rant about kings and its reputation

BigBadSaint

Also doesn't having better students make for a better uni?

You are making my life difficult by responding to me in an odd way. (Plz just quote next time) But Ill try to reply.

BigBadSaint

I know people lump them together for the sake of ease, but War Studies isn't really Politics is it, it's pretty unique?
There's probably a fair bit of Intrnational Relations in there but looking at their reading list, 2 or 3 out of 10 are political:

Then, why do all the league tables (times, guardian, etc) include King's in their politics table? odd. King's doesn't have 'politics' as its course. I've heard from many that war studies gets largely categorized as politics.

BigBadSaint

LSE is world-renowed for Law and Politics isn't it?
The consensus on TSR appears to be that UCL and LSE are marginally more respected than KCL for Law:

LSE 'world-renowned' for Law? LSE is 'world-renowned' for Economics. yes. but by considering the definition of 'world-renowned', it's not necessarily more 'world-renowned' than king's law.
you must be joking. do you even know what 'world-renowned' is? if you mean international respect/prestige, King's is also internationally recognized for its Law. There's hardly any difference that separates LSE, UCL and King's for Law. I mean, from the start, cases where a law professor at LSE also teaches at King's aren't rare. They almost 'share' teaching for law. Plus, they all provide the Double-degree LLB/J.D programmes with Columbia University in NY. If one was inferior, they wouldn't. would they? Furthermore, how do you base your argument on what people say on TSR? Do you really believe in them? I have to admit there are indeed several wise and knowledgeable people on TSR who provide accurate information. But most people here are just narrow-minded, ignorant and arrogant key-board warriors. You have to take what people say here with a pinch of salt.

BigBadSaint

I don't think I said it wasn't Yes I know it is very good at History, but I felt UCL's efforts at the Open Day were far better. I won't argue with your info, and to be fair I should acknowledge Kings seems better regarded for History, I never really thought there was a gap between UCL and KCL, but it seems I was wrong, but that (small) gap appears to come from marginally higher teaching scores and higher entrance requirements .

Give me any sort of proof that UCL's teaching quality is better than King's for history. Yes, UCL's history department is certainly excellent. That's what i heard from my ex-history teacher who did her masters at UCL. However, I don't think that King's history is worse in any way. no.
Again, Open Days are not everything. Many current king's students who rejected other offers also say that the open days were disappointing.

BigBadSaint

Then why was he attempting to sell us his course, considering almost every other departmental open day I have been to they had vital info like this to hand? Wasn't it his job to know , and if he was too focused on his studies why did he show up?

Was he an admissions officer? no. A King's professor doesn't have to know the answers to questions such as 'how many places are available?' If you want to know, prospectus is your friend. A professor of a prestigious university doesn't have to 'sell' his course. He just does his job: teaching and researching. He doesn't even have to be nice and kind to prospective students either. It's just caring and kind of them to know all the info you need and be more welcoming. Plus, not all professors at king's would be like him. Again, you can't judge the uni by its open day.

BigBadSaint

I always thought the best way to judge a uni was to go to see it yourself However, the league tables themselves point to UCL being firmly on top in Arts and Languages, ICL in sciences and LSE in law

LSE for law? and not economics? LSE's economics is generally perceived as arguably the best. Why do you think LSE specializes in law. It certainly is excellent for law. But UCL and KCL are just about as good. Actually Durham and Notts are just about as good as well. If you claim that LSE is the best for law out of the three, UCL and KCL law students would all disagree. If LSE law is absolutely the best, why would they all disagree? (UCL and KCL students would agree that Oxford and Cambridge law are the best however.)
Furthermore, KCL's bar examination passing rate turned out to be higher than both LSE and UCL. This does not necessarily mean that KCL's the best, since UCL has been historically a bit more respected than KCL for law. So what's the conclusion. There isn't anything that separates KCL, UCL and LSE for law nowadays.
UCL does not specialize in one or two particular areas. Its scope is wider. I would disagree with your claim that UCL's arts is the best out of the three. Although UCL is the best for arts/design out of the three, KCL's music is one of the very best in the UK. UCL and KCL are all good universities that do not concentrate on one or two particular areas, but provide broader range of excellent courses.
Again, you think you can judge a uni by its open days. But that's what you think. I would say that the absolute best way to judge a uni is by studying there for a semester. But that's obviously not possible. We can't study everywhere. can we? Thus, judging quality with authority and objectivity is never really possible.

