UCL or Warwick ???

Internationally UCL is quite rightly better than Warwick, and I wouldn't only put it down to the fact it's in London.

Warwick is a great uni but doesn't compare to UCL in terms of general prestige from what I've seen, bar some select fields such as finance.

Coventry is ****.

Wouldn't say there's any difference between Warwick and UCL econ.

On a side note most ppl here who big up Warwick are Warwick students or offer-holders.

Internationally UCL is quite rightly better than Warwick, and I wouldn't only put it down to the fact it's in London.

Warwick is a great uni but doesn't compare to UCL in terms of general prestige from what I've seen, bar some select fields such as finance.

Coventry is ****.

Wouldn't say there's any difference between Warwick and UCL econ.

On a side note most ppl here who big up Warwick are Warwick students or offer-holders.

Wired

well said

But one thing about firm and ins

my son applied for
Cam/LSE/UCL/WARWICJ/BATH

All of them require A* A A

My son has firmed LSE and insured UCL

His subjects are
Maths FM Econ and History

lse only requires pass in FM

so if my sin gets A in hostory he will go to LSE as he already has early A* in maths and Econ he will def get A
So if he gets B in history and A in FM
then it will be UCL

He did not have much choice

he did not apply to any UNI which rewuires 3 A

Hello.

If I may ask, why did your son not select Cambridge? If he wanted to go to the "best" university for Economics, then I think Cambridge would have been better.

I am not an Economist, but the tables and discussing with people, it seems that Cambridge carries the crown of being the best school for Economics. Besides that, it is Cambridge.

If there were other factors such as location, comfort and so on, then it is okay; but head to head, I think that Cambridge is Cambridge.

He did not get Cambridge
Sorry did not mention that in my earlier post
They replied back saying Econ was highly competitive

Why is there a parent speaking on behalf of their child, that is so embarrassing and sad.

The world rankings are blind, they're based on where international students are most likely to go. Warwick and UCL are the same, even though Warwick is always above UCL.

Such a convenient way to just disregard rankings you personally don't agree with.

QS counts international students as like 5% of the overall scores, yet UCL and Warwick are like 50 spots apart.

Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

UCL ranks No 15 on international students with 100 marks; Warwick ranks No 35 with 98.1 marks.

Overall UCL is No 5 with 99.2 and Warwick is 61 with 78.1.

So what exactly led to the differences between the two in this global ranking?

Academic Reputation (40%): UCL is No 15 with 99.9 and Warw is No 66 with 91.2.

Employer Reputation (10%): UCL is No 22 with 99.4 and Warw is No 15 with 99.9.

Faculty student (ratio) (20%): UCL is No 35 with 99 and Warw is No 277 with 55.4.

International faculty (5%): UCL is No 59 with 96.8 and Warw is No 130 with 86.9.

The answer is clear: It has nothing, or very little with the number or diversity of international students the universities have.

Warwick is ranked significantly lower than UCL does mostly because they have a poor faculty-to-student ratio and a poorer academic reputation. They also struggle with attractive overseas academics but the difference is nowhere near significant enough with the scores it contributes to the ranking.

domestically there is little to no difference whatsoever in reputation, internationally you are completely correct.

Although it is interesting to note that Warwick does rank better in terms of employer reputation, contrary to what has been assumed.

Though of course we will also have to consider the fact that UCL has a much bigger undergraduate population and thus may have been dragged down because of that, and I'm not sure how QS calculates the score for this particular aspect (by employment rate? Graduate income?).