Bristol vs Warwick

Warwick's a complete ****hole. Seriously, the most ugly university I visited, in the middle of nowhere, with crap accommodation. And you have to live in Leamington Spa or Coventry in second and third years, which are two very miserable places indeed.

Bristol, on the other hand, is the most lovely city you could ever wish to live in.

Don't know anything about the academic side, regarding your course, but Bristol v Warwick in a non-academic way is extremely one-sided.

says the Bristol student.

OP, I'm not biased, as I'm going to neither uni. I applied to Warwick, and went to look around.
It's fantastic, the accommodation is better than Bristol (which was distinctly dusty when I went there, and not very modern).

Warwick was voted Best University Campus in the UK last year and the year before, in response to the previous poster. The architecture is phenomenal, especially at nighttime, There's a multitude of amenities, and the unique aspect is that it is inward-facing, meaning that there's an added safety element, as well as university car parks.

On an academic level, Warwick wins too.

What absolute rubbish.

1) I have spent about a fortnight in total staying at the Arthur Vick halls in Warwick, which are supposed to be one of the nicest and most modern. They were about on a par with Durdham Hall at Bristol, better than University Hall, and not as good as Goldney or Woodland Court. If you're looking for modern, self-catering, ensuite halls, Bristol offers accommodation easily as nice as, if not better than Warwick. However, the best thing about the Bristol halls is the wide range available. You can either live in Stoke Bishop, or you can live in Clifton, or you can live in one of the student houses (many of which are as large as halls) scattered around the centre. Unlike at Warwick, there are a wide range of catered halls available. You can go for Hogwarts-esque splendour at Wills, or cheap and cheerful fun at Hiatt Baker or Badock. From an aesthetic point of view, Wills and Goldney beat anything Warwick has to offer hands down, despite being very different from each other. All the Bristol halls are perfectly fine to live in, even University Hall, which is often regarded as being the worst. That's more than you can say for the likes of Cryfield at Warwick. Also, all the Bristol halls have their own bar, which is an important social plus point. The Warwick halls don't all have their own bars.

2) Being awarded "best university campus" is basically a consolation prize. Whilst I agree that the campus is fantastic (I was seduced by it and wanted to go there at one point) it's in the middle of nowhere, three miles from Coventry, which isn't even worth going to anyway. So when you move out of halls, you have to live either in Coventry or in Leamington Spa, which isn't exactly the most happening place in the world either, and you've got quite a long commute into uni in the mornings. Being on a university with a great campus is one thing if you're at Birmingham, for example, which has its own train station, enabling you to get to the centre of one of the biggest cities in the UK in a matter of minutes. But at Warwick, the campus just gets pretty monotonous. You might think it's great now, but after three years of nowhere else to go, are you really going to like it that much? I've just been out to Madrid to visit a friend of mine on his year abroad, and I met some of his Erasmus pals from Warwick. I said I thought Warwick was a really nice campus, and this one girl was like, "I am so sick of Warwick I want to scream. I don't know what I would have done if I hadn't been coming to Madrid this year. It starts off great, but after two years of having nowhere to go but the union, you just want to escape the Warwick bubble."

Bristol, on the other hand, has the equivalent of lots of little campuses (Stoke Bishop, Clifton Hill and the main university academic precinct) set in the middle of one of the most exciting cities you could ever live in. It's a really beautiful city, especially when the sun is shining, and there are more pubs, clubs, bars, restaurants and shops than even the most determined slacker could hope to get through in three, four, five, or even six years (for those lucky enough to be doing intercalated medicine)! There's really no possibility of getting bored with Bristol. I really don't see how anybody could possibly keep a straight face when they say Warwick has "a multitude of amenities" as part of their argument for choosing Warwick over Bristol. Warwick has all the amenities of a holiday village; fine for a fortnight, but you wouldn't want to live there permanently.

