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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    I didn't apply sadly

    And I would but I'm not really up for another gap year.
    I guess sometimes you have to settle in life.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    I guess sometimes you have to settle in life.
    Yeah, this is just the latest career disaster.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    I definitely agree. They don't even consider UCL or LSE.
    Yawn... I only said KCL and not UCL/LSE to make a point about Warwick. Obviously I know that UCL and LSE are also unis with large recruitment from law firms...

    (Original post by Doughnuts!!)
    .
    My username would not be 'ironic' to that post in any circumstances so your comment is quite invalid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Realism)
    Yawn... I only said KCL and not UCL/LSE to make a point about Warwick. Obviously I know that UCL and LSE are also unis with large recruitment from law firms...
    Well your point is completely wrong. Allen and Overy has been at Warwick twice this year, same amount as KCL. Linklater has been at warwick 4 times and at KCL once this year. I could keep going. Your going to have the exact same grad prospects coming from Warwick as KCL.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Realism)

    My username would not be 'ironic' to that post in any circumstances so your comment is quite invalid.
    To me it is quite ironic. Perhaps your version of reality and doughnuts' version are different.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Realism)


    My username would not be 'ironic' to that post in any circumstances so your comment is quite invalid.
    adan0311 made the point that I was going to make so just take a look at his post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    Hmm, you raise a valid point.

    But in another table, Warwick's overall grad prospects are ranked 13th.

    1) Imperial
    2) BUCKINGHAM
    3) ROBERT GORDON
    4) Oxford
    5) Cambridge
    6) LSE
    7) Bath
    8) UCL
    9) KCL
    10) Surrey
    11) City
    12) Bristol
    13) Warwick
    14) Durham
    15) Lancaster
    This looks like a decent table but it would have been nice if you indicated the source and the criteria it was based on to show its validity and why it is different from the Times/Hesa one.

    Please do.

    (Original post by adam0311)
    Nice catch. Didn't even see his username lol



    Explain this.

    I think the face palm comes from the course of discussion. This is the basic path:

    You: KCL=UCL=LSE>Durham/Warwick
    More like:
    Oxbridge
    UCL/LSE/KCL > Durham/Warwick/Nottingham/Manchester/Bristol/Any omission
    Other top Uni law > Rest of Uni law

    Me: Here is hard data that puts Durham above KCL and KCL is not equal to LSE/UCL.
    You:You used league tables, how dare you. But even though you have hard stats, KCL is better bc they have GCs in blue chip firms.
    Rubbish made up miscontruction. Maybe you might fit better writing for Sun Newspapers than on the law bench. I plainly said historical reputation carries more weight than league tables when it comes to hiring, although gaps between the unis in position 3-5 to the rest is negligible.
    Me: Didn't use the tables but presented hard data showing 65 percent of the MC from a top 10. Explained gap between KCL and LSE/UCL.
    You showed no data, only made a statement that looked like an assertion. How have you decided to call an assertion "hard data"? Are you simply trying to make yourself look good and logical?
    You: Completely ignored presented arguments by posting wikipedia links of non-comprehensive alumni lists.
    I did not respond to your "hard data" (if you want to call it that) because I concurred with your "assertion" (that you called hard data). I responded to your point 3 only about the alumnis of the top 10 matching LSE/UCL/KCL. The point was faulty and I proved it, and you are yet to rebut. The other points, I gave you a right to your opinion.
    Me: Show you that over 50% of the KCL alumni list didn't even matriculate/get an LLB from KCL. Explain flaws in the alumni list.
    Maths might not be my strong point but only about 8 did not matriculate at KCL (that is adding KCL legal post-grad students, like if that does not count). How did 8 out of 24 become over 50%? Sun Newspapers do pay well if you would consider it.
    You: The alumni list is worthy but doesn't respond to the main contentions.
    No. I challenged you that if Warwick/Durham had any legal alumni worthy of note, it would be noted. You never showed any worthy of note to suppport your claim that their alumni is matchable as you claimed. So my point stands.
    Concede that "LSE and UCL alumni are better than KCLs."
    Me: Accept the fact that you conceded the argument.
    I can't concede an argument where my adversary is not bringing facts to back his assertion that alumni are matchable. I can only wait for him to bring the fact, if he can.
    You: Propose ranking by employment numbers putting KCL above Oxbridge.
    This I believe was not a respond to your challenge. You are not a honourable person. You will fit into a tabloid culture easily. This was a response to Mann18's challenge of my assertion that Golden Triangle were more successful in employment in general. You lie!
    Me: Explain flaws of employment table. Reiterate the equalness amongst top 10.
    You:Ignore the flaws and show a couple GCs who have attended KCL.
    Again, I don't know if this is a lie or just innocuous misconstruction. This was not a response to your challenge on the employment table. It was a response to your challenge of legal alumni quality. I was expecting you will rebut by listing Durham/Warwick legal alumni that are of equal or higher quality. You did not for reasons I can only assume is related to impossibility.
    Me: Reiterate the equalness amongst top 10. Explain flaws in the use of GCs as an indicator.
    You made a bit of sense that was related to my initial point.
    You:Begins to alter argument to mesh with the equalness of the top 10.
    I spotted some sense that shows alignment to my point. I do not like arguing for too long and I took the opportunity to highlight we had a common ground
    Me: Accepts your altered argument
    I can't believe you feel victorious. You are yet to show Durham or Warwick alumni in Law is "matchable" to LSE/UCL/KCL alumni. Please name the alumni.
    You: Agreed for the most part.
    This is completedly flawed because you misunderstood or intentionally misconstrued.

