Warwick University or Kings College London
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Broscientist
k, this is enough TSR for today. The snobbery on this forum is absolutely ridiculous sometimes.
k, this is enough TSR for today. The snobbery on this forum is absolutely ridiculous sometimes.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Well, that is entirely just your personal opinion. But relative to UK standards, the actual list could go longer than yours. Again, relative to UK standards, Warwick, St Andrews, Durham and Bristol are also considered "top universities". But let's not fight over that.
(Responding to both at the same time
This is my opinion, but it's not snobbery.'Top' means the highest point or level. There are 109 universities in the UK, 91 in England and 15 in Scotland (106 combined).
I consider 5 of them 'top', meaning either c5% in the UK, c5% in England+Scotland, or c5.5% in England. Usually when people refer to 'top', they prefer to the top 1%. This is how the universities claim themselves to be 'top' - world's top 1% (c238 universities).
If we count also Warwick, St And, Durham, and Bristol. There are 9 universities - c8% in the UK/England+Scotland. Usually, people would also like to include universities like Edin, KCL, and Manc. That'd make 12, or 11% in the UK. If we count all of RG, that's c22%; and if we include non-RG good universities, such as St And, Sussex, and Bath, that'd be c23%.
The top 23% is frankly, not 'top'; neither are the top 8%. This is not snobbery, this is the reality.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
That's a noticeable and considerable lead for me. And when you take the stats of the med students out from the average, the average entry tariff of King's would drop even further.
The lead is KCL's, not Warwick's. Also, you cannot just take out the medics - they are a part of KCL, and Warwick also has a medical school.
Warwick's med school is a postgrad entry level, and so should the others, in my opinion. But that doesn't matter.
Again, that is entirely your opinion.
If I'd ask you, would you consider Pomona College a top school? I would. It's not Harvard, but is a top school nonetheless.
The lead is KCL's, not Warwick's. Also, you cannot just take out the medics - they are a part of KCL, and Warwick also has a medical school.
Warwick's med school is a postgrad entry level, and so should the others, in my opinion. But that doesn't matter.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
(Responding to both at the same time This is my opinion, but it's not snobbery.
'Top' means the highest point or level. There are 109 universities in the UK, 91 in England and 15 in Scotland (106 combined).
I consider 5 of them 'top', meaning either c5% in the UK, c5% in England+Scotland, or c5.5% in England. Usually when people refer to 'top', they prefer to the top 1%. This is how the universities claim themselves to be 'top' - world's top 1% (c238 universities).
If we count also Warwick, St And, Durham, and Bristol. There are 9 universities - c8% in the UK/England+Scotland. Usually, people would also like to include universities like Edin, KCL, and Manc. That'd make 12, or 11% in the UK. If we count all of RG, that's c22%; and if we include non-RG good universities, such as St And, Sussex, and Bath, that'd be c23%.
The top 23% is frankly, not 'top'; neither are the top 8%. This is not snobbery, this is the reality.
This is my opinion, but it's not snobbery.'Top' means the highest point or level. There are 109 universities in the UK, 91 in England and 15 in Scotland (106 combined).
I consider 5 of them 'top', meaning either c5% in the UK, c5% in England+Scotland, or c5.5% in England. Usually when people refer to 'top', they prefer to the top 1%. This is how the universities claim themselves to be 'top' - world's top 1% (c238 universities).
If we count also Warwick, St And, Durham, and Bristol. There are 9 universities - c8% in the UK/England+Scotland. Usually, people would also like to include universities like Edin, KCL, and Manc. That'd make 12, or 11% in the UK. If we count all of RG, that's c22%; and if we include non-RG good universities, such as St And, Sussex, and Bath, that'd be c23%.
The top 23% is frankly, not 'top'; neither are the top 8%. This is not snobbery, this is the reality.
Again, that is entirely your opinion.
If I'd ask you, would you consider Pomona College a top school? I would. It's not Harvard, but is a top school nonetheless.
The lead is KCL's, not Warwick's. Also, you cannot just take out the medics - they are a part of KCL, and Warwick also has a medical school.
Warwick's med school is a postgrad entry level, and so should the others, in my opinion. But that doesn't matter.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Well, that is entirely just your personal opinion.
But relative to UK standards, the actual list could go longer than yours. Again, relative to UK standards, Warwick, St Andrews, Durham and Bristol are also considered "top universities". But let's not fight over that.
