what made you choose ucl as your firm choice?

This has nothing to do with what you're asking but what exactly is Audiology and what does it involve?

Reply 2

spoon1

This has nothing to do with what you're asking but what exactly is Audiology and what does it involve?

Shouldn't a prospective medic/neuroscientist know what audiology is? :eek:

Anyway, to be perfectly honest it was out of UCL, Southampton and Exeter. No offence to the other two but if I want to be a barrister I'd have the best chance by going to UCL.

A better question for me to answer would be why I applied to UCL in the first place. Well, I must say I never was realy that optimistic of getting in.. and I'm still thrilled to bits :biggrin:

I wanted to apply to one of the good london uni's for a start.

I ruled LSE out because I didn't want to be with 65% foreign students (nothing personally against them of course! :smile:

)

I chose UCL over King's then .. partially on the league tables :redface:

(I was naive then) and also because of the LNAT, which King's didn't use. I had poor(ish) GCSE grades for a law applicant, and I figured that a good LNAT score would help make up for that :smile:

Plus all the extra great stuff...

Reply 3

Isn't King's higher on the league tables? I know it is for Classics.
Ok, um...well, I always knew that London was my first choice, after I was rejected by Oxford (their loss, we're over it) - I just love the city and the culture and....oh, just everything about it. I applied to King's and UCL as I wanted to be in central London (so not Royal Holloway!) and LSE don't do Classics. I completely fell in love with UCL, the way everything was just there right in Bloomsbury (it's a Virginia Woolf thing), the people! I was interviewed at UCL by this adorable old Greek professor who was just so lovely, as were all the other staff and students I met, whereas I loathed the woman doing the open day presentation stuff at King's (in spite of her glorious name: Ismene Lada-Richards), and I always felt really lost inside King's. Plus UCL gave me a higher offer and they've recently set up a Classics with a year studying abroad thing, which looks amazing (I love my travel), while with King's I would've had to go for Erasmus and all that, which just seemed like so much more hassle. The things that made me hesitate were: King's seems to have a higher reputation and has marginally better TQA and research scores (by one mark each, I think); and King's stages an annual Classical play performed in the original Greek, which I thought would be so much fun to do. However, the Classics Society at King's was, they admitted, pretty much dead (the girl doing the tours and just re-established it), while UCl has a very active classics soc. King's also seemed a bit desperate to have me (naturally!), for a place with such a good reputation: they gave me a relatively low offer (BBB, which is the same as all y other places except UCL) and didn't even ask for an interview, which made me a bit suspicious. UCl seemed to have more accommodation closer to campus, and had more connection with UoL as a whole - what with ULU being so close and everything.
Basically, I chose UCL because it seemed like a nicer place and it was a bit easier with UCAS, since they tend to look somewhat askance on your insurance being higher than your firm.
And that's my 'I love UCL' rant over...

Reply 4

Madelyn

Isn't King's higher on the league tables? I know it is for Classics.
Ok, um...well, I always knew that London was my first choice, after I was rejected by Oxford (their loss, we're over it) - I just love the city and the culture and....oh, just everything about it. I applied to King's and UCL as I wanted to be in central London (so not Royal Holloway!) and LSE don't do Classics. I completely fell in love with UCL, the way everything was just there right in Bloomsbury (it's a Virginia Woolf thing), the people! I was interviewed at UCL by this adorable old Greek professor who was just so lovely, as were all the other staff and students I met, whereas I loathed the woman doing the open day presentation stuff at King's (in spite of her glorious name: Ismene Lada-Richards), and I always felt really lost inside King's. Plus UCL gave me a higher offer and they've recently set up a Classics with a year studying abroad thing, which looks amazing (I love my travel), while with King's I would've had to go for Erasmus and all that, which just seemed like so much more hassle. The things that made me hesitate were: King's seems to have a higher reputation and has marginally better TQA and research scores (by one mark each, I think); and King's stages an annual Classical play performed in the original Greek, which I thought would be so much fun to do. However, the Classics Society at King's was, they admitted, pretty much dead (the girl doing the tours and just re-established it), while UCl has a very active classics soc. King's also seemed a bit desperate to have me (naturally!), for a place with such a good reputation: they gave me a relatively low offer (BBB, which is the same as all y other places except UCL) and didn't even ask for an interview, which made me a bit suspicious. UCl seemed to have more accommodation closer to campus, and had more connection with UoL as a whole - what with ULU being so close and everything.
Basically, I chose UCL because it seemed like a nicer place and it was a bit easier with UCAS, since they tend to look somewhat askance on your insurance being higher than your firm.
And that's my 'I love UCL' rant over...

