Why is Warwick so overrated? Watch

multieman
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Entry requirements for Chemistry and Biology respectively, bearing in mind both are STEM subjects:

"ABB including Chemistry and two further science subjects (from Mathematics, Further Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Geology or Statistics)."

"ABB including Biology and a second science (such as Chemistry, Maths, Physics, Applied Science, Environmental Science, Statistics, Geology)."

This is the university that people think is considered part of the top 6? What a farce.
I respect its credential for Maths/Economics but other than that it imo just scrapes the top 10 if you're not doing either the aforementioned subjects. I simply do not understand why people think it is the next best option after Oxbridge/Imperial.

BTW 98% of Chemistry students receive offers and 92% for biological sciences!
https://university.which.co.uk/unive...8-24712cff380e
4
reply
multieman
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#2
Bump.
0
reply
jorjeea
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
With that in mind, Oxford and Cambridge (for example) only accept the MOST gifted/hard-working students - this means that its likely easier for them to make progress and achieve above average results than a person who gets ABB at A-level. The teaching at these universities may even be on par with Warwick in some subjects, but due to there only (or mainly) being very gifted students in the uni, they achieve higher.

Warwick is able to obtain good results with slightly lower entry requirements. They risk being lower in the league tables due to taking on people who don't solely achieve A*A*A at A-level, who may struggle more. This can bring down their average, but equally brings more opportunities to people who have perhaps missed their entry requirements by a fraction, who may be equally as hard-working as the A*A*A student is gifted.

That's my take on it anyway.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
5
reply
multieman
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by jorjeea)
With that in mind, Oxford and Cambridge (for example) only accept the MOST gifted/hard-working students - this means that its likely easier for them to make progress and achieve above average results than a person who gets ABB at A-level. The teaching at these universities may even be on par with Warwick in some subjects, but due to there only (or mainly) being very gifted students in the uni, they achieve higher.

Warwick is able to obtain good results with slightly lower entry requirements. They risk being lower in the league tables due to taking on people who don't solely achieve A*A*A at A-level, who may struggle more. This can bring down their average, but equally brings more opportunities to people who have perhaps missed their entry requirements by a fraction, who may be equally as hard-working as the A*A*A student is gifted.

That's my take on it anyway.
Then place your entry requirements at A*AA/AAA like Bristol and Durham do. AAB at the minimum but even that's stretching it for a STEM subject.
0
reply
multieman
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#5
Bump.
0
reply
rhaegar449
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by multieman)
Bump.
which uni do you go to?
0
reply
multieman
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by rhaegar449)
which uni do you go to?
Why is that relevant?
0
reply
rhaegar449
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by multieman)
Why is that relevant?
Just saw you go bristol and warwick is definitely better than bristol lol.

Warwick is overrated but so is quite a few of UK unis including UCL which are not ivy league but doesnt change the fact that warwick has a strong employer connections and all round high quality even if entry requirements are low. Because truth is, Warwick are just honest. Bristol may have high requirements but they always let in people with lower grades so really it's all roughly the same.
2
reply
multieman
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by rhaegar449)
Just saw you go bristol and warwick is definitely better than bristol lol.

Warwick is overrated but so is quite a few of UK unis including UCL which are not ivy league but doesnt change the fact that warwick has a strong employer connections and all round high quality even if entry requirements are low. Because truth is, Warwick are just honest. Bristol may have high requirements but they always let in people with lower grades so really it's all roughly the same.
I promise you I don't go Bristol, but kudos to your amazing judgment skills that you came to a conclusion that I attend Bristol. Also, you've completely digressed from the question which says a lot about your comprehension skills. I know students with ABB doing Chemsitry at Warwick after getting BCCE at AS, whereas I also know students who got rejected for Chemistry at Bristol after getting AAB with the B in maths. BTW if you actually bothered to check your ill-judged assumptions you'd realise the ucas point average of Durham and Bristol Chemistry students are higher than at Warwick according to the Which university guide. Chemistry is only one example of the many subjects Warwick is very overrated in.
1
reply
multieman
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#10
Bump.
1
reply
Lady Jamie
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
I have always wondered about this too.

The entry requirement for law is AAA which is the same as Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham etc... Yet people always compare it with Oxbridge, LSE. I had a choice of applying there but nothing about the university really spoke out to me.