BigBadSaint

I don't think I said it wasn't prestigeous , just that UCL/ICL/LSE are more so due to their specialisms

Again, UCL does not specialize in a particular area. LSE and ICL are specialist universities.

Reply 82

BigBadSaint

Net result - I don't apply King's, they miss out on an applicant, and can so be less selective as to who they can take due to the smaller pool.

I apply to UCL, who now have another person fighting for a place, so they can select the one they prefer

Result is that UCL have more able applicants who prefer UCL over KCL.
Better Students = Better Uni
Better Uni = More/better applicants

You then said this was ridiculous, and said it was silly to select based on what I had seen.

I'm not sure how else I should pick between them, barring the league tables, which I would wager accross the board favour UCL though I'm not certain.

Reply 83

jy9626

What do you mean 'also' all of a sudden?

sorry, forgot to quote you

Reply 84

BigBadSaint

You then said this was ridiculous, and said it was silly to select based on what I had seen.

I'm not sure how else I should pick between them, barring the league tables, which I would wager accross the board favour UCL though I'm not certain.

No. having better students does not necessarily make a better university. It is just one of the areas that we look at, when we are discussing about universities and rankings, etc. Teaching quality, research quality and job prospects are just about as important, if not more important than selectivity and entry standards.

btw, about the open days... Prestigious universities like UCL, KCL, LSE, ICL do not have to make such an effort to 'sell' themselves to or attract the prospective students. It is possibly wise of them or nice of them to be kind and informative towards their prospective students.

Reply 85

jy9626

No. having better students does not necessarily make a better university
. It is just one of the areas that we look at, when we are discussing about universities and rankings, etc. Teaching quality, research quality and job prospects are just about as important, if not more important than selectivity and entry standards.

btw, about the open days... Prestigious universities like UCL, KCL, LSE, ICL do not have to make such an effort to 'sell' themselves to or attract the prospective students. It is possibly wise of them or nice of them to be kind and informative towards their prospective students.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that I think - IMO a university is only as good as its students ( and teachers I guess) . Applying for undergrad I'm not too concerned with research and that, but I reckon employers judge applicants' universities like:
' hmmm he/she went to Harvard - very famous, because lots of clever people go there. This guy is therefore likely to be clever - lets give him an interview'

I have never employed anybody, so this is all what I personally think.

Of course they have to sell themselves. Doubtless they have the prestige to fill courses easily, but that prestige will erode if the quality of students is lowered. If they want the brightest, then they have to constantly aim up - there are 5 UCAS choices and over 90 unis in UK. Kings are competing with all of them to be a student's choice.

Disregarding for a moment those who go to KCL simply because they love it (respect to them, and I can see why ) who are dead certs to put KCL down, Kings want the ones who are deciding between KCL and UCL/LSE/Bristol etc for their firm or insurance. It needs to fight over those students, because often they are the brightest and the best.

Not selling themselves means depriving themselves of the students who in 30 years time are most likely to be successful. E.g. how much do you think King's prestige and standing would rocket if they had educated a Prime Minister/President??
But because they didn't sell themselves to that President , he had elected to go to Cambridge/UCL or whatever and then that other institution then recieves more bright applicants who are impressed with them for educating a success.

Reply 86

BigBadSaint

We'll have to agree to disagree on that I think - IMO a university is only as good as its students ( and teachers I guess) . Applying for undergrad I'm not too concerned with research and that, but I reckon employers judge applicants' universities like:
' hmmm he/she went to Harvard - very famous, because lots of clever people go there. This guy is therefore likely to be clever - lets give him an interview'

I have never employed anybody, so this is all what I personally think.

