Why is King&#x27;s College ignored on TSR?

Original post by Cesar Lecat

The fact is, universities such as ICL and LSE are subject-specific, which is why it performs well. If they started being a well rounded uni like KCL, UCL, Bristol, Durham, Warwick etc then it wouldn't be as prestiges as it is now. Then maybe you can compare it to being back ups.

I don't see the angle of argument in this.

They will still be very prestigious. SOAS is subject specific and is not as prestigious, so I really don't see the undue advantage you are pointing out.

That said, KCL is not in the said class as RHUL, it is firmly in the Top 4 as it is generally known for London universities. I have never seen anything like Top 3 bar when we are looking at G5. It is in the Golden Triangle.

KCL is the weakest in the pack but the gaps goes LSE/Imp > UCL > KCL academically. But for employment, it is LSE/Imp > KCL/UCL.

It is only kids on TSR that will not know this.

Reply 82

Original post by LutherVan

I don't see the angle of argument in this.

They will still be very prestigious. SOAS is subject specific and is not as prestigious, so I really don't see the undue advantage you are pointing out.

That said, KCL is not in the said class as RHUL, it is firmly in the Top 4 as it is generally known for London universities. I have never seen anything like Top 3 bar when we are looking at G5. It is in the Golden Triangle.

KCL is the weakest in the pack but the gaps goes LSE/Imp > UCL > KCL academically. But for employment, it is LSE/Imp > KCL/UCL.

It is only kids on TSR that will not know this.

The reason why I didn't mention SOAS is that it's in an odd situation. Not that long ago it was prestiges here, for those who even heard of it that is, but it's not so much now. Still a very very good uni.

I've heard arguments put that SOAS just falls out of the UCL/LSE/ICL/KCL bracket because of it.

However the reason why I didn't include it is because it has this unique reputation of being more well known and prestiges internationally, than nationally here. Most people I know have never even heard of SOAS, and that's people living in London :s-smilie:

SOAS really is prestiges internationally and is well known, because it's specialist like LSE and ICL.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 83

Original post by Cesar Lecat

Before I refute INTJ, can I just say he is one amusing troll :biggrin:

How many do you know?

Since when was it known as the Oxford Brooks of London? :biggrin:

Please tell me. Use the search engine and find me one quote to back up what you just said. I dare you. Goodness me, you really do talk out of your arse.

London Unis are categories like this by most people (especially on here)..

Top

UCL
ICL
LSE
KCL

Good

QMUL
SOAS
RHUL
Goldsmith

Average/poor

Brunel
Kingston
Westminster
East London
Thames Valley

for 1 and 2, read my comments below.

3. And it isn't at KCL? :s-smilie:

4. KCL does compete internationally? Bloody hell. Just look at the Notable alumni list from KCL to know that they do. I mean really, are you really that desperate? :s-smilie:

Who got CCC and for what? What course? I'd like to read about it. I was told by a friend that their relative got in to UCL with BBB, after missing out on their AAB offer. Shock horrer, UCL is awful. :rolleyes:

It's funny how you seem to know all these people. Is it your imaginary friends by any chance? :biggrin:

You kind of remind me of David cameron in the election debate, coming out with "I met a...." line which he always used :biggrin:

Furthermore, it states on wiki (can't access the times website to verify it) that....

You really don't like KCL, and it must be for a reason. Otherwise you wouldn't be spouting so much nonsense.

reputation is far more important than ranking. Classic example. Lancaster is ranked number 10 and Bristol is ranked 14. Is Lancaster better than Bristol? :rolleyes:

Erm, I don't know. Maybe let me get you some quotes from our friends wikipedia. Which states.....

and...

and finally...

Just to be cheeky....

Which is why I find your anti KCL stance so amusing to read :biggrin:

Like I said, you're an amusing troll.

I wonder why? :rolleyes:

Really?