I’ve never even heard of the university until I joined TSR because it’s got barely any international reputation. Most people from down under (Australia and NZ) don’t even know the existence of ‘Warwick’. I’ve spoken to some TSR users about this and many agree, it’s almost like a private TSR joke to compare Warwick to the likes of Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE.
3
reply
Anonymous #1
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by JamieK03)
I have always wondered about this too.

The entry requirement for law is AAA which is the same as a Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham etc... Yet people always compare it with Oxbridge, LSE. I had a choice of applying there but nothing about the university really spoke out to me.

I’ve never even heard of the university until I joined TSR because it’s got barely any international reputation. Most people from down under (Australia and NZ) don’t even know the existence of ‘Warwick’. I’ve spoken to some TSR users about this and many agree, it’s almost like a private TSR joke to compare Warwick to the likes of Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE.
and ucl.
0
reply
artful_lounger
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Bear in mind they may well set offers above the minimum level, getting an offer and achieving it aren't the same thing, and yes the overall "prestige" of the university which may well derive from one or two departments can "elevate" the perception of the university on the whole - there are many such examples. Equally there are a few universities which are well regarded overall and have quite a few "standout" departments, but have one or two that are below par. But certainly, entry criteria only really correlate to the popularity/competitiveness of the course, outside of Oxbridge, and maybe one or two other departments/courses. That said, I'm not really aware of any courses outside of Oxbridge who would rather not take a full cohort, than take some with weaker backgrounds, which tells you a lot about entry criteria (and university priorities Re: students).

However as noted, Warwick is frequently compared to Oxbridge because its Maths department is broadly on par with those (and Imperial's) Maths departments. This of course says nothing about the rest of the university...other examples include UCL, which is pretty generally well regarded, and has some particularly strong departments (for example Archaeology or Architecture) but also some quite weak ones (Engineering is frequently cited); Exeter has a pretty good Physics course/department, but the rest of CEMPS is a runaway dumpster fire, and a lot of its other departments struggle to distinguish themselves from mediocrity. Southampton has excellent Engineering, Ocean/Earth Science, and Chemistry departments (the former two certainly being on par with the top 10 if not top 5) , but it's "social sciences" suite (including Economics and Politics) are pretty average at best. If you judge all universities by only their best courses, which you aren't applying to, inevitably you're likely to be disappointed.

Essentially, if you don't want to go into banking, stop thinking about the name of the university and start thinking about what the course actually teaches, and what current students think of it perhaps, because that's what's going to be primarily relevant to you...
4
reply
Shadowdraconis
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by artful_lounger)
However as noted, Warwick is frequently compared to Oxbridge because its Maths department is broadly on par with those (and Imperial's) Maths departments. This of course says nothing about the rest of the university...other examples include UCL, which is pretty generally well regarded, and has some particularly strong departments (for example Archaeology or Architecture) but also some quite weak ones (Engineering is frequently cited); Exeter has a pretty good Physics course/department, but the rest of CEMPS is a runaway dumpster fire, and a lot of its other departments struggle to distinguish themselves from mediocrity. Southampton has excellent Engineering, Ocean/Earth Science, and Chemistry departments (the former two certainly being on par with the top 10 if not top 5) , but it's "social sciences" suite (including Economics and Politics) are pretty average at best. If you judge all universities by only their best courses, which you aren't applying to, inevitably you're likely to be disappointed.
Is that why Warwick's requirement for Computer Science is so high (A*AA/AAA with A in maths)?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
artful_lounger
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Shadowdraconis)
Is that why Warwick's requirement for Computer Science is so high (A*AA/AAA with A in maths)?
(Original post by artful_lounger)
This of course says nothing about the rest of the university...
You share illiteracy with a lot of prospective CS students so you have that going for you at least.
1
reply
Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by artful_lounger)
Bear in mind they may well set offers above the minimum level, getting an offer and achieving it aren't the same thing, and yes the overall "prestige" of the university which may well derive from one or two departments can "elevate" the perception of the university on the whole - there are many such examples. Equally there are a few universities which are well regarded overall and have quite a few "standout" departments, but have one or two that are below par. But certainly, entry criteria only really correlate to the popularity/competitiveness of the course, outside of Oxbridge, and maybe one or two other departments/courses. That said, I'm not really aware of any courses outside of Oxbridge who would rather not take a full cohort, than take some with weaker backgrounds, which tells you a lot about entry criteria (and university priorities Re: students).

