Nottingham econ or Warwick history for Investment Banking

I’ve been rejected from Warwick for econ. Had A*s in everything and mainly 8/9s GCSE.
I want to go into IB in the future. Thinking whether to reapply next year for history at Warwick.
Warwick is a “target” to my knowledge and the history course would be easier to get into. I do Maths, Econ, History A levels and would enjoy a history degree.
What would you everyone recommend ?

I’ve been rejected from Warwick for econ. Had A*s in everything and mainly 8/9s GCSE.
I want to go into IB in the future. Thinking whether to reapply next year for history at Warwick.
Warwick is a “target” to my knowledge and the history course would be easier to get into. I do Maths, Econ, History A levels and would enjoy a history degree.
What would you everyone recommend ?

I’ve been rejected from Warwick for econ. Had A*s in everything and mainly 8/9s GCSE.

I want to go into IB in the future. Thinking whether to reapply next year for history at Warwick.

Warwick is a “target” to my knowledge and the history course would be easier to get into. I do Maths, Econ, History A levels and would enjoy a history degree.

What would you everyone recommend ?

notts econ definitely gives u a better chance. its a very strong semi-target , although warwick is a target but not if u study history.

This is such bad advice. The degree is entirely irrelevant. Only the school name matters.

im sorry but no. warwick is heavily debated whether it is a 'target' or not. It is certainly behind the big five of oxbridge ucl lse icl. If he went to warwick n studied history he would be up against everyone who studies econ, finance, business etc. warwick is much more prestigious for their business skl and econ then any of their humanities. so no, this is not bad advice. high achievers at nottingham studying econ often land summers and springs. You are right in saying the school matters, but history doesnt get u far unless you are at a top target and warwick isnt that.

Perhaps you misunderstood me when I said that the degree is entirely irrelevant. Because it is. It literally does not matter what you study, only where you study it. And there's nothing debatable about Warwick's status as a target. I've spoken with dozens of people in the industry over the past few years and that's the consensus. To reiterate, the degree does not matter whatsoever for IB. Hope that's clear now.

well I agree to disagree and I'm a student at ucl

You should be humble enough not to state your opinion if you clearly don't understand what you are talking about. Even the most basic research would show that the degree is entirely irrelevant, and that Warwick is a genuine target. Maybe something to think about the next time you are considering giving advice.

but my main point is this. yes warwick is a better uni to break in, but the subject still matters. Going warwick to do history is still absolutely a risk, but if he went to notts economics is a very useful degree to have at a very good uni, if he decides that high finance isn't for him. should also take into account the social/extracurricular aspect, its not all about the rankings. and also if he doesn't break into IB at Warwick, there's no chance he's gonna be able to do a top masters in finance at an lse,lbs etc meanwhile if he went notts and didn't break into IB at undergrad level if he got good grades and got into a top masters programme he would be fine.

Thanks for all the great advice from both of you.
This whole idea of “targets” is very confusing to a me, a year 13 student. While I understand it cuts recruiting budgets, I feel it’s unfair to let someone who does Warwick history with AAA and probably no interest in finance be hired over someone who does Notts econ (where minimum grades are A*AA).
I’m really just trying to maximise my chances of IB tbf. I would definitely prefer an econ degree but if I had to do history at Warwick to break in, I would. I also love Warwick as a university, outside of academics, it tops Nottingham (for me).
The 2 responses you guys gave were very different so tbh I’m a little confused. Any way you could give any form of evidence or anecdote to back up what you’re saying ? Thanks a lot.

Yeah no the target thing is very confusing 100%
So I am at ucl (doing econ/politics) but I swapped after I did a year at Cass Business School (semi target) studying finance. swapped for prestige+ social life+ course.
from my point of view, Warwick probably ranks around 6th for high finance. However, even at elite unis people who study history usually go into law rather than finance due to the lack of quantitative modules in it ( I have friends doing history who struggle to get internships in IB but do well in law, as history has very transferable skills to law)
Although the other person is right in saying warwick is the better 'target' , u have to take into account that u r competing with everyone else at Warwick. warwick is a target mainly due the business school + those studying econ/stem. people like still break into finance outside of those courses, but it is far less likely. also if u want to study econ more, you will regret studying history (history at uni is a lot different).
notts in my opinion is a strong semi target - essentially people do break into finance good numbers, but only if you are doing a relevant subject (econ, business, finance) . if you believe you will be more interested in economics, go there. if you get really good grades at uni +manage to land a spring or summer internship, then you will be fine. and even if you don't, studying economics means that u can go on to a top masters degree in finance if you don't break into IB.
but also if u do maths a level there is stronger semi target u could get into (bristol, bath,kcl,durham), all of which id take over notts.
in essence, the uni is important but there's no point going to Warwick and doing badly cos u hate the course.
if I were you and really want to break into IB, then forget about both of these options and 100% do the best in ur a levels as you can. Getting all A's and even better an A will put you in really good stead to reapply (your chance of getting into unis with achieved grades is much higher than with predicted) so you should have no problem getting into a UCL or Warwick for a better course with top a levels. try get A*AA because most top unis econ course need them.
u seem quite conflicted (so was I last yr) so taking a yr out to travel and chill whilst reapplying probably is the best for u. for now just absolutely focus on ur a levels, nothing else matters. IB is only for the best and it starts with ur exams.

Thanks a lot for replying so quickly and being so helpful.
I had A*A*A* predicted in Maths, Econ History. I got A*A*A in Jan mocks this year. I’m currently revising hard. But i don't thunk re applying would make a difference as I already maxed out a levels this year.
I got an offer from Bath for econ and placement. Why would this be better than notts

well yea ofc they are gonna say that but achieved 100% increases ur likelihood of an offer. Someone would 100% take someone who had 3A* achieved over 3A* predicted because predictions are just that, predictions. doesn't mean a thing unless u get them.
for context I only got AAA and got an offer at UCL that needs AAA (most students who apply w predicted have that or most have more) - course has 25-30% acceptance rate. so unless my personal statement (which was fire) places me above people with 3A* predicted then having achieved grades was a significant advantage for me.

Could i ask what your GCSE’s were and wheter you were contextual ?

nope I was home. gcses were like 5 9's 5 8's and a seven in maths lmao.