warwick (a top-tier university) and King's College (a 2nd-tier university).

So, how come KCL graduates earn more than Warwick graduates every year?

So, how come more percentage of KCL graduates are employed than the percentage of Warwick graduates every year despite KCL being a bigger unversity?

A top-tier university that cannot raise £50m in 5 years while a 2nd-tier university raised £500m in 4 years? :biggrin:

Tell us any other top-tier university in the world that cannot raise £50m in 2 years, not even 4 years. :biggrin:

Top tier to who?

A top-tier university that gets less funding from the government?

The UK government awarded KCL £65m for 2015-2016, which is almost double what Warwick got (£34m).

The ratio difference of funding between Cambridge (£120m) and KCL (£65m) is almost the same ratio difference between KCL and Warwick

So which is the top-tier university and more respected by the UK government then?

It is funny you refer to the UK research assessment to argue that Warwick's CS department is better than KCL's.

But yet you will not admit the KCL is better overall considering the same UK research assessment puts it above Warwick overall. :rolleyes:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 10

You are predictable. lol...

The problem here Luther Van is, as someone who hasn't been to the UK and who hasn't studied in the UK, you simply did not understand those data and you do NOT know how to interpret them or how they impact the university and the students' "college experience". You also do not know how to filter the data, and you do not know when to use them. Those are some of the reasons why I caught you lying all along, and have gruesomely been pretending to be someone who has attended a UK uni. You are FULL of pretense. You have a thick face coming up on here saying the things you simply have no knowledge about. Have some respect for yourself and get out of here.

Reply 11

Original post by Mr. Roxas

You are predictable. lol...

The problem here Luther Van is, as someone who hasn't been to the UK and who hasn't studied in the UK, you simply did not understand those data and you do NOT know how to interpret them or how they impact the university and the students' "college experience". You also do not know how to filter the data, and you do not know when to use them. Those are some of the reasons why I caught you lying all along, and have gruesomely been pretending to be someone who has attended a UK uni. You are FULL of pretense. You have a thick face coming up on here saying the things you simply have no knowledge about. Have some respect for yourself and get out of here.

No, you are just an insecure Warwick graduate going around TSR lying to people that Warwick is the next best thing to Oxbridge.

I have caught you out lying again and I provided links to prove you are lying.

- KCL is above Warwicks league.
- KCL is more respected than Warwick by academics, the government, employers and smart students.
- KCL has better connections with industry and generates more income.

I provided links to prove these all and all you could come up with is more ad hominem.

All independent surveys and statistics conducted supports these quantifiable observations, so where did you get your knowledge from? You derriere?

It is shocking you can refer to REF 2014 for prestige when it suits you but you forget it shows KCL is superior to Warwick. That is enough proof to show your bias and that you are an insecure Warwick grad who likes to use selective information to mislead others.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

Original post by LutherVan

No, you are just an insecure Warwick graduate going around TSR lying to people that Warwick is the next best thing to Oxbridge.

I have caught you out lying again and I provided links to prove you are lying.

- KCL is above Warwicks league.
- KCL is more respected than Warwick by academics, the government, employers and smart students.
- KCL has better connections with industry and generates more income.

I provided links to prove these all and all you could come up with is more ad hominem.

All independent surveys and statistics conducted supports these quantifiable observations, so where did you get your knowledge from? You derriere?

It is shocking you can refer to REF 2014 for prestige when it suits you but you forget it shows KCL is superior to Warwick. That is enough proof to show your bias and that you are an insecure Warwick grad who likes to use selective information to mislead others.

No, you are just an insecure guy from a remote village in India going around TSR lying to people that you have been to the UK, you have studied in a UK university, King's College -- your dream university -- is the next best thing to Oxbridge.

I have caught you out lying again and I provided links to prove you are lying.

- Warwick is above King's College league.
- Warwick is more respected than King's College by academics, the government, employers and smart students.
- Warwick has better connections with industry and generates more income.

