The Top 10 UK Universities Watch

This discussion is closed.
Mr. Roxas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#501
Report 4 years ago
#501
(Original post by LutherVan)
A waste of time or you don't have anything logical to say because all the stats state the obvious?
What are you talking about? All the relevant stats would point to Warwick's supremacy over King's. The:
The Complete University Guide
University League Tables
Guardian University Guide
The Sunday Times University Guide

are all saying that Warwick is the superior university to King's. These are credible ranking bodies which would all confirm that Warwick is the better, superior university. The gap isn't even close. Go check them out yourself. These are highly verifiable data that can be accessed through their respective websites.

Even when you compare the two institutions on a subject-per-subject basis. King's couldn't hold on its own against Warwick. The average ranking of Warwick across all major fields that it offers is 6. King's is hovering around 22. Boy, that's a huge gap!

For 2015 ranking, for example, Warwick is placed at number 7. Do you know where's king's? It's way down at #28. Again, that's a significant gap that separates between the two. If you don't believe me, here's the link to the ranking:
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...ables/rankings

But then again, like I've said in the past, you don't listen to what people here tell you. I'm sure you'd disregard this just as you did to other data that would have helped you understand and accept the reality.
1
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#502
Report 4 years ago
#502
(Original post by Gott)
Are you sure, when I was on a trip there they were saying, that there main competitors were Oxford and Cambridge and that Bristol doesn't get the recognition it deserves for Chemistry and you need rediculously high grades to do it there more like Cambridge
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
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#503
Report 4 years ago
#503
(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
What are you talking about? All the relevant stats would point to Warwick's supremacy over King's. The:
The Complete University Guide
University League Tables
Guardian University Guide
The Sunday Times University Guide

are all saying that Warwick is the superior university to King's. These are credible ranking bodies which would all confirm that Warwick is the better, superior university. The gap isn't even close. Go check them out yourself. These are highly verifiable data that can be accessed through their respective websites.

Even when you compare the two institutions on a subject-per-subject basis. King's couldn't hold on its own against Warwick. The average ranking of Warwick across all major fields that it offers is 6. King's is hovering around 22. Boy, that's a huge gap!

For 2015 ranking, for example, Warwick is placed at number 7. Do you know where's king's? It's way down at #28. Again, that's a significant gap that separates between the two. If you don't believe me, here's the link to the ranking:
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...ables/rankings

But then again, like I've said in the past, you don't listen to what people here tell you. I'm sure you'd disregard this just as you did to other data that would have helped you understand and accept the reality.
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.
0
Nitrogen
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#504
Report 4 years ago
#504
(Original post by Okorange)
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
Whats so good a about st andrews chem?
0
welcometoib
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#505
Report 4 years ago
#505
(Original post by LutherVan)
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
1
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#506
Report 4 years ago
#506
(Original post by welcometoib)
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.
0
welcometoib
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#507
Report 4 years ago
#507
(Original post by LutherVan)
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.
I agree, kcl is comprehensively better than Warwick.

may i ask what course you did at kcl, the other unis you applied to, and where you recieved offers/rejections if a
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#508
Report 4 years ago
#508
(Original post by welcometoib)
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.
0
welcometoib
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#509
Report 4 years ago
#509
(Original post by LutherVan)
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.
Are you blind? stop spouting more ass licking, read my last post and answer, was kcl your first choice or the only uni you got an offer from?
0
Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#510
Report 4 years ago
#510
For me personally:
Cambridge
Oxford
Imperial
UCL
Edinburgh
Bristol
St Andrews
Bath
Nottingham

This is more science/comp sci based though.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Mr. Roxas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#511
Report 4 years ago
#511
(Original post by LutherVan)
They are credible because they tell you which universities makes you feel satisfied?
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.thecompleteuniversityguid...ngs?o=Research


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



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



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

And that is about it.
WRONG!
I cited why you're so wronged again on my post above.




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.
Many of these are irrelevant.


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

- Academics rank KCL as a better university.
Source please?


- Employers rank KCL as a better university.
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.




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



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




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



- 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.
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.




- KCL has a stronger brand locally and internationally.
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.

- Even more affluent students go to KCL than Warwick.
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.
0
War and Peace
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#512
Report 4 years ago
#512
(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.thecompleteuniversityguid...ngs?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...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.
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.u...ng/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/20...5-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.researchresearc...a_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.thecompleteuniversityguid...nkings?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/department...ies/index.aspx
Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/dsd/index.aspx
Source: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/law/index.aspx
0
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#513
Report 4 years ago
#513
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
0
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#514
Report 4 years ago
#514
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
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
Why Manchester and not Edinburgh or Bristol?
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#515
Report 4 years ago
#515
(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.thecompleteuniversityguid...ngs?o=Research
I take it you have been in some cave for a while now?