Well not according to any of the ones I read when I applied. The Sunday Times guide actually gave UCL 'University of the Year', placing it 5th and KCL 14th or something like that. :p:

They're very equal, and both have particularly good law departments. the trouble is, these league tables are based on things which ultimately are pretty useless facts. The important things like teaching and research are pretty much scored evenly (as far as law is concerned, anyway). That's why I said I was naive back then :redface:

Reply 5

I only know about the respective Classics departments (King's has slightly higher scores), but King's is, I think, quite patchy- some departments are world-renowned, top of their fields, while others are fairly indifferent.

Reply 6

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,8403,00.html :smile:

Reply 7

I didn't argue with that! grrr...
King's is also highly respected as it's longer-established than UCL (though UCL is way cooler - Jeremy Bentham!)

Reply 8

Madelyn

I didn't argue with that! grrr...
King's is also highly respected as it's longer-established than UCL (though UCL is way cooler - Jeremy Bentham!)

I never said you argued with ie :eek:

I was just showing you how great we are!

Also I thought UCL was set up in 1826 to give as an alternative to oxbridge by letting people in regardless of sex, religion, race or class. King's was set up the following year to stop this blasphemy in London :rolleyes:

King's was given its charter before UCL, but UCL was established first... I'm pretty sure :smile:

Reply 9

But I already know how great we are :biggrin:

King's was definitely first, and then UCL came along as an alternative to King's religious rubbish - King's people used to call us "those godless heathens in Gower Street". Which is quite a nice epithet, really.

Reply 10

Madelyn

But I already know how great we are :biggrin:

King's was definitely first, and then UCL came along as an alternative to King's religious rubbish - King's people used to call us "those godless heathens in Gower Street". Which is quite a nice epithet, really.

I've heard totally different stories! :| That UCL was set up to combat Oxbridge, and King's was subsequently established to rival UCL!

And I've always heard us being called the "Godless Gower Street Mob" :p:

Reply 11

ahh, whichever it is, we're pretty cool :smile:

oh, and UCL was the first English uni to have a students' union, in about 1893 or something. Go us...

Reply 12

We are true innovators.

Reply 13

At least UCL wasn't set up by a damn socialist. I'd rather be Godless than believe in that s*** doctrine. Thankfully it isn't so bad anymore :smile:

!

Reply 14

um...actually, it was set up by a damn socialist. Excellent idea. Anyway, atheism and socialism have long gone hand in hand - forget "religion is the opiate of the masses", just look at Kit Marlowe.

Reply 15

Lol by the way Onearmedbandit the reason I'm still awake is due to my Law revision timetable.. In order to catch up I'm required to work for the next 18 hours and complete no less than 6 questions in controlled conditions. Prepare for Hell-pon-earth, (sorry I forgot, Godless heathen, I rephrase: nasty-things-pon-earth), for your Law exams next year. Don't get behind like I did :biggrin:

Reply 16

Madelyn

um...actually, it was set up by a damn socialist. Excellent idea. Anyway, atheism and socialism have long gone hand in hand - forget "religion is the opiate of the masses", just look at Kit Marlowe.

Bloody socialists. They ruin everything. :biggrin:

[ps. I love them really...kind of].

Reply 17

I know! What's with all this "fairness" rubbish anyway? Don't they know that the peasants enjoy being poor?

Reply 18