gkswltn97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Hi people im currently in A2

Recently im worried about my unis cause i dont like the universities that i got offers at this moment
(Queen Mary, UEA, Reading for A&F)
so im considering to do adjustment to Warwick n KCL

Right now im considering two subjects to do adjustment

Economics or A&F in Warwick

vs

KCL Economics & Management

or

Computer Science (pure or combined any) in Warwick

vs

Computer Science (pure or combined) in KCL

which major will be better n which uni will be better to be employed or go to masters?
0
reply
thstudent
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Cambridge
15
reply
Chr0n
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
Warwick for economics is very strong.
I don't know about KCL. I always thought it was good for law, but for mostly everything else just benefitted from the University of London brand.
4
reply
Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Oh god, this is going to be swarmed by LutherVan and Mr. Roxas now.. OP, prepare yourself.

Posted from TSR Mobile
5
reply
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
I'm going for Warwick on this one, those subjects fit exactly into Warwick's strengths so I would probably lean towards Warwick especially since you are also a home student.
1
reply
gkswltn97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Okorange)
I'm going for Warwick on this one, those subjects fit exactly into Warwick's strengths so I would probably lean towards Warwick especially since you are also a home student.
What about work placement? KCL has more name value as far as I know...
Im thinking to go form FX or business consultant or stock manager, financial world
2
reply
Okorange
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by gkswltn97)
What about work placement? KCL has more name value as far as I know...
Im thinking to go form FX or business consultant or stock manager, financial world
Warwick has a great name in the financial world, so I don't think it matters. Unless you mean KCL has some sort of work placement scheme that Warwick does not, then KCL would have the advantage there.
1
reply
Mr. Roxas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Warwick is the clear winner here. Those programmes you're interested in are some of Warwick's strongest.


Warwick is one of the top 6 "feeder schools" in the UK to top banks/management consulting firms and financial institutions. It competes, head-to-head, and toe-to-toe with UCL, LSE and Oxbridge in those areas, in terms of recruitment.

Don't worry about Warwick's location. Those companies visit Warwick regularly, and mostly, students sign in on campus.

King's is also good. But, by and large, it is not in the league of Warwick to the sight of the top employers. King's forte is in medicine and programmes allied to medicine.

Good luck on your choices.
0
reply
golden tribe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
KCL I think top 30 in the world rankings, bigger name, more prestigious but warwick has better degree in economics. I would have to say kcl
8
reply
tehforum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
Warwick without a doubt
2
reply
Mr. Roxas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by golden tribe)
KCL I think top 30 in the world rankings, bigger name, more prestigious but warwick has better degree in economics. I would have to say kcl
That is true King's College ranked higher in global ranking. But most people in-the-know don't pay attention to global rankings. For example, British students looking for the top school in the US refer to the US News & World Report's best undergraduate universities. Most British don't scan what the Times' global rankign says because it doesn't say the truth about the best schools in the US. The best schools in the US often are the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, and 20 other liberal arts colleges such as Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin, Harvey Mudd, etc.. These are the schools that dominate in the college rankings in the US, yet when you look at the global ranking, a lot of these schools do not appear in the top 100. So, if you'd go for UT-Austin over Williams College simply because the global ranking table ranked Texas-Austin and Williams is unranked, then you are being misguided. In the same way the the Americans refer to local rankings over the Times' global rankings. It's just not right that King's, for instance, is superior to LSE. I doubt if any American or Asian would rather aim for King's over LSE. But the global rankings would tell you that King's is superior to LSE, which losses the credibility of global rankings, and why no one would seriously refer to it as something highly credible and reliable.

Warwick has a world class business school. King's doesn't have a business. WBS is one of the best and most prestigious offering one of the most expensive one-year graduate business degree programmes in the world. Both he Financial times and The Economist ranked WBS in the top 30 in the world. People pay premium for Warwick business degree because it is globally respected, well-connected to the top employers and can command a a fast ROI.

The Warwick name has more clout in the business world. It's a top brand. It's a brand that the top employers would want. King's, however, is barely non-existent in the business community in the UK or worldwide. No one aims to go to King's for business or management or finance. People who are mostly attracted to King's are those who are majoring in medicine, allied medicine, nursing or war studies. Outside of those areas, it cannot compete with Warwick. It's like pushing to compare your Honda Accord to a French-made, Porsche. Yes, they're both cars, but one is obviously superior to the other.