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=3032753


(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
But you referred to tables that are a joke as "credible" ones, so I assumed you would also say the Washington Monthly league table is "credible".

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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...
So you are telling us that Warwick ranks higher than KCL on the ARWU, QS and THE league tables?

Maybe you are ill.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
This is how they taught you qualitative analysis in Warwick?:facepalm:

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
WRONG!
I cited why you're so wronged again on my post above.
List the factors you know of at which Warwick is better than KCL.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
Many of these are irrelevant.
Really?

International rankings that assess mostly academics is irrelevant in rankings of universities but the local rankings that assess customer service is the "credible" one?

You got me in stitches.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
Source please?
Okay, you HAVE been in a cave. Source was provided above.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
Your insecurity delusions are immense.

Warwick is a top target for Mckinsey and Blackstone? Do you smoke weed or you just love lying?

Also the same repetitive, "Warwick is top 6 for IB" everytime. Is IB the only industry for jobs?

Is Warwick top for Health, Retail, Utilities, Law etc sectors. Warwick is so top that employers prefer to pay KCL students more than Warwick students?

Again, I will repeat the fact, if one attends Strand Poly, the person is more likely to be employed and would earn more than if they had gone to Warwick. That is a fact!

And employers state they prefer to hire from Strand Poly. They practice what they preach.

In your delusion, you even think Warwick is on par with LSE, Imperial and UCL. They are even far better than Warwick than Strand Poly is. Stop being delusional in your desperate attempt at prestige by association.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
What has this rubbish you put down got to do with the fact that KCL students are more employable and make more money?

Another desperate attempt at prestige by association.

You are the perfect example of the insecure people being described here.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post51962531

Imperial and LSE at 12th and 15th for employment while Warwick and Nottingham are 1st and 2nd?

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
Additionally, you can refer to this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...employers.html
Having the most number of employers visiting a university is not evidence of being the best. I am surprised this level of thinking is what Warwick is producing.

Mr Roxas, the stats state that a higher proportion of Strand Poly graduates than the proportion of Warwick graduates (which has a smaller graduate batch) get jobs and, on average, this higher proportion of a larger pool from Strand Poly get paid more. That is the evidence of which university gives the best prospect of employment.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
Oh, so comparing everything/overall is wrong because you know KCL would come out better?

What about the Nursing students that make up a sixth of KCL graduates?


(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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?
Its dominance is over despite KCL being better funded and producing superior research? That is an odd logic, mate.

I think if we compare the future of both, it is Warwick's that looks bleak. You might end up like Hollywood Hogan talking about how Warwick used to be good like he does with Nottingham.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
Again, another desperate attempt at prestige by association.

Desperation, mate.

Establishing a campus is not proof of financial muscle, it is your financial figures that is proof. Or are they teaching something else at the Warwick Business School you said is renowned in the world?

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
It says a lot of about what it can do and is doing. It just showed this with the REF results.


(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
I think War and Peace has proficiently and adequately educated you on these.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
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.
With your assessment of financial capability by referring to building a campus instead of financial figures, and summing up league tables instead of scrutinizing them, I beg to differ that WBS is that good if it produced you.

No wonder Lancaster did better for Business Management in the REF assessment.
0
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#516
Report 4 years ago
#516
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
Why Manchester and not Edinburgh or Bristol?
+1.
0
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#517
Report 4 years ago
#517
(Original post by Law-Hopeful)
Why Manchester and not Edinburgh or Bristol?
Edinburgh is a fair point, actually. I think Manchester has Bristol beaten on international reputation, though.
0
Illiberal Liberal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#518
Report 4 years ago
#518
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Edinburgh is a fair point, actually. I think Manchester has Bristol beaten on international reputation, though.
Fair enough.
0
golden tribe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#519
Report 4 years ago
#519
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Edinburgh is a fair point, actually. I think Manchester has Bristol beaten on international reputation, though.
I would put edinburgh, bristol instead of Durham and st Andrews
0
TheWaffle
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#520
Report 4 years ago
#520
From 1- 10

The University of Surrey
UCLAN
University of Liverpool
University of Dundee
University of Chester
Middlesex University
London Southbank University
The University of Croydon (wud b number 1 but it's in Croydon )
Manchester Metropolitan University
The University of Oxford (Would be at number 12 but Harry Potter went there )
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (552)
37.81%
No - but I will (115)
7.88%
No - I don't want to (102)
6.99%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.33%

Watched Threads

View All