Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    Most elite students nowadays look at how a university helps them compete globally.

    Sure, but how does King's prepare their students better on this than Warwick?

    i was a management major at warwick and i think warwick prepared me more than what i expected to compete globally. i made it to citi, beating several applicants from King's, LSE and Oxbridge. i made it to Brown for my grad school beating top applicants from ivy league schools. and, if i have to assess myself and compare it to my former classmates at Warwick, i hardly measure up, as i wasn't even amongst the top graduates in my class. i can list down 20 or more people in my class alone who are more highly acheiving than me. so you can imagine how many more from Warwick would be able to say Warwick prepared them very well.

    and, again, in general, warwick would win over King's in the cross-admit battles as warwick is more selective and prestigious. surely, there have been students who chose King's over Warwick. But they're rather the outliers than the norms. Most students would choose Warwick over King's if admitted onto the same program. And even if you do not agree the top employers would have a much higher preference for warwick grads. I call this additional prestige for Warwick.

    when i interned at citi, no one was invited from King's yet there were over 20 people from Warwick just at that time alone. My friends who were later absorbed at Goldman Sachs can all attest too that King's isn't considered a target there as well. UBS does not consider King's a target as well. My friends at McKinsey were telling me they only have collegues who come from Oxbridge and LSE. And there are other bulge-bracket firms that do not consider King's elite, and thus do not hire their products the way they do elite schools like Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Warwick. The sad thing is that the top students are mostly aware about this. And, if they knew this all along, why would they gamble their future and go with the riskier choice (King's) when they can get into a much better school (Warwick) that regularly feeds the top companies for top, high-paying jobs?
    I'M NOT SAYING King's does a bad job in sending grads to top jobs. It's just that Warwick just does much, much better. And quite frankly, I don't know how King's can compete with Warwick in this area anytime soon.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    then for whom?
    even your average top emplyer would tend to favor warwick.
    They are for smart students who can comprehend information and make sound arguments, not the likes of crunchychips.

    I doubt the top employers would favour warwick except it is for STEM. In Biosciences and IR, the employers favour KCL.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    again, why do you keep going back to E Fund? bar oxbridge, no UK uni has pulled out a considerable amount of funds for their fund campaign. king's having only about 50m more e fund than warwick does not mean much.
    only 5% of the earning, at most, goes back the university for instructional purposes. warwick may not have 50m more e funds, but warwick is doing well financially.
    I really don't understand your point here.

    How does KCL only have 50m more?

    For endowment, KCL has about £130m, Warwick has £7m.

    Raising funds, KCL is raising £500m (has raised 400m two years before the target deadline and at a rate faster than Cambridge), Warwick is raising one tenth of that of £50m and seem not to be able to update if it has had any success.

    So where did you see £50m? And why do you call it only £50m? If someone donated £50m to a school, they might even name the whole bloody university after him, so why do you dismissively say "only £50m"?

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    i have not heard warwick complain for the lack of funding and resources. It has enough funding to run its programs just as intended. in fact, it has money to build another state-of-the-art building for WBS. it has just embarked on a joint research with NYU and Cornell. Warwick would not have entered into such agreements if it is cash strapped like you suggested. So, obviously, money isn't a problem for warwick, and i do not understand why you keep going back into the money matter.
    I am sure Thames Valley does not complain of lack of funding and resources too but at the same time funding would affect long-term competitiveness.

    Announcing research with NYU and Cornell is not sign of affluence.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    and, again, generous donors usually donate to medical schools. Warwick's medicine is new. the e funds that those unis you mentioned would largely go for medical research purposes, benefiting only the medical students, as medical researches are expensive.
    I agree but I think places like KCL do do well in getting donations for other things like biosciences, law and IR.

    http://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news_detai...=867&year=2008