Of course they have to sell themselves. Doubtless they have the prestige to fill courses easily, but that prestige will erode if the quality of students is lowered. If they want the brightest, then they have to constantly aim up - there are 5 UCAS choices and over 90 unis in UK. Kings are competing with all of them to be a student's choice.

Disregarding for a moment those who go to KCL simply because they love it (respect to them, and I can see why ) who are dead certs to put KCL down, Kings want the ones who are deciding between KCL and UCL/LSE/Bristol etc for their firm or insurance. It needs to fight over those students, because often they are the brightest and the best.

Not selling themselves means depriving themselves of the students who in 30 years time are most likely to be successful. E.g. how much do you think King's prestige and standing would rocket if they had educated a Prime Minister/President??
But because they didn't sell themselves to that President , he had elected to go to Cambridge/UCL or whatever and then that other institution then recieves more bright applicants who are impressed with them for educating a success.

Although unrelated, did you read my reply to your previous comment (the long one)?

Reply 87

BigBadSaint

We'll have to agree to disagree on that I think - IMO a university is only as good as its students ( and teachers I guess) . Applying for undergrad I'm not too concerned with research and that, but I reckon employers judge applicants' universities like:
' hmmm he/she went to Harvard - very famous, because lots of clever people go there. This guy is therefore likely to be clever - lets give him an interview'

I have never employed anybody, so this is all what I personally think.

No, an employer looks at various aspects, not only academic achievments and that sort of stuff. Basically, employers aren't as simplistic and almost 'immature' as you think.
I'll correct one of your sentences. A university is only as good as its students and teachers, not 'a university is only as good as its students (and teachers I guess)'
Furthermore, an employer, for instance for law (law firms), specific ranking for the subject law matters much more than just general 'fame'.

BigBadSaint

Of course they have to sell themselves. Doubtless they have the prestige to fill courses easily, but that prestige will erode if the quality of students is lowered. If they want the brightest, then they have to constantly aim up - there are 5 UCAS choices and over 90 unis in UK. Kings are competing with all of them to be a student's choice.

Disregarding for a moment those who go to KCL simply because they love it (respect to them, and I can see why ) who are dead certs to put KCL down, Kings want the ones who are deciding between KCL and UCL/LSE/Bristol etc for their firm or insurance. It needs to fight over those students, because often they are the brightest and the best.

UCL/LSE/Bristol etc also don't necessarily have to 'sell themselves' and so does King's. It's up to them. Universities with less prestige tend to make greater efforts to 'sell themselves'. Just look at TVU's prospectus. How thick it is.

BigBadSaint

Not selling themselves means depriving themselves of the students who in 30 years time are most likely to be successful. E.g. how much do you think King's prestige and standing would rocket if they had educated a Prime Minister/President??
But because they didn't sell themselves to that President , he had elected to go to Cambridge/UCL or whatever and then that other institution then recieves more bright applicants who are impressed with them for educating a success.

'The President' wouldn't choose a university, just because people were nicer to him on its open day. 'Selling' is not really the most important aspect that prestigious universities use to bring in more students. Students would choose a university, because
they like the place,
the university offers the course and the modules that they want,
the university is ranked highly on league tables for the course they're applying for,
the price is cheaper,
the university is respected worldwide and ranks highly on several world university rankings (for international students),
and possibly, the university produced various different famous alumni.

Reply 88

audria

1

i think kcl is great, i considered kcl equally as ucl.then later i got rejected by kcl and accepted by ucl

Reply 89

jy9626

No, an employer looks at various aspects, not only academic achievments and that sort of stuff. Basically, employers aren't as simplistic and almost 'immature' as you think.

I pointedly refered to how an employer may regard an applicant's university, their higher learning institute. I meant this to refer to how an employer would regard an applicant's academic achievements.

I apologise if I expressed this poorly, but I find it difficult to see how you can have misconstrued what I said. Yes, undoubtedly employers look at lots of things, not just academia, but I said 'this is how I reckon employers judge applicants universities '.

