Does UCL have a reputation internationally? Internationals input please :)

Sure - (not a kid by the way young man - I already have a degree and a professional qualification).

QS World Rankings (International).

MIT - Employer Reputation Score 100.
UCL - Employer Reputation Score 95.6
Manchester - Employer Reputation Score 100.

Now I'm not the biggest fan of rankings but I would say that their methodology is a little bit better than yours.

Incidentally - I wouldn't assume if I were you that I don't know people at the various banks that you cite as representative places for investigation.

You clearly have some kind of psychosis if you're going to accuse other people in this thread of acting like they know everything. You just flat out dismissed the employer reputation of 5 strong russell group universities on the basis of nothing, by your own admission, but 'chat' and a single list of interns at a single european bank. Heck, you even assumed to know whether I know what I want out of life from a few posts on an internet forum. If that isn't acting like you know everything I don't know what is.

And I'm pretty sure their methodology significantly involves asking people around, which you yourself had just said was "codswallop", unless they do something magical which turns the "significantly codswallop" into "data". BTW, employer reputations are a very poor measure since it includes people working at McDonalds, Chicken Cottage, etc. If you pull an FT article stating that "City and Canary Wharf companies look more favourably towards Manchester than UCL" then I will bend a knee to you, call you the winner and never doubt you again. In the mean time, I will take my observations of my peers at top investment banks over statistics which include all forms of employment, including minimum wage ones.



And you just challenged my credentials on another topic, and when confronted, accused me of googling the proof before mysteriously vanishing away. If you're not a troll then I don't know what you are.

Ha! that's an exotic response you have TC.

Personally, a coffee barister at King's Cross didn't know what UCL was. Rest of the world? Don't bother. From my experience, everyone just nods and say "Oh, so you're from Los Angeles...". UCL is well known in academia and (most importantly) companies, but the plebians around the world have no clue what UCL is. But that's okay, no one knows what Cornell, Dartmouth or CalTech is either.

So that's how you explain MIT's employer score?

You think the EMPLOYER reputation score is taken by asking EMPLOYEES at McDonalds?

Er...which bank is it you're with?

What I mean is it involves asking managers at McDonalds, etc. And yes, the majority of it is from respondents.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/methodology/employer-reputation-index

Er....where did you graduate from again? If it's UCL then how the hell did they accept you in?

What I'm saying is that while prestige is important, it shouldn't be the main deciding factor.
If you turn up to LSE or Oxford for Law and hate studying there, you'll find it extraordinarily difficult and an unpleasant experience getting a 2.1 or a first. At the end of the day, a first from KCL/UCL will still look better than a middling second class degree from Oxbridge/LSE.

And it's three years of your life! I'm sorry, but why wouldn't you choose a university you know suits you?

If I get LSE, I'd still be firming UCL over it because I know that the Law Society's social calendar is far more up my street, the degree I hold the offer for includes a year in Spain and I prefer the course overall. Surely they're perfectly valid reasons to choose a university?

Boo hoo boo hoo. Please tell me all of this again when you get into an investment bank/big 4 consultancy in 2015. Companies like UCL more than low tier Russell's, live with it. If you can't face the harsh reality of life then I fear for when you graduate and try to get a job. "B B B BUT I HAVE A FIRST!" you say, well HR sifting through thousands of applications each hour won't hear you, and after filing out everyone who didn't get a 2:1 will then be looking at brand name. What are you doing on the UCL board anyway?

P.S. Oxford IS a top Russell, so your point is completely idiotic. Nice try.

When I tell Canadian people I am going to UCL this is what happens:

"I am going to UCL"
"UCL-A?"
"No, UCL"
"Oh...I think i've heard of it"

Mind you, its #4 on QS world rankings.

When I tell Canadian people I am going to UCL this is what happens:

"I am going to UCL"
"UCL-A?"
"No, UCL"
"Oh...I think i've heard of it"

Mind you, its #4 on QS world rankings.

Ok, so you don't believe any ranking that puts UCL each year among top 20 in the world.

Ok, then email these firms and asks them if they have heard of UCL, they definitely have

http://www.universumglobal.com/IDEAL-Employer-Rankings

As I told you in that other thread, where that Investment-monkey disagreed, which is to choose the course which you will enjoy and where you will score a 1st. That opens up possibilities at MSc-level, such as scholarships etc. Which means, you don't need to choose between UCL, LSE etc, you can get both.

#17*
but yep thats the reaction.

#17*
but yep thats the reaction.

Hmm could always try saying University College London

v

University of California in Los Angeles

and see which one they take seriously

Just to throw in an opinion here. I'm final-year Law at the LSE and have now gone through the entire system of applications, etc. and have emerged on the other side.

In my experience, things like an attractive university social calendar are irrelevant to the study of law.

If you turn up at LSE/Oxford/Cambridge/UCL/King's for Law and you struggle, it will have very little to do with the university and almost everything to do with your own mindset. I have friends at UCL and Oxbridge reading law and I can tell you there is no difference in the amount of 'struggle' people face academically.

It's three years of your life, yes, but don't delude yourself into thinking these three years are vitally important to 'enjoy' in the right place with the right atmosphere. There three years are vitally important to set yourself up for whatever comes next (the Bar, a TC, an LLM, etc.) Going to a university that is frankly more well-known (and I'm not saying better) will help you a lot more in the grand scheme of things.

But that's just my two cents.

PS: I never applied to UCL myself for Law, visited the campus in 2009 and I have to admit, the experience was pretty horrendous, pretty much the opposite of whatever impression you've had. That actually contributed towards shaping my opinion of the place as well.

When I tell Canadian people I am going to UCL this is what happens:

"I am going to UCL"
"UCL-A?"
"No, UCL"
"Oh...I think i've heard of it"

Mind you, its #4 on QS world rankings.

hahhahaha true.
Well I applied to UCL and was considering applying to UCLA and when i said both, they recognized ucla but thats just the name i guess!
Now I can't choose between Imperial and Warwick. Don't know which is better.

Oxbridge, then a chunk of really good unis, this idea of 'tiers' is nonsense.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/11/how_elite_firms.html

Sorry buddy.

If you don't like London snobs then you could hop back to the York board, you know.