    As best as possible corrections in red.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    This looks like a decent table but it would have been nice if you indicated the source and the criteria it was based on to show its validity and why it is different from the Times/Hesa one.

    Please do.
    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...e.htm?ipg=8726
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    1. More like:
    Oxbridge
    UCL/LSE/KCL > Durham/Warwick/Nottingham/Manchester/Bristol/Any omission
    Other top Uni law > Rest of Uni law
    2. Rubbish made up miscontruction. Maybe you might fit better writing for Sun Newspapers than on the law bench. I plainly said historical reputation carries more weight than league tables when it comes to hiring, although gaps between the unis in position 3-5 to the rest is negligible.
    3. You showed no data, only made a statement that looked like an assertion. How have you decided to call an assertion "hard data"? Are you simply trying to make yourself look good and logical?
    4. I did not respond to your "hard data" (if you want to call it that) because I concurred with your "assertion" (that you called hard data). I responded to your point 3 only about the alumnis of the top 10 matching LSE/UCL/KCL. The point was faulty and I proved it, and you are yet to rebut. The other points, I gave you a right to your opinion.
    5. Maths might not be my strong point but only about 8 did not matriculate at KCL (that is adding KCL legal post-grad students, like if that does not count). How did 8 out of 24 become over 50%? Sun Newspapers do pay well if you would consider it.
    6. No. I challenged you that if Warwick/Durham had any legal alumni worthy of note, it would be noted. You never showed any worthy of note to suppport your claim that their alumni is matchable as you claimed. So my point stands.
    7. I can't concede an argument where my adversary is not bringing facts to back his assertion that alumni are matchable. I can only wait for him to bring the fact, if he can.
    8. This I believe was not a respond to your challenge. You are not a honourable person. You will fit into a tabloid culture easily. This was a response to Mann18's challenge of my assertion that Golden Triangle were more successful in employment in general. You lie!
    9. Again, I don't know if this is a lie or just innocuous misconstruction. This was not a response to your challenge on the employment table. It was a response to your challenge of legal alumni quality. I was expecting you will rebut by listing Durham/Warwick legal alumni that are of equal or higher quality. You did not for reasons I can only assume is related to impossibility.
    10. You made a bit of sense that was related to my initial point.
    11. I spotted some sense that shows alignment to my point. I do not like arguing for too long and I took the opportunity to highlight we had a common ground
    12. I can't believe you feel victorious. You are yet to show Durham or Warwick alumni in Law is "matchable" to LSE/UCL/KCL alumni. Please name the alumni.
    For ease of response I enumerated your points.