I didn't mention other aspects because the discussion is about universities, and how employers may percieve them - in my opinion, if you have a good degree from a university reputed to be filled with clever students (e.g. Harvard ), an employer will think that you are likely to be a clever person, because there are so many clever uns in that uni.

I'll correct one of your sentences. A university is only as good as its students and teachers, not 'a university is only as good as its students (and teachers I guess)'

I'll concede this.

Furthermore, an employer, for instance for law (law firms), specific ranking for the subject law matters much more than just general 'fame'.

ok , these same rankings point to better teaching/ satisfaction at KCL,
but better job prospects for UCL,LSE and Bristol.
This is to me an indication that in the competietive law profession, the law firms seem to regard these others as having greater prestige for Law than KCL

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/tol_gug/gooduniversityguide.php?subject=LAW

UCL/LSE/Bristol etc also don't necessarily have to 'sell themselves' and so does King's. It's up to them. Universities with less prestige tend to make greater efforts to 'sell themselves'. Just look at TVU's prospectus. How thick it is.

Then why have Open Days at all?? In the experience I personally had, they tried to sell themselves, but KCL did so comparatively poorly.

'The President' wouldn't choose a university, just because people were nicer to him on its open day.

Really? I'm no President and am unlikely to be one, but it was reason enough for me to deselect KCL. And it wasn't niceness. It was both the comparitive aloofness and lack of professionalism that put me off.

'Selling' is not really the most important aspect that prestigious universities use to bring in more students. Students would choose a university, because
they like the place,
the university offers the course and the modules that they want,
the university is ranked highly on league tables for the course they're applying for,
the price is cheaper,
the university is respected worldwide and ranks highly on several world university rankings (for international students),
and possibly, the university produced various different famous alumni.

All of which are points the uni would emphasise in the open days etc - hence selling :wink:

'Come to us! We were recently ranked 24th in the world, and in national league tables tend to be in the top 10. For your course ( History) we are ranked among the best in the country, and look at the enormous wealth of modules and combinations - there is something to suit everybody.
Look at our location! This spectacular Strand building, with the city on your doorstep. But don't worry Londdon need not be as expensive as you think....'

Familiar?

Reply 90

BigBadSaint

I pointedly refered to how an employer may regard an applicant's university, their higher learning institute. I meant this to refer to how an employer would regard an applicant's academic achievements.

I apologise if I expressed this poorly, but I find it difficult to see how you can have misconstrued what I said. Yes, undoubtedly employers look at lots of things, not just academia, but I said 'this is how I reckon employers judge applicants universities '.

I didn't mention other aspects because the discussion is about universities, and how employers may percieve them - in my opinion, if you have a good degree from a university reputed to be filled with clever students (e.g. Harvard ), an employer will think that you are likely to be a clever person, because there are so many clever uns in that uni.

I'll concede this.

ok , these same rankings point to better teaching/ satisfaction at KCL,
but better job prospects for UCL,LSE and Bristol.
This is to me an indication that in the competietive law profession, the law firms seem to regard these others as having greater prestige for Law than KCL

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/tol_gug/gooduniversityguide.php?subject=LAW

Then why have Open Days at all?? In the experience I personally had, they tried to sell themselves, but KCL did so comparatively poorly.

Really? I'm no President and am unlikely to be one, but it was reason enough for me to deselect KCL. And it wasn't niceness. It was both the comparitive aloofness and lack of professionalism that put me off.

All of which are points the uni would emphasise in the open days etc - hence selling :wink:

'Come to us! We were recently ranked 24th in the world, and in national league tables tend to be in the top 10. For your course ( History) we are ranked among the best in the country, and look at the enormous wealth of modules and combinations - there is something to suit everybody.
Look at our location! This spectacular Strand building, with the city on your doorstep. But don't worry Londdon need not be as expensive as you think....'

Familiar?

Before anything, reply to my previous previous longest comment.

Reply 91

jy9626

Before anything, reply to my previous previous longest comment.

sorry missed it will reply in a min

Reply 92

BigBadSaint

I pointedly refered to how an employer may regard an applicant's university, their higher learning institute. I meant this to refer to how an employer would regard an applicant's academic achievements.