That's not what I meant. You deduced it to that.
I only said that when one is accepted to both LSE and King's, he would almost automatically choose LSE. King's doesn't have a compelling reason to win the cross-admitted students against LSE. It has that stigma.
Warwick, on the other hand, could come up with several legitimate reasons to fight for the cross-admitted students. I would surmise LSE wins most of the time. But the win isn't going to be easy and automatic. In my class alone 3 other guys have LSE offers. And, I know 5 more students back then who all were from the same floor who had an LSE offer too but chose Warwick to read Maths, MORSE and CS. You won't see or meet that many students students at King's.
That's a noticeable and considerable lead for me. And when you take the stats of the med students out from the average, the average entry tariff of King's would drop even further.
But relative to UK standards, the actual list could go longer than yours. Again, relative to UK standards, Warwick, St Andrews, Durham and Bristol are also considered "top universities". But let's not fight over that.
That's not what I meant. You deduced it to that.
I only said that when one is accepted to both LSE and King's, he would almost automatically choose LSE. King's doesn't have a compelling reason to win the cross-admitted students against LSE. It has that stigma.
Warwick, on the other hand, could come up with several legitimate reasons to fight for the cross-admitted students. I would surmise LSE wins most of the time. But the win isn't going to be easy and automatic. In my class alone 3 other guys have LSE offers. And, I know 5 more students back then who all were from the same floor who had an LSE offer too but chose Warwick to read Maths, MORSE and CS. You won't see or meet that many students students at King's.
That's a noticeable and considerable lead for me. And when you take the stats of the med students out from the average, the average entry tariff of King's would drop even further.
That is complete rubbish.
LSE would win Warwick virtually all the time.
If you made the error of selecting Warwick over LSE and now regret it and its making you feel insecure, that is your problem.
If you had gone to LSE when you had the chance, we would not even be having this debate. You would have gone to a university better than Strand Poly and the third best in the UK.
And "I know" anecdotes are irrelevant and weak arguments that are not acceptable.
I am sure many would "know" KCL students that elected to go to KCL to study War Studies, Law, History, Global Health or whatever over going to LSE for whatever reasons they see as legitimate.
Warwick is not a competitive choice next to LSE.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
(Responding to both at the same time This is my opinion, but it's not snobbery.
'Top' means the highest point or level. There are 109 universities in the UK, 91 in England and 15 in Scotland (106 combined).
I consider 5 of them 'top', meaning either c5% in the UK, c5% in England+Scotland, or c5.5% in England. Usually when people refer to 'top', they prefer to the top 1%. This is how the universities claim themselves to be 'top' - world's top 1% (c238 universities).
If we count also Warwick, St And, Durham, and Bristol. There are 9 universities - c8% in the UK/England+Scotland. Usually, people would also like to include universities like Edin, KCL, and Manc. That'd make 12, or 11% in the UK. If we count all of RG, that's c22%; and if we include non-RG good universities, such as St And, Sussex, and Bath, that'd be c23%.
The top 23% is frankly, not 'top'; neither are the top 8%. This is not snobbery, this is the reality.
This is my opinion, but it's not snobbery.'Top' means the highest point or level. There are 109 universities in the UK, 91 in England and 15 in Scotland (106 combined).
I consider 5 of them 'top', meaning either c5% in the UK, c5% in England+Scotland, or c5.5% in England. Usually when people refer to 'top', they prefer to the top 1%. This is how the universities claim themselves to be 'top' - world's top 1% (c238 universities).
If we count also Warwick, St And, Durham, and Bristol. There are 9 universities - c8% in the UK/England+Scotland. Usually, people would also like to include universities like Edin, KCL, and Manc. That'd make 12, or 11% in the UK. If we count all of RG, that's c22%; and if we include non-RG good universities, such as St And, Sussex, and Bath, that'd be c23%.
The top 23% is frankly, not 'top'; neither are the top 8%. This is not snobbery, this is the reality.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Again, that is entirely your opinion.
It's not, because this is exactly how universities claim to be the world's 'top' university. For example, with Newcastle and Nottingham. If being the 1% doesn't matter, they would have presented it differently, especially considering the fact they are way better than just being Top 238 in the world.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
If I'd ask you, would you consider Pomona College a top school? I would. It's not Harvard, but is a top school nonetheless.
Never heard of it.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Warwick's med school is a postgrad entry level, and so should the others, in my opinion. But that doesn't matter.
