The Top 10 UK Universities

If you look at the UCAS entry tariff it isn't true, I honestly think every school likes to brag about their own school even if its not necessarily true. If you look at UCAS entry tariff Durham Imperial and St Andrews have higher tariffs

They are credible because they tell you which universities makes you feel satisfied?

I bet you would even argue UC Riverside is better than Harvard because of the "credible" Washington Monthly rankings.

You know Surrey is better than Warwick, at least according to your "credible" Gaurdian rankings?

Mate, let me tell you the only reasonable stats that Warwick beats KCL in: Average entry grades.

And that is about it.

I could easily start refering to the top international rankingss but instead I would go through the basic fundamentals of things that make KCL better.

- KCL just beat Warwick in all aspects of the recent assessment of research power.

- Academics rank KCL as a better university.

- Employers rank KCL as a better university.

- KCL despite being the bigger university has the higher proportion of students having good prospects (employment or further studies).

- KCL's students, despite a calculation based on a larger student base, earn on average more than Warwick students.

- KCL even has a better alumni list including producing Nobel laurettes (I am sure Warwick has never produced one).

- KCL is better financially secure and has more financial muscle; it has a far more financial endowment, has a far higher income and just raised a ridiculous amount of money that Warwick could never dream of. People only give money to good universities.

- KCL has a stronger brand locally and internationally.

- Even more affluent students go to KCL than Warwick.

These are the kinds of factors that you can spot in prestigious universities like Harvard/MIT/Oxbrdige.

And this is without talking about the international rankings which measures more credible things than your "credible" tables. I could easily list more than the 4 tables you listed (even though you made up one table) that would show KCL is better, but that would have been too easy.

So, mate, take it as it is. KCL has a better reputation, produces better students, gives students better career prospects and is already set to be far better than Warwick in future.

set to be far better than warwick in the future? warwick is 49 years old, why is the third oldest uni in England competing with a uni not even 50 years old? :s

kcl over warwick yolo

What makes you think they are competing?

KCL is better, it is not a competition.

An endowment of £162m in comparison to £8m is not a competition.

A fundraising of £600m in comparison to a non-start of a mere £50m is not a competition.

Annual income of £604m in comparison to £460m is not a competition.

set to be far better than warwick in the future? warwick is 49 years old, why is the third oldest uni in England competing with a uni not even 50 years old? :s

kcl over warwick yolo

And by the way, Warwick did not top any of the subject areas in terms of quality or power in the recent REF assessment. Not a SINGLE subject area.

Even the so-called "world-class" business school that Mr Roxas likes to refer to did not come in the top 3 in either quality or power in the REF assessment. Can't be that world class then in research if Lancaster is doing better?

It only came 2nd in two subject areas, and 3rd in power and quality in one subject area (both in mathematics).

KCL was 1st in either power or quality in three subject areas, 2nd in 4 subject areas, and 3rd in six subject areas.

Stop playing with us.

Which league table did you look at?
This league table tells us that Warwick is not only superior to King's in terms of student selectivity, it also is superior to King's in RESEARCH, that's aside from STUDENT SATISFACTION RATING.
2.80 of Warwick vs 2.69 of King's -- http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Research




What made you say I'd argue UC Riverside is superior to Harvard??? Unless I'd have a brain like yours, I would never argue such a stupid claim.

Like I said (but which you didn't listen and/or you refused to listen), ALL the major league tables have unanimously confirmed that Warwick is miles superior to King's. Again, miles. There's a considerable gap that separates them. I'm not talking about ONE league table. I'm practically talking about every single league table published. Get the drift...





Perhaps in one of the many rankings. But when you summed them up together, Warwick would come out as the superior university.
Again, don't based it on one ranking.





WRONG!
I cited why you're so wronged again on my post above.






Many of these are irrelevant.



Source please?



Are you kidding me?

The top employers recognize Warwick as a superior university, and consider it to be a peer university of LSE, Imperial and UCL.

Warwick is a top target school for top bulge bracket firms. King's isn't, despite its London advantage.

You have to consider what kind of companies are you talking about. Mate, maybe King's grads are more proffered at some so-so companies. But when we talk about McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Blackstone and such, Warwick is a top target whilst King's is under the radar.






Again, you need to qualify the numbers and data.

At the current class at Harvard Business School, even LSE and Oxbridge grads are outnumbered by Warwick grads. I know this -- I'm in close contacts with some of these people now. And, if you don't believe me, you can check on HBS Class 2016 profile. No one has gotten into Harvard Business School (HBS) from King's, and the data coming from HBS would tell you that the last time they've accepted someone from King's was way back in 2002. Boy, that's more than a decade ago already, whereas, HBS has consistently accepted students coming from Warwick yearly. Again, if you do know someone who goes to HBS now (which I do, btw), he can provide you the numbers as he would have access to HBS data bank where it would tell you that there wasn't a year when HBS refused to admit a Warwick grad into their class for the last 25 years or so. At HBS, and in most top graduate programs in the US, or anywhere in the world, Warwick can toe-to-toe with the best in the UK, that is something that King's can only dream about.