King's is a good university. But choosing it over Warwick for the simple reason that King's has a higher global rank (which mostly was derived from its excellent medical education and war studies) is not a well thought out advice.
4
reply
ItsWhiteHat
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
Warwick's Business School is very good. KCL is a decent university, but for Economics doesn't beat Warwick. My friend got rejected from Warwick for Econ, now she's going KCL.
4
reply
Wahrheit
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
That is true King's College ranked higher in global ranking. But most people in-the-know don't pay attention to global rankings. For example, British students looking for the top school in the US refer to the US News & World Report's best undergraduate universities. Most British don't scan what the Times' global rankign says because it doesn't say the truth about the best schools in the US. The best schools in the US often are the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, and 20 other liberal arts colleges such as Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin, Harvey Mudd, etc.. These are the schools that dominate in the college rankings in the US, yet when you look at the global ranking, a lot of these schools do not appear in the top 100. So, if you'd go for UT-Austin over Williams College simply because the global ranking table ranked Texas-Austin and Williams is unranked, then you are being misguided. In the same way the the Americans refer to local rankings over the Times' global rankings. It's just not right that King's, for instance, is superior to LSE. I doubt if any American or Asian would rather aim for King's over LSE. But the global rankings would tell you that King's is superior to LSE, which losses the credibility of global rankings, and why no one would seriously refer to it as something highly credible and reliable.

Warwick has a world class business school. King's doesn't have a business. WBS is one of the best and most prestigious offering one of the most expensive one-year graduate business degree programmes in the world. Both he Financial times and The Economist ranked WBS in the top 30 in the world. People pay premium for Warwick business degree because it is globally respected, well-connected to the top employers and can command a a fast ROI.

The Warwick name has more clout in the business world. It's a top brand. It's a brand that the top employers would want. King's, however, is barely non-existent in the business community in the UK or worldwide. No one aims to go to King's for business or management or finance. People who are mostly attracted to King's are those who are majoring in medicine, allied medicine, nursing or war studies. Outside of those areas, it cannot compete with Warwick. It's like pushing to compare your Honda Accord to a French-made, Porsche. Yes, they're both cars, but one is obviously superior to the other.

King's is a good university. But choosing it over Warwick for the simple reason that King's has a higher global rank (which mostly was derived from its excellent medical education and war studies) is not a well thought out advice.
You missed out UChicago and UC Berkeley, and probably a few more but I'm just being pedantic
0
reply
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
That is true King's College ranked higher in global ranking. But most people in-the-know don't pay attention to global rankings. For example, British students looking for the top school in the US refer to the US News & World Report's best undergraduate universities. Most British don't scan what the Times' global rankign says because it doesn't say the truth about the best schools in the US. The best schools in the US often are the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, and 20 other liberal arts colleges such as Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, Bowdoin, Harvey Mudd, etc.. These are the schools that dominate in the college rankings in the US, yet when you look at the global ranking, a lot of these schools do not appear in the top 100. So, if you'd go for UT-Austin over Williams College simply because the global ranking table ranked Texas-Austin and Williams is unranked, then you are being misguided. In the same way the the Americans refer to local rankings over the Times' global rankings. It's just not right that King's, for instance, is superior to LSE. I doubt if any American or Asian would rather aim for King's over LSE. But the global rankings would tell you that King's is superior to LSE, which losses the credibility of global rankings, and why no one would seriously refer to it as something highly credible and reliable.
Most people in the know do not pay attention?

So how come Marshall Scholars (the elite US students) don't go to Warwick but prefer to go to KCL?

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13802115

Marshall Scholars are not in the know?

So how come big company recruiters, CEOs and Chairment state that KCL is better?

http://emerging.fr/rank_en.html

Business leaders are not in the know?

So how come academics state that KCL is better?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...tation-ranking

Top academics in the top universitities in the world are not in the know?

So even UK government appointed experts who assessed the universities stating KCL is better are not in the know?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...-full-rankings

These experts are not in the know?

So all these group of people don't know which universities are prestigous or better?

So who are the people in the know then? TSR kids or the local people in Coventry?