IC. Regardless, medics are still a part of KCL, so you cannot just exclude them to drag down its entry tariff.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
That's a noticeable and considerable lead for me. And when you take the stats of the med students out from the average, the average entry tariff of King's would drop even further.
That's a noticeable and considerable lead for me. And when you take the stats of the med students out from the average, the average entry tariff of King's would drop even further.
This is not a valid argument.
You forget that Warwick's strong and many of its department is in quantitative STEM subjects. KCL does not offer many STEM subjects outside medicine and health aligned. It has little to no engineering courses, a small maths department and it only recently in 2014 began to offer economics. It is stronger in humanities and healthcare.
As STEM subjects tend to require higher grades on average, hence why Cambridge has far higher entry tariff than humanities-focused Oxford. Even STEM-focused imperial has roughly the same entry tariff as Oxford.
That does not mean Cambridge is far better than Oxford or Imperial is on par with Oxford. It is just the courses they focus on that gives those difference in entry tariff.
So saying KCL's medicine tariff is an unfair advantage is nonsense. Warwick already has an advantage due to its STEM-focus and concentration.
Original post by LutherVan
That is complete rubbish.
LSE would win Warwick virtually all the time.
If you made the error of selecting Warwick over LSE and now regret it and its making you feel insecure, that is your problem.
If you had gone to LSE when you had the chance, we would not even be having this debate. You would have gone to a university better than Strand Poly and the third best in the UK.
And "I know" anecdotes are irrelevant and weak arguments that are not acceptable.
I am sure many would "know" KCL students that elected to go to KCL to study War Studies, Law, History, Global Health or whatever over going to LSE for whatever reasons they see as legitimate.
Warwick is not a competitive choice next to LSE.
LSE would win Warwick virtually all the time.
If you made the error of selecting Warwick over LSE and now regret it and its making you feel insecure, that is your problem.
If you had gone to LSE when you had the chance, we would not even be having this debate. You would have gone to a university better than Strand Poly and the third best in the UK.
And "I know" anecdotes are irrelevant and weak arguments that are not acceptable.
I am sure many would "know" KCL students that elected to go to KCL to study War Studies, Law, History, Global Health or whatever over going to LSE for whatever reasons they see as legitimate.
Warwick is not a competitive choice next to LSE.
Again, what do you know?
you have never stepped foot on a UK land, how then would you know these things? lol..
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Again, what do you know?
you have never stepped foot on a UK land, how then would you know these things? lol..
you have never stepped foot on a UK land, how then would you know these things? lol..
When you are deficient in strong arguments you quickly resort to ad hominem.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Never heard of it.
Never heard of it.
So, you see? It makes your argument wrong. You define your top schools depending on what you personally know of or know about.
You do not consider Pomona a top school, yet for over a million of Americans and elite international students all over the world who have been acquainted to American education, Pomona is a top school. But it isn't for you.
We can fight about this, but it's not worth it. so, let's drop this topic and discuss what was actually asked on this thread.
Original post by LutherVan
This is not a valid argument.
You forget that Warwick's strong and many of its department is in quantitative STEM subjects. KCL does not offer many STEM subjects outside medicine and health aligned. It has little to no engineering courses, a small maths department and it only recently in 2014 began to offer economics. It is stronger in humanities and healthcare.
As STEM subjects tend to require higher grades on average, hence why Cambridge has far higher entry tariff than humanities-focused Oxford. Even STEM-focused imperial has roughly the same entry tariff as Oxford.
That does not mean Cambridge is far better than Oxford or Imperial is on par with Oxford. It is just the courses they focus on that gives those difference in entry tariff.
So saying KCL's medicine tariff is an unfair advantage is nonsense. Warwick already has an advantage due to its STEM-focus and concentration.
You forget that Warwick's strong and many of its department is in quantitative STEM subjects. KCL does not offer many STEM subjects outside medicine and health aligned. It has little to no engineering courses, a small maths department and it only recently in 2014 began to offer economics. It is stronger in humanities and healthcare.
As STEM subjects tend to require higher grades on average, hence why Cambridge has far higher entry tariff than humanities-focused Oxford. Even STEM-focused imperial has roughly the same entry tariff as Oxford.
That does not mean Cambridge is far better than Oxford or Imperial is on par with Oxford. It is just the courses they focus on that gives those difference in entry tariff.
