The Student Room Group

Why is Warwick so overrated?

Entry requirements for Chemistry and Biology respectively, bearing in mind both are STEM subjects:

"ABB including Chemistry and two further science subjects (from Mathematics, Further Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Geology or Statistics)."

"ABB including Biology and a second science (such as Chemistry, Maths, Physics, Applied Science, Environmental Science, Statistics, Geology)."

This is the university that people think is considered part of the top 6? What a farce.
I respect its credential for Maths/Economics but other than that it imo just scrapes the top 10 if you're not doing either the aforementioned subjects. I simply do not understand why people think it is the next best option after Oxbridge/Imperial.

BTW 98% of Chemistry students receive offers and 92% for biological sciences!
https://university.which.co.uk/university-of-warwick-w20/courses/biological-sciences-bsc-hons-2018-24712cff380e
(edited 5 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Bump.
Reply 2
With that in mind, Oxford and Cambridge (for example) only accept the MOST gifted/hard-working students - this means that its likely easier for them to make progress and achieve above average results than a person who gets ABB at A-level. The teaching at these universities may even be on par with Warwick in some subjects, but due to there only (or mainly) being very gifted students in the uni, they achieve higher.

Warwick is able to obtain good results with slightly lower entry requirements. They risk being lower in the league tables due to taking on people who don't solely achieve A*A*A at A-level, who may struggle more. This can bring down their average, but equally brings more opportunities to people who have perhaps missed their entry requirements by a fraction, who may be equally as hard-working as the A*A*A student is gifted.

That's my take on it anyway.
Reply 3
Original post by jorjeea
With that in mind, Oxford and Cambridge (for example) only accept the MOST gifted/hard-working students - this means that its likely easier for them to make progress and achieve above average results than a person who gets ABB at A-level. The teaching at these universities may even be on par with Warwick in some subjects, but due to there only (or mainly) being very gifted students in the uni, they achieve higher.

Warwick is able to obtain good results with slightly lower entry requirements. They risk being lower in the league tables due to taking on people who don't solely achieve A*A*A at A-level, who may struggle more. This can bring down their average, but equally brings more opportunities to people who have perhaps missed their entry requirements by a fraction, who may be equally as hard-working as the A*A*A student is gifted.

That's my take on it anyway.


Then place your entry requirements at A*AA/AAA like Bristol and Durham do. AAB at the minimum but even that's stretching it for a STEM subject.
Reply 4
Bump.
Original post by multieman
Bump.


which uni do you go to?
Reply 6
Original post by rhaegar449
which uni do you go to?


Why is that relevant?
Original post by multieman
Why is that relevant?


Just saw you go bristol and warwick is definitely better than bristol lol.

Warwick is overrated but so is quite a few of UK unis including UCL which are not ivy league but doesnt change the fact that warwick has a strong employer connections and all round high quality even if entry requirements are low. Because truth is, Warwick are just honest. Bristol may have high requirements but they always let in people with lower grades so really it's all roughly the same.
Reply 8
Original post by rhaegar449
Just saw you go bristol and warwick is definitely better than bristol lol.

Warwick is overrated but so is quite a few of UK unis including UCL which are not ivy league but doesnt change the fact that warwick has a strong employer connections and all round high quality even if entry requirements are low. Because truth is, Warwick are just honest. Bristol may have high requirements but they always let in people with lower grades so really it's all roughly the same.


I promise you I don't go Bristol, but kudos to your amazing judgment skills that you came to a conclusion that I attend Bristol. Also, you've completely digressed from the question which says a lot about your comprehension skills. I know students with ABB doing Chemsitry at Warwick after getting BCCE at AS, whereas I also know students who got rejected for Chemistry at Bristol after getting AAB with the B in maths. BTW if you actually bothered to check your ill-judged assumptions you'd realise the ucas point average of Durham and Bristol Chemistry students are higher than at Warwick according to the Which university guide. Chemistry is only one example of the many subjects Warwick is very overrated in.
(edited 5 years ago)
Reply 9
Bump.
and ucl.
Bear in mind they may well set offers above the minimum level, getting an offer and achieving it aren't the same thing, and yes the overall "prestige" of the university which may well derive from one or two departments can "elevate" the perception of the university on the whole - there are many such examples. Equally there are a few universities which are well regarded overall and have quite a few "standout" departments, but have one or two that are below par. But certainly, entry criteria only really correlate to the popularity/competitiveness of the course, outside of Oxbridge, and maybe one or two other departments/courses. That said, I'm not really aware of any courses outside of Oxbridge who would rather not take a full cohort, than take some with weaker backgrounds, which tells you a lot about entry criteria (and university priorities Re: students).