I provided links to prove these all and all you could come up with is more ad hominem.

All independent surveys and statistics conducted supports these quantifiable observations, so where did you get your knowledge from? You derriere?

It is shocking you can refer to REF 2014 for prestige when it suits you but you forget it shows Warwick is superior to King's College. That is enough proof to show your bias and that you are an insecure, lowly form guy from a remote village in India who likes to use selective information to mislead others.

Reply 13

Research Excellence Framework 2014: Institutions ranked by Subject

This is the only relevant REF ranking that matters to the OP. This is the information needed to know. But being stupid as you are, all irrelevant data to the OP's interest.

As you can see, where we compare apples to apples, Warwick would smash King's College to the ground.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 14

username1857597

10

As far as academic level is concerned, as you can see above, Warwick has a stronger research profile, but Kings is not to be underestimated as well. These comments about one university "smashing" the other "to the ground" are a bit ridiculous and just laughable to be honest. Both are world class institutions. When insecure students attach their egos to the universities they go to, there can never be an honest and objective discussion. All of it devolves into the usual "derp my uni is better than yours" child-like fights.

When it come to connections with employers, Warwick is the third most targeted university in the UK by employers according to the most recent statistics (source: http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/2015/graduate_market/GMReport15.pdf). Kings claims the 20th spot.

So let's break it down to several simple points:
If academic reputation is your top priority: go to Warwick.
If employment prospects is your top priority: go to Warwick.
If course structure matters to you the most: choose the one that suits you best.
If social life and location matter to you the most: choose the one that suits you best.
If living expenses will be one of your top priorities: go to Warwick as London is incredibly expensive.

You are not going to be at a disadvantage, regardless of your choice. It is not like you are considering London Metropolitan University.

Reply 15

Original post by Mr. Roxas

No, you are just an insecure guy from a remote village in India going around TSR lying to people that you have been to the UK, you have studied in a UK university, King's College -- your dream university -- is the next best thing to Oxbridge.

I have caught you out lying again and I provided links to prove you are lying.

- Warwick is above King's College league.
- Warwick is more respected than King's College by academics, the government, employers and smart students.
- Warwick has better connections with industry and generates more income.

I provided links to prove these all and all you could come up with is more ad hominem.

All independent surveys and statistics conducted supports these quantifiable observations, so where did you get your knowledge from? You derriere?

It is shocking you can refer to REF 2014 for prestige when it suits you but you forget it shows Warwick is superior to King's College. That is enough proof to show your bias and that you are an insecure, lowly form guy from a remote village in India who likes to use selective information to mislead others.

I can see you have no evidence to back your lies so you just become bitter and copy & paste my points with a bit of modificatios to add your ad hominem.

Original post by Mr. Roxas

Research Excellence Framework 2014: Institutions ranked by Subject

This is the only relevant REF ranking that matters to the OP. This is the information needed to know. But being stupid as you are, all irrelevant data to the OP's interest.

As you can see, where we compare apples to apples, Warwick would smash King's College to the ground.

Good.

So you provided what you regard as the best evidence to show Warwick has a better department for CS than KCL.

Okay.

Now using the same evidence, then we can logically conclude that overall, for all subjects, KCL is better than Warwick?

Research Excellence Framework 2014: Institutions overall ranks:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2014/dec/18/university-research-excellence-framework-2014-full-rankings

Surely, you are smart enough to be consistent in the logic you employ in a debate.

Reply 16

Original post by Broscientist

As far as academic level is concerned, as you can see above, Warwick has a stronger research profile, but Kings is not to be underestimated as well. These comments about one university "smashing" the other "to the ground" are a bit ridiculous and just laughable to be honest. Both are world class institutions. When insecure students attach their egos to the universities they go to, there can never be an honest and objective discussion. All of it devolves into the usual "derp my uni is better than yours" child-like fights.

When it come to connections with employers, Warwick is the third most targeted university in the UK by employers according to the most recent statistics (source: http://www.highfliers.co.uk/download/2015/graduate_market/GMReport15.pdf). Kings claims the 20th spot.

