Why is Warwick so highly regarded by banks when it gives offers to 85% of applicants?

So, so wrong. Have you even been at uni?



No is isn't. Warwick is by no means as targeted for finance, consulting and certainly legal careers as it is for IB. It's still a good uni for that purpose, but certainly not as good as Oxbridge.

I understad, you're applying to UCL/Warwick or are a student at either - unfortunately once again proving my point. If you're a prospective students, just go with UCL if you only care about prestige.

Examples? Aside from Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial for consulting and maybe KCL/Bristol for law?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Not as targeted for finance as it is targeted for finance (sic)?

Posted from TSR Mobile

You're conflating two points there. The first was that, by definition, it being a target for IB doesn't mean it's the 6th best.

The second was that it isn't as more targeted in other careers as it is in IB. For law, it definitely is not as 'targeted' as Durham and Nottingham. It's possibly on par with Exeter & Manchester, and even then on the line.

For consulting, it has no advantage to the likes of Bristol, Nottingham and so on.
Although admittedly this area is more secretive and difficult to ascertain outside Oxbridge and LSE.



IB is but a category of finance.

Lol, stop talking honestly. If you look at your points, none of them are factual, it's all based on some **** patriotism towards Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial. Read my post earlier in this thread. Stop complaining and move on. I can easily create an account, say I'm from Warwick and then say false statements- that will only be at your advantage, as well as do the opposite which you'll disagree with. So, just grow up and move on.

Because they only admit people who met the offer. Applicants have received AAB, instead of the AAA and have been rejected, unlike universities such as Manchester, where a friend of mine has got in with ABC for an AAB course at MBS. They are more strict on the other side of the admission process.