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
Warwick has a world class business school. King's doesn't have a business. WBS is one of the best and most prestigious offering one of the most expensive one-year graduate business degree programmes in the world. Both he Financial times and The Economist ranked WBS in the top 30 in the world. People pay premium for Warwick business degree because it is globally respected, well-connected to the top employers and can command a a fast ROI.
It is surprising you state no one is interested in international league tables and it has no crediility, then with the other hand, you point to one to state the WBS is "world class".

Amazing!!!

No, WBS is not world class. It is a good business school.

It does not produce top business people like a world class business schools does. Nor does it provide one with a top salary.

At best, maybe a top executive decides to do a degree there part-time because he/she is based in the Midlands. But going to WBS hoping for it to elevate you to great heights will likely end in failure.

I doubt you can name one world class business school that, like WBS, does not produce a MBA employment report. Especially one, as you claimed, that provides a high ROI.

None!

If one does an MBA in Warwick, the returns are not great. So it is not a world class business school, it does not command a fast or top ROI.

(Original post by Mr. Roxas)
The Warwick name has more clout in the business world. It's a top brand. It's a brand that the top employers would want. King's, however, is barely non-existent in the business community in the UK or worldwide. No one aims to go to King's for business or management or finance. People who are mostly attracted to King's are those who are majoring in medicine, allied medicine, nursing or war studies. Outside of those areas, it cannot compete with Warwick. It's like pushing to compare your Honda Accord to a French-made, Porsche. Yes, they're both cars, but one is obviously superior to the other.

King's is a good university. But choosing it over Warwick for the simple reason that King's has a higher global rank (which mostly was derived from its excellent medical education and war studies) is not a well thought out advice
You forgot that KCL is better than Warwick in more subjects than just medicine, allied medicine, nursing or war studies? Including Law, Politics and International Studies, Modern Languages and Linguistics, History, Classics etc?

Stop misleading people on TSR.
4
reply
milkberries
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by LutherVan)
Most people in the know do not pay attention?

So how come Marshall Scholars (the elite US students) don't go to Warwick but prefer to go to KCL?

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13802115

Marshall Scholars are not in the know?

So how come big company recruiters, CEOs and Chairment state that KCL is better?

http://emerging.fr/rank_en.html

Business leaders are not in the know?

So how come academics state that KCL is better?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...tation-ranking

Top academics in the top universitities in the world are not in the know?

So even UK government appointed experts who assessed the universities stating KCL is better are not in the know?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...-full-rankings

These experts are not in the know?

So all these group of people don't know which universities are prestigous or better?

So who are the people in the know then? TSR kids or the local people in Coventry?



It is surprising you state no one is interested in international league tables and it has no crediility, then with the other hand, you point to one to state the WBS is "world class".

Amazing!!!

No, WBS is not world class. It is a good business school.

It does not produce top business people like a world class business schools does. Nor does it provide one with a top salary.

At best, maybe a top executive decides to do a degree there part-time because he/she is based in the Midlands. But going to WBS hoping for it to elevate you to great heights will likely end in failure.

I doubt you can name one world class business school that, like WBS, does not produce a MBA employment report.

None!

If one does an MBA in Warwick, the returns are not great. So it is not a world class business school.



You forgot that KCL is better than Warwick in more subjects than just medicine, allied medicine, nursing or war studies? Including Law, Politics and International Studies, Modern Languages and Linguistics, History, Classics etc?

Stop misleading people on TSR.
Oh my god just stop lol
You guys are just reusing old arguments

Warwick is good for economics/management/politics, while KCL is good for law/medicine/dentistry. End of story.

In this case, the OP is deciding between Economics or CompSci. While I'm not too sure of the two unis' reputation for CompSci, clearly Warwick would be more suitable for Economics. However, this is eventually down to personal preference. If you want a city experience, then choose KCL and if you want a campus experience, then choose Warwick

Woo

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
LutherVan
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by milkberries)
Oh my god just stop lol
You guys are just reusing old arguments

Warwick is good for economics/management/politics, while KCL is good for law/medicine/dentistry. End of story.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Warwick is very good for STEM subjects.

He should just stop misleading to people about its overall prestige. This is a decision that can affect the people for the rest of their lives.

While all the evidence are there, he is not telling people the truth. Picking and choosing when international league tables or REF assessments matter to fit is argument is unacceptable.