However as noted, Warwick is frequently compared to Oxbridge because its Maths department is broadly on par with those (and Imperial's) Maths departments. This of course says nothing about the rest of the university...other examples include UCL, which is pretty generally well regarded, and has some particularly strong departments (for example Archaeology or Architecture) but also some quite weak ones (Engineering is frequently cited); Exeter has a pretty good Physics course/department, but the rest of CEMPS is a runaway dumpster fire, and a lot of its other departments struggle to distinguish themselves from mediocrity. Southampton has excellent Engineering, Ocean/Earth Science, and Chemistry departments (the former two certainly being on par with the top 10 if not top 5) , but it's "social sciences" suite (including Economics and Politics) are pretty average at best. If you judge all universities by only their best courses, which you aren't applying to, inevitably you're likely to be disappointed.

Essentially, if you don't want to go into banking, stop thinking about the name of the university and start thinking about what the course actually teaches, and what current students think of it perhaps, because that's what's going to be primarily relevant to you...
Original post by artful_lounger

However as noted, Warwick is frequently compared to Oxbridge because its Maths department is broadly on par with those (and Imperial's) Maths departments. This of course says nothing about the rest of the university...other examples include UCL, which is pretty generally well regarded, and has some particularly strong departments (for example Archaeology or Architecture) but also some quite weak ones (Engineering is frequently cited); Exeter has a pretty good Physics course/department, but the rest of CEMPS is a runaway dumpster fire, and a lot of its other departments struggle to distinguish themselves from mediocrity. Southampton has excellent Engineering, Ocean/Earth Science, and Chemistry departments (the former two certainly being on par with the top 10 if not top 5) , but it's "social sciences" suite (including Economics and Politics) are pretty average at best. If you judge all universities by only their best courses, which you aren't applying to, inevitably you're likely to be disappointed.


Is that why Warwick's requirement for Computer Science is so high (A*AA/AAA with A in maths)?
Original post by Shadowdraconis
Is that why Warwick's requirement for Computer Science is so high (A*AA/AAA with A in maths)?


Original post by artful_lounger
This of course says nothing about the rest of the university...


You share illiteracy with a lot of prospective CS students so you have that going for you at least.
Original post by artful_lounger
Bear in mind they may well set offers above the minimum level, getting an offer and achieving it aren't the same thing, and yes the overall "prestige" of the university which may well derive from one or two departments can "elevate" the perception of the university on the whole - there are many such examples. Equally there are a few universities which are well regarded overall and have quite a few "standout" departments, but have one or two that are below par. But certainly, entry criteria only really correlate to the popularity/competitiveness of the course, outside of Oxbridge, and maybe one or two other departments/courses. That said, I'm not really aware of any courses outside of Oxbridge who would rather not take a full cohort, than take some with weaker backgrounds, which tells you a lot about entry criteria (and university priorities Re: students).

However as noted, Warwick is frequently compared to Oxbridge because its Maths department is broadly on par with those (and Imperial's) Maths departments. This of course says nothing about the rest of the university...other examples include UCL, which is pretty generally well regarded, and has some particularly strong departments (for example Archaeology or Architecture) but also some quite weak ones (Engineering is frequently cited); Exeter has a pretty good Physics course/department, but the rest of CEMPS is a runaway dumpster fire, and a lot of its other departments struggle to distinguish themselves from mediocrity. Southampton has excellent Engineering, Ocean/Earth Science, and Chemistry departments (the former two certainly being on par with the top 10 if not top 5) , but it's "social sciences" suite (including Economics and Politics) are pretty average at best. If you judge all universities by only their best courses, which you aren't applying to, inevitably you're likely to be disappointed.

Essentially, if you don't want to go into banking, stop thinking about the name of the university and start thinking about what the course actually teaches, and what current students think of it perhaps, because that's what's going to be primarily relevant to you...


Why do you hate CEMPS so much? hahaha

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Princepieman
Why do you hate CEMPS so much? hahaha

Posted from TSR Mobile


Because I had the misfortune of experiencing it.
Original post by artful_lounger
Because I had the misfortune of experiencing it.


My only qualm with them is the insistence of having to print out coursework sheets amd physically hand them in.. Otherwise, I think they do a good job.
Original post by Princepieman
My only qualm with them is the insistence of having to print out coursework sheets amd physically hand them in.. Otherwise, I think they do a good job.


"A good job" is not "top 10 we think should be the second choice after Oxbridge/Imperial", which is the general consensus the administration wants to achieve, and TSR seems to hold.

When your lecturer/supervisor comes to an alleged top 10 uni from MIT and finds the final year students frequently haven't covered and aren't able to cope with first year material from MIT, and that a final year project from MIT is a PhD at Exeter, there's a mismatch in perception and reality. Having experienced other similar/related courses at other unis, I'm inclined to agree as well that there is an issue.

