King's College London vs Warwick
Which is better to study from ???
(Format of answers:
Warwick Pros/Cons
e.g
1.Employment,
2.Living,
3.Course,
4.Prestige,
5.Rankings etc
KCL Pros/Cons
e.g
1.Employment,
2.Rankings
3.Living,
4.Course,
5.Prestige )
(Format of answers:
Warwick Pros/Cons
e.g
1.Employment,
2.Living,
3.Course,
4.Prestige,
5.Rankings etc
KCL Pros/Cons
e.g
1.Employment,
2.Rankings
3.Living,
4.Course,
5.Prestige )
Scroll to see replies
Original post by adam0311
Warwick for rep, prestige, and academic quality.
KCL for location.
KCL for location.
But what about world rankings and sunject rankings.... I know warwick is at like 4th-6th in the UK but like 56 in the world where as KCL is like 10-15th overall but 20-60 in world rankings ___ Overall
Besides in overall is important or subject wise ranking ???
Original post by 1802ibrahim
But what about world rankings and sunject rankings.... I know warwick is at like 4th-6th in the UK but like 56 in the world where as KCL is like 10-15th overall but 20-60 in world rankings ___ Overall
Besides in overall is important or subject wise ranking ???
Besides in overall is important or subject wise ranking ???
Take world rankings for what they're worth.
(edited 13 years ago)
Both are good
KCL is more prestigious as it is older but I personally feel Warwick probably has the better current teaching as such.
Where would you rather be? Pick on that not on any percieved difference in reputation as it is really splitting hairs. I would be surprised if their is any prefence over either univeristy apart from recruitment officers own subjective opinion in which you can not physically know.
KCL is more prestigious as it is older but I personally feel Warwick probably has the better current teaching as such.
Where would you rather be? Pick on that not on any percieved difference in reputation as it is really splitting hairs. I would be surprised if their is any prefence over either univeristy apart from recruitment officers own subjective opinion in which you can not physically know.
Original post by 1802ibrahim
But what about world rankings and sunject rankings.... I know warwick is at like 4th-6th in the UK but like 56 in the world where as KCL is like 10-15th overall but 20-60 in world rankings ___ Overall
Besides in overall is important or subject wise ranking ???
Besides in overall is important or subject wise ranking ???
They are worth very little in law. The difference between Warwick and KCL in terms of ranking/prestige is neglible. Picking one over the other won't give you a significant advantage or disadvantage when it comes to careers. For me it comes down to whether you want to live in Central London or in a very isolated campus environment.
Original post by Jingers
KCL since i prefer their location and cant differentiate between their prestige and dont k ow enough to distinguish between their course structure.
You still use TSR?!?! Where did you go in the end, then?
Original post by Focus08
Overall: Warwick, no question. Strand Poly is declining at a fast rate..
Law: ok, negligible, both in the non-Oxbridge bracket.. But one is going bankrupt, one has sound finances
Law: ok, negligible, both in the non-Oxbridge bracket.. But one is going bankrupt, one has sound finances
Do you realise this is for law?
King's College London is probably an average university at most for all the 'other subjects' such as History, classics, MML etc. But for Law and medicine, it's really in another league to the rest of the university. A lot of people distinguish KCL from its own law school; the law school really is brilliant and highly respected in King's and outside.
Warwick seems to have a great reputation, but laregely a place I couldn't stand to be for three years; incredibly boring university life compared to London.
Original post by 1802ibrahim
But what about world rankings and sunject rankings.... I know warwick is at like 4th-6th in the UK but like 56 in the world where as KCL is like 10-15th overall but 20-60 in world rankings ___ Overall
Besides in overall is important or subject wise ranking ???
Besides in overall is important or subject wise ranking ???
KCL is top 25 World and 13th UK I think.
Original post by Doughnuts!!
You still use TSR?!?! Where did you go in the end, then?
Yeah, I left for the first 2 months of uni but then I realised that I cba to do the work and the pull of TSR was too much.
I went to Birmingham in the end. It's alright - course is good/interesting and the lecturers are fine. Work isn't that much, but that's only because I do the bare minimum so the 1 month holiday is going to be packed with work.
