Warwick or Bristol?

Not sure about a humanity, but yes, Further Maths is widely known to be preferred by everyone. It's certainly not a dealbreaker though, and only Cambridge have it as mandatory.

It really isn't.

Other (top) unis have this as well.

It's not mandatory at Cambridge.

It's not mandatory at Cambridge.

It's "preferred" and mandatory at some colleges. Given the insane level of competition I'd say "preferred" comes close to mandatory, unless your school doesn't run FM or something like that.

1) Warwick is better for economics
2) You're probably far more likely to get into warwick

However, if nightlife is a big thing for you choose Bristol, it's a bigger and better city than, well... Coventry. However, the Warwick campus is awesome from what I saw on open day, it depends how much you think a big variety of clubs/pubs etc is important.

Really?

I have a friend who loves Warwick, which just goes to show uni is what you make of it. The part about the job is true I guess, but as I say below I would still take the one that is more regarded.

The course structure argument is interesting though. What is it that you like more about the Bristol course? (I have not compared the two, will do later)

Prior to university, I’d have definitely chosen Warwick over Bristol due to Warwick’s department being better. Now, a year and a bit on, I’m pretty much a firm believer that atmosphere is far more important.

I’ve also got friends at Warwick, and they absolutely love it there, but in hindsight I know I’d definitely fit in far better at Bristol, and also would enjoy far more the city atmosphere and nightlife there.

In regard to the course, it’s mainly in the first year you get a bit more flexibility and are forced to choose outside modules, and additionally, I think the optional modules in the third year at Bristol are more interesting than those at Warwick which seem far more mainstream.

Obviously though this is all subjective and personal opinion.

In some respects I agree with you; university life is all about enjoying the time you spend there as after all unless you do postgraduate study, those days will never come again and university really is an exciting phase in a person's life.

Personally, Exeter/Peninsula was never my first choice for many reasons namely the distance from home and the fact the place isn't quite as exciting as some of the bigger cities. However it was the only place I got an offer from and for Medicine with it being so ridiculously competitive and in reality there being very little difference in the quality of education at UK medical schools and the fact they're all GMC accredited etc. it was a no brainer.

I would say that ultimately I'm here because first and foremost I'm studying to pass my exams/course and then ultimately become a doctor which has always been my goal. Having a great nightlife, social scene comes secondary to that but saying that I do quite a lot in terms of sport, politics, voluntary work on the side so I'd say I've really enjoyed my time here so far. Also with Exeter being a good university and the medical school continually improving in the rankings (which should only ever be taken with a pinch of salt), I'm happy where I am.

Warwick and Bristol are both good universities. But I guess the point I'm trying to make is (in my opinion) you should choose the place which will give you the best education for your chosen field of study and the best future prospects and with regards to Economics/Finance, Warwick has always been one of the major playes and is usually in the "Target University" bracket along with Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial for the elite Investment Banks and Financial firms.

University life is also very much what you make of it and you only get out of it as much as you put in.

So I would say pick Warwick and don't fear.

Imperial doesn't do econ*

Other than that, great speech. :-)

Imperial doesn't do econ*

Other than that, great speech. :-)

I only ask because I have been unfortunate with my application for Oxford. I can either take up my offers from Bristol/Warwick, or take a gap year - reapplying for Oxford/UCL next year. I'm going to travel over to both and make my mind up. But judging for the comments, I'm tilted towards Warwick. Job prospects are incredible - on par with that of Oxford.
I have to make sure that I like the campuses before I decide.

Thanks for the advice!

Job prospect at Warwick is not on par with Oxford!!!

It is not even on par with LSE.

He may have implied this (WarriorK's words from above):

"Warwick has always been one of the major playes and is usually in the "Target University" bracket along with Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial for the elite Investment Banks and Financial firms."

E.g. at UBS last summer:

Oxford 21
Warwick 21
LSE 20
Cambridge 19
Imperial 18


And the UBS executive director said:

"As a leading global investment bank, recruiting the best graduates is critical for our continued success. We are very excited about our strong relationship with the University of Warwick, which is one of our key target universities in Europe. In 2010 our Investment Banking Department recruited more graduates from the University of Warwick than from any other university in the UK."

Meaning that prospects are similar, provided you interview well.. So unlike sub-standard institutions such as the Polytechnic on the Strand, where you can't even make it through the bank door before they call security and kick you out

You must be naive if you think Warwick compares to LSE, talkless of Oxford.

So the hiring of one solitary institution in one solitary year is the basis on which you came to a conclusion that Warwick is on par with Oxford?

Prospects are similar my backside.

Warwick is not on par with Oxford in overall prospect.

Warwick is not on par with LSE in overall prospect.

Warwick is not on par with Oxford in banking and finance prospect.

Warwick is not on par with LSE in banking and finance prospect.

Warwick is on slightly above UCL in banking and finance prospect.

Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial give the 2 a decent gap, not only in banking and finance prospects, but in overall prospects. Stop dreaming!!! LSE is far better, not to even talk of Oxford.

Not according to the Financial Times, which divides it in an inner and outer circle of recruitment, where Oxbridge, Imperial constitute the former and LSE/Warwick/UCL the outer.. But also looking at all statistics, insights posted by people on WSO and IBC, looking at where banks organise networking events, sponsorships in uni sports teams, etc etc etc indicate clearly that the top 6 are the only real targets, where your passion and the way you interview are, amongst others, the deciding factors. In terms of maths, COWI is the elite group, but there is debate about the order of OWI, but in reality the differences are small, and people chose differently because of various factors, but all are targeted. Now stop trolling about stuff you don't have a clue about.

What course are you doing in Mordor btw?