Additionally, you can refer to this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/student-life/9796679/Warwick-University-top-target-for-graduate-employers.html




Again, that's a dumb way of interpreting the data.
Compare apples to apples.
Compare the management grads of Warwick to the management grads of King's. Compare the math grads of Warwick to the math grads of King's. Compare the computer science grads of Warwick and the computer science grads of King's, and so on. Don't compare the salary scale of Warwick History grads, for instance, to the salary scale of the medicine or dental medicine grads of King's. That would be a very stupid thing to do.





Yes and I wouldn't deny that. But King's is way older. When King's was founded, the key players in the academic world were very small. Meaning, it was facing a very few competition. It surely has had a leg up over Warwick which was founded only in 1950s. But today, King's dominance is over. And you don't choose school on the basis of the number of Nobel awards, do you?





I agree it has a higher endowment fund. But, come on. Warwick is not gasping at straw in terms of budget issues. In fact, it is an earning entity. It even bade to establish presence in New York, competing with other ginat schools in the likes of Columbia, Cornell, NYU and Stanford. http://www.bbc.com/news/education-13042040
If Warwick has no money like what you're suggesting, it would not have been able to afford to bid to establish a campus in NY, more so, afford to build a physical presence there.

Additionally, King's having a larger endowment fund than Warwick doesn't say much in the real world. You don't see this applied to the university. Look at the physical resources of King's. They aren't better than Warwick's. King's doesn't have a more attractive campus. It doesn't have much better programs either. In fact, Warwick has more physical resources, more programs, more faculty & staff than King's now.

And, hey, it's not like King's has a couple of billion pounds of endowment here. It only has over a hundred million, which would accrue an annual earnings insignificant to what Warwick receives from tuition. So, get real.





Oh, you wished!

If King's has a stronger brand than Warwick, it would have registered a higher entry requirement. But lo and behold -- It doesn't.

Even internationally, King's doesn't ring a bell. It doesn't have a world-class program where people world-wide would wish they've been a part of it. It's not like LSE has a famous economics program, Imperial engineering or UCL medicine. Warwick has a highly-ranked business school, ranked by both the Financial Times and Economists in the top 30 in the world, even beating programs offered by Cornell, UCLA and such giant schools in America. King's doesn't have a single program where it can honestly, seriously and confidently say, it can rival with the best in the world. Warwick has one, not just one, but many -- MBA, MSc Finance, MSc Management, Maths, statistics and economics.


You don't know what you're talking about.
Students at WBS aren't poor, or poorer than King's students.
On a personal level, I seriously doubt that you're making more than I do. Seriously.

Nope, you're all wrong.

The answers are:

Cambridge
Oxford
Imperial
LSE
UCL
KCL
Manchester
Durham
Warwick
St Andrews

Roughly, but not necessarily precisely, in order

Stop playing with us.

Which league table did you look at?
This league table tells us that Warwick is not only superior to King's in terms of student selectivity, it also is superior to King's in RESEARCH, that's aside from STUDENT SATISFACTION RATING.
2.80 of Warwick vs 2.69 of King's -- http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Research

What made you say I'd argue UC Riverside is superior to Harvard??? Unless I'd have a brain like yours, I would never argue such a stupid claim.

Like I said (but which you didn't listen and/or you refused to listen), ALL the major league tables have unanimously confirmed that Warwick is miles superior to King's. Again, miles. There's a considerable gap that separates them. I'm not talking about ONE league table. I'm practically talking about every single league table published. Get the drift...

Perhaps in one of the many rankings. But when you summed them up together, Warwick would come out as the superior university.
Again, don't based it on one ranking.

WRONG!
I cited why you're so wronged again on my post above.

Many of these are irrelevant.

Source please?

Are you kidding me?

The top employers recognize Warwick as a superior university, and consider it to be a peer university of LSE, Imperial and UCL.

Warwick is a top target school for top bulge bracket firms. King's isn't, despite its London advantage.

You have to consider what kind of companies are you talking about. Mate, maybe King's grads are more proffered at some so-so companies. But when we talk about McKinsey, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Blackstone and such, Warwick is a top target whilst King's is under the radar.

Again, you need to qualify the numbers and data.

