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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    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?
    It really does have a lot to do with intellectual sphere. Common sense will let you spot that there is a strong correlation between endowments and reputation.

    It would be incredibly stupid to think just any university can raise billions in funds. There are very very strong factors and indicators that affect donations, most of which link to prestige and reputation. I don't know how I can put that across to you better because not understanding that is below my intellect.

    But in your intellectual sphere, I bet if Southampton Solent had only had "an extremely clever business manager", they could have convinced Bill Gates to donate £125m to the school.

    So all these universities are just run by dumb people who do not realise, like genuises like you do, that they can get more money to run their school by hiring "an extremely clever business manager who can come up with creative ways of raising money"?

    I really have to chuckle at opinions like that. Please refrain from volunteering anymore insights generated from your brain.

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    You are welcome
    Please don't welcome me. You degraded my knowledge and intellect with your insight.

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    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.
    Roflmao!

    I would be surprised if this is not crunchychips using another pseudo-name because the intellect appears to be on par.

    Are you serious?

    First of all, which Mckinsey is hiring Warwick students?

    Secondly, so leading companies in India, Australia, Malaysia have no clue what is a top university in the UK? Are you for real? Or are you Jimmy Carr?

    So they have no clue but yet the top university brands are the ones on those league table? It is by visiting a campus that a company would know a leading university?

    How? By talking a sample of the bricks and mortar back to their labs to test it for the quality of students?

    Mate, I have concluded your intellectual sphere is the same as crunchychips.

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    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.
    And so?

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    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?
    Who gives a "f" what you believe? Leading company recruiters and executive teams have been surveyed and they said they regarded them as being in the same sphere.

    Do you know what that means? ..........It means in the sphere of people that matter (those that employ), they are in the same sphere. So what you believe on TSR only matter in your TSR sphere.

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    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.
    Oh, sorry, Warwick Lords. But this leading firms seem to have a marketing strategy that declared that HYPSM are top universities. I don't think "a job in the city, with good salary, political stability, and a train ride away from family" mattered when they came to that conclusion. Or they went to the campus to sample the bricks and mortar?

    Any more pathetic, junk opinion to excuse facts?

    Here is the fact, mate: It appears when it comes to employment in the UK and globally, the Golden Triangle and Edinburgh give you the best prospects.

    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#12409920
    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13315652
    http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#12446682

    And these 7 universities coincidentally have some of the strongest alumni in the UK.

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    What is this? An online forum? Even worse than newspaper ranking.
    If this is not crunchychips, I might have to eat my shorts.

    Are you of the intellectual calibre of crunchychips to not realise that the data on the forum was not created by the forum but originated from other sources with the links indicated?

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    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.
    The whole point of the exercise is to let you know that KCL has produced far more successful people and attract more prestigious people than Warwick.

    Your self-denial seem to not want to admit the obvious. I suggest you cut the crap excuses like "oh, they have only bishops", "KCL would not make you royalty or a head of state". That makes you look stupid.

    KCL produces far more successful people than Warwick and the alumni is richer in virtually all sphere from academics to business men to political leaders to entertainers to lawyers to writers to whatever, and none of your intellectually deficient and pathetic excuses will deflect from that fact.

    That is not misleading, that is success!


    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    I know right! Only if the undergraduates here actually took time to read more extensively.
    Please don't gloat when stupidity is highlighted. It is a time and opportunity for self-reflection.

    Oxford is not a poor university because it does not churn out alot of Architects or Pharmacists.

    I hope you finally get it?

    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    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.
    Wow, I wonder how many companies are based in Coventry.

    Is it Mckinsey that is based in Coventry? Gee, I never knew they had a co-headquarters in Coventry staffed with Warwick students. Or just the other Global employers you were talking about lining up at Warwicks campus to pick up the student?

    I never knew Mckinsey (and global employers) pay(s) so poorly they drag the average of Warwick down. Or is it the job in the city, with good salary, political stability, and a train ride away from family that they would not substitute for rat-infested Malaysia that drags their average down?

    Excuses, Excuses!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    KCL is overhyped so much because it's in London. Warwick beats KCL in most subjects..also KCL isn't a target uni for anything really, Warwick is. If recruiters want to target London unis, they got to UCL, LSE and Imperial. Kings is still a good uni but come on..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Part A)
    KCL is overhyped so much because it's in London. Warwick beats KCL in most subjects..also KCL isn't a target uni for anything really, Warwick is. If recruiters want to target London unis, they got to UCL, LSE and Imperial. Kings is still a good uni but come on..
    It is a target university for biomedical sciences, law and IR.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    This argument is ridiculous and futile , but I can't help myself.. On average KCL students are not stronger than Warwick students. Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and Imperial are where the strongest students are concentrated. It is silly to say that King's is a better university when stronger students are not more likely to go to KCL over Warwick except for the glitz and glamour of London.