    And there are many other universities with medical schools (over 25) in the UK, many do not raise as much funds as KCL, not even UCL and Imperial.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    and, for the last time, donating back to your alma mater is a cultural thing. Warwick started the fund campaign only very recently, and has contacted mostly the new graduates, as far as i am aware. in fact, i was just contacted by warwick only very recently and i responded positively. Again, for the million times, this donation activity is new at warwick, and so it is not fair for you to use it as basis of prestige. if anything, it is only a function of how the alumni love their alma mater uni, and percentage-wise, i don't think warwick lags behind those unis you mentioned, as a good percentage of the newly grads have responded the call positively. I say you wait until the older alumni respond to it, when the university will start contacting them. nevertheless, giving back to your alma mater school is not an indication of prestige. not at all. it does not have anything to do with it. it is, again, a cultural practice at some schools, and with the exception of Oxbridge, all UK unis are new in this relative to US schools and that explains why US schools have bigger E Funds. That does not make US schools more prestigious. For example, I would not say Rice is more prestigious than LSE, that despite Rice having way bigger E Fund than LSE does. US schools just have higher E Funds, that's all, because they have a culture of donating back to their alma mater school. And, that's why no other UK uni has amassed 1billion e fund to date and why UK unis lag behind US schools in terms of E Fund.

    King's has a medical school and is much older, and has been asking donations way even Warwick was born. How would that be a fair criterion for your prestige contest?
    I am not comparing UK universities to US universities. I am comparing UK universities to UK universities.

    Even if you maintain KCL is older than Warwick that is why it is easy for it to raise funds. Okay, let me compare Warwick to Nottingham. They are roughly about the same age and Nottingham raised in one year far more than Warwick want to raise in 4 years and Nottingham does not have a culture of E funds too. Neither does KCL.

    I think E funds are about brand power. Nottingham even had a donation for £11.5m for chemistry research by GSK and an alumni donated £2.1m for scholarships. If top CEOs and executives think you are a good university, they will donate. Don't forget that bar Oxbridge, Nottingham that was created roughly around Warwick's time produces the highest number of alumni that become CEOs in the UK.


    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    oh, now you diverted it to on a per capita basis?
    your previous posts were all shouting about how king's is more prestigious than warwick because there were 2 alumni who donated a large amount of money for the university medical school's e fund.
    you obviously lost your argument.
    I didn't divert it, it is just the traditionally sensible way to look at endowments. I would have expected you to apply that sense and not need to tell you that.

    I remember saying above that LSE has more endowment per head than KCL, so I don't see how you can claim I diverted it.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    again, your argument is unsound and your accusations are baseless. you are rating a new uni who just embarked on a fund campaign.
    again, this is a new thing at warwick. and, i am bewildered how you failed to understand that school donations do not happen overnight. it took king's over a hundred years to amass those money. it took oxford 9 centuries to amass 4billion e fund. warwick has been around only about 47 years ago, and has only started asking for donations only a couple of years or so ago, and now you're telling me it's less prestigious on that basis. that's ridiculous. And worse, you assumed it could not receive donations of large amount in the future. do you have a crystal ball, vander? you seem to argue based on things that are yet to happen.
    Raising funds is a new thing to KCL and Nottingham too.

    I argue based on things that have happened, are happening and about to happen.

    Even Kent can boast of a £0.5K donation from an alumni (Kennedy Wong). Warwick has not a single large donation. KCL has donations of £20m, £7m and £5m.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    so, for you, those unis mentioned above are more prestigious than Warwick???
    They are raising more funds than Warwick despite being established at roughly the same time, so it shows Warwick is underperforming in raising funds and that its age is not really that much of an excuse. If it is as prestigious as you claim with employers, then it would be able to attract funds.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    here. please inform yourself about top US schools.
    http://www.parchment.com/c/college/c...8-Caltech.html
    So you know Caltech has the highest entry grade?

    I hope you realise yield is heavily dependent on financial aid because of the high fees in the US? If a university is rich enough (through a high Endowment fund) to offer more financial aid, it would have a higher yield.

    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    look at the entry grades of warwick and compare that to king's. alternatively, you can modify the website by the entry requirements on a per subject basis.
    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...kings/?o=Entry
    Interesting.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Deep456)
    Warwick is number 1 for graduate employment - Check high-fliers 2013.

    It is ranked 23rd in the world for Politics - QS subject rankings that came out the other day.

    It is in the top 10 of all university rankings and has been since they were created - All domestic rankings which can be verified.

    It is one of the 6 target universities for Investment Banking.

    King's College London cannot compete in these respects.

    If you genuinely think KCL is even comparable, you need your head checking. KCL is very good for dentistry, medicine and law, and some niche courses like War Studies, that's about it really. It barely makes into the top 20 of any domestic ranking so to claim it is in the same bracket as Warwick is just ridiculous.

