Why is Warwick so competitive?

Warwick is a competitive university, but only Oxford and Cambridge are truly stupidly competitive. Rather, universities like Warwick tend to have a few extremely competitive courses, like Economics.

You're wrong, actually. Application to place ratio at Oxbridge is about three-to-one, because a lot of people either don't want to go there or don't think they can get in. The likes of Warwick, LSE, Bristol etc are far more competitive if you're defining that in terms of applications per place.

OP - Warwick's hugely competitive because it's ace Seriously, it's a great uni with excellent courses and high standards. Understandably a lot of people want to go and think they have a shot, and consequently it's very competitive. A few things are less competitive but things like Economics, English, History, Politics, Statistics, Law, PPE, Business etc are crazy competitive.

it's very very good for maths, at least.

True that. Arguably the third best department in the country.

I would have thought Imperial being better for maths?

Application to place ration does not necessarily mean competitive, though I define competition in terms of entry standards rather than sheer numbers.

Interested in this because UCL just rejected me so I'm kinda looking at my 'what if' scenarios, Warwick being my 5th choice but my hatred of London is starting to win me over if the big C say no in January. Or do I want to avoid being nannied in a lovely campus like Warwick and forced to 'grow up' in London hmmm...

General league tables tend to be rubbish we all know that, so instead I guess it's about reputation so I've been investigating that, particularly for example: http://topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/indicator-rankings/employer-review where Warwick does really well for itself. However not being in London probably is somewhat of a negative for employment I guess.

It's more about the way other people view it, and I don't know how famed Warwick is against the big boys like LSE, UCL, Durham, St Andrews etc. etc.

Originally I thought the history department's requirement to do a language was off-putting, but now I'm quite excited by the idea of learning French again, especially given the competition for employment after graduation. Although I'd probably want an Oxbridge MA so... who knows

Sorry for my long blah there, just very interested in the way Warwick is viewed, especially given my results far exceed the standard offer at Warwick so I don't want to lower myself as it were (that sounds so arrogant but I'm sure you get what I mean)

Warwick for history has higher entry standards (not requirements, there is a difference) than UCL, and is on par with LSE on those terms. kcl should be your 5th choice because it is fairly average. I would say, as would many others, that Warwick is stronger than St A, Durham, although for particular subjects it can vary. Overall, it is viewed as a top 5, a spot shared with UCL as there is little to tell apart between them.

"However not being in London probably is somewhat of a negative for employment I guess."

False statement , doesn't make a difference

What I meant by the London statement was just the fact that you're more likely to meet people in your travels than in the more isolated world of Warwick, or Coventry I should say.

But other than that yes, I woke up today had a ponder and been seriously considering Warwick over LSE just so I enjoy myself more. I have a medical condition so apparently I'd get the accomodation I'd requested, there's a chance I'd get it for third year too, but I guess I gotta visit. This is all assuming I get an offer.

And UCL might have lower entry standards but tbh they were kinda taking the wee-wee a little bit given that my personal statement was good what I wrote for them was good too and I am at the very top of their standard offer range a year earlier, but rant over.

Warwick's looking goooooooooood I won't have to cry my eyes out for life if Cambridge say no. But LSE's pure reputation to employers vs having a better three years and learning French at
Warwick, toughie.

EDIT: The more I look at Durham the more I regret not applying there, but I know it has a bit of a reputation for ponciness in its desperation to be considered the 3rd best, and I think the private school numbers tend to be higher than Oxbridge even? But hey ho

What's so great about Warwick? I've heard it's on par with Oxford and Cambridge and they receive 17 applications for one place on a course. I'm applying for Warwick and just want to know what makes it stand out from the rest and after hearing that it's very competitive, I'm worried that I won't be accepted.

It really depends, and there's not much between them, hence I said 'arguably'. At the end of the day, I don't think it matters which one you really go to. An employer would choose you based on yourself and your achievements, as opposed to whether you went to Warwick or Imperial.

If you like a big self contained campus university, then you'd choose Warwick. If you prefer the hustle and bustle of London, you'd choose Imperial.

What's so great about Warwick? I've heard it's on par with Oxford and Cambridge and they receive 17 applications for one place on a course. I'm applying for Warwick and just want to know what makes it stand out from the rest and after hearing that it's very competitive, I'm worried that I won't be accepted.

What do you think you want to work with afterward?