So let's break it down to several simple points:
If academic reputation is your top priority: go to Warwick.
If employment prospects is your top priority: go to Warwick.
If course structure matters to you the most: choose the one that suits you best.
If social life and location matter to you the most: choose the one that suits you best.
If living expenses will be one of your top priorities: go to Warwick as London is incredibly expensive.

You are not going to be at a disadvantage, regardless of your choice. It is not like you are considering London Metropolitan University.

How did you come to the conclusion Warwick has a stronger academic reputation?

If you argument is Warwick has a stronger research profile for CS, then valid argument, but make sure you state clearly that is what you are referring to. Otherwise it is quite lame to show evidence of Warwicks research profile for CS to make a conclusion that Warwick has a better research profile overall. You can as well say Warwick has a better research profile overall thann Oxbridge and Imperial because of the CS REF tables.

If you are talking overall, then KCL was superior to Warwick in the REF tables. It is a superior research university. Otherwise, the government would not be giving it double Warwick's funding.

Secondly, have you even seen surveys of academics about university reputations?

No?

Well, if you have, you will realise KCL has a stronger academic reputation. Check the Times Higher Education ranking. They did a survey of academic reputation.

Thirdly, how did you come to the conclusion that Warwick has better employment prospects?

You did not check your facts?

Go here and check for all the years as far back as 2008:

http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Prospects

That is quantifiable data, not qualitative.

KCL has more percentage of students getting employed and they on average have higher salaries.

Using meaningless data of where employers visit, which is geographically dependent and skewed, does not make sense. From theat table, students of Warwick have better employment prospects than Oxbridge. Those of Leeds (and even Loughborough) have better employement prospects than Imperial and LSE.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/student-life/9796679/Warwick-University-top-target-for-graduate-employers.html

What complete rubbish.

Where employers visit data is skewed towards where you are based geographically and employers will spread it geographically to reduce their recruitment costs. Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds will feature well because they are in major cities that the recruiters spread to. That does not mean they are getting the jobs. The data of the higher employment percentages and starting salaries shows which universities have employable students and students likely getting the top jobs.

One university has better employment records and average graduate salaries, year on year, than the other university but yet you say the better one has the inferior employment prospects?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 17

username1857597

10

I was talking about Warwick's CS department. When it comes to employment... It is common knowledge that Warwick is a top-targeted university. Not only is it common knowledge, but the High Fliers Research proves this year after year. This is no coincidence... The opinions of the top employers speak volumes, no one can argue with their preference - it is them who are offering employment and it is them who target specific universities. KCL is definitely respected among employers, it does make it in the ranking.

Why are people so fanatic when it comes to debating about universities? It is almost as if one is dealing with cult members, not students.

And speaking of the data being "geographically dependent and skewed" it is the London universities who have the biggest advantage in this regard. All of the top employers are practically at their doorstep. Now when a university outside London manages to generate so much attention from employers, that is definitely something worth noting.

Reply 18

Original post by LutherVan

I can see you have no evidence to back your lies so you just become bitter and copy & paste my points with a bit of modificatios to add your ad hominem.

Good.

So you provided what you regard as the best evidence to show Warwick has a better department for CS than KCL.

Okay.

Now using the same evidence, then we can logically conclude that overall, for all subjects, KCL is better than Warwick?

You're again mistaken, idiot.
As evidenced above, even when a uni has an overall higher rank, the subject ranking could differ widely.
Consider this case for instance.

Overall ranking of King's College is 7
Overall ranking of Warwick is 8. (Only one place behind. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/ref-2014-results-table-of-excellence/2017590.article)

However, when you look at the table on a per subject basis, only in 4 areas where King's stood superior to Warwick: medicine, law, education and sociology. All the rest favors Warwick.

Therefore, to conclude that "overall, for all subjects, KCL is better than Warwick" is nothing less than an idiotic conclusion.

Reply 19