At the current class at Harvard Business School, even LSE and Oxbridge grads are outnumbered by Warwick grads. I know this -- I'm in close contacts with some of these people now. And, if you don't believe me, you can check on HBS Class 2016 profile. No one has gotten into Harvard Business School (HBS) from King's, and the data coming from HBS would tell you that the last time they've accepted someone from King's was way back in 2002. Boy, that's more than a decade ago already, whereas, HBS has consistently accepted students coming from Warwick yearly. Again, if you do know someone who goes to HBS now (which I do, btw), he can provide you the numbers as he would have access to HBS data bank where it would tell you that there wasn't a year when HBS refused to admit a Warwick grad into their class for the last 25 years or so. At HBS, and in most top graduate programs in the US, or anywhere in the world, Warwick can toe-to-toe with the best in the UK, that is something that King's can only dream about.

Additionally, you can refer to this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/student-life/9796679/Warwick-University-top-target-for-graduate-employers.html

Again, that's a dumb way of interpreting the data.
Compare apples to apples.
Compare the management grads of Warwick to the management grads of King's. Compare the math grads of Warwick to the math grads of King's. Compare the computer science grads of Warwick and the computer science grads of King's, and so on. Don't compare the salary scale of Warwick History grads, for instance, to the salary scale of the medicine or dental medicine grads of King's. That would be a very stupid thing to do.

Yes and I wouldn't deny that. But King's is way older. When King's was founded, the key players in the academic world were very small. Meaning, it was facing a very few competition. It surely has had a leg up over Warwick which was founded only in 1950s. But today, King's dominance is over. And you don't choose school on the basis of the number of Nobel awards, do you?

I agree it has a higher endowment fund. But, come on. Warwick is not gasping at straw in terms of budget issues. In fact, it is an earning entity. It even bade to establish presence in New York, competing with other ginat schools in the likes of Columbia, Cornell, NYU and Stanford. http://www.bbc.com/news/education-13042040
If Warwick has no money like what you're suggesting, it would not have been able to afford to bid to establish a campus in NY, more so, afford to build a physical presence there.

Additionally, King's having a larger endowment fund than Warwick doesn't say much in the real world. You don't see this applied to the university. Look at the physical resources of King's. They aren't better than Warwick's. King's doesn't have a more attractive campus. It doesn't have much better programs either. In fact, Warwick has more physical resources, more programs, more faculty & staff than King's now.

And, hey, it's not like King's has a couple of billion pounds of endowment here. It only has over a hundred million, which would accrue an annual earnings insignificant to what Warwick receives from tuition. So, get real.

Oh, you wished!

If King's has a stronger brand than Warwick, it would have registered a higher entry requirement. But lo and behold -- It doesn't.

Even internationally, King's doesn't ring a bell. It doesn't have a world-class program where people world-wide would wish they've been a part of it. It's not like LSE has a famous economics program, Imperial engineering or UCL medicine. Warwick has a highly-ranked business school, ranked by both the Financial Times and Economists in the top 30 in the world, even beating programs offered by Cornell, UCLA and such giant schools in America. King's doesn't have a single program where it can honestly, seriously and confidently say, it can rival with the best in the world. Warwick has one, not just one, but many -- MBA, MSc Finance, MSc Management, Maths, statistics and economics.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Students at WBS aren't poor, or poorer than King's students.
On a personal level, I seriously doubt that you're making more than I do. Seriously.

Why Manchester and not Edinburgh or Bristol?

Why Manchester and not Edinburgh or Bristol?

Edinburgh is a fair point, actually. I think Manchester has Bristol beaten on international reputation, though.

Edinburgh is a fair point, actually. I think Manchester has Bristol beaten on international reputation, though.

I don't want to get too involved in this exchange, but here are a few data points:

1. It would appear academics around the globe tend to rate KCL higher than Warwick. Based on academic reputation, KCL places 43rd in the world and Warwick doesn't make the top 100.

Source: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014/reputation-ranking/range/01-50

2. It would appear employers around the globe tend to rate KCL higher than Warwick. Based on employer reputation, KCL places 38th in the world and Warwick places 135th.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2012/10/25/world/asia/25iht-sreducemerging25-graphic.html

3. It would appear UK academics think KCL produces more high quality research than Warwick. KCL placed 7th and Warwick placed 14th for research power in the recent REF.

Source: http://exquisitelife.researchresearch.com/files/full_data_table_p1.pdf

4. However, it seems strong undergraduate matriculants tend to favor Warwick over KCL. Warwick has a median tariff score of 509, while KCL has a score of 466.

Source: http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?o=Entry

5. On KCL having "a single program where it can honestly, seriously and confidently say, it can rival with the best in the world," this claim can definitely be made in regards to programs offered by the War Studies Group (Department of War Studies/Defence Studies Department) and perhaps now by the Dickson Poon School of Law.

Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/index.aspx
Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/dsd/index.aspx
Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/index.aspx

Edinburgh is a fair point, actually. I think Manchester has Bristol beaten on international reputation, though.