<p>Is university of warwick actually a good uni or just some money hogging college which accepts hairbrained students.is it good for economics???</p>
<p>Very good for econ, maths and finance but average for everything else.</p>
<p>It is very well respected in the UK, but I get the impression from this board that it is not that well known outside of the UK.</p>
<p>Warwick is a top six UK university and whilst its Economics/ Maths/Finance departments are amongst its best, it still possesses very strong law/history/english,etc departments respectively.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how Warwick is viewed in the US, but in the UK it is the 3rd most targeted university by employers and amongst the target universities for bulge bracket investment banks. In terms of its standing in comparison to its peer, the consensus appears to be…</p>
<p>Oxford Cambridge</p>
<p>(reasonable gap)</p>
<p>Imperial LSE</p>
<p>(slight gap)</p>
<p>UCL Warwick</p>
<p>Durham St Andrews.</p>
<p>You seriously believe that? You’re placing it inline with UCL and above Durham and St Andrews? Get real, Warwick is okay but it’s not that good - certainly not top 6. It has a few famous courses (econ, finance) which are targeted by banks but other than that it’s nothing special.</p>
<p>I would have to disagree. In the UK there is no real distinction between Warwick, UCL, Durham and St Andrews. You say that St Andrews is better, but on what basis? the fact that the prince studied there? It was on the outskirts of the top 20 prior to this. it has a very strong international relations dept but what else?.. St Andrews may be more prestigious in the US but in the eyes of UK employers its on a par. Durham is of a similar level. You’re wrong there, since students not studying those subjects make it into bulge bracket banks every year. The only thing it lacks is international reputation, but I have no idea why you’re adamant that it is below St Andrews and Durham, they are in the same tier. Warwick, along with Imperial, LSE, Oxford and Cambridge have never been out of the top 10 of the UK rankings. In terms of prestige with the average layman, yes St Andrews etc may be above it… but with UK employers that is not the case. Warwick was voted as the 4th most recruited university within the UK, after Oxbridge-University of London…It would be naive to think that this all stems from its ‘Econ/Finance’ Maths’ dept. It was voted 12th in the following <a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/indicator-rankings/employer-review[/url]”>http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2010/indicator-rankings/employer-review</a>… methodology is flawed, but just something to see. I would just say that from my experiences in the UK, there is nothing seperating Warwick, St Andrews, Durham and even UCL.</p>
<p>Well from a US student- warwick’s not really well known here. At least, I’ve never heard much about it ever. Nothing good or bad.</p>
<p>Which UK universites have you heard of out of interest?</p>
<p>Warwick is a very good university, particularly for maths/econ/finance. If you asked for the best uni’s for maths and similar most people would mention Warwick. It’s definitely well targeted by employers</p>
<p>I doubt most people will have heard of Warwick though, simply because it’s not exactly common to be able to reel off a list of uni’s in other countries!! I could name about 10-ish US college’s and uni’s but I learnt that from reading ‘Twilight’ and watching ‘Mean girls 2’. Now I’m on CC I could name more of course. But most of my (British) friends would struggle to name 1 or 2 at most! I wouldn’t expect any high school student in the US to be able to name any UK uni’s, maybe they might have heard of Oxford or Cambridge at a push</p>
<p>@spawn- well not that many to be honest. Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial LSE, and Durham St Andrews. Probably a few more I’m forgetting to list.</p>
<p>
I think most Americans would only be able to name Oxford, Cambridge and St. Andrews.</p>
<p>I have also heard of Edinburgh, SOAS, Imperial, LSE, York, Bath, Bristol, Birmingham, UCL, Durham, Manchester, Nottingham.</p>
<p>^Oh, I’ve heard of Edinburgh, York, and Bath too. But yeah, most Americans probably don’t know more than 5 or 10.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I live in the UK and I can tell you that there is a distinction between them. Warwick students are notorious for saying they’re as good as such and such university but nobody believes that.</p>
<p>Since you asked, St Andrews is very strong in many areas, IR, history (esp medieval), art history, earth sciences, modern languages (esp Russian, Arabic and middle east studies) are some of the areas where they excel. Warwick’s rep seems to be based solely on their econ, finance and maths programmes they’re distinctly average everywhere else.</p>
<p>It might also be noted that I understand that Warwick is not located in an interesting area.</p>
<p>It is not in London or Edinburgh, nor is it in a quaint town like St Andrews.</p>
<p>It’s architecture is much more modern, I understand, because it is a newer university.</p>
<p>Warwick itself is an ancient city with a huge castle which is quite famous (it has been somewhat “Disney-fied” though. All the staff are dressed in character as knights etc. But underneath it is the real deal. A complete medieval castle). However, the University of Warwick is not actually in Warwick. It is a 1960s concrete campus in a field. Most students after the first year “live out” in private rented accommodation in the nearby cities of Leamington Spa and Coventry. I’ve never been to Leamington Spa. Coventry is ok but it was totally flattened in WW2 and re-built, mostly in concrete, ASAP with most thought on budget not beauty. So it’s not that inspiring but it’s alright and not dangerous or anything. </p>
<p>Stratford-Upon-Avon, world centre of Shakespeare tourism, is also very near Warwick. There is acutally some internet scam going round saying buy an online degree from the University of Stratford-Upon-Avon. But there is no university there and never has been.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also live in the UK, but was brought up in the states. I do not attend Warwick if that’s what you’re getting at. I can possibly see there being a distinction between UCL and the latter three. However, the difference between Durham, Warwick and St Andrews is neglible. One many say that St Andrews is the best, while someone may say Warwick or Durham. I find it strange to see your apparent distaste towards Warwick, which is evident in so many people who are unwilling to accept that it is a top UK universiy.</p>
