KCL v Warwick?

Original post by N_young

Warwick vs Kings, depends very much on subject but either way wasn't this a Kings vs UCL forum :P

other than law, which course would king's be viewed more prestigious than warwick? please help me.

Reply 23

Original post by N_young

Warwick vs Kings, depends very much on subject but either way wasn't this a Kings vs UCL forum :P

Well said!

Original post by Mr. Roxas

in the UK? no they're not.
a good indicator of prestige is selectivity and enrollment yield. with the exception of medicine, and perhaps, law, warwick is easily considered the more selective university. and many more people are interested in warwick than king's.

What about indicators like research income? What about indicators like alumni? Are those not good for prestige?

Have you compared their endowment? Warwick is the only top university I know that can not even command a single £1m donation from any philanthropist. How can you say it is more prestigious. KCL got £20m from Poon and recently got £7m from Yeoh. Even the likes of Hull (Assem Allam), Leicester (John and Lucille van Geest), Aberdeen (Glucksman), Liverpool (Wolfson Trust), Loughborough (Michael Bishop) and even South Bank (Nathu Puri) are getting millions of pounds in donations.

So you should know because Caltech is more selective, and has higher enrolment yield, than Harvard and Yale is not proof it is more prestigious. Even many liberal arts college are more selective than many of the most prestigious US unis.

Now how are many people more interested in Warwick than KCL?

If one has an offer for Geography/English/Biochemistry/History/Classics/ Languages between Warwick and KCL, which university do you think would win most times?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 24

crunchychips

6

Original post by LutherVan

What about indicators like research income? What about indicators like alumni? Are those not good for prestige?

Have you compared their endowment? Warwick is the only top university I know that can not even command a single £1m donation from any philanthropist. How can you say it is more prestigious. KCL got £20m from Poon and recently got £7m from Yeoh. Even the likes of Hull, Leicester, Aberdeen and Liverpool are getting millions of pounds in donations.

So you should know because Caltech is more selective, and has higher enrolment yield, than Harvard and Yale is not proof it is more prestigious. Even many liberal arts college are more selective than many of the most prestigious US unis.

Now how are many people more interested in Warwick than KCL?

If one has an offer for Geography/English/Biochemistry/History/Classics/ Languages between Warwick and KCL, which university do you think would win most times?

When will you learn? Endowment means nothing! You can't seriously say that you measure a university's prestige/quality by its endowment! Warwick makes money in other ways as well.

As to your last question: Most people would probably pick Warwick to be honest. And good job missing out on more popular subjects like Math, Economics, even business.

Reply 25

N_young

10

Original post by crunchychips

When will you learn? Endowment means nothing! You can't seriously say that you measure a university's prestige/quality by its endowment! Warwick makes money in other ways as well.

As to your last question: Most people would probably pick Warwick to be honest. And good job missing out on more popular subjects like Math, Economics, even business.

Picked Kings over Warwick bro, so stop trying to generalize, depends on the person and the subject, there are so many other factors people consider. It's not all about income, would you like to spend 3 years in forest? I didn't want to.

University rankings are only an indication, the true "value" of a uni, comes from the students and the teachers, you should pick a uni not because it has an average graduate income that is higher by £1500 than Kings, you should pick a uni where you feel comfortable, you will be spending 3+ years so make it worth it. At the end of the day, if you are within top unis, employer will care about the quality of your degree (first, 2.1 etc) and about other things - personality, employable, team work... a degree only gets you through the door. so stop arguing and there is no need to be offensive guys

Best of luck - wherever you go

Reply 26

crunchychips

6

Original post by N_young

Picked Kings over Warwick bro, so stop trying to generalize, depends on the person and the subject, there are so many other factors people consider. It's not all about income, would you like to spend 3 years in forest? I didn't want to.

University rankings are only an indication, the true "value" of a uni, comes from the students and the teachers, you should pick a uni not because it has an average graduate income that is higher by £1500 than Kings, you should pick a uni where you feel comfortable, you will be spending 3+ years so make it worth it. At the end of the day, if you are within top unis, employer will care about the quality of your degree (first, 2.1 etc) and about other things - personality, employable, team work... a degree only gets you through the door. so stop arguing and there is no need to be offensive guys

Best of luck - wherever you go

I fully agree with you, but I get annoyed by people like LutherVan who try to somehow prove that one uni is better than another because some millionaire decided to donate some money to one and not the other for instance...

Reply 27

N_young

10

Never argue

Original post by crunchychips

I fully agree with you, but I get annoyed by people like LutherVan who try to somehow prove that one uni is better than another because some millionaire decided to donate some money to one and not the other for instance...

Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience :sparta:

Reply 28

Original post by crunchychips

When will you learn? Endowment means nothing! You can't seriously say that you measure a university's prestige/quality by its endowment! Warwick makes money in other ways as well.

