History at UCL V KCL

OK, this goes out to all those who feel they have a good idea about the difference between the two degrees. That can be people who applied to both and chose one over the other, or people who have experienced study at both places or people currently applying who have done the research. What made you choose your department over the other? What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each? etc

Cheers

Reply 1

Alexii

UCL = better

Reply 2

MetalA

Care to say why? In more than just a few sentences?

Reply 3

MetalA

To quote the guy at the KCL open day: "As for the quality of our degree vs that of UCL's, you couldn't put a piece of paper between them".

I like UCL because of the method of assessment and the ability to take courses from other departments, or study with a language. I also like the amount of intellectual history courses they have, which is by far my favourite type of History, which I feel KCL had less of.

UCL does still use the tutorial system. They may not occur every week as they do at KCL, but that's because at UCL you don't have a weekly, unassessed essay requirement. Personally I would not be interested in engaging in essays on a weekly basis, especially as they would have no bearing on my final mark. You do get tutorials in your first year at UCL, and generally seminar class sizes are small. The web is just one of a variety of methods used to contact tutors, who also have office hours whereby one can book private appointments.

Also, I like the fact that the UCL History department is in a nice, big, bright period house!

Reply 4

Ossie1701

I don't particularly rate the KCL course, although if you're into British History, then this is probably the best place to study it outside of Oxbridge. If you're into Modern World & practically any other sort of History then the KCL course really lacks the appeal of many other Institutions, especially its number one rival, UCL. Overall reputation - the Strand Poly doesn't cut it, and I would question the supposedly 'paper-thin margin' - UCL all the way on that front. That said, KCL doesn't suffer from a bad reputation in the arts and is more or less being dragged down by pretty poor science facilities/departments.

Reply 5

Lottie

If you were a student at UCL, could you take a module or two at King's?

Reply 6

Josho

If you were a student at UCL, could you take a module or two at King's?

You almost certainly could! I don't want to start a stupid KCL vs. UCL debate but in my opinion UCL is the better university. Thats not to defame history at KCL in any way, it is simply due to the fact that UCL has superior funding, has better facilities, and in my opinion is seen as slightly more prestigious. However, I am highly biased as I think UCL has the greatest history course in the country.

Reply 7

MetalA

For History alone I feel King's may be more helpful if you wanted to go to Oxbridge for a masters (probably because its methods of assessment concur more with those institutions, and also for the peripheral reason that it was founded on Anglican principles as well LOL)

UCL is a better institution in general though, not wanting to fan the flames of another Godless vs Strandpoly style thread.

Reply 8

Vincente

UCL and KCL are practically on par IMO. UCL is stronger on the subjects they specialised in when it was opened (according to my dad whom used UCL facilities when he was at KCL). Subjects like science, english and maths is much better at UCL. Whilst at KCL which initially specialised in humanities still to this day beats UCL. Subjects like classics, music, philosophy, war studies and history.

I'm never quite sure why people say that UCL is a better university than KCL considering the fact UCL has around 40 subject departments whilst KCL has under 30. Hence the greater funding to UCL. In terms of prestige they are considered the same by employers and law firms. I think the only reason why UCL is considered better because of people's emphasis on league tables especially the Times.

If I had to choose to study the V100 at one of the 2 I would choose KCL. However I want to study Eastern European history and UCL is best at that! (Or should I say SSEES)

Reply 9

Josho

Yes you should say SSEES :smile:

Reply 10

WokSz

I don't know much about the differences between the two courses, but I prefer UCL's location and campus. UCL is a far superior University in terms of reputation and funding, as someone already said and the library is just amazing.