Why is King's College ignored on TSR?

They are better, but the way they are talked about in comparison with KCL seems disproportionate.

Nobody cares about KCL. It's only a back up for the clever people and it's too difficult to get into for the idiots.

1. KCL is lower ranked. UCL pretty much trumps KCL at everything it offers. Of course you have War Studies at KCL and a decent medicine course, but, otherwise, UCL is higher ranked and more respected at practically everything it offers.

2. UCL, LSE and Imperial are all much higher ranked in UK tables, and are higher ranked internationally by far (excluding LSE, which is subject to unfair, biased criteria). UCL, LSE and Imperial also have, on average, better graduate prospects and higher average starting salaries. Moreover, many of the big firms actually state that they look to Oxbridge, then UCL, LSE and Imperial - KCL is thrown into the same circle as Queen Mary etc.

3. Competition is higher at UCL/LSE/ICL.

4. KCL does not compete internationally. Everyone I know abroad has heard of the other three; no one has heard of KCL (or they mistake it for King's College, Cambridge)

Erm, why are you in England again?

They're in the top ten, KCL is just outside of the top 20. Now think about that, and look at how much KCL is discussed on this forum.

They're in the top ten, KCL is just outside of the top 20. Now think about that, and look at how much KCL is discussed on this forum.

Positive rep when I get some

Well, you said it yourself...top ten vs 'just outside of the top 20'. That is a significant gap!

OK, Now consider the idea that universities such as Exeter and Nottingham are discussed to the same extent (some may say more).

I think it's because, for the most part, Exeter and Nottingham provide a similarly good education and have similar entry requirements for their tougher subjects. I don't even know why KCL is ranked as highly as it is; I think it should be lower, personally.

You use the rankings to support a point in your argument, and then when I put forward an argument referring to the rankings, you question the validity of the rankings. Nice.

Goodbye.

No pussy?

You use the rankings to support a point in your argument, and then when I put forward an argument referring to the rankings, you question the validity of the rankings. Nice.

Goodbye.

I didn't question the validity of the rankings. I said that I, personally, would rank KCL (and KCL alone) lower than it currently is. That's hardly disputing the validity of the entire ranking system.

Erm, why are you in England again?

Picnic 1 reminded me of a good point. People, particularly on here, don't value degrees unless it's business, science, or something 'useful' by which they define something that increases one's lifetime bank balance, rather than nurturing intellect. So places like LSE or Imperial who offer science courses will be deemed 'better' than places that excel in Humanities and Arts.

So true ^ Everyone I know at KCL are UCL and LSE rejects. It's like the Oxford Brooks of London.

It seems to me that when people speak about the London universities, Imperial, UCL and LSE come up very often, but I hardly ever see people raving about KCL in the same way. An interesting note to this is that I only ever seem to observe this phenomenon on TSR.

KCL competes with these universities pretty well on the international stage (more so than many of the universities in the usual top ten) , and is arguable the most centrally located London university (near to loads of interesting, and a lot of the time, expensive places).

I often see people raving about how Nottingham and Exeter are in these 'rah' top tens, while they almost completely ignore King's College, which, from what I've heard and seen, attracts large numbers of those from priveleged, well educated backgrounds.

Basically, on TSR, KCL seems to be extremely underrated in many senses.

Care to give reasons as to why this is?

*I'm not a KCL student, nor am I set on applying.....although I may. For the pedants, I'm speaking in a general sense, the title isn't complete gospel....duh.*

They're all central tbh, and all have their own respective characters:

re. Imperial: Not much to cater for the average student budget, but the Royal Borough has it's pros: The Museums, Kensington High Street, Brompton Road (Harrods). Beautiful area of town; first year is the only time in life living there is (somewhat!) affordable...

LSE, in any case, is just as "central" as KCL - Aldwych is literally just around the corner.

re UCL: Bloomsbury is also a lovely area, and like KCL/LSE is only a short walk from the West End.

It's also worth comparing Hammersmith & Fulham (Imperial), Camden/Islington (UCL), and wherever studentville is for KCL/LSE.

In short, they've all got their respective locations going for them. That's not something you refuted particularly in your post, to be fair - just worth highlighting


I won't wade into 'x is better than y' debate - it's mostly subjective anyway (when the league tables get whipped out you know it's a party )