The Top 10 UK Universities

You are suggesting Warwick is on the same level as LSE, UCL though. You're going so far as to say it surpasses UCL regardless of the fact you're limiting this to the 'business world'. Even in the business world Warwick is NOT on the same level as LSE.

You are suggesting Warwick is on the same level as LSE, UCL though. You're going so far as to say it surpasses UCL regardless of the fact you're limiting this to the 'business world'. Even in the business world Warwick is NOT on the same level as LSE.

UCL is ranked 5th in the world, Warwick doesn't even come close. Again I am reiterating the fact that Warwick is very good but it certainly isn't as well known as the others. Warwick is unheard of in America and a lot of other countries. LSE especially has an unrivalled reputation in America. Imperial again trumps Warwick on the basis of prestige.

You turning down your offer at LSE doesn't make Warwick any better. LSE still holds it reputation. Maybe you should have gone with LSE, then we wouldn't have this pointless debate and you would be able to relax knowing your University has an international reputation.

Also you find it quite easy to say King's College isn't prestigious but when I take a non-biased view and say Warwick isn't on the same level as the G5 you're adamantly against the idea. The fact that you don't think KCL has the same brand recognition is purely your opinion.

I'm trying to take a far more objective view seeing as I attend none of the Universities in question.

I wouldn't necessarily say Warwick is on the same level as LSE and I never said that. Choosing Warwick over LSE was a personal preference. I'd say, though, that Warwick could compete with LSE and Imperial.




You've got to be kidding me!

Like I said, you need to go out of the UK once in a while to be able to widen your views.
UCL is a good and respected institution, but it isn't superior to - and could hardly compete - with the likes of:

1. Harvard
2. Stanford
3. MIT
4. Yale
5. UC Berkeley
6. Princeton
7. Caltech
8. Chicago
9. Columbia
10. UPenn
11. Duke
12. Cornell
13. Oxrford
14. Cambridge

That's already 14 unis, which I can confidently say are superior to UCL, for they are better funded, are able to attract the best faculty, more selective, have the more competitive students, and have better facilities and resources. UCL couldn't match any of those schools in that list. Thus to say UCL is #5 in the world is plain nonsense.








If it isn't well-known, why then have I heard about it, given that I am not British and have not studied in England before coming to Warwick? As a matter of fact, about a quarter of Warwick students are from outside the UK. If it isn't well-known like you're asserting, why then has it able to attract that many international students, all of them are some of the very best students in their respective countries, as Warwick's entry requirements for international students are very high?


Really? Says who? You?

Well, my experience differ from your personal assertion.
I applied to 3 Ivy League schools for graduate education, and was admitted to all including Columbia and chose to go with Brown largely due to funding. (I also have been admitted to 4 more top US schools one of which is Duke.) But never had I been asked by a single adcom what Warwick is or where it is or how good it is. In fact, I think I was able to get admitted to those top US schools partly because I earned my undergraduate degree from Warwick, which they all considered to be very well-respected.

Now, if you don't think I'm talking with substance, consider the feeder schools of Harvard Business School, the number one and most respected business school in the world. Harvard publishes its feeder schools annually, and never have I seen a year where Warwick was out of the list.
Here's the list for this year:
http://www.hbs.edu/mba/admissions/class-profile/Pages/undergraduate-institutions.aspx

As you can see, Warwick appears in the list. For 3 consecutive years before this, no one has gotten in from UCL. If you do have access to HBS Class of 2016 on FB, you would know that four of this year's class are from Warwick, and only one each from Imperial and UCL while 2 from LSE, Oxford and 3 from Cambridge. Again, the numbers of HBS admits can be accessed on their FB group. If you do know anyone from HBS, he would readily tell you that the numbers I provided were accurate.

That said, I am neither asserting nor suggesting that Warwick is superior to Imperial, LSE or UCL. I am saying, that where it matters (prestige and respectability of the university name, in this case), Warwick can head-to-head and toe-to-toe with LSE, Imperial and UCL, that is a full contradictory to your controversial assertion that Warwick is inferior to the three London unis, and the Warwick name has no recognition outside of the UK.




I'm not sure about that again.
I've had plenty of American friends who would be very much willing to break an arm to win a seat at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and/or a seat at Cambridge as a Gates Scholar. I never heard anyone - at least from my circles - to have the same passion and enthusiasm to win a seat at LSE. I'm not saying LSE has no name recognition in America. I've lived in America - In fact, I'm an American passport holder myself and have lived in both Coasts -- but I have never gotten the impression that LSE's reputation in America is unrivalled, like you suggested.





Agreed.
I was only pointing out that if Warwick has no name recognition outside the UK, why would then some international students are attracted to it?


Or, maybe, I would not have won a scholarship at an Ivy...



Simply because your personal view and opinion are being entirely contradicted by the opinions and views of the top employers - who I think are the people whose say should mean more than others, including mine and yours.