    Warwick is a hole though, London is miles better - but if you are thinking of employment and reputation: Warwick>King's. Part of my degree is in Politics and to be honest, it's actually well-taught and an organised department.
    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...able/5#6774001

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ic.html?ref=nf

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...?ref=education

    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#12446682
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    Sure, but how does King's prepare their students better on this than Warwick?

    i was a management major at warwick and i think warwick prepared me more than what i expected to compete globally. i made it to citi, beating several applicants from King's, LSE and Oxbridge. i made it to Brown for my grad school beating top applicants from ivy league schools. and, if i have to assess myself and compare it to my former classmates at Warwick, i hardly measure up, as i wasn't even amongst the top graduates in my class. i can list down 20 or more people in my class alone who are more highly acheiving than me. so you can imagine how many more from Warwick would be able to say Warwick prepared them very well.

    and, again, in general, warwick would win over King's in the cross-admit battles as warwick is more selective and prestigious. surely, there have been students who chose King's over Warwick. But they're rather the outliers than the norms. Most students would choose Warwick over King's if admitted onto the same program. And even if you do not agree the top employers would have a much higher preference for warwick grads. I call this additional prestige for Warwick.

    when i interned at citi, no one was invited from King's yet there were over 20 people from Warwick just at that time alone. My friends who were later absorbed at Goldman Sachs can all attest too that King's isn't considered a target there as well. UBS does not consider King's a target as well. My friends at McKinsey were telling me they only have collegues who come from Oxbridge and LSE. And there are other bulge-bracket firms that do not consider King's elite, and thus do not hire their products the way they do elite schools like Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Warwick. The sad thing is that the top students are mostly aware about this. And, if they knew this all along, why would they gamble their future and go with the riskier choice (King's) when they can get into a much better school (Warwick) that regularly feeds the top companies for top, high-paying jobs?
    I'M NOT SAYING King's does a bad job in sending grads to top jobs. It's just that Warwick just does much, much better. And quite frankly, I don't know how King's can compete with Warwick in this area anytime soon.
    Your anecdotal evidence does not mean much.

    Top students that aim to compete in their career globally are going to look at international rankings to compare with the best universities world wide. In the 3 international rankings, KCL will be on top and only 9 UK universities carry solid international prestige. Warwick would add very little value in that respect.

    Warwick is like Georgetown. Good at home, poor abroad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by palmtrees90)
    Hi guys!

    I've got an offer from KCL for International Relations and Warwick for Politics and International Studies.

    I'm absolutely torn between the 2!
    I LOVE the location of Kings, it's perfect and I adore London. But I think Warwick overall is ranked higher in the league tables and is slightly more prestigious. Also, Warwick's exchange programme in second year with American unis sounds amazing.

    If you had the choice between the 2, which would you pick and why?
    I had exactly the same dilemma with KCL and Warwick, but for Biochemistry, which had the same situation with rankings etc.

    I chose to go to King's, London was great, but it's not that fun unless you've got the money to enjoy it and due to the fact it's such a big uni, you wont really get that campus feel or type of freshers that most campus based uni's will experience.

    If I was to chose again, I think I would chose Warwick, but based on your subject, it makes more sense for you to be in London if you plan to get involved in international relations. You'll be able to have a lot more work exp opportunities (all the embassies are in London).
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr. Roxas)
    Warwick.

    the fact that Warwick asks for higher grades signifies that the Warwick programs are attracting more qualified students, which i would equate to being more popular and prestigious.

    why would Warwick be asking for higher entry requirements when there are less applicants for their courses, and are not attracting students to enroll in their programs when offers are given out? it doesn't make sense. unis are asking lower grades because they cannot attract the most qualified students. that's just how it goes.
    Sorry yo break it to you but higher grade requirements mean nothing - UCL requires A*A*A for their Mathematics Course, King's asks for AAA, but King's is way better in Mathematics than UCL (UCL has 14 full time staff - KCL has over 40). High grade requirements are sometimes a way of making sure that even if the students do not get the "best" level of teaching they still succeed and better the university's reputation. Comparing University standards purely on grade requirements is just plain stupid.

    Also, if you are so sure that Warwick is so SUPERB and TOP OF THE WORLD, how about you do us all a favor, go to Warwick, spend as many years as possible in your forest and stop getting on the nerves of everyone on this forum? The answer to this whole thing is rather simple:

    1. University Rankings are based on a range of criteria (incl. Student satisfaction) and so you will get different results from different rankings, in the end, they are only an INDICATOR of the prestige and reputation of the uni, and work more along the lines of - top 10 - top 20 - top 30. Rather than this uni is 3rd and this uni is 5th.