Original post by deadlysinbased
Surely KCl has higher meployment prospects as they in London their prospective implies they make alot of effort with employers to ensure their students do well.
I would have always said KCL in a heartbeat, I would think Warwick is pretty boring, although you do get to live i n Venice with History of Art, but then with Law at Kings you can go to America so thats wicked really.
I would have always said KCL in a heartbeat, I would think Warwick is pretty boring, although you do get to live i n Venice with History of Art, but then with Law at Kings you can go to America so thats wicked really.
Being in London gives you no advantage whatsoever in terms of employment prospects. I even made a thread which confirms this. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=24288880 I'm at Nottingham and we have top firms doing networking events here in our law school every other day. I would expect the same would occur at Warwick and most other top 10/15 law schools
Also in regards with the KCL and America thing. The opportunity to go to Columbia is only open to 2 students a year. It is extremely competetive and you would need exceptional grades to stand a chance. Not to mention that I was told at a KCL open day that it would probably cost upwards of £30,000 and there is very little funding available for it
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by jmat
Both are good
KCL is more prestigious as it is older but I personally feel Warwick probably has the better current teaching as such.
Where would you rather be? Pick on that not on any percieved difference in reputation as it is really splitting hairs. I would be surprised if their is any prefence over either univeristy apart from recruitment officers own subjective opinion in which you can not physically know.
KCL is more prestigious as it is older but I personally feel Warwick probably has the better current teaching as such.
Where would you rather be? Pick on that not on any percieved difference in reputation as it is really splitting hairs. I would be surprised if their is any prefence over either univeristy apart from recruitment officers own subjective opinion in which you can not physically know.
Original post by MissFanatical
How your finding life without London :P miss me?....
Original post by jmat
How your finding life without London :P miss me?....
obv!! although life without london is something i've yet to experience since as soon as i went home i came back
now sleeping on a friends floor in pooley 
oooh have you noticed that now every other tree going up westfield way has fairy lights on? this delights me.but yeah reading these threads actually makes me want to bang my head against a plank of wood with a nail in it but i can't stop D: i remember what i was like last year before i realised how little it mattered, and when i see other people asking the same questions as i did i just want to scream
Original post by Tha_Black_Shinobi
Also in regards with the KCL and America thing. The opportunity to go to Columbia is only open to 2 students a year. It is extremely competetive and you would need exceptional grades to stand a chance. Not to mention that I was told at a KCL open day that it would probably cost upwards of £30,000 and there is very little funding available for it
Also in regards with the KCL and America thing. The opportunity to go to Columbia is only open to 2 students a year. It is extremely competetive and you would need exceptional grades to stand a chance. Not to mention that I was told at a KCL open day that it would probably cost upwards of £30,000 and there is very little funding available for it
Agreed. Look, if you really want to go to the US for law school, just finish up the LLB and apply to US law schools after. Most will give you one year of advanced standing. Only difference is you get the LLB/JD in 5 years instead of 4. Over a 40 year career, one year is nothing. Further it won't limit your option to Columbia. You'll be able to apply to HYS (Harvard, Yale, Stanford), the cream of the crop for US law schools. Plus you are going to make a decision based off of the 1 in 50 chance you get into the program. And finally, not a chance in hell you'll get away with £30,000 a yr at Columbia. You're looking at closer to £38,000.
Now this is not to say the 2+2 program is not an amazing option. It is. But definitely not a reason for KCL to "one up."
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Would you rather attend...?
- Play the forum game that's playing 3 threads below this one
- PPE at Warwick vs. Manchester
- Missed MSc Grade
- Selecting a university
- Official MATHS APPLICANTS 2023 entry
- What is the chance of me getting into Unis?
- Warwick Vs Edinburgh Vs Kings College London (History & Politics)
- Edinburgh vs KCL for English
- Best University for Computer Science accepting BTEC/CTEC?
- Imperial Business Schools vs CASS Business School
- Does York or Exeter have a better reputation?
- Where should i go KCL or Warwick for engineering?
- Manchester vs Bayes (Cass) vs Lancaster
- KCL or Warwick
- I want to resit one of my A-level
- Law Application Choices
- Are my chances of getting in a top Uni for Computer Science good?
- Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentages
- Need advice - Specific US vs UK unis for son