So saying KCL's medicine tariff is an unfair advantage is nonsense. Warwick already has an advantage due to its STEM-focus and concentration.
I just want you to answer this honestly.
What university are you going to? What are you looking to do after graduating? What is your favourite aspect of the (presumably) UK university you attend?
If you don't attend any UK universities, I won't take you seriously.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LutherVan
When you are deficient in strong arguments you quickly resort to ad hominem.
Fool yourself LutherVan. We've given you all the data. You dismissed them because they do not favor your claim. You cite strange and irrelevant data in return to make you appear realistic and credible. Luckily, we already know about you and what you are, and you motives for trolling in this forum. And, no one pays attention to your stupid claims anyways, so what gives hahaha...
Original post by Princepieman
I just want you to answer this honestly.
What university are you going to? What are you looking to do after graduating? What is your favourite aspect of the (presumably) UK university you attend?
If you don't attend any UK universities, I won't take you seriously.
Posted from TSR Mobile
What university are you going to? What are you looking to do after graduating? What is your favourite aspect of the (presumably) UK university you attend?
If you don't attend any UK universities, I won't take you seriously.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Why are you always eager to gulp what you label as my mastubation?
Original post by Mr. Roxas
So, you see? It makes your argument wrong. You define your top schools depending on what you personally know of or know about.
You do not consider Pomona a top school, yet for over a million of Americans and elite international students all over the world who have been acquainted to American education, Pomona is a top school. But it isn't for you.
We can fight about this, but it's not worth it. so, let's drop this topic and discuss what was actually asked on this thread.
You do not consider Pomona a top school, yet for over a million of Americans and elite international students all over the world who have been acquainted to American education, Pomona is a top school. But it isn't for you.
We can fight about this, but it's not worth it. so, let's drop this topic and discuss what was actually asked on this thread.
I'm only 'wrong' if you can prove that you're 'right'...
I'm not American, and I'm not from the Anglosphere, so it's not surprising at all for me to not have heard of a small school from America. But I have and am studying in the UK.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Fool yourself LutherVan. We've given you all the data. You dismissed them because they do not favor your claim. You cite strange and irrelevant data in return to make you appear realistic and credible. Luckily, we already know about you and what you are, and you motives for trolling in this forum. And, no one pays attention to your stupid claims anyways, so what gives hahaha...
You have not given me any data.
I have given you data.
All you have done is insult me and lied to me that Warwick was better in more REF subjects than KCL thinking I would be too ignorant to check.
The minute I caught you out with that lie, you turned back to your ad hominem.
Stop lying to people on TSR. You know all the relevant data points to the fact KCL is a superior university to Warwick.
An older university, with better brand and reputation, it has better employment prospects, it is richer and better funded, attracts more affluent kids, ranked higher in all academic-oriented rankings, stronger alumni, arguably roughly the same entry tariff but a more research-oriented university than Warwick.
These generally tends to be the factors that differentiate top universities from inferior ones. If you look at Harvard/Cambridge/Oxford and compare each to other universities, they would be better in most of all those factors even if they lose to an inferior university in 1 or 2.
KCL is better.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
I'm only 'wrong' if you can prove that you're 'right'...
I'm not American, and I'm not from the Anglosphere, so it's not surprising at all for me to not have heard of a small school from America. But I have and am studying in the UK.
I'm not American, and I'm not from the Anglosphere, so it's not surprising at all for me to not have heard of a small school from America. But I have and am studying in the UK.
That is the way he always tries to win an argument.
No proof, just "I/Others know".
Original post by Little Toy Gun
I'm only 'wrong' if you can prove that you're 'right'...
I'm not American, and I'm not from the Anglosphere, so it's not surprising at all for me to not have heard of a small school from America. But I have and am studying in the UK.
I'm not American, and I'm not from the Anglosphere, so it's not surprising at all for me to not have heard of a small school from America. But I have and am studying in the UK.
I don't want to waste my time debating with you whether a university like Warwick is a top university or not, or Pomona College is a top school or not. The point is, top school is relative to the person who's saying it. There isn't a definitive top school. It isn't the same as saying, the number 1 school.
I call Warwick a top school relative to my orientation being a management graduate where Warwick has been consistently ranked at the very top of the heap, alternating with LSE and Oxford for number 1 in all major league tables. I understand some people would question that. But that's okay. The point is, it's not worth to grind someone simply because his top school does not match yours. You couldn't even agree whether Imperial is a top school or not. So, why waste time on such discussion that doesn't provide a conclusively correct answer? besides, it isn't the topic of this thread. So, I'm ending this discussion with you now. if you want to continue, let's focus about the thread's topic.