    2. There is a range of things NOT CONSIDERED by rankings, and at the end of the day some things cannot be evaluated statistically - (how much you like the campus - depends from person to person) so basing the whole thing on terms of grade requirements is just short-sighted

    3. Location of university is important - in some cases. If you are likely to be looking for work experience and employment you are likely to pick a location which offers this (i.e. London). Again, this is something considered by students, but not looked at in terms of rankings.

    I have firmed King's but i don't see the need to argue that it is the best university in the universe, if your brain capacity allows you - consider that you have your own personal opinion and stop trying to impose it on the rest of the world because that will not get you to Warwick, or King's. IF this is you way of "bending over backwards" to get into a university of your choice then put all your amazing arguments in your personal statement - although i can guarantee you that with this kind of crap you are unlikely to get to either uni. In today's world its not really about where you go (when you get to the top 10/15) it's more about you, and what YOU have to offer after your degree, just saying "Warwick" or "King's" and waving around a certificate won't get you a job. So please let us all focus on greater things in life than arguing about something so pointless as to which university is better.

    Good day,

    --- One thing that Warwick wins on hands down is the MORSE course, offered no where else, and renown for being super competitive. I give you that ---

    Oh and giving people Negative rep. won't make you "more" correct.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What kind of source is "nairaland.com" anyway? You keep bringing that up as though it's the most supreme source. Give some proper sources to back up your endowment claim.

    Either way, as you yourself said, some universities (Exeter, Kent, etc.) might have higher endowments, but their prestige is nowhere near Warwick's - this is your evidence that endowment doesn't really matter.

    To the poster above: in today's world, it doesn't really matter where exactly you are to get internships. Plenty of companies come to Warwick, you can send in your applications online; you don't actually need to be at the place of the internship to secure it.

    It is interesting that we have another apparent King's student who just has to insult the Warwick student (Mr. Roxas in this case), but it is rare for the Warwick student to resort to insults. Perhaps it does show the level of candidates differ between the two universities.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crunchychips)
    What kind of source is "nairaland.com" anyway? You keep bringing that up as though it's the most supreme source. Give some proper sources to back up your endowment claim.

    Either way, as you yourself said, some universities (Exeter, Kent, etc.) might have higher endowments, but their prestige is nowhere near Warwick's - this is your evidence that endowment doesn't really matter.

    To the poster above: in today's world, it doesn't really matter where exactly you are to get internships. Plenty of companies come to Warwick, you can send in your applications online; you don't actually need to be at the place of the internship to secure it.

    It is interesting that we have another apparent King's student who just has to insult the Warwick student (Mr. Roxas in this case), but it is rare for the Warwick student to resort to insults. Perhaps it does show the level of candidates differ between the two universities.
    Oh my God! You are so incredibly dim!

    Anyone with a grey matter in their head would see that the author on Nairaland did not create the data, he sourced it from other sources, which most times he included the link of. So how can you be so stupid to think nairaland is the source? Are you really that thick?

    And you are still so stupid to keep saying endowment does not matter. It indicates that Warwick has not been very successful in producing top people and Warwick's prestige is not that high in the world that matters, the commercial world.

    I can bet many Warwick students themselves read your comments peeping through the gaps of their fingers in horror because they find you an embarrassment to their school and they probably mutter "oh no" everytime you post, praying you just keep quiet.

    I am sorry to say you are a disgrace to Warwick and destroy the fallacy that Warwick is highly selective. Many Thames Valley students speak far more intelligently and would look like Oxbridge products if juxtaposed with you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    Oh my God! You are so incredibly dim!

    Anyone with a grey matter in their head would see that the author on Nairaland did not create the data, he sourced it from other sources, which most times he included the link of. So how can you be so stupid to think nairaland is the source? Are you really that thick?

    And you are still so stupid to keep saying endowment does not matter. It indicates that Warwick has not been very successful in producing top people and Warwick's prestige is not that high in the world that matters, the commercial world.

    I can bet many Warwick students themselves read your comments peeping through the gaps of their fingers in horror because they find you an embarrassment to their school and they probably mutter "oh no" everytime you post, praying you just keep quiet.