How on earth can you put KCL in the same sentence as Hallam, Brooks, Ruskin etc. How? I'd love to understand your logic. My lord, you really are angry at KCL. Were you ever rejected from there or something? :biggrin:

Clearly I've struck a nerve, but you are going to have a very hard time trying to convince anyone that KCL is in the same league as UCL/LSE/ICL. Yes, it is a good university, but just look at the international reputation, the entry requirements, the graduate prospects, the average graduate starting salaries, the employment statistics of top firms. All you have to do is peruse forums, threads here etc and you'll see that top employers look to the big three before they do to KCL. You can keep fooling yourself by saying KCL is in the same 'top' group, but it isn't. I have nothing against Kings; and, if I did go, I wouldn't parade these forums pretending it is in the same league.

1. Alumni doesn't reflect current reputation. It's a nice addition to a university's history, but do you honestly think alumni is enough to propel a university's international reputation? No. There are plenty of 'mediocre' universities that have had some impressive alumni.

2. I don't need to quote. I said it. I don't need to back up my comparison; it was a light-hearted jest which apparently upset those who are enamoured of KCL.

3. As for the CCC, I know of about 20 people who go, all of whom have 'okay' results, some of whom have poor results. I know of maybe 3 people at UCL who have grades below AAB. The rest have a slew of A*s. Same goes for the LSE and Imperial. Are you really contending this? The entry requirements of UCL/LSE/ICL ARE higher. I'm not saying KCL has poor standards, but they are lower.

4. You're right - reputation is VERY important. LSE is unfairly ranked because of its lack of sciences, but its reputation compensates for that. KCL, however, does NOT have the same reputation as those three :s-smilie:

And I don't know where on earth you're getting that from. It sounds more like you're an irate KCL student.

5. No, I wasn't rejected from KCL. I didn't even bother applying because I wanted to go somewhere better. Deal with it.

Reply 84

Original post by LutherVan

There you go again with this your UCL is great and on par with LSE and Imperial.

It is LSE/Imperial> UCL > KCL.

You keep on showing your ignorance and childishness by claiming KCL cannot compete with UCL internationally. Rubbish!

Internationally it is LSE > Imperial > UCL/KCL.

If you are talking about graduate prospects, according to The Times, UCL is bottom for the Golden Triangle which are the top 6:

Most In Graduate Level Employment

1) Imperial
2) LSE
3) KCL
4) Cambridge
5) Oxford
6) UCL

QMW was 18, so don't you think it is UCL that is more likely to be tossed with QMW for graduate prospects?

Hardly do grad firms place UCL in their preference choice and leave out KCL. They prefer Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial.

According to the Times:

Fewest in unemployment after 6 months
1) Harper Adams UC
2) Surrey
3) Robert Gordon
4) Buckingham
5) Cambridge
6) KCL
7) Strathclyde
8)Aberdeen
9) Glamorgan
10) St Mary's UC

UCL is not even in the top 10.

Also here is the average starting salary by university from the Times, even KCL is higher than UCL, stop being ignorant:

http://tomcat4.prospects.ac.uk:8080/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1454&sid=789c853f6b81ec5be6a50555a79ea56d

1 Imperial College 25,889
2 LSE 24,513
3 Cambridge 22,981
4 King's College London 22,944
5 University College London 22,287
6 Oxford 21,287

Considering these 3 tables, how can you claim that UCL has a better employment prospect than KCL? You are a very ignorant young man with a chip on your shoulder.

Any grad preference I have seen advertised and UCL is included, it ALWAYS has Warwick, Durham, KCL, Edinburgh, Bristol etc also included. But there are several jobs that target only Oxbridge and LSE exclusively. UCL has no kind of exclusivity treatment or advantage in employment than other top universities outside the Top 4. It is not in the same class as LSE or better than KCL for employment. Stop deluding yourself.

Drop the chip on your shoulder as I have told you several times.

As usual you rubbish unsubstantiated claims. Which loads of people. You always claim this. Do you go about asking hundreds and thousands of people for their grades?

Stop lying!

Employers see UCL less than LSE and Imperial and on par with KCL.

No. NO ONE seems to think that LSE and Imperial are in a separate league. Also, those 'statistics' you provided are pretty absurd. Are you telling me those universities beat Oxford in terms of employment? Don't make me laugh. Some stats/tables are to be taken not with a pinch of salt, but a truck load.

