KCL v Warwick?

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

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

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.

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.

so, for you, those unis mentioned above are more prestigious than Warwick???

here. please inform yourself about top US schools.
http://www.parchment.com/c/college/college-178-Caltech.html

look at the entry grades of warwick and compare that to king's. alternatively, you can modify the website by the entry requirements on a per subject basis.
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings/?o=Entry

Warwick is number 1 for graduate employment - Check high-fliers 2013.

It is ranked 23rd in the world for Politics - QS subject rankings that came out the other day.

It is in the top 10 of all university rankings and has been since they were created - All domestic rankings which can be verified.

It is one of the 6 target universities for Investment Banking.

King's College London cannot compete in these respects.

If you genuinely think KCL is even comparable, you need your head checking. KCL is very good for dentistry, medicine and law, and some niche courses like War Studies, that's about it really. It barely makes into the top 20 of any domestic ranking so to claim it is in the same bracket as Warwick is just ridiculous.

Warwick is a hole though, London is miles better - but if you are thinking of employment and reputation: Warwick>King's. Part of my degree is in Politics and to be honest, it's actually well-taught and an organised department.

Sure, but how does King's prepare their students better on this than Warwick?

i was a management major at warwick and i think warwick prepared me more than what i expected to compete globally. i made it to citi, beating several applicants from King's, LSE and Oxbridge. i made it to Brown for my grad school beating top applicants from ivy league schools. and, if i have to assess myself and compare it to my former classmates at Warwick, i hardly measure up, as i wasn't even amongst the top graduates in my class. i can list down 20 or more people in my class alone who are more highly acheiving than me. so you can imagine how many more from Warwick would be able to say Warwick prepared them very well.

and, again, in general, warwick would win over King's in the cross-admit battles as warwick is more selective and prestigious. surely, there have been students who chose King's over Warwick. But they're rather the outliers than the norms. Most students would choose Warwick over King's if admitted onto the same program. And even if you do not agree the top employers would have a much higher preference for warwick grads. I call this additional prestige for Warwick.

when i interned at citi, no one was invited from King's yet there were over 20 people from Warwick just at that time alone. My friends who were later absorbed at Goldman Sachs can all attest too that King's isn't considered a target there as well. UBS does not consider King's a target as well. My friends at McKinsey were telling me they only have collegues who come from Oxbridge and LSE. And there are other bulge-bracket firms that do not consider King's elite, and thus do not hire their products the way they do elite schools like Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Warwick. The sad thing is that the top students are mostly aware about this. And, if they knew this all along, why would they gamble their future and go with the riskier choice (King's) when they can get into a much better school (Warwick) that regularly feeds the top companies for top, high-paying jobs?
I'M NOT SAYING King's does a bad job in sending grads to top jobs. It's just that Warwick just does much, much better. And quite frankly, I don't know how King's can compete with Warwick in this area anytime soon.

Hi guys!

I've got an offer from KCL for International Relations and Warwick for Politics and International Studies.

I'm absolutely torn between the 2!
I LOVE the location of Kings, it's perfect and I adore London. But I think Warwick overall is ranked higher in the league tables and is slightly more prestigious. Also, Warwick's exchange programme in second year with American unis sounds amazing.

If you had the choice between the 2, which would you pick and why?

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.

What kind of source is "nairaland.com" anyway? You keep bringing that up as though it's the most supreme source. Give some proper sources to back up your endowment claim.

Either way, as you yourself said, some universities (Exeter, Kent, etc.) might have higher endowments, but their prestige is nowhere near Warwick's - this is your evidence that endowment doesn't really matter.

To the poster above: in today's world, it doesn't really matter where exactly you are to get internships. Plenty of companies come to Warwick, you can send in your applications online; you don't actually need to be at the place of the internship to secure it.

It is interesting that we have another apparent King's student who just has to insult the Warwick student (Mr. Roxas in this case), but it is rare for the Warwick student to resort to insults. Perhaps it does show the level of candidates differ between the two universities.

Oh my God! You are so incredibly dim!

Anyone with a grey matter in their head would see that the author on Nairaland did not create the data, he sourced it from other sources, which most times he included the link of. So how can you be so stupid to think nairaland is the source? Are you really that thick?

