Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Physics and Maths: Warwick or UCL ? watch

  • View Poll Results: Warwick vs UCL: Physics and Maths
    Warwick
    21
    65.63%
    UCL
    11
    34.38%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi!... can't decide between UCL or Warwick for phycics and maths... i understand warwick is better for maths and UCL is better overall... but UCL seems more attractive to me at the minute...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tanmaya)
    Hi!... can't decide between UCL or Warwick for phycics and maths... i understand warwick is better for maths and UCL is better overall... but UCL seems more attractive to me at the minute...
    Why is UCL "better overall"? UCL is strong in economics, law, philosophy, classics, architecture and is quite good in a few other areas. See

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...HE_RESULTS.pdf

    In maths and physics it is awful (maths) and moderately good (physics). Even employers might work out that you are not graduating in its strengths.

    Warwick is so far ahead in terms of maths - and employers such as banks know this - that there is really no question. Or if you are in it for the intellectual ride, the same conclusion is appropriate.

    People have heard Malcolm Grant saying UCL is a "world class university" too many times and not realised the facts do not agree with this - except in its strengths listed above.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have the same dillema. I hold offers from UCL for maths and for MORSE from Warwick. Anyone able to help me out here?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rscrsc)
    Why is UCL "better overall"? UCL is strong in economics, law, philosophy, classics, architecture and is quite good in a few other areas. See

    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...HE_RESULTS.pdf

    In maths and physics it is awful (maths) and moderately good (physics). Even employers might work out that you are not graduating in its strengths.

    Warwick is so far ahead in terms of maths - and employers such as banks know this - that there is really no question. Or if you are in it for the intellectual ride, the same conclusion is appropriate.

    People have heard Malcolm Grant saying UCL is a "world class university" too many times and not realised the facts do not agree with this - except in its strengths listed above.
    well ,according to your link not only is it 3 years out of date , Lancaster is rated higher in physics than oxford , and liverpool is rated higher in physics than oxford .
    So I wouldnt ,use them to make an informed decision.


    Edit : Imperial ,Warwick ,Oxford>Cambridge in Pure mathematics .LOL
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rbnphlp)
    well ,according to your link not only is it 3 years out of date , Lancaster is rated higher in physics than oxford , and liverpool is rated higher in physics than oxford .
    So I wouldnt ,use them to make an informed decision.


    Edit : Imperial ,Warwick ,Oxford>Cambridge in Pure mathematics .LOL

    What would *you* use to make an informed decision?

    The academic world uses the RAE, run every five - seven years. I'm sure they look forward to hearing your insight.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rscrsc)
    What would *you* use to make an informed decision?

    The academic world uses the RAE, run every five - seven years. I'm sure they look forward to hearing your insight.
    This
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    I have the same dillema. I hold offers from UCL for maths and for MORSE from Warwick. Anyone able to help me out here?
    :blow: UCL! UCL! :elefant:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unbounded)
    For an undergraduate degree, using RAE to distinguish between Cambridge/Oxford/Warwick etc seems a bit pointless don't you think?
    It tells you something of the ability of the people teaching you, and often the departments towards the bottom have not changed balance as the subject develops. Eg in physics that was part of the panel feedback (about the whole subject) at the last RAE. Eg look in section "Specific Observations by Sub-panel 19" page 3 of the report on UOA19 (Physics) in the zipped file link

    http://www.rae.ac.uk/pubs/2009/ov/MainPanelE.zip

    That lack of motion with the subject can have a deleterious effect on the undergraduate teaching in the later years of the degree.

    In terms of quantifiable variables, by entry standards, employability and NSS Warwick Maths has better scores than UCL.

    At least a prejudice for UCL does not defy rationality to the extent a prejudice for KCL does.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, the Warwick program is more prestigious. MORSE is one of the most oversubscribed at Warwick and is very well-regarded by top employers in the city. UCL has good physics program but it isn't strong for maths.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unbounded)
    For an undergraduate degree, using RAE to distinguish between Cambridge/Oxford/Warwick etc seems a bit pointless don't you think?
    I wouldn't say that the lecturers research ability is totally irrelevant to an undergraduate degree. For example, for one of my courses we built up theory to prove a theorem over the course of many weeks. A few weeks later the lecturer told us that a new paper had been published with an elementary proof of this theorem- then we were shown this new proof. If the lecturer weren't working in the field then they would be less likely to see that new proof. Similarly, a different third year course has some theorems that are dated 2009, so some very recent maths. Again, if the university did less research you'd be less likely to see that in an undergraduate degree.

    A final example is a fourth year course. The module changed between years because the department wanted to run a seminar related to part of that module.

    For incoming undergraduates it's a bit pointless to distinguish between those universities based on RAE though : they're all good at some research areas and weaker at others and people will have no idea of what they're interested in before university.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalNumber)
    I wouldn't say that the lecturers research ability is totally irrelevant to an undergraduate degree. For example, for one of my courses we built up theory to prove a theorem over the course of many weeks. A few weeks later the lecturer told us that a new paper had been published with an elementary proof of this theorem- then we were shown this new proof. If the lecturer weren't working in the field then they would be less likely to see that new proof. Similarly, a different third year course has some theorems that are dated 2009, so some very recent maths. Again, if the university did less research you'd be less likely to see that in an undergraduate degree.

    A final example is a fourth year course. The module changed between years because the department wanted to run a seminar related to part of that module.

    For incoming undergraduates it's a bit pointless to distinguish between those universities based on RAE though : they're all good at some research areas and weaker at others and people will have no idea of what they're interested in before university.
    But the average will tell you something?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    I have the same dillema. I hold offers from UCL for maths and for MORSE from Warwick. Anyone able to help me out here?
    mate pick MORSE, its stronger than UCL maths IMO.

    if you don't like MORSE in your first year you can switch to pure maths, granted you take the extra mathematics modules.

    UCL doesn't cut it when it comes to pure maths... remember COWI

    for maths and physics, i have no idea lol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rbnphlp)
    well ,according to your link not only is it 3 years out of date , Lancaster is rated higher in physics than oxford , and liverpool is rated higher in physics than oxford .
    So I wouldnt ,use them to make an informed decision.


    Edit : Imperial ,Warwick ,Oxford>Cambridge in Pure mathematics .LOL
    yeah the league tables are messed up..
    flip that inequality sign, then you have a correct statement
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I smell like maths)
    mate pick MORSE, its stronger than UCL maths IMO.

    if you don't like MORSE in your first year you can switch to pure maths, granted you take the extra mathematics modules.

    UCL doesn't cut it when it comes to pure maths... remember COWI

    for maths and physics, i have no idea lol.
    Not to speak on his behalf but he knows that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are the Physics, or Maths/Physics courses really so different in quality at a 'good' Uni, give IOP accreditation? Know Warwick has a longstanding rep for high quality Maths courses, but the joint course is based in the Physics Dept anyway . . .


    Similar decision to address WArwick or Lancaster for Maths/Phys?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 26, 2011
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.