Original post by LutherVan
I have given you data.
Review our previous discussions starting from the very beginning so you can start to collect again the many data I provided to you which would prove why Warwick is the superior university than King's as a whole, and in many areas of studies.
I said this a million times and I will say it again.
I conceded that for medicine and programs allied to medicine, King's College is better than Warwick. For law and Education, it's a close call. Both camps can argue to be the better uni than the other. But I would give that to King's as well. However, for the remaining programs, which are more relevant to undergraduate education and which many students are majoring in, Warwick is the superior choice. And, this is evidenced by Warwick being the more selective university between the two in general, and which would translate to Warwick's student body being smarter. The average entry tariff for both universities would easily tell you that Warwick has got smarter students. And, that's also probably why the top employers have considered Warwick as their top feeder school to recruit top talents. Warwick, along with Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Imperial are the top 6 feeder schools to top bulge bracket firms, top management consulting firms, top IT/tech firms and so on.
You claimed King's is more connected with consulting firms than Warwick is, but when I showed you the list of schools where McKinsey considered a feeder school to their firm, you dismissed it and called the McKinsey website lier. That's how stupid a person you are, and can be, that you believe even a company like Mckinsey was lying to you. If you have the nerve to call McKinsey lier, then you have no value to me. But I understand your position because I know where you're coming from.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Review our previous discussions starting from the very beginning so you can start to collect again the many data I provided to you which would prove why Warwick is the superior university than King's as a whole, and in many areas of studies.
I said this a million times and I will say it again.
I conceded that for medicine and programs allied to medicine, King's College is better than Warwick. For law and Education, it's a close call. Both camps can argue to be the better uni than the other. But I would give that to King's as well. However, for the remaining programs, which are more relevant to undergraduate education and which many students are majoring in, Warwick is the superior choice. And, this is evidenced by Warwick being the more selective university between the two in general, and which would translate to Warwick's student body being smarter. The average entry tariff for both universities would easily tell you that Warwick has got smarter students. And, that's also probably why the top employers have considered Warwick as their top feeder school to recruit top talents. Warwick, along with Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Imperial are the top 6 feeder schools to top bulge bracket firms, top management consulting firms, top IT/tech firms and so on.
I said this a million times and I will say it again.
I conceded that for medicine and programs allied to medicine, King's College is better than Warwick. For law and Education, it's a close call. Both camps can argue to be the better uni than the other. But I would give that to King's as well. However, for the remaining programs, which are more relevant to undergraduate education and which many students are majoring in, Warwick is the superior choice. And, this is evidenced by Warwick being the more selective university between the two in general, and which would translate to Warwick's student body being smarter. The average entry tariff for both universities would easily tell you that Warwick has got smarter students. And, that's also probably why the top employers have considered Warwick as their top feeder school to recruit top talents. Warwick, along with Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Imperial are the top 6 feeder schools to top bulge bracket firms, top management consulting firms, top IT/tech firms and so on.
No, you lied to me.
You lied that KCL was only better than Warwick in 4 fields or the REF assessment, thinking I would not check.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3218607&page=2&p=54745593#post54745593
KCL was better than Warwick in 10 out of 17.
You lied!!!
And stop lying that Warwick is top target for consulting and tech firms.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
You claimed King's is more connected with consulting firms than Warwick is, but when I showed you the list of schools where McKinsey considered a feeder school to their firm, you dismissed it and called the McKinsey website lier. That's how stupid a person you are, and can be, that you believe even a company like Mckinsey was lying to you. If you have the nerve to call McKinsey lier, then you have no value to me. But I understand your position because I know where you're coming from.
You claimed King's is more connected with consulting firms than Warwick is, but when I showed you the list of schools where McKinsey considered a feeder school to their firm, you dismissed it and called the McKinsey website lier. That's how stupid a person you are, and can be, that you believe even a company like Mckinsey was lying to you. If you have the nerve to call McKinsey lier, then you have no value to me. But I understand your position because I know where you're coming from.
Feeder for what?
Strategy?
NO!
Mckinsey is not open about its recruitment practices. Don't, because of that, think you can use that to misinform people.
