Warwick University or Kings College London
Scroll to see replies
Warwick > King's
Original post by Abdul-Karim
Warwick > King's
It very much depends on the course though.
Original post by *Stefan*
It very much depends on the course though.
nah, Warwick all the way
Original post by Mr. Roxas
You're again mistaken, idiot.
As evidenced above, even when a uni has an overall higher rank, the subject ranking could differ widely.
Consider this case for instance.
Overall ranking of King's College is 7
Overall ranking of Warwick is 8. (Only one place behind. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/ref-2014-results-table-of-excellence/2017590.article)
However, when you look at the table on a per subject basis, only in 4 areas where King's stood superior to Warwick: medicine, law, education and sociology. All the rest favors Warwick.
Therefore, to conclude that "overall, for all subjects, KCL is better than Warwick" is nothing less than an idiotic conclusion.
As evidenced above, even when a uni has an overall higher rank, the subject ranking could differ widely.
Consider this case for instance.
Overall ranking of King's College is 7
Overall ranking of Warwick is 8. (Only one place behind. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/ref-2014-results-table-of-excellence/2017590.article)
However, when you look at the table on a per subject basis, only in 4 areas where King's stood superior to Warwick: medicine, law, education and sociology. All the rest favors Warwick.
Therefore, to conclude that "overall, for all subjects, KCL is better than Warwick" is nothing less than an idiotic conclusion.
Again, you lie!!!
KCL was superior to Warwick in:
- Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience
- Biological Sciences
- Politics and International Studies
- Modern Languages and Linguistics
- History
- Classics
YOU ARE A LIAR!
Of the 17 areas KCL and Warwick both offer subjects, hence went head to head in REF assesments, KCL was better in 10 areas.
So why are you lying?
The only places where Warwick was better than KCL where in fields KCL did not focus on, hence smaller teams. That said, in virtually all of them (excluding quantitative ones), KCL ranked higher for the quality of research (i.e. when number of research is not factored in). This, plus the superiority in more fields, is why KCL ranked higher than Warwick in the REF tables and the government is giving it double the money it gave Warwick. The government are not stupid.
What is your next lie?
Original post by Abdul-Karim
nah, Warwick all the way
Well... Nah!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Abdul-Karim
Warwick > King's
Why Warwick over KCL?
Original post by Broscientist
I was talking about Warwick's CS department. When it comes to employment... It is common knowledge that Warwick is a top-targeted university. Not only is it common knowledge, but the High Fliers Research proves this year after year. This is no coincidence... The opinions of the top employers speak volumes, no one can argue with their preference - it is them who are offering employment and it is them who target specific universities. KCL is definitely respected among employers, it does make it in the ranking.
Why are people so fanatic when it comes to debating about universities? It is almost as if one is dealing with cult members, not students.
And speaking of the data being "geographically dependent and skewed" it is the London universities who have the biggest advantage in this regard. All of the top employers are practically at their doorstep. Now when a university outside London manages to generate so much attention from employers, that is definitely something worth noting.
Why are people so fanatic when it comes to debating about universities? It is almost as if one is dealing with cult members, not students.
And speaking of the data being "geographically dependent and skewed" it is the London universities who have the biggest advantage in this regard. All of the top employers are practically at their doorstep. Now when a university outside London manages to generate so much attention from employers, that is definitely something worth noting.
This.
But I've already said this to this lowly guy from India who hasn't actually been to the UK, and strangely enough, he's not listening. He just doesn't listen to anyone. He's here to argue and fight with everyone at whatever cost. I'm sure he will just dismiss your brilliant post above just as he did to everyone who argued with him and presented the same facts to him. He is unbelievably stubborn, and he lurks on and goes around all threads and argue with people. He will call you lier if you happen to not agree with him. I'll bet he'll do that you too, if you continue to argue with him.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Hey idiot, listen.
King's isn't an overall superior research university to Warwick. It only has a superior research compared to Warwick in 4 areas: Medicine, Law, Education and Sociology.