I apologise if I expressed this poorly, but I find it difficult to see how you can have misconstrued what I said. Yes, undoubtedly employers look at lots of things, not just academia, but I said 'this is how I reckon employers judge applicants universities '.

No, still, they are not as simplistic as that in their views towards applicants' universities. They don't go, "Oh UCL! I love UCL! Let's give him in interview", like kids do.

BigBadSaint

I didn't mention other aspects because the discussion is about universities, and how employers may percieve them - in my opinion, if you have a good degree from a university reputed to be filled with clever students (e.g. Harvard ), an employer will think that you are likely to be a clever person, because there are so many clever uns in that uni.

Basically, an employer does not only care about how 'clever' an applicant is, since there are thousands of applicants with degrees from the Ivy League, Oxbridge and so on. Besides, again, they generally pay closer attention to course rankings.

BigBadSaint

ok , these same rankings point to better teaching/ satisfaction at KCL,
but better job prospects for UCL,LSE and Bristol.
This is to me an indication that in the competietive law profession, the law firms seem to regard these others as having greater prestige for Law than KCL

Teaching/satisfaction is probably one of the most important, if not the most aspects to consider when choosing an undergrad law school. In the end, students will have to pass the bar and many of them will choose to study further and achieve LLM rather than go straight into firms. (King's bar passing rate turned out to be higher than UCL and LSE by the way) In doing so, a good education of law from undergrad level is essential. If you're only looking at job prospects, would you say City university, Robert Gordon and Bristol have better law schools than Oxford does, just because they're higher up on the law grad prospectus ranking by times good guide than oxford? No!

This is from Times:

"Graduate prospects

Percentage of UK graduates in “graduate level” employment or further study six months after graduation in 2006."

By looking at this, we could assume that City, Robert gordon and Bristol grad put more effort into finding firms or postgrad schools. They just proceed more quickly. Oxford and King's law grad might just be picky when choosing firms or postgrad schools, so take longer time. This surely is not the absolute parameter that shows how good a law school is. Furthermore, going back to King's, King's grads' starting salary is one of the very highest in the uk.

BigBadSaint

Then why have Open Days at all?? In the experience I personally had, they tried to sell themselves, but KCL did so comparatively poorly.

I never said that open days are pointless. My point was that you can't boldly judge the quality of a presitigious university like you did. You surely could not have seen every aspect of King's. You should have continuously stated "I felt...", "I thought", etc. 'Selling' is still not an appropriate term to describe a university's effort to attract students. KCL did not probably even try so hard to 'sell' themselves. It's up to them to 'sell themselves' or not. You can't judge KCL's quality by just looking at that.

BigBadSaint

Really? I'm no President and am unlikely to be one, but it was reason enough for me to deselect KCL. And it wasn't niceness. It was both the comparitive aloofness and lack of professionalism that put me off.

Why did you even mention 'president'?
Alright. That's what you felt and thought. They might have not tried to show any kind of 'professionalism' or 'aloofness', but you might have just perceived their attitude that way. You just do not fit with King's and you won't be happy at king's. It does not mean others won't. You may not choose king's, but that does not mean others won't. Others might find everything that put you off king's rather attractive and fascinating.

BigBadSaint

All of which are points the uni would emphasise in the open days etc - hence selling :wink:

'Come to us! We were recently ranked 24th in the world, and in national league tables tend to be in the top 10. For your course ( History) we are ranked among the best in the country, and look at the enormous wealth of modules and combinations - there is something to suit everybody.
Look at our location! This spectacular Strand building, with the city on your doorstep. But don't worry Londdon need not be as expensive as you think....'

Familiar?

They could make such an effort to attract students. It's the institution's choice. I wouldn't really care if king's or warwick or bristol all don't bother trying to persuade students to come to their institutions. To me, personally, when i notice that a uni is trying too hard to appeal to its prospective students, i lose a bit of my respect towards that institution. (enough would do) Also read the prospectuses thoroughly before going to any open day. They don't have to tell you how many places they have, how highly are they ranked, etc.

