UCL or DURHAM???

Sorry, but at an undergraduate level, Kings is no way near as tough to get into, nor as respected.


Bristol and Durham > KCL, but understandably Kings has more fame worldwide due to its location and research at postgrad level.

To Polymath:


Well, you have seen the statistics. KCL graduates earn £24,798 . Durham £21,000.

KCL trashes Durham in all world rankings albeit Durham wins in UK rankings, but what does that matter when KCL graduates do have a higher starting salaries than Durham ?

Not to mention this which is as important as salary - the percentage of graduates getting a job. KCL is the best one there.

KCL best in the UK for graduate employment:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news/newsrecords/2012/09-Sept/Kings-wins-Sunday-Times-Best-University-for-Graduate-Employment-award.aspx

And yes, at MA/MSc/MPhil etc level, Durham gets trashed by KCL once again. Once again, Durham has only undergrad level to defend - everything else and they get slaughtered.

By the way - are you saying I should choose BA Politics at Durham over BA War Studies at KCL ? Lol, never gonna happen + I have offer from UCL too. Durham is my LAST choice.

By the way - did you knew it's Durham which has study agents working for them in another countries to bring in students? UCL and KCL on the other hand DOES NOT have agents. Why? because they are better than Durham.

To Polymath:
Well, you have seen the statistics. KCL graduates earn £24,798 . Durham £21,000.
KCL trashes Durham in all world rankings albeit Durham wins in UK rankings, but what does that matter when KCL graduates do have a higher starting salaries than Durham ?
Not to mention this which is as important as salary - the percentage of graduates getting a job. KCL is one of the best out there.
KCL best in the UK for graduate employment:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news/newsrecords/2012/09-Sept/Kings-wins-Sunday-Times-Best-University-for-Graduate-Employment-award.aspx
And yes, at MA/MSc/MPhil etc level, Durham gets trashed by KCL once again. Once again, Durham has only undergrad level to defend - everything else and they get slaughtered.
By the way - are you saying I should choose BA Politics at Durham over BA War Studies at KCL ? Lol, never gonna happen + I have an offer from UCL too. Durham is my LAST choice.
Regarding entrance requirements:
Durham - BA Politics AAA or 37 IB
KCL - BA War Studies AAA or 38 IB
So really - "not as tough" as Durham you say?
For UCL which I have an offer for aswell: AAA - AAB or 36 - 38 IB (average 37 IB)
Regarding the qualification from my country; UCL and KCL asked for 10% higher score on average compared to Durham.
So it's fun when you say "it's not tough at KCL". LOL.
By the way - did you knew it's Durham who has study agents working for them in another countries to bring in students? UCL and KCL on the other hand DOES NOT have agents. Why? because they are better than Durham.

You are still ignoring the difference in regional salaries and cost of living, and that, last I checked, the North East has the lowest salaries of all English regions (along with the South West). However, cost of living is significantly lower to compensate.
KCL also offers more professional courses such as medicine and dentistry and these command high salaries. However, if you compare a Durham and KCL law graduate, or English graduate, then the difference may not be as stark.
I believe the latest stats show there's little difference, with around 79% of KCL and Durham graduates in employment or further study. However, I'll check.
Sorry, but that's complete nonsense. Are you even aware of Durham's research? In some areas, such as astrophysics, it is among the best in the world. In others it is more modest, but this is the nature of multi-faculty universities. This sort of thing is very much dependent on department and specific discipline.
Durham's School of Government is quite mediocore to be honest.

It's not hating, they are just stating the fact that UCL is better than Durham.

You can take a look at whatever ranking you like, from QS to others and UCL is usually among top 20 unis in the world.

Not to mention average graduate salaries, which is what actually counts when you have completed your degree, and you can see those figures here.

LONDON BEST FOR GRADUATE UK SALARIES

Proof that a degree from a London university will boost your CV and your earning potential.
Top Ten Universities for Graduate Starting Salaries

Source: Daily Telegraph

http://blog.studylondon.ac.uk/2012/09/london-best-for-uk-graduate-salaries/

Please help me decide as I havent been to either (or to the UK)
I'm doing NatSci and I'm looking for the sort of enviroment where everyone is enthusiatic about their subjects and generally I would like somewhere easy to adjust to.

In addition to the above, what do you mean by "study agents"?

Durham are aware that their international reputation is lacking (and not because they aren't "good enough" but simply because they are a mid-size university located in a small cathedral city, as opposed to a large university, part of a very large federal university, in a global city). They are therefore seeking ways to increase their international profile, having created a "Dean of Internationalisation" a few years ago (though I feel they should have other priorities). This is probably part of that process.

All universities seek to advertise themselves or engage with students through various ways, and this does include UCL and KCL. Look at TSR and the University Reps, for example.

I am sorry to say, but you are wrong once again.

What I mean by study agents? It's when certain unis have study agents in another countries to bring in students from those countries. If study agent succeed in bringing students from certain countries, then they get 10% of the tuition fee as "bonus" or salary if you will.

