Physics and Maths: Warwick or UCL ?

Hi!... can't decide between UCL or Warwick for phycics and maths... i understand warwick is better for maths and UCL is better overall... but UCL seems more attractive to me at the minute...

Why is UCL "better overall"? UCL is strong in economics, law, philosophy, classics, architecture and is quite good in a few other areas. See

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/18_December_2008/attachments/RAE_2008_THE_RESULTS.pdf

In maths and physics it is awful (maths) and moderately good (physics). Even employers might work out that you are not graduating in its strengths.

Warwick is so far ahead in terms of maths - and employers such as banks know this - that there is really no question. Or if you are in it for the intellectual ride, the same conclusion is appropriate.

People have heard Malcolm Grant saying UCL is a "world class university" too many times and not realised the facts do not agree with this - except in its strengths listed above.

well ,according to your link not only is it 3 years out of date , Lancaster is rated higher in physics than oxford , and liverpool is rated higher in physics than oxford .
So I wouldnt ,use them to make an informed decision.


Edit : Imperial ,Warwick ,Oxford>Cambridge in Pure mathematics .LOL

What would *you* use to make an informed decision?

The academic world uses the RAE, run every five - seven years. I'm sure they look forward to hearing your insight.

I have the same dillema. I hold offers from UCL for maths and for MORSE from Warwick. Anyone able to help me out here?

I wouldn't say that the lecturers research ability is totally irrelevant to an undergraduate degree. For example, for one of my courses we built up theory to prove a theorem over the course of many weeks. A few weeks later the lecturer told us that a new paper had been published with an elementary proof of this theorem- then we were shown this new proof. If the lecturer weren't working in the field then they would be less likely to see that new proof. Similarly, a different third year course has some theorems that are dated 2009, so some very recent maths. Again, if the university did less research you'd be less likely to see that in an undergraduate degree.

A final example is a fourth year course. The module changed between years because the department wanted to run a seminar related to part of that module.

For incoming undergraduates it's a bit pointless to distinguish between those universities based on RAE though : they're all good at some research areas and weaker at others and people will have no idea of what they're interested in before university.

I have the same dillema. I hold offers from UCL for maths and for MORSE from Warwick. Anyone able to help me out here?

well ,according to your link not only is it 3 years out of date , Lancaster is rated higher in physics than oxford , and liverpool is rated higher in physics than oxford .
So I wouldnt ,use them to make an informed decision.


Edit : Imperial ,Warwick ,Oxford>Cambridge in Pure mathematics .LOL

mate pick MORSE, its stronger than UCL maths IMO.

if you don't like MORSE in your first year you can switch to pure maths, granted you take the extra mathematics modules.

UCL doesn't cut it when it comes to pure maths... remember COWI

for maths and physics, i have no idea lol.