    I don't know about you LutherVan, but a large part of determining the quality of a university should be down to the quality of its intake. You seem to ignore anything which goes against what you say. For example, you suggest that King's is better for business related careers (whatever that means) despite Warwick having a well renowned business school and being a feeder school for banks. I seriously cannot agree with the idea that King's is better, aside from on historical basis and the fact that KCL has more global appeal. KCL barely has a shadow in the financial district.How can you be good at getting students into business, when few of your students are getting into investment banks and top tier consultancy firms? There are tons of firms, who go to Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL and then Durham and Warwick. This says a lot about King's if firms are willing to go to the middle of nowhere, when King's is on their doorstep. KCL is in London yet is not respected by major banks or consultancies whereas Warwick is despite the alleged difference in reputation. Something doesn't add up. KCL is definitely more prestigious to the layman but who gives a **** about what the layman thinks? Just my opinion, but I'd put Warwick closer to UCL than King's. The fact that Warwick has exceptional departments is what sets it apart from KCL i.e Maths/Economics/Business. Yes, King's excels in Law, but it's still behind Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and not all that much better than Durham, Bristol, Warwick or Nottingham. Whereas Warwick Econ/Maths is second to Oxbridge and LSE. No other top university even offers War Studies...so I'm not sure how great a feat that is.

    Bit of a generalisation, but in my experience aside from a few subjects, KCL tends to gets the crumbs of top tier students i.e those rejected by the big boy London colleges. Whereas, I know plenty of top top students who've gone for Warwick straight after Oxbridge, or rejected UCL for Warwick...LSE/Imperial is probs going too far.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I thought Warwick was pretty much top after Oxford and almost LSE for Politics/International Relations
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've just removed about three pages of posts from this thread (and there are more which I perhaps should remove, but they were at least broadly on topic).

    I want this thread to discuss the merits of KCL's course over Warwick's (or vice versa). Or the location of the two. Some discussion of "prestige" is inevitable, especially as I think the OP referred to it, but I'm sure this can be done without escalating into immature fights and verbal insults.

    Off topic or offensive posts will continue to be removed.

    Thanks :hat2:

    (Original post by N_young)
    Picked Kings over Warwick bro, so stop trying to generalize, depends on the person and the subject, there are so many other factors people consider. It's not all about income, would you like to spend 3 years in forest? I didn't want to.
    How is Warwick in a "forest"? It's barely got much woodland/trees near to it, let alone a forest.

    It is on the edge of Coventry in what was more rural than it is now when it was established. It is not central London, but then it isn't a forest either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I thought Warwick was pretty much top after Oxford and almost LSE for Politics/International Relations
    They are equal for IR, but KCL is in london. Yes it is third after LSE

    Here is a brilliant survey of academics on which are the best 5 undergraduate programs for IR.

    It makes sure the sample size is not too large and is field specific. The survey question is not vague. My only criticism is that it focuses on english speaking countries

    UK most frequently cited:

    LSE
    Oxford
    Wales
    Warwick
    St Andrews

    Are the top 5 to top academics. KCL is 6th. Remember don't make the same analytical mistake as other ahem people.
    These are not the top 5 universities for IR, or a ranking of the top IR school, it just shows you a distribution of the schools that were frequently selected in the top 5.

    http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_doc...eport_2009.pdf
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    They are equal for IR, but KCL is in london. Yes it is third after LSE

    Here is a brilliant survey of academics on which are the best 5 undergraduate programs for IR.

    It makes sure the sample size is not too large and is field specific. The survey question is not vague. My only criticism is that it focuses on english speaking countries

    UK most frequently cited:

    LSE
    Wales
    Oxford

    Warwick
    St Andrews

    Are the top 5 to top academics. KCL is 6th. Remember don't make the same analytical mistake as other ahem people.
    These are not the top 5 universities for IR, or a ranking of the top IR school, it just shows you a distribution of the schools that were frequently selected in the top 5.

    http://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_doc...eport_2009.pdf
    I kind of like it when expert opinions matter and are brilliant because it puts "pseudo-Yale" in an upper position, but the opinion is rubbish and irrelevant to "Yalewicks" when it is not favourable to "pseudo-Yale". Now it is not ridiculous that Wales and pseudo-Yale are put above Oxford and Cambridge respectively for IR but it is absurd that Boston University is highly regarded by employers.

