Thats exactly what i thought before going to uni but checked anyway and my two choices had completely different option modules. I really would recommend having a look at the course itself if you're struggling to decide!
(sorry to butt in)
oh really? I'll have a look then! thanks! Where have you applied?
oh really? I'll have a look then! thanks! Where have you applied?
I'm already at uni (Bristol), but when I was applying I was really considering other unis, but then looked up their optional modules and saw they had things I really didn't fancy, whereas Bristol had some great ones - that being why i chose here
Hi guys, I need help too - King's or Durham for the normal LLB?
Choose King's, it is the better choice if you want to work overseas or at a City law firm in the future. If you would prefer not to pay the exorbitant prices of London accommodation and quotidian life then choose Durham.
26% of straight LLB applicants were made offers at King's versus a much more substantial 60% at Durham. Consequently, there is a considerable difference in the average tarriff points between the two programmes.
King's offers more opportunities for studying law at other universities in Europe, America or Australia as well, if that is of interest.
Some additional things to consider for King's:
- Somerset House (The School is located in the renovated East Wing) - Proximity to legal London (Accross from the Royal Courts of Justice and Inns of Court) - International Reputation (17th in the world according to the 2016 QS World Rankings by Subject) - Mooting Success (Won the 2016 UK Jessup mooting championship and represented the UK at the world championships, where the School reached the semi-finals) - Students' Union (Recognised as the best of any London University) - Visiting Professors (Two former Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales) - Research (Ranked #1 for Law on REF 2014)
Choose King's, it is the better choice if you want to work overseas or at a City law firm in the future. If you would prefer not to pay the exorbitant prices of London accommodation and quotidian life then choose Durham.
26% of straight LLB applicants were made offers at King's versus a much more substantial 60% at Durham. Consequently, there is a considerable difference in the average tarriff points between the two programmes.
King's offers more opportunities for studying law at other universities in Europe, America or Australia as well, if that is of interest.
Some additional things to consider for King's:
- Somerset House (The School is located in the renovated East Wing) - Proximity to legal London (Accross from the Royal Courts of Justice and Inns of Court) - International Reputation (17th in the world according to the 2016 QS World Rankings by Subject) - Mooting Success (Won the 2016 UK Jessup mooting championship and represented the UK at the world championships, where the School reached the semi-finals) - Students' Union (Recognised as the best of any London University) - Visiting Professors (Two former Lord Chief Justices of England and Wales) - Research (Ranked #1 for Law on REF 2014)
No it is not better. They are just the same in terms of prestige and whatnot.
You cannot possibly compare a London uni with Durham or anything outside London when it comes to admission rates. The former are always inflated owing precisely to the location.
If anything, this (referring to the UCAS points alone) and this would suggest that Durham is the better choice for the criteria you've used.
No it is not better. They are just the same in terms of prestige and whatnot.
You cannot possibly compare a London uni with Durham or anything outside London when it comes to admission rates. The former are always inflated owing precisely to the location.
If anything, this (referring to the UCAS points alone) and this would suggest that Durham is the better choice for the criteria you've used.
Clearly, you are a product of the spread of misinformation throughout UK league tables. Stating that you cannot compare admission rates in London Universities with those outside of the capital is incorrect, just take a look at Oxbridge; Durham is more lenient in admissions and makes offers, even through programmes like adjustment, to most of those who apply.
As a result, the average UCAS tariff points for entry to Durham is not 563, topping Oxford, the LSE and UCL, but, in fact, 437. Conversely, the average for King's is 543. The statistical data was collected from Which? University, a most reliable source for these values, which vary enormously on different league tables.
By all standards, King's College London is the better University for the study of Law. Currently, its facilities, research power and employer reputation is on par with UCL.
What I have noticed as of recent is a certain apathy towards King's Law programme, which is one of the UK's, and indeed the world's, top Law programmes. Durham has its qualities but in the eyes of prospective students, it is perhaps too sensationalised, as my previous post suggests.
Which shall I firm: Politics Philosophy & Law (LLB) at King's College London or Law (LLB) at Warwick?
Do you want the P P modules at King's? Can you afford London? Can you afford four years of London compared to 3 years of Warwick? Which assessment types do you prefer?
Clearly, you are a product of the spread of misinformation throughout UK league tables. Stating that you cannot compare admission rates in London Universities with those outside of the capital is incorrect, just take a look at Oxbridge; Durham is more lenient in admissions and makes offers, even through programmes like adjustment, to most of those who apply.
As a result, the average UCAS tariff points for entry to Durham is not 563, topping Oxford, the LSE and UCL, but, in fact, 437. Conversely, the average for King's is 543. The statistical data was collected from Which? University, a most reliable source for these values, which vary enormously on different league tables.
