Well I am thinking that the Times assess its universities in a stuffy old-fashioned criteria sort of a way, while the Guardian looks upon these things with young trendy eyes. Many of KCL's courses I would say definitely suit the young trendy requirements more than say, Durham.
Hi, as an American student I would say that the (top 10 at least) in the Guardian are definitely accurate in an international sense. For example in the Times Higher world rankings King's placed 8th, whereas I think in the Times Higher regular within the UK it was like 13th. I personally thought the Guardian rankings seemed pretty accurate although I think KCL placed above UCL (at least in 2005) which I don't think is accurate. Cheers
lol. the times is more respected. i mean the overall table in the guardian does put KCL 7th but then it also puts bangor and brunel over st andrews. also the ranking method of number of qualifying subjects and average means very little, uts the individual subject tables which mean more to individual students. for example, in the law tables queen mary is 5th , which can't be right, and hull, city and surrey beat bristol and nottingham.
in my opinion the times is better. its overall table uses better ranking methods. however i'm not so sure that undergrads need to be to concerned with the research ratings although i guess it might reflect a strong uni.
Yeah I did notice that St Andrews did not place well in the Guardian, which I felt was undeserved, but I felt like places like King's and Edinburgh, which have a strong international reputation, were better represented in the Guardian.