Reply 93

jy9626

Then, why do all the league tables (times, guardian, etc) include King's in their politics table? odd. King's doesn't have 'politics' as its course. I've heard from many that war studies gets largely categorized as politics.

But as far as I can see it doesn't offer anything like Marx, Rousseau, Plato etc
stuff like that is pretty normal in Politics isn't it?

LSE 'world-renowned' for Law? LSE is 'world-renowned' for Economics. yes. but by considering the definition of 'world-renowned', it's not necessarily more 'world-renowned' than king's law.

I think LSE's huge proportion of international students could indicate otherwise.

There's hardly any difference that separates LSE, UCL and King's for Law.

http://browse.guardian.co.uk/education?SearchBySubject=false&FirstRow=0&SortOrderDirection=&SortOrderColumn=GuardianTeachingScore&Subject=Law&Go=Go

Employment prospects? UCL and LSE also have better employment prospects for Law in the Times table IIR

Furthermore, how do you base your argument on what people say on TSR? Do you really believe in them? I have to admit there are indeed several wise and knowledgeable people on TSR who provide accurate information. But most people here are just narrow-minded, ignorant and arrogant key-board warriors. You have to take what people say here with a pinch of salt.

I agree, but it is still a useful indicator of the perceptions had.
Also the tables indicate that the employment prospects for UCL and LSE are better, so I guess in such a competetive business the top employers favour these over KCL.

Give me any sort of proof that UCL's teaching quality is better than King's for history. Yes, UCL's history department is certainly excellent. That's what i heard from my ex-history teacher who did her masters at UCL. However, I don't think that King's history is worse in any way. no.

I was agreeing with your evidence that KCL is better for History :s-smilie:

Was he an admissions officer? no. A King's professor doesn't have to know the answers to questions such as 'how many places are available?' If you want to know, prospectus is your friend

I really think he should have had basic stats with him. There were many other questions he was unable to answer. He was the face of the department to the prospective students, and put in a poor show.

Why do you think LSE specializes in law

It is a self described social sciences laboratory

If you claim that LSE is the best for law out of the three, UCL and KCL law students would all disagree

Would they??? Most tables show a fair gap between UCL/KCL and LSE.

I would disagree with your claim that UCL's arts is the best out of the three.

It is for English, Languages and Classics

Again, you think you can judge a uni by its open days. But that's what you think. I would say that the absolute best way to judge a uni is by studying there for a semester. But that's obviously not possible. We can't study everywhere. can we? Thus, judging quality with authority and objectivity is never really possible.

Therefore the best indicator available is an open day.

Reply 94

BigBadSaint

But as far as I can see it doesn't offer anything like Marx, Rousseau, Plato etc
stuff like that is pretty normal in Politics isn't it?

What? I was saying, King's War Studies is generally regarded as Politics.

BigBadSaint

I think LSE's huge proportion of international students could indicate otherwise.

LSE is indeed 'world-renowned' for economics. Those in the know even rate it higher than Cambridge in some cases. However, for law, Oxbridge are 'world-renowned', then the list would go UCL=KCL=LSE.

BigBadSaint

http://browse.guardian.co.uk/education?SearchBySubject=false&FirstRow=0&SortOrderDirection=&SortOrderColumn=GuardianTeachingScore&Subject=Law&Go=Go

Employment prospects? UCL and LSE also have better employment prospects for Law in the Times table IIR

tbh, many people even on tsr, do not really take guardian seriously. If you look at it carefully, you will find some unis arranged in an absurd order.
For employment prospects, it's the same thing here. isn't it. If you take it as the most important factor, in your view, City would be a better law school than Oxford. Don't think of the league tables as 'the Bible of university decisions'.

BigBadSaint

I agree, but it is still a useful indicator of the perceptions had.
Also the tables indicate that the employment prospects for UCL and LSE are better, so I guess in such a competetive business the top employers favour these over KCL.