Furthermore, I have seen SEVERAL reports with the average starting salaries, and they were all COMPLETELY different to what you've provided. Incidental? I think not. In every other source I've seen, it goes:

1. LSE
2. Imperial
3. UCL
4. Cambridge
5. Oxford/Warwick.

And even that isn't a great indication of a university's overall strength.

It is you who needs to stop classing LSE and Imperial in their own league. Have you not noticed that EVERYONE else constantly refers to them as UCL, LSE and Imperial...then KCL. In polls, people have shown that UCL tends to be more popular/recognised. In terms of international reputation, they are equal (except in the States, where LSE does have the advantage). Ask anyone else; see what they say when you ask them to divide universities into tiers. You - and maybe one other person - are the only people I know who think that it goes ICL/LSE > UCL/KCL.

Entry requirements, citations, reviews, reputation, average grade offers, research, funding, name recognition, the number of 1:1s/2:1s etc would all disprove your theory. In fact, I can't think of one thing you've said which would corroborate your claim. Your argument that KCL is in the same league as UCL is closer to being legit than your argument that ICL and LSE are superior.

Reply 85

Miyavi

Original post by Qaz25

Coz when I tell someone I'm at King's College... they usually think I mean Cambridge :sigh:

And then I say the London bit... and they usually go... oh... cue disappointment :colondollar:

Negged for this? :colonhash:

It's seriously what has actually happened to me quite a few times... dunno what the neg is for... but oh well :rofl:

I just looked through the posts... realised there are some neg happy people on this thread

LOL yeah i dont get people's negs sometimes wonder what they think, maybe you said word that offends them like ....the word... 'someone'. that's a pretty controversial word.

Reply 86

Miyavi

Original post by GdotL

Lol wtf.

You got served, ho.

Reply 87

slylion1

Original post by INTJ

You - and maybe one other person - are the only people I know who think that it goes ICL/LSE > UCL/KCL.

lol is that 1 other person me :wink:

intj systematically raped by luthervan for over a month now.

long may it continue :biggrin:

Reply 88

LutherVan

Original post by INTJ

Clearly I've struck a nerve, but you are going to have a very hard time trying to convince anyone that KCL is in the same league as UCL/LSE/ICL. Yes, it is a good university, but just look at the international reputation, the entry requirements, the graduate prospects, the average graduate starting salaries, the employment statistics of top firms. All you have to do is peruse forums, threads here etc and you'll see that top employers look to the big three before they do to KCL. You can keep fooling yourself by saying KCL is in the same 'top' group, but it isn't. I have nothing against Kings; and, if I did go, I wouldn't parade these forums pretending it is in the same league.

International Reputation: LSE > Imp > UCL> KCL [Same gaps]
Entry Requirements: Imp (250) > LSE (246) > UCL (227) > KCL (210) [The top 2 has a larger gap than UCL has over KCL)
Graduate Prospects: LSE > Imp > KCL > UCL
Graduate Salaries: Imp > LSE > KCL > UCL
Employment Statistics: KCL > LSE > Imp > UCL

So it is evident LSE and Imperial set themselves apart and UCL is not comparable. But if we are using your own criteria, UCL looks like the one not to be in the Top 3 out of the four universities. I would not say so. I will say, UCL is just not much better than KCL.

KCL has a large nursing school of about 1400 students (this is its largest department by student body, where it takes hundreds of CCCs) and KCL has special programmes for inner London students (where it drops grades to give them a chance), that drags its average entry requirements down. Otherwise it would have been over 220 which is the same bracket as UCL but far below LSE and Imperial.

Original post by INTJ

1. Alumni doesn't reflect current reputation. It's a nice addition to a university's history, but do you honestly think alumni is enough to propel a university's international reputation? No. There are plenty of 'mediocre' universities that have had some impressive alumni.

Alumni carries more weight than current reputation as it feeds into current reputation and is more known than current reputation by those that matter.

I am surprised you are ignorant not to know it is mainly Alumni and historical reputation that has propelled KCL in international rankings, definitely not its research. So you expose the limitations of your knowledge when you claim it does not affect international reputation.

Original post by INTJ

3. As for the CCC, I know of about 20 people who go, all of whom have 'okay' results, some of whom have poor results. I know of maybe 3 people at UCL who have grades below AAB. The rest have a slew of A*s. Same goes for the LSE and Imperial. Are you really contending this? The entry requirements of UCL/LSE/ICL ARE higher. I'm not saying KCL has poor standards, but they are lower.

