Imperial maths or Warwick Maths?

LOOOOOOL! Tbf, I just wanted to join in on the dick measuring contest..

This isn't true anymore. You can still learn as much as you want but can only register for 125% of standard.

In the Universe of Experience ... Something that you are lacking.
All the best.

Not much of contest when your dick is microscopic.

University College of the Hard Knocks, eh?

Eyyy, we have a wise guy here. I'll have you know that I'm a size 14 - you know what they say.

Yep. 'Data Science grads are kids who couldn't handle the rigours of STEP' - How I love that adage!

But STEP is easy right

I quite enjoyed it. Lots of different courses, and you can do 50% more than the standard load if you like. There is a pure stream and an applied stream (and you can almost do both). I think Warwick has a few standout superstars in the newer areas of pure and applied maths that are better than even the faculty that Cambridge has to offer even if the overall quality of the Cambridge faculty is higher.

In the last two years you get a lot of freedom to choose courses and can even do PhD level courses if you want. Do be slightly careful, the average mark in quite a few courses is artificially set to be a 2.2 so there is competitive marking hence you can make your degree super hard if you want.

Employment wise, it has been a bit of a disaster. I graduated as the top student a decade ago with an above perfect GPA using the average the maths department uses, and it took 9 months to get a second rate IB job in 2011. A second rate engineering job followed. I'm not even in a graduate level job now. Maybe things would have worked out slightly differently if I had taken different job offers, who knows.

Imperial

- Much better rep (both in the UK and internationally)
- Higher entry standards due to the fact that they place significant emphasis on GCSE grades (in contrast Warwick gives offers to almost all applicants )
- 3rd best Mathematics course in the UK according to The Complete University Guide
- Better location

Both courses are highly regarded, but ICL is the complete package

That's a bit sad 😞 Even 150% of the standard was manageable.

Warwick gives offers to all applicants, because they only take the ones who pass STEP (or get 3 A*'s). Much better than giving offers to the ones who had better GCSE Geography teachers. Better location for a bit, then they kick you out of the accommodation and you have to pay £9000 a day to share a broom cupboard in Peckham.

Would you put that down to the university you went to or other factors? The aquiring a job part that is. From what I've heard a warwick maths graduate with a 2:1 or above should be very competitive during an IB selection process for a first rate role.

Eyyy, we have a wise guy here. I'll have you know that I'm a size 14 - you know what they say.

Imperial

- Much better rep (both in the UK and internationally)
- Higher entry standards due to the fact that they place significant emphasis on GCSE grades (in contrast Warwick gives offers to almost all applicants )
- 3rd best Mathematics course in the UK according to The Complete University Guide
- Better location

Both courses are highly regarded, but ICL is the complete package

Hard to say. Most of those I knew who got good IB jobs had an "in". I think a lot of the attitude from those that went to Oxbridge, Ivy League or Grand Ecoles in interviews for IB was that you were a bit of a pretender. So maybe a bit of both.

Also 2008-2011 was a really really bad time to be looking for a front office banking role.

DinduMuffin owned you lad.

Hmm. This slightly worries me I must say... I was rejected by oxford late 2015 after I had a completely off day on the MAT. And just to highlight the extent of such an 'off day' I somehow calculated that I had until 12:15 (exam started at 9) making it a 3 hour exam, but it was actually a 2 and a half hour exam :|. I **** you not. I'm still kinda considering reapplying if I get the grades after A2, but Im unsure about everything right now to be honest.

What exactly do you mean by higher entry standards..more UCAS points or what? If so I don't think that the extra 50 average there means anything. I mean I have 660 UCAS points, higher than Cambridge average, but I would probably wager that I am a lot worse at Maths than most Cambridge students.. also, not that it affects the quality of the degree, I don't see how placing significant emphasis on GCSE grades is a particularly wise choice (although it is probably necessary now, what with the A level changes). But then I'm no admissions officer..

You say Imperial has better rep and obviously it is the much bigger name and everything, but it seems job prospects are pretty similar for the two maths courses, going by TCUG at least. What reason is there to care about rep other than those?

As for better location, as I alluded to originally, this is a matter of preference...there are plenty of weirdos like me who are not particularly fond of busy cities. Not that I'll argue that Coventry isn't **** lol.