Warwick or UCL? Which do you think is better and why?

Scroll to see replies

That comes from one investment bank and that doesn't really represent the overall picture. I'm pretty sure LSE's and possibly Oxbridge's employment prospects are better than warwick's.

Yo may be right. But what are the major banks in Europe that recruit at Oxford, Cambridge and LSE grads but not so much at Warwick? I'm just curious, as UBS is already a leading global bank -- one of the biggest in America.

Reply 41

Valh

Original post by Seham

UCL

Can you elaborate why? :smile:

Reply 42

Princess Bubbles

Original post by Valh

Can you elaborate why? :smile:

IMO, UCL has a better reputation that Warwick. Also, UCL is in London and so I think it would be easier to get a job having attended UCL.

Reply 43

Valh

Original post by Seham

IMO, UCL has a better reputation that Warwick. Also, UCL is in London and so I think it would be easier to get a job having attended UCL.

Ok, thanks.

Reply 44

Frenchous

Original post by Mr. Roxas

I'm quite certain that UCL has more international recognition than Warwick has, but I'm not really sure about UCL being more preferred than Warwick in terms of employment opportunities. If you have to take the word of Tobias Wagnert, an Executive Director of UBS Investment Banking, he says:

"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." http://www.wbs.ac.uk/news/releases/2010/11/19/WBS/undergraduates/win

When banks feel the need to explain you that your university is a target you should be concerned. In the good universities it's self-explanatory...

Reply 45

Mr. Roxas

Original post by Frenchous

When banks feel the need to explain you that your university is a target you should be concerned. In the good universities it's self-explanatory...

Agreed, but the statement of Tobias Wagnert did not cross to me that way. He was a guess at Warwick when he made that speech or divulge that information. What strikes me with his statement is the fact their bank has hired more Warwick grads than from any other university in the UK. I thought that is a very valuable information for those who'd like to join in banking.

Reply 46

Frenchous

Original post by Mr. Roxas

It might be a valuable information for those who want to in banking at UBS.

Actually you cannot even be sure.

The fact that UBS hire more Warwick grads doesn't mean it gave out more offers to Warwick grads. For example UBS organises M&A case studies at UCL during a 6 months program called "UBS IBD extra" and out of the 20 students that took part in the program last year, 18 had an internship offer at UBS. Many of them probably turned down these offers to go some more reputable place.

It might just mean that Warwick grads didnt get any better offers and decided to join UBS.

To sum up you pretty much overstate the importance of this sentence.

Reply 47

Mr. Roxas

Original post by Frenchous

How is UBS viewed in the UK?

Reply 48

INTJ

UCL. As people have said, it has a much, much bigger name internationally, and also a bigger name in the UK. Personally, I'd prefer the Warwick campus feel (I've grown sick of London); but I wouldn't compromise the opportunity to be at UCL, given rankings, employment prospects etc, just for the sake of location.

Reply 49

INTJ

Original post by Frenchous

When banks feel the need to explain you that your university is a target you should be concerned. In the good universities it's self-explanatory...

A harsh comment, but I sort of agree :P

Reply 50

Frenchous

Original post by Mr. Roxas

How is UBS viewed in the UK?

I d say not that good since they are one of the main looser during the crisis? In my opinion they rank after the american banks, DB, Barcap and CS. Then again it depends on how people individualy like them and that varies a lot.

Reply 51

Zweihander

Original post by sabbath_92

For an Economics course..

Spoiler

Warwick is better than UCL for Maths, Econ, and most sciences. Anyone who says otherwise is wrong. If you want proof this forum is a good starting point, but there are also statistics and articles on the internet to prove it.

But in terms of employment prospects they are equal, at least when it comes to investment banking (one of, if not the most, competitive careers to break into). You will find just as many UCL grads in Front Office positions as Warwick grads.