You always seem to know 100s of people that got this and that. :biggrin:

If you can't prove it, it does not count.

But can I ask, do you go about asking people everywhere their grades? Are you that pathetic in real life?

Original post by INTJ

4. You're right - reputation is VERY important. LSE is unfairly ranked because of its lack of sciences, but its reputation compensates for that. KCL, however, does NOT have the same reputation as those three :s-smilie:

And I don't know where on earth you're getting that from. It sounds more like you're an irate KCL student.

The gap between KCL's reputation and UCL's is smaller than that LSE has on UCL.

That is why firms that employ UCL employ KCL. Even it is proven KCL students are more employable than UCL.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 89

Original post by INTJ

Clearly I've struck a nerve, but you are going to have a very hard time trying to convince anyone that KCL is in the same league as UCL/LSE/ICL. Yes, it is a good university, but just look at the international reputation, the entry requirements, the graduate prospects, the average graduate starting salaries, the employment statistics of top firms. All you have to do is peruse forums, threads here etc and you'll see that top employers look to the big three before they do to KCL. You can keep fooling yourself by saying KCL is in the same 'top' group, but it isn't. I have nothing against Kings; and, if I did go, I wouldn't parade these forums pretending it is in the same league.

1. Alumni doesn't reflect current reputation. It's a nice addition to a university's history, but do you honestly think alumni is enough to propel a university's international reputation? No. There are plenty of 'mediocre' universities that have had some impressive alumni.

2. I don't need to quote. I said it. I don't need to back up my comparison; it was a light-hearted jest which apparently upset those who are enamoured of KCL.

3. As for the CCC, I know of about 20 people who go, all of whom have 'okay' results, some of whom have poor results. I know of maybe 3 people at UCL who have grades below AAB. The rest have a slew of A*s. Same goes for the LSE and Imperial. Are you really contending this? The entry requirements of UCL/LSE/ICL ARE higher. I'm not saying KCL has poor standards, but they are lower.

4. You're right - reputation is VERY important. LSE is unfairly ranked because of its lack of sciences, but its reputation compensates for that. KCL, however, does NOT have the same reputation as those three :s-smilie:

And I don't know where on earth you're getting that from. It sounds more like you're an irate KCL student.

5. No, I wasn't rejected from KCL. I didn't even bother applying because I wanted to go somewhere better. Deal with it.

So what nerve have you hit actually? :biggrin:

Furthermore, I'll just like to state that I am not a KCL student.

Now to answer your point. How do I look at the international reputation. Those I know from outside the country, rate it as highly. That's how I look at it. How do you? Is there some sort of table that ranks each university according to its international reputation? :s-smilie:

Yep, I've looked at the entry requirements of KCL. You get a mixture of AAA, AAB, ABB and BBB. Same with UCL and LSE. With ICL, it is so specialist that it's always AAA or at worst AAB.

Have you even read LutherVan post? He quite clearly states the facts. I'll repeat it for you again if you want....

If you are talking about graduate prospects, according to The Times, UCL is bottom for the Golden Triangle which are the top 6:

Most In Graduate Level Employment

1) Imperial
2) LSE
3) KCL
4) Cambridge
5) Oxford
6) UCL

QMW was 18, so don't you think it is UCL that is more likely to be tossed with QMW for graduate prospects?

Hardly do grad firms place UCL in their preference choice and leave out KCL. They prefer Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial.

According to the Times:

Fewest in unemployment after 6 months
1) Harper Adams UC
2) Surrey
3) Robert Gordon
4) Buckingham
5) Cambridge
6) KCL
7) Strathclyde
8)Aberdeen
9) Glamorgan
10) St Mary's UC

UCL is not even in the top 10.

Also here is the average starting salary by university from the Times, even KCL is higher than UCL, stop being ignorant:

http://tomcat4.prospects.ac.uk:8080/...a50555a79ea56d

1 Imperial College 25,889
2 LSE 24,513
3 Cambridge 22,981
4 King's College London 22,944
5 University College London 22,287
6 Oxford 21,287

Considering these 3 tables, how can you claim that UCL has a better employment prospect than KCL? You are a very ignorant young man with a chip on your shoulder.