Which other ways? Please enlighten us.

Endowment means nothing? You are a real clown! :biggrin:

It just happens that there is a correlation between prestige and endowment in every country in the world. But according to the quality of "prestigious" students the "selective" Warwick enrols, it does not mean anything.

Original post by crunchychips

As to your last question: Most people would probably pick Warwick to be honest. And good job missing out on more popular subjects like Math, Economics, even business.

Keep deceiving yourself.

Original post by N_young

Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience :sparta:

Tell me about it.

I have said it repeatedly his intellect is really nothing to write home about and he is in Warwick. Warwick can't be that good.

Definitely thicker than the underbelly of the Obama's presidential Cadillac One.

Reply 29

Original post by LutherVan

Well said!

What about indicators like research income? What about indicators like alumni? Are those not good for prestige?

Have you compared their endowment? Warwick is the only top university I know that can not even command a single £1m donation from any philanthropist. How can you say it is more prestigious. KCL got £20m from Poon and recently got £7m from Yeoh. Even the likes of Hull (Assem Allam), Leicester (John and Lucille van Geest), Aberdeen (Glucksman), Liverpool (Wolfson Trust), Loughborough (Michael Bishop) and even South Bank (Nathu Puri) are getting millions of pounds in donations.

So you should know because Caltech is more selective, and has higher enrolment yield, than Harvard and Yale is not proof it is more prestigious. Even many liberal arts college are more selective than many of the most prestigious US unis.

Now how are many people more interested in Warwick than KCL?

If one has an offer for Geography/English/Biochemistry/History/Classics/ Languages between Warwick and KCL, which university do you think would win most times?

your average smart, highly qualified undergrad student does not care that much about those indicators you presented. graduate students do, but most undergraduate students don't normally and usually check out endowment fund and research prowess of the university before choosing where to attend. that is why i would argue that the best indicators of prestige are selectivity standard and enrollment yield rate. for both criteria, warwick wins over king's.

with regards to your comment about endowment fund, you cannot compare an old uni to a new uni. warwick has only just started its fund campaign, and it takes time to build a culture of donation to your alma mater. this is the case happening in america where public schools perform significantly poorer than their private counterparts due to having embibed a wrong culture about school donations before the 1980's. take berkeley for example. Berkeley does not have as much E Fund as Vanderbilt does because berkekey has started developing a culture of donation only very lately, yet one could argue that berkeley is just as prestigious as Vanderbilt. Virginia has way bigger E Fund than Williams does, yet I seriously doubt it if the top students would rather attend Virginia than Williams.

warwick's E Fund is still small now compared to King's but as Warwick is learning the importance of e fund and as the alumni are participating, time will come when warwick's e fund will dramatically increase. remember that warwick is just a new organization.

lastly, warwick has a very new medical school, which is even different from all the rest in the Uk as it is a graduate level program, accepting rather more mature students. medical schools receive more funding, and unis with medical schools have generally higer E Fund.

regarding Caltech, you're wrong about it having higher enrollment yield than HYPSM. there's no way caltech would ever beat HYPSM's enrollment yield rate. it only has something like 35+% enrollment yield rate compared to over 65% for HYPSM. if caltech would have a higher enrollment yield rate than harvard then caltech would be more prestigious than harvard. but it does not have.

Reply 30

crunchychips

6

Original post by Mr. Roxas

your average smart, highly qualified undergrad student does not care that much about those indicators you presented. graduate students do, but most undergraduate students don't normally and usually check out endowment fund and research prowess of the university before choosing where to attend. that is why i would argue that the best indicators of prestige are selectivity standard and enrollment yield rate. for both criteria, warwick wins over king's.

Even for research, doesn't Warwick beat King's?

Reply 31

Original post by LutherVan

If one has an offer for Geography/English/Biochemistry/History/Classics/ Languages between Warwick and KCL, which university do you think would win most times?

Warwick.

the fact that Warwick asks for higher grades signifies that the Warwick programs are attracting more qualified students, which i would equate to being more popular and prestigious.

why would Warwick be asking for higher entry requirements when there are less applicants for their courses, and are not attracting students to enroll in their programs when offers are given out? it doesn't make sense. unis are asking lower grades because they cannot attract the most qualified students. that's just how it goes.

Reply 32

Original post by crunchychips

Even for research, doesn't Warwick beat King's?

i'm not sure about that, but like i said, most undergraduate students do not make it as their main criterion for choosing a university. undergrad students care more about college experience, teaching experience, academic support system for undergrad students, ranking and employment prospects. those are the things most students care the most, not the size of the university endowment or research output.

graduate students care about research, however, as well as, faculty caliber.