    I am sorry to say you are a disgrace to Warwick and destroy the fallacy that Warwick is highly selective. Many Thames Valley students speak far more intelligently and would look like Oxbridge products if juxtaposed with you.
    To be quite honest you seem to be guilty of the same crime that you accuse crunchychips of being guilty of. You claim that he must be incredibly thick and stupid to persist with his claims.

    Yet, you suggesting that one student is evidence of Warwick not being highly a selective and well regarded university is a contender for stupidity and thickness personified in my book. The guy studies Maths, they are not known as being the most articulate and wordily students ever.

    I agree with lots of what you say, but you say it's the commercial world that matters, yet Warwick students outstrip King's by a MILE in regards to presence in London's financial district at least. Warwick kills King's for banking and I mean kills, and even for Law, despite King's having the better course, Warwick still has a similar presence. I don't think neither are particularly well represented amongst top tier consultancy firms.

    Both have a high amount of international students, so Warwick must clearly have global footing. It definitely has a strong reputation in Asia and Europe.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    Oh my God! You are so incredibly dim!

    Anyone with a grey matter in their head would see that the author on Nairaland did not create the data, he sourced it from other sources, which most times he included the link of. So how can you be so stupid to think nairaland is the source? Are you really that thick?

    And you are still so stupid to keep saying endowment does not matter. It indicates that Warwick has not been very successful in producing top people and Warwick's prestige is not that high in the world that matters, the commercial world.

    I can bet many Warwick students themselves read your comments peeping through the gaps of their fingers in horror because they find you an embarrassment to their school and they probably mutter "oh no" everytime you post, praying you just keep quiet.

    I am sorry to say you are a disgrace to Warwick and destroy the fallacy that Warwick is highly selective. Many Thames Valley students speak far more intelligently and would look like Oxbridge products if juxtaposed with you.
    Once again, only resorting to insults. A real shame to be honest, shows YOUR intellectual capacity to be rather low.

    Anyway, you keep citing this link as proof of endowment: http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13009301

    It has one cited source, which is another nairaland post, which does not have any sources (who is the dim and stupid one now?). I'm not saying the data is wrong, but I want to see a more reputable source.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cutmeloose)
    To be quite honest you seem to be guilty of the same crime that you accuse crunchychips of being guilty of. You claim that he must be incredibly thick and stupid to persist with his claims.

    Yet, you suggesting that one student is evidence of Warwick not being highly a selective and well regarded university is a contender for stupidity and thickness personified in my book. The guy studies Maths, they are not known as being the most articulate and wordily students ever.

    I agree with lots of what you say, but you say it's the commercial world that matters, yet Warwick students outstrip King's by a MILE in regards to presence in London's financial district at least. Warwick kills King's for banking and I mean kills, and even for Law, despite King's having the better course, Warwick still has a similar presence. I don't think neither are particularly well represented amongst top tier consultancy firms.

    Both have a high amount of international students, so Warwick must clearly have global footing. It definitely has a strong reputation in Asia and Europe.
    Not really!

    A student like him would not get into Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial.

    And prior to meeting him on TSR, I never believed a student like him can get into the next tier of top universities like UCL, KCL, Durham, Warwick etc because I believed those universities were quite selective. But he claims to be in Warwick to my utter shock.

    This is not about articulation, it is about basic reasoning. The guy is thinker than Rodney from Only Fools and Horses.

    What most of you TSR kids don't understand is that the world is not only about finance. KCL kills Warwick in most other areas of employment and has a higher average salary on average, as well as higher employment figures. The last 10 years of flash from Warwick is not a basis to be laying claims of superiority or greatness. and its reputation is not as strong as KCL anywhere outside UK.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    FYI:

    "Your degree isn’t a golden ticket. We need to put an end to the “silver spoon complex.” Simply obtaining a degree may only help you out if you’re planning to go the corporate route, where companies have more time and money to invest in training programs. But at my company, I don’t even know which of my employees has a degree or not--it makes no difference to me. I care more about the impact my employees have on my company.

    I’d much rather hire someone who has been freelancing as a web developer for three years than someone who has a master’s degree in computer science. They’re bound to be more passionate, driven, and profitable in the long run, as they know what it takes to impact the bottom line.
    http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130521095429-5799319-class-of-2013-your-degree-doesn-t-mean-squat"
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    Not really!

    A student like him would not get into Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial.