An OVERALL quality couldn't be determined by the data provided. King's College appeared to outrank Warwick overall due largely to the big volume accounted for medicine and law. I already conceded that when one is aiming to go to medical school, King's would be the better option, as King's medicine dept is stronger and more established. But just because King's has a stronger department it would automatically be the better university for all subject areas. NO! You have to look at the department separately. You cannot say just because St Andrews has a much stronger IR program and it pulled all the other departments up when assessed as a whole, you can honestly then say that St Andrews is superior to LSE overall. That's not a very well thought-out advice.
Additionally, for some graduate and postgraduate fields, King's can also claim to be stronger than Warwick. I did not argue with you on that part. However, for undergraduate education in general, the quality of the undergraduate student body, the opportunities to get employed by top companies, better college experience, facilities and so on, Warwick is superior to King's. The relevant data would support this claim.
The problem with idiots like you is you do not read and understand what the people are saying.
Again, the Times Rep Ranking doesn't mean much for choosing an undergraduate university. That ranking means more to those who are seeking for postgrad education.
We've given you facts. But you dismissed everything. That's how screwed and a poor debater you are.
King's isn't an overall superior research university to Warwick. It only has a superior research compared to Warwick in 4 areas: Medicine, Law, Education and Sociology.
An OVERALL quality couldn't be determined by the data provided. King's College appeared to outrank Warwick overall due largely to the big volume accounted for medicine and law. I already conceded that when one is aiming to go to medical school, King's would be the better option, as King's medicine dept is stronger and more established. But just because King's has a stronger department it would automatically be the better university for all subject areas. NO! You have to look at the department separately. You cannot say just because St Andrews has a much stronger IR program and it pulled all the other departments up when assessed as a whole, you can honestly then say that St Andrews is superior to LSE overall. That's not a very well thought-out advice.
Additionally, for some graduate and postgraduate fields, King's can also claim to be stronger than Warwick. I did not argue with you on that part. However, for undergraduate education in general, the quality of the undergraduate student body, the opportunities to get employed by top companies, better college experience, facilities and so on, Warwick is superior to King's. The relevant data would support this claim.
The problem with idiots like you is you do not read and understand what the people are saying.
Again, the Times Rep Ranking doesn't mean much for choosing an undergraduate university. That ranking means more to those who are seeking for postgrad education.
We've given you facts. But you dismissed everything. That's how screwed and a poor debater you are.
Stop making rubbish claims and excuses.
KCL is a superior research university that is why the government gives it more money, it has more postgraduates, it produces higher quality research and it has a superior reputation with academics.
Analysing the REF results shows KCL was better than Warwick in ALL measures, no matter how you analyse it.
It was better in regards to research power, the proportion that was of high quality, the volume of work submitted or using GPA
http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/10#30102674
You have not given me facts. You have tried to give me lies hoping I would not check. You miscalculated your lying strategy.
Guys, you're making things unnecessarily complicated. Both universities are equally respected, but each is stronger in some subject areas than the other.
I'd argue that Law, history,classics etc are better at Kings, whilst Economics, maths and management are better at Warwick. No need to go ballistic over minor differences here and there.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I'd argue that Law, history,classics etc are better at Kings, whilst Economics, maths and management are better at Warwick. No need to go ballistic over minor differences here and there.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Gotta love how much people quote research when OP did never say that he would be pursuing a job in academia. The things that most likely matter to him are employment prospects for his particular department and what the modules are. Plus potential opportunities to do summer internships. Stop the research worship. Now.
Original post by Broscientist
I was talking about Warwick's CS department. When it comes to employment... It is common knowledge that Warwick is a top-targeted university. Not only is it common knowledge, but the High Fliers Research proves this year after year. This is no coincidence... The opinions of the top employers speak volumes, no one can argue with their preference - it is them who are offering employment and it is them who target specific universities. KCL is definitely respected among employers, it does make it in the ranking.
Why are people so fanatic when it comes to debating about universities? It is almost as if one is dealing with cult members, not students.
Why are people so fanatic when it comes to debating about universities? It is almost as if one is dealing with cult members, not students.
Then, how come it has lower employment statistics and average starting salaries?
Original post by Broscientist
And speaking of the data being "geographically dependent and skewed" it is the London universities who have the biggest advantage in this regard. All of the top employers are practically at their doorstep. Now when a university outside London manages to generate so much attention from employers, that is definitely something worth noting.