Reply 33

Original post by Mr. Roxas

your average smart, highly qualified undergrad student does not care that much about those indicators you presented. graduate students do, but most undergraduate students don't normally and usually check out endowment fund and research prowess of the university before choosing where to attend. that is why i would argue that the best indicators of prestige are selectivity standard and enrollment yield rate. for both criteria, warwick wins over king's.

Well prestigious universities are not for average smart students.

Original post by Mr. Roxas

with regards to your comment about endowment fund, you cannot compare an old uni to a new uni. warwick has only just started its fund campaign, and it takes time to build a culture of donation to your alma mater. this is the case happening in america where public schools perform significantly poorer than their private counterparts due to having embibed a wrong culture about school donations before the 1980's. take berkeley for example. Berkeley does not have as much E Fund as Vanderbilt does because berkekey has started developing a culture of donation only very lately, yet one could argue that berkeley is just as prestigious as Vanderbilt. Virginia has way bigger E Fund than Williams does, yet I seriously doubt it if the top students would rather attend Virginia than Williams.

Yes, you cannot compare endowment fund between old and new but prestigious institutions tend to overcome that.

LSE that was created 60 years after KCL still has more endowment per student than KCL. So age is not much of a problem.

Nottingham, Exeter, Newcastle, Surrey, City and Kent that are of roughly the same age as Warwick have far more in endowment than Warwick.

Never compare Public vs Private with Public vs Public. And I suggest you go and compare the endowment per student of Williams and Virginia.

Original post by Mr. Roxas

warwick's E Fund is still small now compared to King's but as Warwick is learning the importance of e fund and as the alumni are participating, time will come when warwick's e fund will dramatically increase. remember that warwick is just a new organization.

Considering Warwick's inability to command big donations unlike other prestigious universities, that is very unlikely. Big contributions make up dramatic increase.

Original post by Mr. Roxas

lastly, warwick has a very new medical school, which is even different from all the rest in the Uk as it is a graduate level program, accepting rather more mature students. medical schools receive more funding, and unis with medical schools have generally higer E Fund.

True.

Original post by Mr. Roxas

regarding Caltech, you're wrong about it having higher enrollment yield than HYPSM. there's no way caltech would ever beat HYPSM's enrollment yield rate. it only has something like 35+% enrollment yield rate compared to over 65% for HYPSM. if caltech would have a higher enrollment yield rate than harvard then caltech would be more prestigious than harvard. but it does not have.

Where is your source?

What is the selectivity of Caltech?

Original post by Mr. Roxas

Warwick.

the fact that Warwick asks for higher grades signifies that the Warwick programs are attracting more qualified students, which i would equate to being more popular and prestigious.

Like Caltech vs HYPSM?

Original post by Mr. Roxas

why would Warwick be asking for higher entry requirements when there are less applicants for their courses, and are not attracting students to enroll in their programs when offers are given out? it doesn't make sense. unis are asking lower grades because they cannot attract the most qualified students. that's just how it goes.

How does Warwick ask for higher entry grades?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 34

Original post by Mr. Roxas

i'm not sure about that, but like i said, most undergraduate students do not make it as their main criterion for choosing a university. undergrad students care more about college experience, teaching experience, academic support system for undergrad students, ranking and employment prospects. those are the things most students care the most, not the size of the university endowment or research output.

graduate students care about research, however, as well as, faculty caliber.

Most elite students nowadays look at how a university helps them compete globally.

Reply 35

Cutmeloose

15

Original post by LutherVan

Most elite students nowadays look at how a university helps them compete globally.

Can we just note that Warwick is 48 years old. I don't think it is entirely fair to use LSE as an example as to why Warwick's age doesn't justify its low level of alumni donations and endowment. Warwick has only been a very top UK university for 10-15 years so realistically, how deep is the alma master going to be. LSE for instance has been excellent since day one, 100 years is enough time to build up and overtake the likes of KCL. The vast majority of CEOs and influential figures across the world will be older than the University of Warwick. 48 years is really not a great deal of time in regards to history. Most senior figures in banking, law, consultancy, IR, Politics will all be pushing close to the age of Warwick, so the numbers are against the University. 50 years ago, LSE was nowhere near as prestigious or renowned as it now is, so who knows where Warwick may be in 2063.

If Warwick still hasn't managed to recoup funds from Alumni and still has a low endowment figure in 10-15 years then you'd be on the money with what you say.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 36

Original post by Cutmeloose

Can we just note that Warwick is 48 years old. I don't think it is entirely fair to use LSE as an example as to why Warwick's age doesn't justify its low level of alumni donations and endowment. Warwick has only been a very top UK university for 10-15 years so realistically, how deep is the alma master going to be. LSE for instance has been excellent since day one, 100 years is enough time to build up and overtake the likes of KCL. The vast majority of CEOs and influential figures across the world will be older than the University of Warwick. 48 years is really not a great deal of time in regards to history. Most senior figures in banking, law, consultancy, IR, Politics will all be pushing close to the age of Warwick, so the numbers are against the University. 50 years ago, LSE was nowhere near as prestigious or renowned as it now is, so who knows where Warwick may be in 2063.