And you are still so stupid to keep saying endowment does not matter. It indicates that Warwick has not been very successful in producing top people and Warwick's prestige is not that high in the world that matters, the commercial world.

I can bet many Warwick students themselves read your comments peeping through the gaps of their fingers in horror because they find you an embarrassment to their school and they probably mutter "oh no" everytime you post, praying you just keep quiet.

I am sorry to say you are a disgrace to Warwick and destroy the fallacy that Warwick is highly selective. Many Thames Valley students speak far more intelligently and would look like Oxbridge products if juxtaposed with you.

Oh my God! You are so incredibly dim!

Anyone with a grey matter in their head would see that the author on Nairaland did not create the data, he sourced it from other sources, which most times he included the link of. So how can you be so stupid to think nairaland is the source? Are you really that thick?

And you are still so stupid to keep saying endowment does not matter. It indicates that Warwick has not been very successful in producing top people and Warwick's prestige is not that high in the world that matters, the commercial world.

I can bet many Warwick students themselves read your comments peeping through the gaps of their fingers in horror because they find you an embarrassment to their school and they probably mutter "oh no" everytime you post, praying you just keep quiet.

I am sorry to say you are a disgrace to Warwick and destroy the fallacy that Warwick is highly selective. Many Thames Valley students speak far more intelligently and would look like Oxbridge products if juxtaposed with you.

To be quite honest you seem to be guilty of the same crime that you accuse crunchychips of being guilty of. You claim that he must be incredibly thick and stupid to persist with his claims.

Yet, you suggesting that one student is evidence of Warwick not being highly a selective and well regarded university is a contender for stupidity and thickness personified in my book. The guy studies Maths, they are not known as being the most articulate and wordily students ever.

I agree with lots of what you say, but you say it's the commercial world that matters, yet Warwick students outstrip King's by a MILE in regards to presence in London's financial district at least. Warwick kills King's for banking and I mean kills, and even for Law, despite King's having the better course, Warwick still has a similar presence. I don't think neither are particularly well represented amongst top tier consultancy firms.

Both have a high amount of international students, so Warwick must clearly have global footing. It definitely has a strong reputation in Asia and Europe.

Not really!

A student like him would not get into Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial.

And prior to meeting him on TSR, I never believed a student like him can get into the next tier of top universities like UCL, KCL, Durham, Warwick etc because I believed those universities were quite selective. But he claims to be in Warwick to my utter shock.

This is not about articulation, it is about basic reasoning. The guy is thinker than Rodney from Only Fools and Horses.

What most of you TSR kids don't understand is that the world is not only about finance. KCL kills Warwick in most other areas of employment and has a higher average salary on average, as well as higher employment figures. The last 10 years of flash from Warwick is not a basis to be laying claims of superiority or greatness. and its reputation is not as strong as KCL anywhere outside UK.

I'm not really sure if you're serious. Do you think getting 6 A* at GCSE and A*AA at A-Level makes you that intelligent? Considering that this coupled with a vaguely decent PS is good enough to get you into LSE and Imperial for most courses. I know a handful of bimbos at Oxbridge, yet one of these bimbos has still managed to secure a grad job in M & A at a boutique bank despite studying Land Economy. Intelligence is a blurry subject.

What areas does KCL kill Warwick in? not finance, politics, even Law is negligible (in regards to actual job prospects, will not deny that KCL's department is better regarded) The difference in average salary is £2-3k, hardly worth mentioning. 6/10 are London unis, which is a factor. I would argue that Warwick is just as well perceived as King's in Europe at least. King's really isn't all that rated in the Asian community, when you're 4th in your own city, it knocks you of your perch slightly. King's is better known, but there is a big difference between recognition and prestige. I would agree and possibly suggest that Warwick's success is likely to be a flash in the pan.

I bet in your intellectual sphere, Glasgow Caledonia University or Southampton Solent can go and raise £1bn in endowment because, you know, reputation does not count in endowment.

Thanks for that insightful view.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ic.html?ref=nf

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...?ref=education

Yeah, I see that Global Employers do prefer Warwick.

Please do remove the bishops and still compare with Warwick.

Then take the time to explore employment rates and starting salaries of both KCL and Warwick students.

Wow, you really have a lot of insightful views.

This would have been more insightful if KCL had a significant Engineering department. I say that with caution because I am not sure they have any at all. How can a university be well know in a subject they hardly offer.