By all standards, King's College London is the better University for the study of Law. Currently, its facilities, research power and employer reputation is on par with UCL.
What I have noticed as of recent is a certain apathy towards King's Law programme, which is one of the UK's, and indeed the world's, top Law programmes. Durham has its qualities but in the eyes of prospective students, it is perhaps too sensationalised, as my previous post suggests.
The Which? data varies because it's collated by donkeys who don't know what they're doing. Just look at the overall uni rankings it includes. Also the data from Which uses was collected over the 2010-2012 period by HESA, whereas the data CUG uses was collected over the 2013-2014. Which is no more reliable than CUG, therefore. It's only less relevant.
The Which? data varies because it's collated by donkeys who don't know what they're doing. Just look at the overall uni rankings it includes. Also the data from Which uses was collected over the 2010-2012 period by HESA, whereas the data CUG uses was collected over the 2013-2014. Which is no more reliable than CUG, therefore. It's only less relevant.
Spoiler
I would not disagree with you here; there are indeed disparities present in these numbers, most of them are associated with the fact that not all admitted students have the same qualifications. A 45 in the IB is the equivalent of a 720 UCAS Tariff, whereas A*A*A*, its arguable contemporary, equates only to a 420 Tariff. Despite all this, Which? appears to be most consistent and most accurate out of all other indices, which, as you mentioned, have skewed, inaccurate, data that varies immensely over short periods of time.
I would not disagree with you here; there are indeed disparities present in these numbers, most of them are associated with the fact that not all admitted students have the same qualifications. A 45 in the IB is the equivalent of a 720 UCAS Tariff, whereas A*A*A*, its arguable contemporary, equates only to a 420 Tariff. Despite all this, Which? appears to be most consistent and most accurate out of all other indices, which, as you mentioned, have skewed, inaccurate, data that varies immensely over short periods of time.
This is a claim people oft make. It does make sense to a degree if we are discussing particular individuals with particular qualifications. Person A with 38 766 having the equivalent points as Person V with A*A*A* (or whatever the equivalence is) does not make an awful lot of sense. It is quite fair to make a distinction. However, we're discussing degree programmes at large. As you factor in 300 people, the egregiousness of this distinction is diluted somewhat as—UCL's IBs cancel out Durham's IBs and UCL's A-Levels cancel out Durham's A-Levels. Generally you must look a this.
Generally, we see that the distinction between IB and non-IB is somewhat diluted but not completed irrelevant. In fact, you'll find that UCL LLB on entry is composed of 17% of people who study IB and have this UCAS inflation whereas in contrast Durham has 5.3% of people studying IB with this UCAS inflation. It is seemingly inaccurate to say that Durham's higher UCAS points on entry stems from its students having qualifications with inflated IB points.
I do not find any reason to think Which is more reliable. It does not take into account IB in any form and its "deeper" pool of data is antiquated.
This is a claim people oft make. It does make sense to a degree if we are discussing particular individuals with particular qualifications. Person A with 38 766 having the equivalent points as Person V with A*A*A* (or whatever the equivalence is) does not make an awful lot of sense. It is quite fair to make a distinction. However, we're discussing degree programmes at large. As you factor in 300 people, the egregiousness of this distinction is diluted somewhat as—UCL's IBs cancel out Durham's IBs and UCL's A-Levels cancel out Durham's A-Levels. Generally you must look a this.
Generally, we see that the distinction between IB and non-IB is somewhat diluted but not completed irrelevant. In fact, you'll find that UCL LLB on entry is composed of 17% of people who study IB and have this UCAS inflation whereas in contrast Durham has 5.3% of people studying IB with this UCAS inflation. It is seemingly inaccurate to say that Durham's higher UCAS points on entry stems from its students having qualifications with inflated IB points.
I do not find any reason to think Which is more reliable. It does not take into account IB in any form and its "deeper" pool of data is antiquated.
Your premise is correct, that is why Durham's average Tariff can be lower and its students can potentially be of a similar caliber to the Universities with a higher IB intake, despite the 60% offer rate. The fact is, though, that some league tables compensate for these discrepancies leads to inaccurate and inconsistent results. Which? only provides the raw Tariff points and that is the sole factor that allows it to surpass all other indices in accuracy.
City is fairly good, get a First and you will be fine thereafter. From what other Universities do you have offers?
Thankyou I applied to Kings and SOAS however I got rejected from both.. I was really hoping to get into SOAS it was actually the reason for me applying overseas..
Thankyou I applied to Kings and SOAS however I got rejected from both.. I was really hoping to get into SOAS it was actually the reason for me applying overseas..
I would not fret over not getting into SOAS, its Law programme is highly glorified. Queen Mary would have been another great option if you wanted to apply to London Universities exclusively.