As some have mentioned UCL has the advantage due its location in London, however all the top financial services/consulting firms visit Warwick frequently (for example, Citi have visited Campus 6 times in the past term), so from an employment perspective Warwick will not greatly hinder you.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 52

Zweihander

Original post by Frenchous

When banks feel the need to explain you that your university is a target you should be concerned. In the good universities it's self-explanatory...

Firstly, Tobias' comment has been taken out of context. He made that comment at a prizegiving event held at Warwick for the highest achieving students in one of the business school's finance modules. So stop trying to read between the lines, or whatever is you're pretending to do.

Secondly, UBS isn't the only BB bank that's made a remark like that (and I'm sure Warwick isnt the only university it's held a prizegiving at). According to the Head of Pan-European Equity Sales at Morgan Stanley, in the past 5 years Warwick has been the 3rd most represented university in FO grad intake (after LSE and Cam). So jumping to the apparent conclusion that the only reason Warwick was the most common uni in UBS' 2010 intake is because UCL grads are too good for UBS is retarded.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 53

rkascyi

UCL has the better Economics department.

Reply 54

Frenchous

Original post by Zweihander

my point is: unless you know

1. the applicant/offer ratio for warwick grads and
2. the number of offers made to warwick grads relative to other universities

this sentence doesn't meen anything and trying to argue that, because a MD said that at Warwick, you should definitely study there to break in investment banking is retarded.

Otherwise UCL is better for Economics (like it or not but everyone knows that and 75% of the people studying Econ at UCL rejected Warwick's offer).

And get laid :wink:

Reply 55

Focus08

Original post by Frenchous

Warwick has had higher entry standards for econ since I can remember.

The fact that UCL hasn't broken the 500 point barrier for econ is laughable

Reply 56

Frenchous

Original post by Focus08

Warwick has had higher entry standards for econ since I can remember.

True but we are talking about the quality of the department here.

Original post by Focus08

The fact that UCL hasn't broken the 500 point barrier for econ is laughable

Since you're not even able to make it in the top 250 universities worlwide, international applicants will always chose UCL over Warwick and your classroom will be filled with UCL rejects. Get over it.

Reply 57

Mr. Roxas

Original post by Frenchous

True but we are talking about the quality of the department here.

Since you're not even able to make it in the top 250 universities worlwide, international applicants will always chose UCL over Warwick and your classroom will be filled with UCL rejects. Get over it.

Well, to be honest, I did choose Warwick over LSE and I'm international. There were 11 other people in my class who did as well. But that is just for Management course alone. With Warwick's top-rated Economics, maths, MORSE and PPE programs, I'm sure there were many of us who did turn down a London Uni offer just to go to Warwick.

I didn't apply to UCL then, but if I have and have gotten an offer, i still would not have chosen it over Warwick then, and would still do the same thing now with no regrets. That is not to say UCL isn't a good uni. I think it's great and one of the top unis in Europe, but I think its lack of campus cohesion and community feel makes it an unleasant college experience.

Most Warwick students consider Oxbridge and LSE as benchmarks, not UCL. I think Warwick competes (or tries to do so) with Oxbridge and LSE, not with UCL. Again, that is not to say that UCL isn't a great uni. I'm just saying most Warwick students/grads don't see it as its competitor.

Reply 58

Flajamafloffl

Original post by kbountra

I don't like the idea of being a student in London cos it's so expensive and a little segregated.

Segregated? Explain....?

Reply 59

Frenchous

Original post by Mr. Roxas

For Econ alone:

Entry Standards: Warwick>UCL
Employment prospects: UCL=Warwick

Research: UCL>Warwick
Hence, International and Academic Reputation: UCL>>Warwick (Which is shown by partnerships with Columbia, Chicago, UCLA)

So basically the only two rational reasons you can argue that you went to Warwick over UCL is that:
- you wanted to live on a campus (fair enough)
- you wanted to study with people who on average had 10 more UCAS points and you value it more than rankings and academic reputation (not very convincing).

If I missed any other reason I am glad to learn lol