    And prior to meeting him on TSR, I never believed a student like him can get into the next tier of top universities like UCL, KCL, Durham, Warwick etc because I believed those universities were quite selective. But he claims to be in Warwick to my utter shock.

    This is not about articulation, it is about basic reasoning. The guy is thinker than Rodney from Only Fools and Horses.

    What most of you TSR kids don't understand is that the world is not only about finance. KCL kills Warwick in most other areas of employment and has a higher average salary on average, as well as higher employment figures. The last 10 years of flash from Warwick is not a basis to be laying claims of superiority or greatness. and its reputation is not as strong as KCL anywhere outside UK.
    I'm not really sure if you're serious. Do you think getting 6 A* at GCSE and A*AA at A-Level makes you that intelligent? Considering that this coupled with a vaguely decent PS is good enough to get you into LSE and Imperial for most courses. I know a handful of bimbos at Oxbridge, yet one of these bimbos has still managed to secure a grad job in M & A at a boutique bank despite studying Land Economy. Intelligence is a blurry subject.

    What areas does KCL kill Warwick in? not finance, politics, even Law is negligible (in regards to actual job prospects, will not deny that KCL's department is better regarded) The difference in average salary is £2-3k, hardly worth mentioning. 6/10 are London unis, which is a factor. I would argue that Warwick is just as well perceived as King's in Europe at least. King's really isn't all that rated in the Asian community, when you're 4th in your own city, it knocks you of your perch slightly. King's is better known, but there is a big difference between recognition and prestige. I would agree and possibly suggest that Warwick's success is likely to be a flash in the pan.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cutmeloose)
    I'm not really sure if you're serious. Do you think getting 6 A* at GCSE and A*AA at A-Level makes you that intelligent? Considering that this coupled with a vaguely decent PS is good enough to get you into LSE and Imperial for most courses. I know a handful of bimbos at Oxbridge, yet one of these bimbos has still managed to secure a grad job in M & A at a boutique bank despite studying Land Economy. Intelligence is a blurry subject.
    Obviously I don't think high grades in education makes you super-intelligent but it obviously makes you at list intelligent enough to be above a certain threshold as long as you have no mental issues.

    I am yet to come across anyone in my life in any top university, not even only the top 4, that talk as unintelligently and exhibit poor thinking like crunchychips. I know you know that too, that is why you tried to excuse his ineptness by claiming he is a Maths student and such students are not articulate. I was not talking about articulation, I was talking about reasoning and the ability to process information. I never knew such a student can get into Warwick.

    (Original post by Cutmeloose)
    What areas does KCL kill Warwick in? not finance, politics, even Law is negligible (in regards to actual job prospects, will not deny that KCL's department is better regarded) The difference in average salary is £2-3k, hardly worth mentioning. 6/10 are London unis, which is a factor. I would argue that Warwick is just as well perceived as King's in Europe at least. King's really isn't all that rated in the Asian community, when you're 4th in your own city, it knocks you of your perch slightly. King's is better known, but there is a big difference between recognition and prestige. I would agree and possibly suggest that Warwick's success is likely to be a flash in the pan.
    £2-3K is actually significant at graduate level. This is as lame as your earlier attempt to claim £50m is nothing.

    As for the excuse of "London uni", I am sure you are aware that Warwick students do not stay in Coventry to work neither are majority of them residents there prior to enrollment, so that is not an excuse. They all apply to London and other regional cities' firms.

    I also suggest you go and look at their alumni list to see how KCL exceeds Warwick in alumni performance even for periods after Warwick was established. Warwick is only strong career-wise in quantitative and business subjects, areas KCL somehow chose to play only a little in. Yet KCL still produces more notable people in business than Warwick.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Warwick_people

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._London_alumni

    Note that Warwick people list includes staff that are not alumni, KCL's own is strictly alumni.

    Warwick is not as well perceived as KCL outside UK.

    KCL is far better known and regarded than Warwick in Asia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not to fuel a constantly pointless debate but:

    (1) HYPSM are not more prestigious than Caltech. Neither is Caltech more selective than HYPSM. There is no evidence for any of these two statements. Caltech's though is highly selective and Luthervan is correct that they have a higher enrollment yield than Harvard, Yale and similar schools. This is because they are highly specialized. If you apply to Caltech you plan to study a quantitative subject and only MIT, Stanford, Harvard and maybe Princeton are comparable. Very few students will turn down an offer from Caltech. There are lot of schools that US students will turn down for Harvard, no one in their right mind will consider turning down LSE for king's college london or Warwick, not to talk of Oxford.

