UCL or DURHAM???

KCL is not on par with Durham for Law. It just isn't

Lmao, this is not even worth replying to. Durham is the one letting in people with lower grades from certain countries you know as I have proved earlier.
Maybe Durham is better for "science" than UCL but I highly doubt it. Either way, UCL is better for most subjects and overall compared to Durham, no matter what certain overall UK rankings show.

Having AAA or BBB is overrated anyway. I am from another European country and I think it's strange to judge someone on only three subjects. We have to score well in all subjects at all levels.

Which means that GCSE or AS-subjects count as much as A-level subjects. That means you have to be at your best all the time, not just at A-level.

Internationals can't pay their way in anyway. I'll be paying £9,000 but there is no evidence that you can pay your way in at UCL. Quite the opposite, it is possible to pay your way in, into Durham if you are from certain country.

Who says that KCL is largerly medicine and paramedical powerhouse? We were talking about Politics/IR degrees here, but also overall rankings. For medicine, no one cares where you study, but for other subjects it's clearly very important.

Who says that KCL is largerly medicine and paramedical powerhouse?We were talking about Politics/IR degrees here, but also overall rankings. For medicine, no one cares where you study, but for other subjects it's clearly very important.

Furthermore, I don't think nurses earn more than IB/Law employees, so I don't think KCL produces that many doctors which can make KCL average salaries "too high" for your liking. According to UniStats, average salary for nurses after six months is £25,000 which is decent/very good and basically average when you look at KCL's average figure.

Queen Mary and City University have almost as high average salaries too - what kind of powerhouse would you call them ?

Durham's a lot more relaxed when it comes to the Lnat than KCL or UCL

Posted from TSR Mobile

You're a foreigner and you are trying to tell me about my own country's universities?

I

The academic departments at King's are also mostly for medicine and the para-medical programs. Here are King's nine constituent Schools of Study:

1. Arts & Humanities
2. Biomedical Sciences
3. Dental Institute
4. Institute of Psychiatry
5. Law
6. Medicine
7. Natural & Mathematical Sciences
8. Nursing & Midwifery
9. Social Science & Public Policy

do not overwhelm the student body like it is at King's.

Lol, such a "great argument". So because I am a "foreigner" who live ONE HOUR from England by plane cannot know better than you? Lol, you talk like England is in another universe. I've been to England 16-17 times and know several students there already.

Yes, I know better than you regarding universities and which one is better, you clearly don't. By all means, continue talking about how much better Durham is than UCL and how "everyone" can pay their way into UCL, when the fact is quite the opposite, Durham is the one which takes in students with lower grades from certain countries.

You



And after six months many arts gradautes are unemployed or not in graduate employment (earning below 25k). Conversely nursing has a high employability rate, even if nurses only earn around the average salary.


.

Perhaps, however this doesn't prove KCL is better than Durham for Law. Look at LSE, they don't even require the LNAT.

O_o you've been to this country an incredible seventeen times! We should just hand you your British passport right now. I'll just shut up now because I've only been living in England for my whole life and attended UCL so I clearly don't know anything about the country or the university.

You living in the UK in diapers and attending kindergarden does not count as "experience". I was already an adult when you were in kindergarden.

Good for you. I'll see you at your funeral then old man.

Well that's just LSE's policy but its true to say that most people who do get into LSE are predicted 3 or 4 A*s...etc so even though they don't require the lnat, they will have higher expectations for law students. You can't compare LSE to Durham especially for a subject like law.
However I think the fact that KCL is harsher on the lnat than Durham does prove that KCL is better and more competitive for law than Durham (don't get me wrong, Durham is a fantastic uni and I am aware that its a hard uni to get in to). It's just the same way as how UCL is a lot more harsher on the lnat than KCL (because UCL has a better rep for law than KCL hence it will be more competitive...)

Posted from TSR Mobile

There are a lot factors that would come into play why King's graduates of War Studies make more than Durham grads of politics do. But before that, I'd like to ask the conclusiveness and reliability of the salary survey you presented. I'd like to know if all the graduates of both programs were surveyed and have responded fairly.

I seriously don't think any educated company would pay King's grads more than they would to Durham grads solely on the basis of their university affiliation. And, I certainly do not know of a company/employer that hires King's because it is King's..., and not Durham because it is Durham. I don't think the Durham name suffers prestige amongst the employers, relative to King's. I've known many top banks and consulting firms that prioritize Warwick/UCL/LSE/Imperial/Oxbridge grads over Durham, but I've never heard employers that give priorities to King's over Durham.

And, whilst salary rates may tell about school prestige, it does not tell the whole picture.

Happy New Year.

But the fact it is a policy is significant; LSE feel, as does Cambridge that the LNAT isn't a significant assessor; Durham could very well feel the same but still require the LNAT for example; another less relevant factor for assessment, for let's say for sorting two candidates who are equal on everything else - so I stand by the view that 'strictness' a university has on the LNAT doesn't signify the competitive nature of the university; although it may seem this way on the surface.

You have suddenly introduced the competitiveness opposed to reputation which we initially discussed; competitiveness doesn't necessarily prove quality - although there is normally a correlation. On the level of reputation however, Durham does significantly better for City training contracts, and pupillage's - which one can argue does show the better reputation of the university. I also think with london universities, there is a stigma of 'eliteness' and quality which isn't necessarily accurate, which more often than not leads people to believe the likes of KCL and QMUL are up with the likes of LSE, UCL, Durham etc.