Why is Warwick so highly regarded by banks when it gives offers to 85% of applicants?

I beg to disagree.

Several programs at Warwick are also demanding and selective, such as, computer science, chemistry, physics, law, economics, politics, the WBS, and a slew of several combinations of those subjects, sich as PPE, PAIS, etc, which in total, would comprise more than half of the whole undergrad student body. Then you have mathematics. And, haven't even counted English Studies and American Studies, which both require A*AA.

The mathetics department at Warwick is big and encompassing. There are numerous programs at Warwick which have maths integration (MMORSE, MORSE, maths & physics, maths & chem, maths plus cs, to name a few), which comprise about a quarter of the whole undergrad student body.

Practically, AAB is the minimum grade that can get you into Warwick, but only onto the least subscribed program, education. Having 500 average UCAS points, that's synonimously having A*AA to A*A*A* students.

Are you at Warwick? Only a current student would talk all that.

You may beg to disagree all you want, nothing will change. Warwick has been in clearing for law the past two years, for example.

And no, it isn't. The UCAS points displayed on rankings are scewed by IB averages and other irrelevant qualifications.

All 'top' universities will have students with much better grades than those stated on their website. Warwick having a few makes no difference to its 'competitiveness'.

But sure, keep talking yourself that all you want

Posted from TSR Mobile

And the other Warwick student above proved you wrong, stating that he's seen students with ABC.

I think for people who click on these type of threads to find an answer, it must be very disheartening that they all descend into either 'my university's bigger than your university' or pages of squabbling by two or three posters about who said exactly what when, which then degenerate into mudslinging and personal insults.

My answer to the OP's question - Warwick is quite 'industry facing' and their courses teach the kind of things employers value. Maybe you could describe them as more 'vocational' than a very academically-focussed course such as you'd find in, say , Oxbridge. Not a definitive answer. Not the only answer. Just my opinion.

O O. The Warwick basher has resurrected, lol...

Ladies and gentlemen, now that Fergo is here, expect insults, trash words and all those rubbish ideas flying out of his foul mouth. This guy is a serious anti-Warwick freak. It's so weird. His hatred towards Warwick is just over-the-top it doesn't look and sound normal anymore.

Dude, if you think you can grind me down by bashing Warwick all the time, you are wrong. You can vilify the school all you want, as it's obvious that's what pleases you. Go ahead. It doesn't matter. Nobody believes you anyway. lol...

You're so focused about discussing petty, trivial, negligible, nonsense stuff. Those students, if it's true that they exist at Warwick, are the outliers not the norms. We're probably talking about 1% of the undergrad student population here, yet here you are blubbering wanting to channel our attention towards that trivial stuff. What a child!
Outlier students exist everywhere. Yes, even at places like Harvard or Chicago or Oxbridge. And, certainly at places which are considered as Warwick's peer unis.

I was given an offer by Warwick the day after I submitted my UCAS application last year. In truth I was very impressed with the engineering course there and the
employer links. I think they give out a lot of offers because they know they are
competing with other good universities for the best students.

I think anyone with a realistic chance of meeting their offer is made one very quickly.
I went to two open days there and was very impressed with the openness of the
tutors. The offer was not far behind Oxbridge (AAA) so to the rubbish the university
is daft. This constant "my uni is more prestigious than yours" gets boring.

The reason I turned Warwick down. The fact it is on a campus and I didn't fancy
living in Leamington or Coventry for three years, that's it. Nothing to do with the
academic content of the degree at att.

.

'Nobody believes' me ahahaha... all you need to do is take a look at the 'most overrated universities' thread here on TSR. Let's see if no one shares the same thoughts as me.

I also take that you're definitely a student there - not surprising.

Hahaha here come the Oxbridge/Harvard comparisons again.

I won't ignore the possibility that they could be just you, given no one hates Warwick on here more than you do, lol...
But seriously speaking, your hatred towards Warwick is just over-the-top. Chill out. You can make a point by not being so nasty. You don't need to be over-insistent and argumentative. You don't need to rub your point off on each and everyone's face who doesn't agree with you. You're making your life stressful when you shouldn't have to. So, chill out. Enjoy life.

I was. But you need to know that I did not attend Warwick for undergrad. So, when the discussion is centered towards the undergrad education, I really don't have a dog in that fight.

You shouldn't take offense when people use those schools for comparison. Those are famous institutions with household names so it's easier for many people to use them as a benchmark of a true successful academic institution. I think they richly deserved that recognition, don't you think?

This could be another reason.
Warwick losses many of those that they've admitted and met the offers, so they have to increase the number of offers as long as the general entry requirements are met. I wouldn't be surprised if Warwick losses to Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, Bristol, Durham, Manchester, Notts and other peer schools for engineering. I would venture even the maths program losses a lot of admits to Oxbridge, and possibly, Imperial. Or, the economics admits to Oxbridge, LSE and UCL. These oversubscribed programs often take the displeasure in having to compete with the super-branded school names of Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial and UCL in the cross-admit battle. The law school isn't even regarded as being on Oxbridge's level yet, and enjoys the displeasure of having to compete with the likes of Durham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Manchester and Notts for the cross-admitted students.