    (2) Endowment is an American phenomena. I think British media and academia are misinterpreting or appropriating the success of American Universities to money. As a result there has been a recent rush to increase university endowments under the guise that it would make British universities world on the international scene. Nevertheless with respect to UK domestic reputation, endowment does not mean much.

    (3) Warwick is undoubtedly more prestigious than KCL. Top and Global Employers tend to target Warwick. IB and Management consulting firms hold Warwick in higher regard. Most don't visit King's College London.

    Notice that Luthervan skillfully deflected the question of "what career fields does KCL beat Warwick " instead sidetracking it to one regarding the list of alumni. (With dripping sarcasm) Yes, the number of Bishops that KCL has produced will have a significant impact on student employment since the large majority of top students dream of heading into the clergy. Infact by virtue of going to KCL you are guaranteed to be a Prince or President or TV personality.

    There is really no prestigious graduate scheme that considers KCL significantly over any other school which is what Roxas posed as a question. Its not well-known for engineering (and in the spirit of fairness neither is warwick) so it is not targeted by engineering employers. Most students are looking for employment, not superficial metrics such as how many students in the long-term end up as entertainers.

    (4) In the OP's case KCL is the better choice due to its location. Now if your goal was a job at say Goldman Sachs or Mckinsey, Warwick would have been the better option. However, you would have no problem gaining employment at an international thinktank in london, if you wanted to do war studies, which is by the way not the top IR course in the UK not to talk of the world. That claim goes to Oxford and LSE. KCL is the only school that offers the War Studies Course.

    (5) Except you are from Asia, and can speak Mandarin, Japanese or any of the prerequisite languages required to work in an asian country, as well as possess work authorization, you should be less concerned about the prestige of your university in that country. Most British students will be working in their home country, and at best in anglophone countries.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    Not to fuel a constantly pointless debate but:

    (1) HYPSM are not more prestigious than Caltech. Neither is Caltech more selective than HYPSM. There is no evidence for any of these two statements. Caltech's though is highly selective and Luthervan is correct that they have a higher enrollment yield than Harvard, Yale and similar schools. This is because they are highly specialized. If you apply to Caltech you plan to study a quantitative subject and only MIT, Stanford, Harvard and maybe Princeton are comparable. Very few students will turn down an offer from Caltech. There are lot of schools that US students will turn down for Harvard, no one in their right mind will consider turning down LSE for king's college london or Warwick, not to talk of Oxford.
    Actually if you bothered checking, Caltech has a lower enrollment yield that HYPSM.

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    (2) Endowment is an American phenomena. I think British media and academia are misinterpreting or appropriating the success of American Universities to money. As a result there has been a recent rush to increase university endowments under the guise that it would make British universities world on the international scene. Nevertheless with respect to UK domestic reputation, endowment does not mean much.
    So universities asking for money to conduct research and the response they get has no bearing on reputation? ....................I see. What an intellectual contribution.

    I bet in your intellectual sphere, Glasgow Caledonia University or Southampton Solent can go and raise £1bn in endowment because, you know, reputation does not count in endowment.

    Thanks for that insightful view.

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    (3) Warwick is undoubtedly more prestigious than KCL. Top and Global Employers tend to target Warwick. IB and Management consulting firms hold Warwick in higher regard. Most don't visit King's College London.
    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...ic.html?ref=nf

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...?ref=education

    Yeah, I see that Global Employers do prefer Warwick.

    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...st-reputable/5

    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...able/5#6774001

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    Notice that Luthervan skillfully deflected the question of "what career fields does KCL beat Warwick " instead sidetracking it to one regarding the list of alumni. (With dripping sarcasm) Yes, the number of Bishops that KCL has produced will have a significant impact on student employment since the large majority of top students dream of heading into the clergy. Infact by virtue of going to KCL you are guaranteed to be a Prince or President or TV personality.
    Please do remove the bishops and still compare with Warwick.

    Then take the time to explore employment rates and starting salaries of both KCL and Warwick students.