I have already stated I agree with the fact that Warwick is very good and the stats show that. The point I was making is simply that Warwick isn't as good as the G5 overall. That shouldn't detract from Warwick, only add to the others.

I have not heard of the word, G5, before. Please educate me what that is.
I'm sure, too, that to the eyes of the the top employers world-wide, as well as, to the sight of the adcoms of the top schools world-wide, there isn't such a thing as, G5. Maybe such a word, or group, existed. But I am pretty confident that it isn't universally an acceptable list of the top 5 UK unis to the sight of the top employers worldwide.

Nevertheless, that wasn't I'm most bothered about out of the many controversial assertions you've made. What had bothered me was when you said that Warwick isn't a top 10 UK uni, that it is more of like a top 15-nish university.
Now, granted the G5 really existed, what other 5 UK unis do you think are superior to Warwick then? You must have another 5 more unis in mind to dislodge Warwick out of the top 10.

I have not heard of the word, G5, before. Please educate me what that is.
I'm sure, too, that to the eyes of the the top employers world-wide, as well as, to the sight of the adcoms of the top schools world-wide, there isn't such a thing as, G5. Maybe such a word, or group, existed. But I am pretty confident that it isn't universally an acceptable list of the top 5 UK unis to the sight of the top employers worldwide.

Nevertheless, that wasn't I'm most bothered about out of the many controversial assertions you've made. What had bothered me was when you said that Warwick isn't a top 10 UK uni, that it is more of like a top 15-nish university.
Now, granted the G5 really existed, what other 5 UK unis do you think are superior to Warwick then? You must have another 5 more unis in mind to dislodge Warwick out of the top 10.

Well seeing as I said Top 10-15 that includes Warwick being listed at a Top 10 by virtue of holding 10th place. Also, I stated I could see it being a Top 10 albeit on a good day so that includes Warwick being anywhere from 5th to 10th place.

Having read your posts I would probably say Warwick sits around 8th or 9th on the basis of reputation. I would put Durham, St. Andrews and King's on the same level or above to answer your question.

Warwick at 6, Bristol at 7, Durham at 8, Edinburgh at 9, Nottingham at 10.

King's is ranked in the world top 20. Surely that places it above Nottingham and Bristol at the least.

No, it only says that KCL has more research power. Bristol and Nottingham still hold more pulling power with the best graduate employers and private schools. St Andrews and Bath are too small to make in the top 10.

I think its safe to assume that for better or worse we generally judge Universities by their 'research power'. This is because it translates into league table positions and over the course of several years it allows an institution to affirm its position as a top 10 for example. This league table position translates to a general perception of a Universities reputation and therefore employability.

I don't think it quite works like that in reality. Manchester has far more research power than Durham, but everyone thinks Durham is better. Likewise, KCL may well be better than Nottingham in many subjects, but Nottingham, well, is Nottingham, and employers haven't forgotten that it is holds so much popularity amongst UK students from the best schools and other leading employers.

Warwick


Posted from TSR Mobile

If by Nottingham is well Nottingham you mean Nottingham is just a 10-15 school... then sure. In every ranking international and domestic Nottingham fails to break the top 10 and only 1 nobel prize winner among alumni. When i first heard of nottingham I thought of robin hood and nothing else.

Employers and universities don't look at UK rankings, as they don't measure prestige. QS World rankings measure prestige in terms of research power, something which the Russell Group aims to excel in. There is also a better correlation between top QS ranked UK universities and graduate employer targeting. Birmingham is ranked higher than Durham, but Durham enjoys a better reputation overall in the UK with employers. Birmingham is still better for research overall.

They don't pour over rankings of any kind. Employers simply ask that your degree is accredited by an institution relevant to the job, or you have achieved x number of UCAS points. The rest of the process is decided by your communicational skills in the phone/video interview and how you approach problems at the assessment centre. The only preference of University is done in the IB sector, or if an employer/industry wants to recruit locally (hence why Aberdeen Uni and Robert Gordon have a high turn over of Engineering students into the Oil and Gas industry)

Being a RG university means nothing to an undergraduate, or postgraduate to masters level. In your time there, you get to do limited research, and any research you do get to do is something that can be done at any University that accredits your degree subject.

I'd also say most of the reputation of a University is based off the opinions of sixth formers as they're the ones that keep an open eye in terms of what University is apparently good at what.

The above may be true if you are applying for non-graduate jobs disguised as graduate ones at mickey mouse firms. I finished college many years ago, and sixth formers know very little about universities beyond downloading league tables, and a few conversations within their inner circle, and the odd open day visit. To understand things more clearly, you need some business experience to see how things really work, on top of a degree or Masters.

I guess Nottingham better start improving its league table positions because lets face it, sixth formers are using them whether you like it or not.

They are, as I did, but I was fortunate enough to know from my teachers that Nottingham was a top 10. Private schools in particular drill it into their students to target Russell Group universities.

If you had gotten into a real top 10 you wouldn't be wasting your time debating with literally everyone else on this forum now would you?