    1. You continue to ignore the hard data I am providing. The following are higher at Durham--satisfaction rate, UCAS points (500 at Durham vs. 460 at KCL), research quantity and quality. Employment rate is the exact same. Basically anything that is quantifiable places Durham ahead. Which still leaves me puzzled because not only do you place Durham as a "lesser uni," you match KCL with LSE/UCL. Which again, any hard data would point to the opposite. Now rather than you responding to this argument directly, you claim that all that matters is historical reputation. So I pose these question---who are you to measure historical reputation? historical reputation is subjective, is it not? how do you know what HR departments view as what constitutes a better historical reputation? Your ranking method, if one were to claim as remotely legitimate, is severely flawed. You are basing the quality of academics off of historical reputation. Remember uni is about learning! Career prospects isn't the only thing. Research wise and satisfaction wise, Durham trumps....refer to the 2008 RAE and unistats for supporting data. Now if you change your initial stance to UCL/LSE/KCL=Durham/Warwick/Nottingham/Manchester/Bristol than I would agree. Refer to snowballed's post in the "Best universities to study Law! - Top 5."
    2. OMG YOU THINK I'M GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SUN!??!! AHHHH no more law school for me! I'm going to go study journalism at robert gordon, that's perfect! Refer to #1 with regards to historical reputation.
    3. I presented data from unistats. Basically any measurable statistics point Durham ahead of KCL, yet I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying KCL=Durham. This is opposed to your method of data collection--find 4 guys on google and a wikipedia alumni list. Of course I'm trying to make myself look good, I want to impress all the girls on here. Mainly my ultimate catch on here named EcstaticMuse.
    4. Will address further down.
    5. Is it fair to add in post-grad work? I mean which should be credited with the job...the LLB or the LLM?
    6. How come the GCs that you showed me weren't on the alumni list? What makes them less of lawyers than those who were on the alumni list? See, the list isn't comprehensive. And thus your two factors of ranking (historical prestige and alumni lists) do not work.
    7. Okay, so out of thousands of people who graduated from Durham, KCL, Warwick, etc. we should judge them all based off of the 25 people collected on the alumni lists from wikipedia? right on brotha. It isn't about one or two people who are famous or hold certain positions. Durham and KCL both have equal representation across top law firms. Its about the GENERAL representation. Not the one or two. I mean the CEO of Kabel Deutschland, the largest cable provider in Germany, went to Kingston. Is Kingston now the best because it just one upped?
    8. Of course I'm not honorable. I'm American. We make lies. This is my business bro.
    9. Refer to above.
    10. Cheers mate.
    11. Shall we have a pint now?
    12. Again, I'm American...always going to win.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks, I like the table.

    Although it used data that is 2 years old, I guess I like it because it makes be feel comfortable in regards to the more top universities on the list.

    And to be frank and discerning, despite its different calculations, it is not much different from the table I gave. The top are still the Golden Triangle + Bath. So, irrespectively, my point still stands. Maybe even stronger since calculations in this takes into account location advantage and tries to eliminate it, which is good for the non-London Unis, yet LSE/UCL/KCL are still above the other top unis for employment and Imperial is the best for graduate-quality jobs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    For ease of response I enumerated your points.