I believe Warwick is in transition period now. Yes, it is very selective, but it also is serious in addressing the mandate of the government to accommodate public schools applicants from 14% a couple of years ago to 20% in the succeeding years. It has also added a few programs, and opened the completed facilities. As a result, the admission officers have overshot its target by about 300/400 students (meaning, about 300/400 more students showed up on campus last year, and another 300 more this year, which wasn't anticipated), resulting to the overcrowding of the campus scene and severe shortage of student housing, which I think is terrible, because we all know it's something that could have been avoided, in the first place. Hopefully, things would change next school year and everything will go back to normal.

Yes, I made 20 accounts just to spam the thread. And also managed to get several green gems in the meantime. Get serious.

I don't hate Warwick. But I guess anyone criticising Warwick 'hates' the university, as if it's a cult. I'm being realistic. Warwick is barely at the top 10 in the UK, it's nowhere near as prestigious or academically challenging as Oxbridge, Imperial and LSE (maybe apart from maths). The sooner you realise it, the better.

I rub my point in everyone's face? Are you serious? I only reply to people like you in an attempt to give a dose of realism. The only ones rubbing something in others' faces are Warwick students and their delusional ego.



Irrelevant. Everyone who makes such points is, was or wants to be a Warwick student. EVERYONE. Shows something.



They definitely have. Warwick, however, has absolutely nothing in common - not in terms of wealth, not in terms of leading academics and so on. You can't possibly tell me that those saying Warwick is harder than Oxford/equal to Harvard are using the universities as a benchmark. No, they are just blind.

Warwick is barely at the top 10 in the UK,
it's nowhere near as prestigious

or academically challenging as Oxbridge, Imperial and LSE (maybe apart from maths).

Yes, I made 20 accounts just to spam the thread. And also managed to get several green gems in the meantime. Get serious.

I don't hate Warwick. But I guess anyone criticising Warwick 'hates' the university, as if it's a cult. I'm being realistic. Warwick is barely at the top 10 in the UK, it's nowhere near as prestigious or academically challenging as Oxbridge, Imperial and LSE (maybe apart from maths). The sooner you realise it, the better.

I rub my point in everyone's face? Are you serious? I only reply to people like you in an attempt to give a dose of realism. The only ones rubbing something in others' faces are Warwick students and their delusional ego.



Irrelevant. Everyone who makes such points is, was or wants to be a Warwick student. EVERYONE. Shows something.



They definitely have. Warwick, however, has absolutely nothing in common - not in terms of wealth, not in terms of leading academics and so on. You can't possibly tell me that those saying Warwick is harder than Oxford/equal to Harvard are using the universities as a benchmark. No, they are just blind.

I tend to agree with many of the things you said. Problem is I never said many of the things you're saying I said on here now, lol...

This is just your opinion, entirely.
I can barely name UK unis that are clearly superior to Warwick, aside from Oxbridge.
One can claim Imperial is clearly superior to Warwick. But I can argue not for my program (MSc Finance). And, certainly not for my field (banking and finance). At most, they are regarded pretty equally in the industry where I'm in.

I have not attended any of those institutions, but you can count me in as one of those many students who have turned down LSE and Imperial for Warwick. (I have not applied to Oxbridge, in case you'd want to ask)
I'm not sure if you're quite familiar in the graduate level finance loop, but words circulating around the finance circle is that the LSE program isn't as rigorous as the Warwick program, and Imperial's is just about as hard.

Anyhow, I'm done with this thread, and I'm done with you on this issue.
If you're planning on pursuing an MBA program in the US, you can PM me I may be able to provide you with some tips about the whole application process.

right warwick is not at the top thats why bankers target it, they target it and UCL more than oxf, cam

Just because it's a 'target' doesn't mean it's the 6th best uni. It's less targeted than other universities in other careers.

And sure, since they target it more than Oxbridge it's also better than Oxbridge.

Hahahaha... you people. Thanks for the laughs.

The whole point of going to a good uni is to get into competitive jobs,

if you can do that at warwick, I dont see the problem. Also what other careers apart from law would need a good uni? Pretty much no other career, so if you are looking to go into finance or consulting UCL or Warwick is the way to go.

So, so wrong. Have you even been at uni?



No is isn't. Warwick is by no means as targeted for finance, consulting and certainly legal careers as it is for IB. It's still a good uni for that purpose, but certainly not as good as Oxbridge.

I understad, you're applying to UCL/Warwick or are a student at either - unfortunately once again proving my point. If you're a prospective students, just go with UCL if you only care about prestige.

Just because it's a 'target' doesn't mean it's the 6th best uni. It's less targeted than other universities in other careers.