Mckinsey only started going to Warwick when it diversified it services and started doing more non-strategy work. It hires in WBS mainly for its less prestigious services like BTO and its new Ops consulting. Those are like middle office roles.
A simple search on Linkedin would show you that there are more than double the amount of KCL students with a bachelors only for its strategy line of work than there is of Warwick students with a bachelors only. If you did the same search for BCG, you get some KCL undergrads but no Warwick undergrads. So, please, never say again that Warwick is a MBB target or feeder university.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by LutherVan
No, you lied to me.
You lied that KCL was only better than Warwick in 4 fields or the REF assessment, thinking I would not check.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3218607&page=2&p=54745593#post54745593
KCL was better than Warwick in 10 out of 17.
You lied!!!
And stop lying that Warwick is top target for consulting and tech firms.
Feeder for what?
Strategy?
NO!
Mckinsey is not open about its recruitment practices. Don't, because of that, think you can use that to misinform people.
Mckinsey only started going to Warwick when it diversified it services and started doing more non-strategy work. It hires in WBS mainly for its less prestigious services like BTO and its new Ops consulting. Those are like middle office roles.
A simple search on Linkedin would show you that there are more than double the amount of KCL students with a bachelors only for its strategy line of work than there is of Warwick students with a bachelors only. If you did the same search for BCG, you get some KCL undergrads but no Warwick undergrads. So, please, never say again that Warwick is a MBB target or feeder university.
You lied that KCL was only better than Warwick in 4 fields or the REF assessment, thinking I would not check.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3218607&page=2&p=54745593#post54745593
KCL was better than Warwick in 10 out of 17.
You lied!!!
And stop lying that Warwick is top target for consulting and tech firms.
Feeder for what?
Strategy?
NO!
Mckinsey is not open about its recruitment practices. Don't, because of that, think you can use that to misinform people.
Mckinsey only started going to Warwick when it diversified it services and started doing more non-strategy work. It hires in WBS mainly for its less prestigious services like BTO and its new Ops consulting. Those are like middle office roles.
A simple search on Linkedin would show you that there are more than double the amount of KCL students with a bachelors only for its strategy line of work than there is of Warwick students with a bachelors only. If you did the same search for BCG, you get some KCL undergrads but no Warwick undergrads. So, please, never say again that Warwick is a MBB target or feeder university.
Like I said, you are only here to fight. You dismissed every single evidence that disproves your stupid assertions. That's not how a conversation should go. And you know what's funny about all this??? That you have no knowledge on the things that you talked about.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Like I said, you are only here to fight. You dismissed every single evidence that disproves your stupid assertions. That's not how a conversation should go. And you know what's funny about all this??? That you have no knowledge on the things that you talked about.
I did not dismiss your "evidence" (if that is what you want to call a statement).
I proved you lied.
Admit you lied.
KCL was better than Warwick overall in the REF 2014 assessment and was better in more subjects.
I am the one with the knowledge, not you. You tried to lie and hope people don't check.
Admit it!
That is the only way we can take you seriously.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Selecting a university
- Would you rather attend...?
- Best University for Computer Science accepting BTEC/CTEC?
- Where should i go KCL or Warwick for engineering?
- Law Application Choices
- I want to resit one of my A-level
- PPE at Warwick vs. Manchester
- Are my chances of getting in a top Uni for Computer Science good?
- Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentages
- Do I have a shot at applying to UCL/KCL for Economics?
- Kings college or Bristol
- Are any London Universities ex-polys?
- So much disdain for King's College London on student forums?
- What uni should I go if want russell group but not math heavy
- uni choices help
- biochemistry offers 2023
- What is the chance of me getting into Unis?
- University Freshers Threads 2023 *Official Thread*
- Graduate Entry Medicine Application BSc 2:2
- Chances of getting into King’s College London? - GCSE RESULTS DAY
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Hello .. I am looking for computer science program BSc/BEng 2024 entryLast reply 3 weeks ago
What A-Levels should i do if i wanna do a Bsc in Computer ScienceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Correlation between performance in UKMT and performance in TMUA/STEP?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Do top universities allow just 3 A levels including Further Maths?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Hello .. I am looking for computer science program BSc/BEng 2024 entryLast reply 3 weeks ago
What A-Levels should i do if i wanna do a Bsc in Computer ScienceLast reply 3 weeks ago
Correlation between performance in UKMT and performance in TMUA/STEP?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Do top universities allow just 3 A levels including Further Maths?