    1. You continue to ignore the hard data I am providing. The following are higher at Durham--satisfaction rate, UCAS points (500 at Durham vs. 460 at KCL), research quantity and quality. Employment rate is the exact same. Basically anything that is quantifiable places Durham ahead. Which still leaves me puzzled because not only do you place Durham as a "lesser uni," you match KCL with LSE/UCL. Which again, any hard data would point to the opposite. Now rather than you responding to this argument directly, you claim that all that matters is historical reputation. So I pose these question---who are you to measure historical reputation? historical reputation is subjective, is it not? how do you know what HR departments view as what constitutes a better historical reputation? Your ranking method, if one were to claim as remotely legitimate, is severely flawed. You are basing the quality of academics off of historical reputation. Remember uni is about learning! Career prospects isn't the only thing. Research wise and satisfaction wise, Durham trumps....refer to the 2008 RAE and unistats for supporting data. Now if you change your initial stance to UCL/LSE/KCL=Durham/Warwick/Nottingham/Manchester/Bristol than I would agree. Refer to snowballed's post in the "Best universities to study Law! - Top 5."
    2. OMG YOU THINK I'M GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE SUN!??!! AHHHH no more law school for me! I'm going to go study journalism at robert gordon, that's perfect! Refer to #1 with regards to historical reputation.
    3. I presented data from unistats. Basically any measurable statistics point Durham ahead of KCL, yet I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt by saying KCL=Durham. This is opposed to your method of data collection--find 4 guys on google and a wikipedia alumni list. Of course I'm trying to make myself look good, I want to impress all the girls on here. Mainly my ultimate catch on here named EcstaticMuse.
    4. Will address further down.
    5. Is it fair to add in post-grad work? I mean which should be credited with the job...the LLB or the LLM?
    6. How come the GCs that you showed me weren't on the alumni list? What makes them less of lawyers than those who were on the alumni list? See, the list isn't comprehensive. And thus your two factors of ranking (historical prestige and alumni lists) do not work.
    7. Okay, so out of thousands of people who graduated from Durham, KCL, Warwick, etc. we should judge them all based off of the 25 people collected on the alumni lists from wikipedia? right on brotha. It isn't about one or two people who are famous or hold certain positions. Durham and KCL both have equal representation across top law firms. Its about the GENERAL representation. Not the one or two. I mean the CEO of Kabel Deutschland, the largest cable provider in Germany, went to Kingston. Is Kingston now the best because it just one upped?
    8. Of course I'm not honorable. I'm American. We make lies. This is my business bro.
    9. Refer to above.
    10. Cheers mate.
    11. Shall we have a pint now?
    12. Again, I'm American...always going to win.
    1. I did not ignore the hard data. I just merely said it has less weight than reputation when it comes to employment. Historical reputation is heavily subjective and varies. But in my subjective view, KCL has a stronger historical reputation than Durham which is reflective in its alumni and in their positions in the heavily reputation-dependent league table, QS. Obviously we all know Strand Polytechnique has not been that strong in research of recent but somehow it still pulls a weight in reputational tables like QS and Mckinsey & Bain lists it as one of the universities they visit. If your view is that Durham has a stronger historical reputation, that is fine. It is your subjective view. It might just not be as widely concurred as mine.

    I never based quality of academics on reputation as you wrongly concluded, I based quality employment opportunities on reputation. Yes, that is not the only reason to choose a university but I suspect that is why a majority of student attend university (to get great high paying jobs).

    A different league table for law also shows that KCL is 5th, Warwick 9th and Durham 22nd, and far higher satisfaction figures by KCL students than Durham students.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...sity-guide-law

    To be frank, I am less into league tables, but if that is your thing, that is fine.

    2. Please just retract a lie and never use one again to try and make your arguments stronger, and I will respect you more.

    3. No Sir, you presented no data.

    Refer back to post #25. You only made an assertion that "65 percent of the MC is from a top 10 uni", which I judged sounded fair enough and accepted. That is not hard data Sir.

    5. It is the norm to credit both in my experience. Both are credited for Nobel Prize by STJU league table, so I am surprised you feel it should be left out. Also you did lie that over 50% did not matriculate KCL. That is not the way to have a constructive debate, Sir.

    6. I think wikipedia only accepts CEOs from my observation, except the business executive is controversial. I am yet to see General Councel listed for any university. So I am sorry, your point does not stand. You need to provide similar top successful lawyers (be it public, top private firm partners, blue chip general counsels etc) for Durham/Warwick to make alumni matchable, as you claimed, with Strand Polytechnique. It is obvious Strand Poly lawyers have been more notable than Warwick and Durham.

    7. I don't think we should judge individual people graduating in law based on that. I was just highlighting that KCL has a better historical reputation of producing top people in Law. If the other 2 did, they will have some or a lot on their wiki page, or you would have been able to find some through Google to rebut my list. I am sure you know that, you just refuse to accept.

    If you can bring dozens of CEOs of top firms that attended Kingston, I would have no option but to admit it is a top University. Naming one and trying to use it to make my point irrelevant makes me lose more respect for your objectivity, Sir.