3) Since I study English, I wouldn't claim to know much about the academic reputation of Bristol vs Warwick for any given course. What I will say is this - it really doesn't matter. I'm not being funny, but it doesn't. Assuming that after your three/four years you're just going to get a graduate job, employers will see graduates from Warwick and Bristol as being on exactly the same level, along with graduates from places like Durham, Nottingham and other similar universities. What sets graduates apart is what else they've done with their three years. Bristol boasts an impressive array of societies and extra-curricular activities, so there's plenty of potential for filling up your CV. There is a really good careers service, which offers loads of help when it comes to applying for jobs. They also put on loads of workshops to help you with essay technique, interview technique, and just about anything you can think of. These are all free. If you want to go into academia, it also won't really matter whether you've done your first degree at Bristol or Warwick, as you can always do your masters or PhD somewhere else.

The only thing I can't say is which of the two courses is more suitable for you. That's something only you can decide.

*agrees with lots of stuff*

I'm just fighting warwick's corner. It WAS voted best sudent campus, so it's not a load of rubbish, as you so eloquently put it.

And Warwick is very, very modern in its architecture, being not only a young university, but having a lot of money spent on it at the millennium period.

I disagree about it mattering where you did your degree though.
Warwick is a much better university for his course in particular than Bristol, and this *will* make a difference.

*agrees with lots of stuff*

I'm just fighting warwick's corner. It WAS voted best sudent campus, so it's not a load of rubbish, as you so eloquently put it.

And Warwick is very, very modern in its architecture, being not only a young university, but having a lot of money spent on it at the millennium period.

I disagree about it mattering where you did your degree though.
Warwick is a much better university for his course in particular than Bristol, and this *will* make a difference.

says the Bristol student.

OP, I'm not biased, as I'm going to neither uni. I applied to Warwick, and went to look around.
It's fantastic, the accommodation is better than Bristol (which was distinctly dusty when I went there, and not very modern).

Warwick was voted Best University Campus in the UK last year and the year before, in response to the previous poster. The architecture is phenomenal, especially at nighttime, There's a multitude of amenities, and the unique aspect is that it is inward-facing, meaning that there's an added safety element, as well as university car parks.

On an academic level, Warwick wins too.

says the Bristol student.

I came to Bristol because I think it's a fantastic place.

I don't think it's a fantastic place because I go to Bristol.

Grow up. I didn't SAY you think it's fantastic because you go there. But you were obviously going to say Warwick is rubbish in comparison, considering you're a student there.
Even if it isn't true, you'd still say it. It's lile uni patriotism.
I was less biased because I went to both, and will end up going to go to neither. I chose to apply to Warwick after my visits, and was thus sharing my experience with the OP.

Thanks.

Less biased, maybe, but also considerably less informed...

you're wrong. I didn't say anything that wasn't true.

I originally posted Warwick. I then gave the justification that Warwick is more academically reknowned for the maths and economics course. (FACT) and is ranked higher (FACT).

Then in response to the comment that Warwick is a '****hole' (fill in the asterisks) I stated the truth... it was voted best student campus, has lots of stunning and very modern architecture and has parking facilities.

None of that is wrong.

You were wrong about saying that Warwick's accommodation is better than Bristol's, so that's one thing for starters.

Also, as someone else has pointed out, Bristol is not a campus university, and so you're not comparing like with like. I can assure you that Warwick would not be voted best student 'environment' if places like Bristol, Durham and Oxbridge were actually included in the category.

Furthermore, since when have parking facilities been a good reason to choose one university over another?? You find me one university in the country without parking facilities, for heaven's sake.

You're also deluded if you think university rankings mean very much to employers. Oxford vs Thames Valley, definitely. But Bristol vs Warwick is not going to make a difference, because in general (which is what matters to most employers) the two are neck and neck, and it will be the individual's academic performance and extra-curriculars which
matter. Especially considering the fact that it's 2008 now, which means that university rankings reflect the standard of universities over the last few years, because that's how long it takes to compile data. The latest statistics will be based on people who graduated in 2007 (at the absolute latest) and therefore probably started at uni in 2003 or 2004. Anyone applying for 2008 entry will not graduate until at least 2011. This is why it is stupid to rely too heavily on university rankings, and employers don't tend to. You'd be better off looking at the websites of companies you might eventually like to work for and seeing where they generally recruit from.