However as noted, Warwick is frequently compared to Oxbridge because its Maths department is broadly on par with those (and Imperial's) Maths departments. This of course says nothing about the rest of the university...other examples include UCL, which is pretty generally well regarded, and has some particularly strong departments (for example Archaeology or Architecture) but also some quite weak ones (Engineering is frequently cited); Exeter has a pretty good Physics course/department, but the rest of CEMPS is a runaway dumpster fire, and a lot of its other departments struggle to distinguish themselves from mediocrity. Southampton has excellent Engineering, Ocean/Earth Science, and Chemistry departments (the former two certainly being on par with the top 10 if not top 5) , but it's "social sciences" suite (including Economics and Politics) are pretty average at best. If you judge all universities by only their best courses, which you aren't applying to, inevitably you're likely to be disappointed.

Essentially, if you don't want to go into banking, stop thinking about the name of the university and start thinking about what the course actually teaches, and what current students think of it perhaps, because that's what's going to be primarily relevant to you...
Why do you hate CEMPS so much? hahaha

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
artful_lounger
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Princepieman)
Why do you hate CEMPS so much? hahaha

Posted from TSR Mobile
Because I had the misfortune of experiencing it.
0
reply
Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by artful_lounger)
Because I had the misfortune of experiencing it.
My only qualm with them is the insistence of having to print out coursework sheets amd physically hand them in.. Otherwise, I think they do a good job.
0
reply
artful_lounger
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Princepieman)
My only qualm with them is the insistence of having to print out coursework sheets amd physically hand them in.. Otherwise, I think they do a good job.
"A good job" is not "top 10 we think should be the second choice after Oxbridge/Imperial", which is the general consensus the administration wants to achieve, and TSR seems to hold.

When your lecturer/supervisor comes to an alleged top 10 uni from MIT and finds the final year students frequently haven't covered and aren't able to cope with first year material from MIT, and that a final year project from MIT is a PhD at Exeter, there's a mismatch in perception and reality. Having experienced other similar/related courses at other unis, I'm inclined to agree as well that there is an issue.

Certainly people do go through and get a good enough degree to go on to do whatever else, wherever else; that is again, not "best of the country", which is what it, and as above, TSR, purports it to be.

BART sheets were the least of my worries, although it was annoying if you lost/forgot it and only found out at the last minute...however such mechanisms are becoming increasingly common across unis in the UK in any case.
0
reply
Princepieman
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by artful_lounger)
"A good job" is not "top 10 we think should be the second choice after Oxbridge/Imperial", which is the general consensus the administration wants to achieve, and TSR seems to hold.

When your lecturer/supervisor comes to an alleged top 10 uni from MIT and finds the final year students frequently haven't covered and aren't able to cope with first year material from MIT, and that a final year project from MIT is a PhD at Exeter, there's a mismatch in perception and reality. Having experienced other similar/related courses at other unis, I'm inclined to agree as well that there is an issue.

Certainly people do go through and get a good enough degree to go on to do whatever else, wherever else; that is again, not "best of the country", which is what it, and as above, TSR, purports it to be.

BART sheets were the least of my worries, although it was annoying if you lost/forgot it and only found out at the last minute...however such mechanisms are becoming increasingly common across unis in the UK in any case.
I don't think Exeter is trying to compete with the likes of MIT tbh.. I'd peg it roughly top 15 in the UK, not necessarily top 10. Fairly sure those folks from MIT would complain about the same thing if they went to any other non-Oxbridge or Imperial university.

The way CEMPS structures their courses is a bit distinct from other rival universities IMO. There's a bit more freedom of choice baked into the structure and the latter modules tend to very heavily reflect the research interests of lecturers. So it's not *bad*, per se, like you're making it out to be. It's just different. CEMPS is rather small when compared to rival STEM departments and its lectuers interests tend to be quite niche which, ultimately, makes the STEM experience very different to a more wider ranging and larger department.

About "the best in the country".. again, it's up there, but not "the best". Undoubtedly, the university is a strong institution.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

Are cats selfish

Yes (139)
61.23%
No (88)
38.77%

Watched Threads

View All