<p>I would have to disagree. St Andrews is not any stronger than Warwick for History. If you look at the RAE rankings and league table rankings, the History dept at Warwick is ranked highly. When you think St Andrews, the first course which springs to mind is International relations, in a similar way to how Maths/Econ pops up at Warwick. Do you have this feeling about LSE? considering it is its Law and Economics programs which are their flagship courses. The only reason why people rave merely about Warwick’s Maths/Finance/Econ dept is because these are the departments they have which are arguably second to Oxbridge alone and LSE. Warwick and UCL are often described as the best multi-faculty universities after Oxbridge, how can this be even thinkable, if you’re right in what you say? They still have many other excellent programs which are highly coveted… Their lawyers, historians,etc are all readily found working in high flying city jobs. I have a feeling that you study at St Andrews? If not which university do you attend?. All I’m trying to say that St Andrews does not fare better than Warwick in terms of employablity with the big firms. As I said it may well fare better in terms of prestige, but not reputation with employers.</p>
<p>For some with friends at each of the top universities mentioned here. I’ll give my 2 cents.</p>
<p>Warwick has a great reputation in the city because of a good economic dept and great business school. Maths is also great long with Ox, Cambridge and Imperial. History and other arty departments are delusional if they are second to Oxbridge. It’s mostly students who are studying those degrees that say we are the second or third best departments.</p>
<p>UCL great economics dept and good all around. But no business school and the addition of the School of Slavonic Studies (can’t remember the exact name) has diluted the prestige factor with low grade requirements. Course that require AAA at UCL will require ABB at the eastern eu specialist school.</p>
<p>St Andrews. Come on, the prince went here. Lol seriously though, good history dept (it’s different) and good for politics and languages. Mote flexible with the ability to combine courses like economics with Arabic. St As has a bit of an inflated rep but it’s an old institution.</p>
<p>Durham has an arguably better history dept than all of the above. It is one of the most difficult history depts to get into. Durham like Oxbridge and LSE put a big emphasis on A high no of A<em>s in GCSE. Good econ department with plenty of people at buldge bracket banks. A</em>AA requirement for most econ courses, similar to Warwick and UCL.</p>
<p>Honestly the whole argument of X vs Y is moot. JP Morgan has more Durban grads traditionally than Warwick or UCL. Warwick will place well across the street but so does Durham and UCL.</p>
<p>Now a bit more of an honest scoop. 85% of students at Durham or UCL or Warwick will have applied to Oxbridge. Fact. It makes sense to take a pop and try your luck with predicted grades. A small no of these students get into Oxbridge and take those 3 options - Durham (collegiate like Oxbridge but less pressure), Warwick (campus atmosphere and more modern), UCL (London duhh). Each university has a Oxbridge reject stigma.</p>
<p>Durham offers very similar courses to Oxbridge - natsci, ppe. It’s up north so less exposed to banks but if it was 100miles closer to the South, I would guarantee it would be a huge target. The teaching there is also great and the collegiate system is a love/hate thing. It’s also well respected in the law and academic circle. International rep is lacking but then again if you’re not at Oxbridge, American employers will hardly know. Durham has been considered more prestigious and middle class because, well it has modeled itself on Oxbridge considering it’s age.</p>
<p>UCL is in London. Targeted and offers great networking opportunities. Academically sound but being a top 10 global university (placed 5th or 6th) is balls. It has nothing on the likes of Oxbridge, Harvard/Yale/Princeton, Darthmouth, Penn, Brown etc.</p>
<p>Warwick is a baby in comparison having being founded in the 60s. It’s a very commercial university like LSE. Everyone is head over heels about getting into the city (yawn). The teaching apart from econ, sociology and politics is horrible. Yes, great biz school but the lecturers are crap. Teaching in the arts is second or third to research work. Seminar of 8-10 people? Try 15 or 20.</p>
<p>Given the choice, I would take UCL or Durham in a heart beat because they’re polar opposites in terms of location and feel. Warwick is a blend of something that has no unique feel. The university whores itself out to anyone willing to pay a premium hence abundance of foreign students who make the community that much more fragmented. Durham might have a big Oxbridge reject stigma but it’s also known to reject students who then get into Oxbridge. You want to be at the heart of a lively city and not the coventry border, go to UCL.</p>
<p>To end, don’t compare apples and oranges. Some unversities are for some and not others. Going to a top 10 university or the British ivy leagues and they will all open doors. Bath has more people at big banks last year than warwick. UCL and Durham has people at the big consulting firms but so did edinburgh and nottingham.</p>
<p>Sorry for the typos. iPhone typing can be tedious.</p>
<p>^Excellent post. All I would say is that your point about Durham rejecting students who then get into Oxbridge is largely prevailent across the board. It happens at Warwick, LSE, UCL, Durham, Bristol and St Andrews, Oxbridge rely on admission tests/interview while the aforementioned universities rely on grades/personal statement.</p>
<p>Out of interest, how are you able to give such adamant statements about the teaching? is it based on hearsay?</p>
<p>Durham have been known to reject kids who applied to Oxbridge. It’s pretty self explanatory that an application submitted before the 15th of October contain an Oxbridge institution. Being collegiate and similar to them, certain depts whose heads were Oxbridge educated didn’t want Durham to be a default choice after rejection.</p>
<p>I spent a year at Warwick and transferred out in 2010. I’ve also spent 2 weeks at both Durham and UCL at both seminars and lectures and def preferred Durham due to the class size and UCL because some of the lecturers were awesome. I applied to St Andrews but didn’t want to do a 4 year degree and turned it down.</p>