And speaking of the data being "geographically dependent and skewed" it is the London universities who have the biggest advantage in this regard. All of the top employers are practically at their doorstep. Now when a university outside London manages to generate so much attention from employers, that is definitely something worth noting.
This is wrong for the following reasons:
- There are more universities employers have to split their visits across in London.
- They sometimes have a none campus-based recruitment session in big halls for London-based students, rather than visit uiversities individually, as this is cheaper and can spread wider. This is not reflected by High Fliers.
- Or they even have the events in their offices in London and invite the London students through application, something only few can do outside London because they don't have the offices, so they do campus visit. This is not reflected by High Fliers.
This is why Imperial, LSE, UCL and KCL do not rank that highly in your High Flier table, and Manchester, Leeds, Warwick, Sheffield do. The most reputable universities in major cities outside London are likely to rank high in the High Flier tables by virtue of geograhical spread the companies aim for.
The High Fliers table is practically rubbish for assessing employability. They show you how businesses spend their recruitment budget, not how they recruit. There are existing data for employing employability and I have shown you them.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Juichiro
Gotta love how much people quote research when OP did never say that he would be pursuing a job in academia. The things that most likely matter to him are employment prospects for his particular department and what the modules are. Plus potential opportunities to do summer internships. Stop the research worship. Now.
For employment prospects, he should pick KCL as it is superior to Warwick.
KCL Computer Science students earn on average £30K after graduation compared to the £27K Warwick CS graduates earn.
Also 92% of KCL CS students are in employment or further education after 6 months compared to 90% of Warwick CS students.
That is evidence that KCL provides better employment prospects even at CS subject level.
That said, if I was OP, I would ignore all that and choose Warwick.
Why?
Because it has a stronger CS department and it would give me a campus-based university life at lower cost. These are things KCL cannot give me.
Original post by LutherVan
For employment prospects, he should pick KCL as it is superior to Warwick.
KCL Computer Science students earn on average £30K after graduation compared to the £27K Warwick CS graduates earn.
Also 92% of KCL CS students are in employment or further education after 6 months compared to 90% of Warwick CS students.
That is evidence that KCL provides better employment prospects even at CS subject level.
That said, if I was OP, I would ignore all that and choose Warwick.
Why?
Because it has a stronger CS department and it would give me a campus-based university life at lower cost. These are things KCL cannot give me.
KCL Computer Science students earn on average £30K after graduation compared to the £27K Warwick CS graduates earn.
Also 92% of KCL CS students are in employment or further education after 6 months compared to 90% of Warwick CS students.
That is evidence that KCL provides better employment prospects even at CS subject level.
That said, if I was OP, I would ignore all that and choose Warwick.
Why?
Because it has a stronger CS department and it would give me a campus-based university life at lower cost. These are things KCL cannot give me.
hahahaha... You are one hilarious crazy Indian guy! lol...
Original post by Mr. Roxas
He hasn't attended a top UK university.
Have you attended one tho?
Original post by Mr. Roxas
But it is in a league below the top London U's. It's a dumping ground for those who do not have the stats to get into UCL, LSE and Imperial. Warwick doesn't have that stigma.
This doesn't really work as an argument because it's very well that people who couldn't get into UCL, LSE, or Imperial might not even want to consider Warwick.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Have you attended one tho?
Well I have. Luther Van hasn't.
This doesn't really work as an argument because it's very well that people who couldn't get into UCL, LSE, or Imperial might not even want to consider Warwick.
Do you have proof for this?
Those 3 unis often compete with Warwick. If you care to read the many threads opened on this forum you'll see many students asking which to firm between Warwick and UCL for economics, law, English, chemistry -- or -- between Warwick and Imperial for maths (of MOSRSE of Warwick), physics -- or between LSE and Warwick for Management, PPE, maths, finance and so on.
When I was choosing a university to attend back in my time, I was choosing between Warwick and LSE for management, and I finally decided to go to Warwick as I was more impressed with the student body, and I like the fact that it has a real campus set-up, something that I envisioned in a university. I also liked it that it's housed in a world-class business school.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Well I have. Luther Van hasn't.
Warwick is not top. I don't think anything outside of Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, and UCL is top; and internationally, I don't think anyone considers the last two top either.