    I also note page 66 of that report. Hmmm! I guess it was just an "innocent omission" by someone with no affiliation with "pseudo-Yale".

    I even noted the "innocent error" of switching the fact the report had Wales above Oxford.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    I kind of like it when expert opinions matter and are brilliant because it puts "pseudo-Yale" in an upper position, but the opinion is rubbish and irrelevant to "Yalewicks" when it is not favourable to "pseudo-Yale". Now it is not ridiculous that Wales and pseudo-Yale are put above Oxford and Cambridge respectively for IR but it is absurd that Boston University is highly regarded by employers.

    I also note page 66 of that report. Hmmm! I guess it was just an "innocent omission" by someone with no affiliation with "pseudo-Yale".

    I even noted the "innocent error" of switching the fact the report had Wales above Oxford.
    Wales, or rather Aberwystwyth, fully deserves its position.

    And do not refer to Warwick as pseudo-Yale, given what I said in earlier posts.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I will ask agAin, please keep replies constuctive and on topic. Anything which is off topic, including chat about this thread, will be warned for spam. Thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I kind of like it when expert opinions matter and are brilliant because it puts "pseudo-Yale" in an upper position, but the opinion is rubbish and irrelevant to "Yalewicks" when it is not favourable to "pseudo-Yale". Now it is not ridiculous that Wales and pseudo-Yale are put above Oxford and Cambridge respectively for IR but it is absurd that Boston University is highly regarded by employers.

    I also note page 66 of that report. Hmmm! I guess it was just an "innocent omission" by someone with no affiliation with "pseudo-Yale".

    I even noted the "innocent error" of switching the fact the report had Wales above Oxford.
    This might be off-topic but I wanted to clarify why I consider this survey more pertinent:

    It does not say Wales is "better" than Oxford or Cambridge. It just says that they are usually considered more often as a top 5 program by the particular participants of these survey. Whether Oxford is considered better or not is not a analytical interpretation of the results. But due to the gap in percentage, I think its a bit clear that Wales might be the better school for IR.

    The ranking I put down was in no particular order that was why they were not numbered. the ranking was made in 2007 prior to Wales separation from Abe

    I was trying to point out that only goal is to work in IR or proceed to IR academia. KCL or Warwick are indistinguishable. The OP has already made his choice anyways which was KCL, but I personally think either schools would have been ok, boiling down to if he wants to live in coventry or london for 3 years.

    The 66 is about the best school for doing a PhD which is irrelevant to the poster and this thread. That is what I read and understood, don't know if what you read and comprehended might be different.

    The ranking is "brilliant" because it provided some context for who is being surveyed providing their undergraduate distribution, doctoral distribution, countries, where they have worked and consulted, and what type of IR theory that they are predisposed towards. Also hard data is provided.

    The OP or anyone considering IR is free to interpret, but should only used this as a context, not as an absolute claim that Warwick is better than KCL for IR.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ABEngineer)
    This might be off-topic but I wanted to clarify why I consider this survey more pertinent:

    It does not say Wales is "better" than Oxford or Cambridge. It just says that they are usually considered more often as a top 5 program by the particular participants of these survey. Whether Oxford is considered better or not is not a analytical interpretation of the results. But due to the gap in percentage, I think its a bit clear that Wales might be the better school for IR. The ranking was in no particular order that was why they were not numbered. That is if your only goal is to work in IR or proceed to IR academia.

    The 66 is about the best school for doing a PhD which is irrelevant to the poster and this thread. That is what I read and understood, don't know if what you read and comprehended might be different.

    The ranking is "brilliant" because it provided some context for who is being surveyed providing their undergraduate distribution, doctoral distribution, countries, where they have worked and consulted, and what type of IR theory that they are predisposed towards. Also hard data is provided.

    The OP or anyone considering IR is free to interpret, but should only used this as a context, not as an absolute claim that Warwick is better than KCL for IR.
    I want to know why it uses Wales, when Aber has been independent since 2007. But to go into that would be off topic.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't you just lock the thread, considering that the OP has already made his/her decision. That combined with the fact that LutherVan is a **** means that this thread will go nowhere from now on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ^I just found out that everyone in a previous thread told him exactly the same thing I just told him. I feel like an idiot for even wasting time on all those previous posts. And I was already feeling guilty about my harshness

    Yeah this thread has lost its applicability. I am outta here
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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

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