If Warwick still hasn't managed to recoup funds from Alumni and still has a low endowment figure in 10-15 years then you'd be on the money with what you say.

You are wrong. 50 years ago, LSE was already a star institution that was competing with Cambridge (Hayek vs Keynes and Cannan vs Marshall). 50 years ago, it already had 4 nobel laureates associated with it and numerous future presidents as alumni.

You are right. Warwick's high status has only been in the last 15 years or so. If this is sustainable or a flash in the pan is still up in the air. Nottingham had its own wave too at a time, that has subsided slightly. That is why I keep on emphasising finance, that is a key ingredient that can trigger and sustain success. In my view the Golden Triangle + Edinburgh are the best placed in that respect. And they are accelerating away.

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/9#13009301

Reply 37

Original post by LutherVan

Well prestigious universities are not for average smart students.

then for whom?
even your average top emplyer would tend to favor warwick.

Yes, you cannot compare endowment fund between old and new but prestigious institutions tend to overcome that.

LSE that was created 60 years after KCL still has more endowment per student than KCL. So age is not much of a problem.

Nottingham, Exeter, Newcastle, Surrey, City and Kent that are of roughly the same age as Warwick have far more in endowment than Warwick.

again, why do you keep going back to E Fund? bar oxbridge, no UK uni has pulled out a considerable amount of funds for their fund campaign. king's having only about 50m more e fund than warwick does not mean much.
only 5% of the earning, at most, goes back the university for instructional purposes. warwick may not have 50m more e funds, but warwick is doing well financially. i have not heard warwick complain for the lack of funding and resources. It has enough funding to run its programs just as intended. in fact, it has money to build another state-of-the-art building for WBS. it has just embarked on a joint research with NYU and Cornell. Warwick would not have entered into such agreements if it is cash strapped like you suggested. So, obviously, money isn't a problem for warwick, and i do not understand why you keep going back into the money matter.

and, again, generous donors usually donate to medical schools. Warwick's medicine is new. the e funds that those unis you mentioned would largely go for medical research purposes, benefiting only the medical students, as medical researches are expensive.

and, for the last time, donating back to your alma mater is a cultural thing. Warwick started the fund campaign only very recently, and has contacted mostly the new graduates, as far as i am aware. in fact, i was just contacted by warwick only very recently and i responded positively. Again, for the million times, this donation activity is new at warwick, and so it is not fair for you to use it as basis of prestige. if anything, it is only a function of how the alumni love their alma mater uni, and percentage-wise, i don't think warwick lags behind those unis you mentioned, as a good percentage of the newly grads have responded the call positively. I say you wait until the older alumni respond to it, when the university will start contacting them. nevertheless, giving back to your alma mater school is not an indication of prestige. not at all. it does not have anything to do with it. it is, again, a cultural practice at some schools, and with the exception of Oxbridge, all UK unis are new in this relative to US schools and that explains why US schools have bigger E Funds. That does not make US schools more prestigious. For example, I would not say Rice is more prestigious than LSE, that despite Rice having way bigger E Fund than LSE does. US schools just have higher E Funds, that's all, because they have a culture of donating back to their alma mater school. And, that's why no other UK uni has amassed 1billion e fund to date and why UK unis lag behind US schools in terms of E Fund.

King's has a medical school and is much older, and has been asking donations way even Warwick was born. How would that be a fair criterion for your prestige contest?

Never compare Public vs Private with Public vs Public. And I suggest you go and compare the endowment per student of Williams and Virginia.

oh, now you diverted it to on a per capita basis?
your previous posts were all shouting about how king's is more prestigious than warwick because there were 2 alumni who donated a large amount of money for the university medical school's e fund.
you obviously lost your argument.

Considering Warwick's inability to command big donations unlike other prestigious universities, that is very unlikely. Big contributions make up dramatic increase.

again, your argument is unsound and your accusations are baseless. you are rating a new uni who just embarked on a fund campaign.
again, this is a new thing at warwick. and, i am bewildered how you failed to understand that school donations do not happen overnight. it took king's over a hundred years to amass those money. it took oxford 9 centuries to amass 4billion e fund. warwick has been around only about 47 years ago, and has only started asking for donations only a couple of years or so ago, and now you're telling me it's less prestigious on that basis. that's ridiculous. And worse, you assumed it could not receive donations of large amount in the future. do you have a crystal ball, vander? you seem to argue based on things that are yet to happen.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 38