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Do you have proof for this?
Those 3 unis often compete with Warwick. If you care to read the many threads opened on this forum you'll see many students asking which to firm between Warwick and UCL for economics, law, English, chemistry -- or -- between Warwick and Imperial for maths (of MOSRSE of Warwick), physics -- or between LSE and Warwick for Management, PPE, maths, finance and so on.
When I was choosing a university to attend back in my time, I was choosing between Warwick and LSE for management, and I finally decided to go to Warwick as I was more impressed with the student body, and I like the fact that it has a real campus set-up, something that I envisioned in a university. I also liked it that it's housed in a world-class business school.
Those 3 unis often compete with Warwick. If you care to read the many threads opened on this forum you'll see many students asking which to firm between Warwick and UCL for economics, law, English, chemistry -- or -- between Warwick and Imperial for maths (of MOSRSE of Warwick), physics -- or between LSE and Warwick for Management, PPE, maths, finance and so on.
When I was choosing a university to attend back in my time, I was choosing between Warwick and LSE for management, and I finally decided to go to Warwick as I was more impressed with the student body, and I like the fact that it has a real campus set-up, something that I envisioned in a university. I also liked it that it's housed in a world-class business school.
First of all, I'm just illustrating how your argument doesn't work. You were arguing that just by virtue of being somewhere where UCL/LSE/Imp rejects go to, KCL is worse than Warwick. But UCL, Imp, Durham, and probably LSE are also where Oxbridge rejects go to, and that does't make them inferior to Warwick.
Warwick has an average entry tariff of 509.6 and 12,979 undergraduates enrolled, whilst KCL has 469.7 with 14,997 undergrads. So it's 6614098.4 and 7044090.9. Not a big difference between the two at all, and if anything, KCL might be slightly better.
Very entertaining stuff.
If you want the short version: Warwick has a slightly higher rated computer science department than KCL , but KCL has slightly better employment opportunities, especially for international students as KCL has a better reputation overseas. The real choice therefore is between Coventry and London as places to live. Warwick has a small self-contained campus, where you will know everyone very well and constantly bump into them. KCL is in London, where as soon as you stop living in halls you can be very spread out and will not necessarily bump into people you know as much. On the other hand, London contains the vast majority of IT jobs, various inter-university IT events, and tbh I don't really see the problem with it not having a tiny self-contained campus.
If you want the short version: Warwick has a slightly higher rated computer science department than KCL , but KCL has slightly better employment opportunities, especially for international students as KCL has a better reputation overseas. The real choice therefore is between Coventry and London as places to live. Warwick has a small self-contained campus, where you will know everyone very well and constantly bump into them. KCL is in London, where as soon as you stop living in halls you can be very spread out and will not necessarily bump into people you know as much. On the other hand, London contains the vast majority of IT jobs, various inter-university IT events, and tbh I don't really see the problem with it not having a tiny self-contained campus.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Warwick is not top. I don't think anything outside of Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, and UCL is top; and internationally, I don't think anyone considers the last two top either.
Well, that is entirely just your personal opinion.
But relative to UK standards, the actual list could go longer than yours. Again, relative to UK standards, Warwick, St Andrews, Durham and Bristol are also considered "top universities". But let's not fight over that.
First of all, I'm just illustrating how your argument doesn't work. You were arguing that just by virtue of being somewhere where UCL/LSE/Imp rejects go to, KCL is worse than Warwick. But UCL, Imp, Durham, and probably LSE are also where Oxbridge rejects go to, and that does't make them inferior to Warwick.
That's not what I meant. You deduced it to that.
I only said that when one is accepted to both LSE and King's, he would almost automatically choose LSE. King's doesn't have a compelling reason to win the cross-admitted students against LSE. It has that stigma.
Warwick, on the other hand, could come up with several legitimate reasons to fight for the cross-admitted students. I would surmise LSE wins most of the time. But the win isn't going to be easy and automatic. In my class alone 3 other guys have LSE offers. And, I know 5 more students back then who all were from the same floor who had an LSE offer too but chose Warwick to read Maths, MORSE and CS. You won't see or meet that many students students at King's.