The tables indicate that King's and UCL are course-dependent, when comparing each other. For some courses, King's is better. For more courses, UCL is better. So generally, UCL is a better university. However, im saying each has its field. You keep referring to employment prospects. Would you say LSE is even better than Oxbridge? no. Plus, just in terms of employment, one thread here on tsr which directly led to a presumably, reliable report on employment by an organization, showed that students from manchester, warwick and london colleges find jobs more easily than oxbridge students. Does this mean that Oxbridge is worse than them? No absolutely not.

BigBadSaint

I really think he should have had basic stats with him. There were many other questions he was unable to answer. He was the face of the department to the prospective students, and put in a poor show.

He did not have to 'put in' a pretentious show or something like that. He's an academic. He might care just about his studies. He might have been chosen as the 'face', even though he did not necessarily want to. He might have been having a really bad day. You can't judge the quality of an institution's education just by attending an open day. You can decide whether i should go to this university or not and whether i like the feel of the place or not. You can't make an objective claim concerning the quality of a university, just by going to an open day.

BigBadSaint

It is a self described social sciences laboratory

Law is neither precisely a social science or humanity. Many roughly put law into social sciences category. But such classification is not necessarily accurate. It's more correct to say that law is closer to social science rather than humanity.

BigBadSaint

Would they??? Most tables show a fair gap between UCL/KCL and LSE.
It is for English, Languages and Classics

Didn't you mention arts? Arts include music. I said for music, KCL is better. Im not even sure UCL has music. It's a top institution for arts/design courses. But the institution did not necessarily intend to specialize in arts, when it was first established. It was created by a lawyer/philosopher called Jeremy Bentham and it never tried to 'specialize' in the arts.

BigBadSaint

Therefore the best indicator available is an open day.

Nope, an open day is helpful for an applicant when deciding which uni to go to. It does not show the quality of a university's education completely.

Reply 95

Stychomythia

13

This thread has been going for years, and to what end?

In that time King's has risen in International rankings (Times higher) and fallen in some others; but what does that mean?

It has been interesting how many non-King's people have been saying what an excellent uni it is and, as a King's graduate, that makes me happy.

But I would suggest that there is only one test of how good a Univeristy is: How much does it improve its students. King's has the highest proportion of those of a non-traditional student background in the Russell group*; yet it still has an excellent profile in many areas: Law (reputation high in East Asia and very possibly as pre-eminent in EU) War/Security Studies, Dentistry, Medicine, Music, Theoretical Physics, Pharmacology, Nursing, History, Palaeography, Geography, Classics and also the superb Institute of Psychiatry and yet it is far less 'selective' than many other unis, including its London peers, and has pioneered many access courses.

That's really really good, isn't it?

Steven

*widely quoted, though I confess I have no citation.

Reply 96

Stychomythia

This thread has been going for years, and to what end?

In that time King's has risen in International rankings (Times higher) and fallen in some others; but what does that mean?

It has been interesting how many non-King's people have been saying what an excellent uni it is and, as a King's graduate, that makes me happy.

But I would suggest that there is only one test of how good a Univeristy is: How much does it improve its students. King's has the highest proportion of those of a non-traditional student background in the Russell group*; yet it still has an excellent profile in many areas: Law (reputation high in East Asia and very possibly as pre-eminent in EU) War/Security Studies, Dentistry, Medicine, Music, Theoretical Physics, Pharmacology, Nursing, History, Palaeography, Geography, Classics and also the superb Institute of Psychiatry and yet it is far less 'selective' than many other unis, including its London peers, and has pioneered many access courses.

That's really really good, isn't it?

Steven

*widely quoted, though I confess I have no citation.

What did you study at King's? How was it like there?
Yeah, i've heard that king's is well-known for its excellence in teaching. It turns students who may not have been the best in high school, into world leaders.

Reply 97

Vincente

To be honest UCL does edge KCL overall; University College has 40+ departments, whilst King's has far less than this figure. So it isin't too surprising.

But what King's is very good at i.e. history, war studies, classics, hispanic languages etc it would match or even surpass its equivalent at UCL.

Reply 98