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    There is really no prestigious graduate scheme that considers KCL significantly over any other school which is what Roxas posed as a question. Its not well-known for engineering (and in the spirit of fairness neither is warwick) so it is not targeted by engineering employers. Most students are looking for employment, not superficial metrics such as how many students in the long-term end up as entertainers.
    Wow, you really have a lot of insightful views.

    This would have been more insightful if KCL had a significant Engineering department. I say that with caution because I am not sure they have any at all. How can a university be well know in a subject they hardly offer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I bet in your intellectual sphere, Glasgow Caledonia University or Southampton Solent can go and raise £1bn in endowment because, you know, reputation does not count in endowment.
    While this has nothing to do with my "intellectual sphere" do you have any counterargument for why they can't? If they hire an extremely clever business manager who can come up with creative ways of raising money, I bet they can make substantial steps towards raising that much money

    Which raises the question- what does the ability of a school to raise money have to do with prestige?


    Thanks for that insightful view.
    You are welcome
    When I mean global employers, I mean elite firms with multiple offices world wide who are extremely selective in the graduates they employ. Like Mckinsey or Goldman Sachs. A leading firm in India might have no clue about what the top world universities are really. How many leading Indian firms come to UK campuses? Australian firms? Malaysian firms? Please be realistic, just because its in the news paper, does not mean it has any sort of authority.

    Students from Oxbridge (salaries of 30,000 pounds) or Top US schools (Where the average salary for some majors is as high as 40,000-50,000 pounds) would not be in a hurry to head over to some of these countries.

    Then I find it hard to believe that King's College London is as well regarded as Penn or Northwestern by global employers. Apart from the fact that these schools are generally much better regarded, they also have famous business schools. That ranking is also full of a lot of anomalies. Sheffield higher regarded than bristol?

    When I talk about global firms, I don't mean a company in Malaysia or China. I wonder what marketing strategy a top malaysian firm could use to take a bright british student from Warwick with a job in the city, with good salary, political stability, and a train ride away from family.

    What is this? An online forum? Even worse than newspaper ranking.

    Please do remove the bishops and still compare with Warwick.

    Then take the time to explore employment rates and starting salaries of both KCL and Warwick students.
    The whole point of the exercise was to show that these rankings have no bearing on a students prospects future job prospects. Just by virtue of going to KCL would not make you royalty or a head of state. the large majority of multiple tens of thousands of KCL end up living typically average/mundane lives.

    I have, there is no evidence that KCL is better than Warwick. Seems you haven't, I think you should.

    What you present as evidence is misleading: you present "graduate prospects" as provided by "league" tables. These graduate prospects include those who engage in further study which in some cases is a substantial mount. These are not employment rates as is bandied around on TSR.

    For more appropriate evidence please unistats.co.uk.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wow, you really have a lot of insightful views.
    I know right! Only if the undergraduates here actually took time to read more extensively.

    This would have been more insightful if KCL had a significant Engineering department. I say that with caution because I am not sure they have any at all. How can a university be well know in a subject they hardly offer.
    No they don't but that wasn't the point. I was more curious about the origin of the 2000 pound difference in the average salary of KCL students over Warwick students. The point was KCL has no particular strengths, that would be attractive to the higher paying employers. Its not known for quantitative subjects like engineering, math or physics. So this could not be the reason. It is not highly regarded by top management consultancies or investment banks so that is not the reason either.

    The origin therefore must be based on statistical distribution or location. With respect to location , a larger number of KCL students living in London as opposed to Warwick students who might also work in london but due to university location also tend to work in Coventry where salaries and cost of living is low.

    From the statistical end, the data used to compile average salaries are not fully comprehensive. Slight deviations and omissions could be responsible for these differences. Also the average salary would depend on the distribution of students taking a particular course.

    I am sure, whoever did the compilation took steps to normalize their results, however, I am also sure that they did not expect people to split hairs over salary differences of 2000-3000 pounds.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Haha I had to make this decision and couldn't decide over like 7 months and finally firmed Warwick after abut 23283 pro's and con's lists!!! CAN'T WAIT TO GET OUT OF LONDON. (Only cos I live like 5 mins walk from Kings and wouldn't really be a 'change' plus low expectations on accomdation!) and Warwick seems like such a happy place!!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, and not to forget- the students at the school of medicine, dentistry and nursing (which as an independent observer Luthervan suggested should not be included when considering entry tariffs) who have close to 100% graduate prospects at KCL. Irrelevant to someone who is not studying any of these courses.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.