Warwick has an average entry tariff of 509.6 and 12,979 undergraduates enrolled, whilst KCL has 469.7 with 14,997 undergrads. So it's 6614098.4 and 7044090.9. Not a big difference between the two at all, and if anything, KCL might be slightly better.
That's a noticeable and considerable lead for me. And when you take the stats of the med students out from the average, the average entry tariff of King's would drop even further.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Warwick is not top. I don't think anything outside of Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, and UCL is top; and internationally, I don't think anyone considers the last two top either.
[video="youtube;zBkuNpgACH0"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkuNpgACH0[/video]
Ok, this is enough TSR for today. The snobbery on this forum is absolutely ridiculous sometimes.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Warwick is not top. I don't think anything outside of Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, and UCL is top; and internationally, I don't think anyone considers the last two top either.
First of all, I'm just illustrating how your argument doesn't work. You were arguing that just by virtue of being somewhere where UCL/LSE/Imp rejects go to, KCL is worse than Warwick. But UCL, Imp, Durham, and probably LSE are also where Oxbridge rejects go to, and that does't make them inferior to Warwick.
Warwick has an average entry tariff of 509.6 and 12,979 undergraduates enrolled, whilst KCL has 469.7 with 14,997 undergrads. So it's 6614098.4 and 7044090.9. Not a big difference between the two at all, and if anything, KCL might be slightly better.
First of all, I'm just illustrating how your argument doesn't work. You were arguing that just by virtue of being somewhere where UCL/LSE/Imp rejects go to, KCL is worse than Warwick. But UCL, Imp, Durham, and probably LSE are also where Oxbridge rejects go to, and that does't make them inferior to Warwick.
Warwick has an average entry tariff of 509.6 and 12,979 undergraduates enrolled, whilst KCL has 469.7 with 14,997 undergrads. So it's 6614098.4 and 7044090.9. Not a big difference between the two at all, and if anything, KCL might be slightly better.
And the main reason for this difference is KCL's large Nursing school.
Of those 14,997 undergrads, about 14-16% of them are nursing undergrads. That is about 1 in 6.
Nursing entry grades are normally not elite. They are Bs and Cs, and that is not something a university can be elite in or close down as the government sees the supply as vital to political policies.
That is a legacy disadvantage KCL will have if one only looks at average entry grades and mistakenly think that shows it does not have higher quality students.
If the nursing school is not factored into average entry grades, KCL and Warwick's average entry grades would be virtually the same.
So it is not as if Warwick is attracting better quality students.
As a matter of fact, more wealthy and privileged kids (i.e. private school kids and kids from wealthy families) select KCL over Warwick.
http://www.nairaland.com/141689/rough-guide-best-most-reputable/8#10451429
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Selecting a university
- Would you rather attend...?
- Best University for Computer Science accepting BTEC/CTEC?
- What is the chance of me getting into Unis?
- Where should i go KCL or Warwick for engineering?
- Law Application Choices
- I want to resit one of my A-level
- PPE at Warwick vs. Manchester
- Are my chances of getting in a top Uni for Computer Science good?
- Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentages
- Do I have a shot at applying to UCL/KCL for Economics?
- Kings college or Bristol
- What uni should I go if want russell group but not math heavy
- So much disdain for King's College London on student forums?
- Are any London Universities ex-polys?
- uni choices help
- biochemistry offers 2023
- Graduate Entry Medicine Application BSc 2:2
- University Freshers Threads 2023 *Official Thread*
- Chances of getting into King’s College London? - GCSE RESULTS DAY
Latest
Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
Hello .. I am looking for computer science program BSc/BEng 2024 entryLast reply 3 weeks ago
What A-Levels should i do if i wanna do a Bsc in Computer ScienceLast reply 4 weeks ago
Correlation between performance in UKMT and performance in TMUA/STEP?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Do top universities allow just 3 A levels including Further Maths?Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
Hello .. I am looking for computer science program BSc/BEng 2024 entryLast reply 3 weeks ago
What A-Levels should i do if i wanna do a Bsc in Computer ScienceLast reply 4 weeks ago
Correlation between performance in UKMT and performance in TMUA/STEP?Last reply 4 weeks ago
Do top universities allow just 3 A levels including Further Maths?