    8 & 12. That would be sad if that is the way you live life. It might be best not to engage in a debate with you again if objectivity is not your foundation in that case.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    1. I did not ignore the hard data. I just merely said it has less weight than reputation when it comes to employment. Historical reputation is heavily subjective and varies. But in my subjective view, KCL has a stronger historical reputation than Durham which is reflective in its alumni and in their positions in the heavily reputation-dependent league table, QS. Obviously we all know Strand Polytechnique has not been that strong in research of recent but somehow it still pulls a weight in reputational tables like QS and Mckinsey & Bain lists it as one of the universities they visit. If your view is that Durham has a stronger historical reputation, that is fine. It is your subjective view. It might just not be as widely concurred as mine.

    I never based quality of academics on reputation as you wrongly concluded, I based quality employment opportunities on reputation. Yes, that is not the only reason to choose a university but I suspect that is why a majority of student attend university (to get great high paying jobs).

    A different league table for law also shows that KCL is 5th, Warwick 9th and Durham 22nd, and far higher satisfaction figures by KCL students than Durham students.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...sity-guide-law

    To be frank, I am less into league tables, but if that is your thing, that is fine.

    2. Please just retract a lie and never use one again to try and make your arguments stronger, and I will respect you more.

    3. No Sir, you presented no data.

    Refer back to post #25. You only made an assertion that "65 percent of the MC is from a top 10 uni", which I judged sounded fair enough and accepted. That is not hard data Sir.

    5. It is the norm to credit both in my experience. Both are credited for Nobel Prize by STJU league table, so I am surprised you feel it should be left out. Also you did lie that over 50% did not matriculate KCL. That is not the way to have a constructive debate, Sir.

    6. I think wikipedia only accepts CEOs from my observation, except the business executive is controversial. I am yet to see General Councel listed for any university. So I am sorry, your point does not stand. You need to provide similar top successful lawyers (be it public, top private firm partners, blue chip general counsels etc) for Durham/Warwick to make alumni matchable, as you claimed, with Strand Polytechnique. It is obvious Strand Poly lawyers have been more notable than Warwick and Durham.

    7. I don't think we should judge individual people graduating in law based on that. I was just highlighting that KCL has a better historical reputation of producing top people in Law. If the other 2 did, they will have some or a lot on their wiki page, or you would have been able to find some through Google to rebut my list. I am sure you know that, you just refuse to accept.

    If you can bring dozens of CEOs of top firms that attended Kingston, I would have no option but to admit it is a top University. Naming one and trying to use it to make my point irrelevant makes me lose more respect for your objectivity, Sir.

    8 & 12. That would be sad if that is the way you live life. It might be best not to engage in a debate with you again if objectivity is not your foundation in that case.
    1. Refer to unistats for any type of statistics. Its much more qualified than the guardian. Guardian has an odd way of calculating student satisfaction. Unistats is much more credible as they take direct from a gov't survey. If you are going to use a league table, here is a little tip...don't use the guardian. I don't think anyone on here would agree that Durham is the number 22 law school behind stirling, robert gordon, lancaster, etc. No idea why you brought up consulting companies, we're talking about law. But take a peak at linkedin, there are a ton of Durham grads in accenture, mckinsey, baine, etc. Would you rather be unhappy for 3 years with slightly higher employment prospects? Or happy for 3 years and slightly less employment prospects? I'm not saying this is the case with Durham bc its not. I'm just trying to show you, that a uni shouldn't be solely picked for employment prospects. Especially when you are dealing with top 10's--as you have an equal shot coming from any of them, bar Oxbridge. There's more that goes into a uni than just employment prospects. Do you not have a general curiosity to learn? Now I think anyone on here who is a 3rd year, on a TC, or looking for a TC would agree that you have an equal shot securing a TC coming from Durham and KCL...this is a moot point.

    http://www.thecompleteuniversityguid...e.htm?ipg=8727 --Durham #6

    2. No lies.

    3. I presented data--unistats and the stats on the MC. I actually find it funny because your argument is so inconsistent. First you say that KCL is top 5. Then you say well it shouldn't be numbered, but its equal to LSE/UCL. And now that I have you stuck in a corner w/ the idea that historical presitge/alumni lists=ranking...I've just proved to you that LSE/UCL is leagues above. And in no way can KCL be compared to LSE/UCL.