Certainly people do go through and get a good enough degree to go on to do whatever else, wherever else; that is again, not "best of the country", which is what it, and as above, TSR, purports it to be.

BART sheets were the least of my worries, although it was annoying if you lost/forgot it and only found out at the last minute...however such mechanisms are becoming increasingly common across unis in the UK in any case.
Original post by artful_lounger
"A good job" is not "top 10 we think should be the second choice after Oxbridge/Imperial", which is the general consensus the administration wants to achieve, and TSR seems to hold.

When your lecturer/supervisor comes to an alleged top 10 uni from MIT and finds the final year students frequently haven't covered and aren't able to cope with first year material from MIT, and that a final year project from MIT is a PhD at Exeter, there's a mismatch in perception and reality. Having experienced other similar/related courses at other unis, I'm inclined to agree as well that there is an issue.

Certainly people do go through and get a good enough degree to go on to do whatever else, wherever else; that is again, not "best of the country", which is what it, and as above, TSR, purports it to be.

BART sheets were the least of my worries, although it was annoying if you lost/forgot it and only found out at the last minute...however such mechanisms are becoming increasingly common across unis in the UK in any case.


I don't think Exeter is trying to compete with the likes of MIT tbh.. I'd peg it roughly top 15 in the UK, not necessarily top 10. Fairly sure those folks from MIT would complain about the same thing if they went to any other non-Oxbridge or Imperial university.

The way CEMPS structures their courses is a bit distinct from other rival universities IMO. There's a bit more freedom of choice baked into the structure and the latter modules tend to very heavily reflect the research interests of lecturers. So it's not *bad*, per se, like you're making it out to be. It's just different. CEMPS is rather small when compared to rival STEM departments and its lectuers interests tend to be quite niche which, ultimately, makes the STEM experience very different to a more wider ranging and larger department.

About "the best in the country".. again, it's up there, but not "the best". Undoubtedly, the university is a strong institution.
Original post by Princepieman
I don't think Exeter is trying to compete with the likes of MIT tbh.. I'd peg it roughly top 15 in the UK, not necessarily top 10. Fairly sure those folks from MIT would complain about the same thing if they went to any other non-Oxbridge or Imperial university.

The way CEMPS structures their courses is a bit distinct from other rival universities IMO. There's a bit more freedom of choice baked into the structure and the latter modules tend to very heavily reflect the research interests of lecturers. So it's not *bad*, per se, like you're making it out to be. It's just different. CEMPS is rather small when compared to rival STEM departments and its lectuers interests tend to be quite niche which, ultimately, makes the STEM experience very different to a more wider ranging and larger department.

About "the best in the country".. again, it's up there, but not "the best". Undoubtedly, the university is a strong institution.


Their entire marketing strategy is currently around posturing as an "elite" university, so whether they think they're trying to compete against them is irrelevant if they are saying the are; they invite the comparison. Additionally this was a lecturer they hired, from her MIT background, by marketing themselves as such - pretty understandable she was disappointed by the quality she found at her new position.

The course structure is largely similar to comparable courses, although I'd argue quite a few other courses have more flexibility, as you get I think one optional module on most engineering courses there in third year, and most in final year (the latter being typical). Optional modules reflecting research interests is standard fare for research oriented unis. The cohort sizes aren't incommensurable with other broadly comparable unis, and yet the options afforded are often more limited in breadth and frequently "pedestrian" in content, although I concede that may be a matter of taste.

However as such, no, it is not a "strong insitution" - it's a reasonable regional university with a couple of strong courses, and slightly more options than average for a few others. It's certainly no better than e.g. Sheffield, Nottingham, Newcastle, Southampton and almost certainly worse than Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester etc (and laughable to compare to Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial/UCL naturally...which if it's top 10, are a "mere" 5 spots away at best allegedly...although of course this ignores just how poor league tables are more generally as a point of comparison).

It's not bad if you don't compare it to such universities - but those are the universities it frequently is compared to, tries to be compared to, and suggests it's better than (at least implicitly) for quite a few of their number. So yes, it reflects poorly on Exeter on the whole. Of course, if you are from the south west, and going further afield would be difficult, it's an excellent choice - if that's not the case, there are certainly (many) better options available elsewhere. It's only bad because it sets itself up to be bad by comparison.

This is purely on academic grounds, on the non-academic side it has a lot of issues besides, although this isn't hugely uncommon in the HE sector in the UK generally so I've not really touched on it; but suffice it to say, the availability and quality of such services varies immensely.

Quick Reply

Latest