Here is proof that Durham and other unis such as Bristol, York, Edinburgh and Bath have study agents as well.

http://www.studyacrossthepond.com/

As you can see - they recruit from USA/Canada/Norway/Mexico/Chile/Brazil/Colombia

By the way - Warwick DOES NOT have study agents either. They are in Coventry, lol. So how do you explain that? Can't wait to hear

Please help me decide as I havent been to either (or to the UK)
I'm doing NatSci and I'm looking for the sort of enviroment where everyone is enthusiatic about their subjects and generally I would like somewhere easy to adjust to.

Making this a new post as the previous is a bit long.



The quality of student, certainly UK students, will be comparable at both institutions, and so too would their work ethic. This isn't to say you won't be met with apathy from students. Well, not quite apathy, but perhaps those who at times seems a little more interested in socialising, or make the effort to discover basic things about their course and be a little organised. But these are both universities with high quality students, paying at least 9k a year in fees, so should be suitably motivated and interested. From my own experience of Durham I know it's quite common for students to get involved with societies that are related to their subject, or other extra-curricular activities.

Obviously UCL is in Central London (and, in my opinion, one of the most overrated parts of London - but this is just opinion) and this may be a little overpowering for you. Only you know how you will cope with big city environments. But the university will have a support structure in place, and universities are generally welcoming places (I have no reason to believe this is less true of UCL, which as already mentioned has a large international presence).

People have mentioned Durham's collegiate structure. It can provide an additional layer of student support, and an additional, smaller community to the university wide one. You may also have college parents. This may make it easier to settle. However, the collegiate structure can be a little "public school" (private school) for some, and can typify the paternalistic attitude that still pervades much of the university. This will vary by college. What college have you applied to?

As for international reputation, then this is certainly where UCL has more than an edge of Durham. However, I do feel that Durham graduates do better internationally then people give them credit for, and it does have a more recognised name among employers than the public. Durham still does reasonably well in global employer reviews, for example, and in one league table I know of (which I will try and find) Durham compares favourably with the entire University of London in terms of how many current CEOs of Fortune 500 companies they've produced. Ultimately it is the person that gets the job, not the university. Durham are also making an effort to increase their international brand, as I've already mentioned, but how successful this effort will be, especially in comparison to other universities, I obviously can't say.

If you are concerned about international reputation, and everything else is equal, then this may be a reason to chose UCL.

I'm a little tired and unwell at the moment, so I'm not sure how clear all this is. If you want me to clarify anything or have any questions then let me know.

1)

You're failing to adjust for London salaries.

1) Ok, so do you have stats that Durham graduates work only in the North of the UK since there is so much "variation" according to yourself ? More importantly - is £21,000 more worth in PPP value in Newcastle, Manchester or Birmingham compared to £25,020 in East-London and other areas which are considerably cheaper than Central and West-London.

2) Again - global rankings do have subject rankings too you know. For example LSE suffers also in these global rankings but when you take a look at the subjects which they are extremely good at - then you can see that they are in the top of the world. UCL also once again is way ahead of Durham and most other UK unis.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2012/subject-rankings

But I guess it's so "much better" with UK rankings where several of them put York and Durham ahead of LSE. Lol - and you expect anyone to actually believe that is accurate ?

3) No, Durham is NOT target uni for IB. Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial, UCL and Warwick are - just ask at investment forum. I can once again give you sources.

4) Yes, I agree that SGIA is not that good - therefore Durham is my LAST choice. But it goes for overall too.

6) Yes. I do value world rankings because they are more accurate and because they say something which you ignore - they evaluate all levels at the uni and they also tell you something about how valued a uni is internationally.

Which basically means, if you live in the UK you will have to compete in a hard fight against graduates from UCL and other top unis. Furthermore, if you want to work outside the UK as Durham graduate then forget about that because - once again UCL will trump over Durham.

So I think it's interesting that you ignore the fact that: UCL graduate can compete in the UK AND OUTSIDE the UK whilst a Durham graduate can ONLY COMPETE in the UK. See the HUGE difference here ?

Durham graduate = UK as their "job area"
UCL graduate = UK, USA, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, France, Russia, China, Canada, Netherlands, Middle-East etc.

I mentioned Warwick because they are in a small town also which you use as an excuse to back Durham.

But as I proved - Warwick doesn't need study agents while for some reason Bath, York, Bristol and Durham DOES.

That, and the fact that King's is a largely medicine and para-medical program powerhouse, thus is producing graduates that are bound to earn more as the pay in the paramedical fields is higher than most of the professional career routes there is, save for ibanking/law.

I think King's is a fantastic university and is somewhat respected internationally -- I must say, is a little more known that Durham outside of the UK especially in Asia and the USA, but overall, I still think that Durham is slightly better than King's, for undergraduate level.

For law, which is a professional program, I think they're even. For medicine, I think King's is the clear winner.

I Durham has a higher calibre of student (You need at least AAA) they are higher up for the sciences and UCL is just full of Imperial rejects or rich internationals who paid their way in.

That, and the fact that King's is a largely medicine and para-medical program powerhouse, thus is producing graduates that are bound to earn more as the pay in the paramedical fields is higher than most of the professional career routes there is, save for ibanking/law.

I think King's is a fantastic university and is somewhat respected internationally -- I must say, is a little more known that Durham outside of the UK especially in Asia and the USA, but overall, I still think that Durham is slightly better than King's, for undergraduate level.

For law, which is a professional program, I think they're even. For medicine, I think King's is the clear winner.