    5. I combined those who had not matriculated w/ those who just had grad degrees. As I don't think the grad degree should be solely credited. Some didn't even go for law school. I combined all of this. For example, Ilana Rovner spent one year at KCL and Amber Marks didn't even go to KCL. I'm including more than those who transferred to Oxbridge.

    6. Alright so if I gave you a list of partners at MC firms, this would make you happy? Go to linkedin, and narrow the search by UK and Durham...a ton of partners at Allen and Overy, DLA Piper, Clifford Chance, Slaughter, Hogan,Freshfields, Mayer Brown, Barristers at some big time chambers, head of global practice, founders/Managing Partners at commercial midlaw firmsm etc. They aren't flipping burgers at McDonalds bro. Going through linkedin, Durham and KCL have the exact same representation across the big firms. But I still find it daunting that you would consider one uni better than another just because it has a few alumni that you consider to be in a prestigious position. It isn't the 1 or 2 that matter....it's the GENERAL representation throughout firms. Please respond to this argument directly, and explain to me why this is a worse way of judging a uni. Also explain to me what is so special about the lawyers on the KCL alumni list bar the supreme court guy. Nothing really spectacular. Most went to Africa. Quite frankly that isn't a market many of us are going to.

    7. Please respond directly to my argument with regards to the KCL alumni--Just because they are listed on wiki does not make them special. I'm trying to find what's particularly special about the KCL alumni. Some went into African politics...big whoop. Explain to me what is special about Peter McCormick, Amber Marks, etc. Just because its on the alumni list does not make it credited.

    8&12. Y you mad bro?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say they're equally as successful. I know several KCL 3rd years, who have jobs lined up at MC firms, and the same can probably be said for Warwick grads.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    ....
    Lol, why are you mentioning Amber Marks? Why is she so special? She's my tutor haha.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    In all fairness Durham has more recruiting events from MC firms compared to KCL.

    Please don't invent facts (something you're told from the beginning of any law degree NOT to do). Are you a recruitment agent for an MC firm? Or are you in the unique position of having two LLBs from Durham and KCL?

    ... I think not... You lie, sit down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    Warwick is so overrated on this website.
    I can't agree with you more, Margaret.

    I don't know what it is with this website and Warwick. It's like some sort of secretly fantastic place. Whenever I think of Warwick, I just think of an extremely boring, second-rate campus university in god-knows where (where even is Warwick?) ... near Coventry right?

    I think it's because the majority of the users are very dull. And probably white.

    Sorry, but how anyone can say they'd rather graduate from Warwick in law than have a King's College London law degree; studying in London etc. I think going to King's, you learn so much more outside of the classroom than you would at Warwick.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    It's not too far away from Coventry for those of us who prefer city living...
    City living? :curious: In Coventry? Lol, Cool :borat:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    Lol, why are you mentioning Amber Marks? Why is she so special? She's my tutor haha.
    Because she was on the wiki alumni list. I was asking LutherVan why she was even on there.

    (Original post by lesbionic)
    Please don't invent facts (something you're told from the beginning of any law degree NOT to do). Are you a recruitment agent for an MC firm? Or are you in the unique position of having two LLBs from Durham and KCL?

    ... I think not... You lie, sit down.
    Look at the links I provided. Its fact. They are in my response to LutherVan. But like I said its irrelevant.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lesbionic)
    I can't agree with you more, Margaret.

    I don't know what it is with this website and Warwick. It's like some sort of secretly fantastic place. Whenever I think of Warwick, I just think of an extremely boring, second-rate campus university in god-knows where (where even is Warwick?) ... near Coventry right?

    I think it's because the majority of the users are very dull. And probably white.

    Sorry, but how anyone can say they'd rather graduate from Warwick in law than have a King's College London law degree; studying in London etc. I think going to King's, you learn so much more outside of the classroom than you would at Warwick.
    Nahh, I would much rather go to Warwick than KCL. Sure London is great but it's so overhyped.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doughnuts!!)
    Nahh, I would much rather go to Warwick than KCL. Sure London is great but it's so overhyped.
    Prepare for the wrath.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.