(Original post by milkberries)
In this case, the OP is deciding between Economics or CompSci. While I'm not too sure of the two unis' reputation for CompSci, clearly Warwick would be more suitable for Economics. However, this is eventually down to personal preference. If you want a city experience, then choose KCL and if you want a campus experience, then choose Warwick

Woo
For economics or CompSci, i.e. STEM subjects, he should no doubt go to Warwick.
0
reply
ILIGAN
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by golden tribe)
KCL I think top 30 in the world rankings, bigger name, more prestigious but warwick has better degree in economics. I would have to say kcl
I accidentally gave you a positive (+) rep, which was a huge mistake, because I, myself, am not a fan of world rankings.





OnT:

Give my vote to Warwick. It's the better university overall, and has got the better programme for those subject areas. Clear win for Warwick.
1
reply
Mr. Roxas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Wahrheit)
You missed out UChicago and UC Berkeley, and probably a few more but I'm just being pedantic
I unintentionally left out Chicago, Northwestern and Berkeley in the list. I thought I wrote them down first before the other top schools.
Anyways, I wasn't intending to provide a complete of the top schools in the US. I was only giving out a few examples to prove a point. But thank you for spotting that one.
0
reply
Mr. Roxas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
How would you know? What do you know about these things when -- in all honesty -- you have not been educated in one of these universities mentioned.

You cannot understand these things unless you have attended a UK uni. But you have NOT.

Don't you get it? There are things that are profound for you simply because you have not even stepped foot on UK ground, and unless you've been to England or America, only then would these things sink into your mind.

I'm sorry to tell you LutherVan, that, your argument cannot be taken seriously because you do not know what you are talking about.

And, please stop trolling and bashing Warwick. If you won't stop, I will report you to the admin of this forum.





(Original post by LutherVan)
Most people in the know do not pay attention?

So how come Marshall Scholars (the elite US students) don't go to Warwick but prefer to go to KCL?

http://www.nairaland.com/141689/roug...ble/9#13802115

Marshall Scholars are not in the know?

So how come big company recruiters, CEOs and Chairment state that KCL is better?

http://emerging.fr/rank_en.html

Business leaders are not in the know?

So how come academics state that KCL is better?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...tation-ranking

Top academics in the top universitities in the world are not in the know?

So even UK government appointed experts who assessed the universities stating KCL is better are not in the know?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...-full-rankings

These experts are not in the know?

So all these group of people don't know which universities are prestigous or better?

So who are the people in the know then? TSR kids or the local people in Coventry?



It is surprising you state no one is interested in international league tables and it has no crediility, then with the other hand, you point to one to state the WBS is "world class".

Amazing!!!

No, WBS is not world class. It is a good business school.

It does not produce top business people like a world class business schools does. Nor does it provide one with a top salary.

At best, maybe a top executive decides to do a degree there part-time because he/she is based in the Midlands. But going to WBS hoping for it to elevate you to great heights will likely end in failure.

I doubt you can name one world class business school that, like WBS, does not produce a MBA employment report. Especially one, as you claimed, that provides a high ROI.

None!

If one does an MBA in Warwick, the returns are not great. So it is not a world class business school, it does not command a fast or top ROI.



You forgot that KCL is better than Warwick in more subjects than just medicine, allied medicine, nursing or war studies? Including Law, Politics and International Studies, Modern Languages and Linguistics, History, Classics etc?

Stop misleading people on TSR.
0
reply
Mr. Roxas
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
Ladies and gentlemen, please take note that this troll, LutherVan, is a guy from Sierra Leone, Africa, who hasn't studied university in the UK. He even hasn't been to the UK.
He goes around all forums promoting a list of universities he personally likes. He operates an African-based forum, and his existence on TSR is to promote the said forum.

Please ignore him because he is just trolling and flame-baiting.

He has no background about UK education.





(Original post by LutherVan)
Warwick is very good for STEM subjects.

He should just stop misleading to people about its overall prestige. This is a decision that can affect the people for the rest of their lives.

While all the evidence are there, he is not telling people the truth. Picking and choosing when international league tables or REF assessments matter to fit is argument is unacceptable.



For economics or CompSci, i.e. STEM subjects, he should no doubt go to Warwick.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (182)
61.9%
Yes- I don't like it (12)
4.08%
No- I want it (78)
26.53%
No- I don't want it (22)
7.48%

Watched Threads

View All