Any grad preference I have seen advertised and UCL is included, it ALWAYS has Warwick, Durham, KCL, Edinburgh, Bristol etc also included. But there are several jobs that target only Oxbridge and LSE exclusively. UCL has no kind of exclusivity treatment or advantage in employment than other top universities outside the Top 4. It is not in the same class as LSE or better than KCL for employment. Stop deluding yourself.

Drop the chip on your shoulder as I have told you several times.

Can't really put it better myself to be honest. Now after reading that post, how can you say their not in the same league and place it in the same league as QMUL, Goldmsith, SOAS and RHUL? :s-smilie:

1. Can you name mediocre' universities that have had some impressive alumni? I don't just mean 3 or 4. But in the tens if you could please.

2. Lighthearted. It was bull**** and I had to refute it. Funny your response to that is it was lighthearted and it was meant in jest. :rolleyes:

If you're going to go round talking utter rubbish, then back it. You obviously can't.

3. Who are these people? Subject of the course would be helpful. I really would love to know the names of the courses. Because I think your talking utter rubish. Furthermore there are students who (some I know) state that they go to kings....as in Kingston. Maybe those are the people you're confusing with KCL :s-smilie:

Just did a quick research and I can state that there are plenty of courses that offer ABB or BBB at LSE, KCL and UCL.

For example at your beloved UCL. I found about 4 or 5 courses in just a minute that offered BBB. Very high grades, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Now that was just BBB. I can with out a doubt find plenty of more courses that offered ABB, if I spent just 10 minutes looking the UCL website. Do you want me to? Because I'd be more than glad to :biggrin:

The people who you know who got in with AAB or higher, were probably doing Medicine, or Law, or History or English etc. Now please don't tell me, you found students who were doing similar subjects at KCL and got in with okay grades such as BBB, because that's not even possible. :biggrin:

So, please, tell me the courses that they got into. Even just the departmnet? Was it humanity subjects? Science?

Now with LSE, I found 1 and plenty of ABB courses. Not exactly A*AA? However with LSE and ICL, the thing is, all its entry requirement will be high because it's a specialist universities.

Now for example, History, Law, Geography etc, the grades are similar. LSE in some are lower than KCL, while UCL it's higher.

Like I said. Please tell me the courses the 20 or so people you know who got into King's with grades such as BBB. Because I'm asuming that is what you meant by okay?

4. Where are you getting the fact that it doesn't have a good reputation. Instead of asking me that question, ask yourself that question and give me an answer. Because like I said earlier, I'd love to know.

5. What unis have you applied to? Or what uni are you at?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 90

LutherVan

Original post by INTJ

No. NO ONE seems to think that LSE and Imperial are in a separate league.

You sure love to live in self-denial based on your inferiority complex.

I have proved it to you time and again.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29016925&postcount=109
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28866254&postcount=93
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28700418&postcount=84
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1403791
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-141689.160.html#msg6774001
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-141689.0.html#msg4632089
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29017275&postcount=80
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28696002&postcount=79

Those are the proofs. Do you have anything contradictory you can produce?

Key points from the proofs:

- UCL is not in the same class as LSE and Imperial.
- There is no evidence of employment a UCL student can get that a KCL student can not.
- KCL students have better employment records than UCL students.

So really the employability goes LSE/Imp > KCL/UCL.

Original post by INTJ

Also, those 'statistics' you provided are pretty absurd. Are you telling me those universities beat Oxford in terms of employment? Don't make me laugh. Some stats/tables are to be taken not with a pinch of salt, but a truck load.

Those are the same statistics that are used to build the league tables that are the bases of all your arguments. It is from the TIMES!!!

As faulty as they might be, they still have the top unis there and LSE/Imp/KCL all trump over UCL in ALL categories. So there must be some element of truth that says UCL is last in employability for the London 4.

Original post by INTJ

Furthermore, I have seen SEVERAL reports with the average starting salaries, and they were all COMPLETELY different to what you've provided. Incidental? I think not. In every other source I've seen, it goes:

1. LSE
2. Imperial
3. UCL
4. Cambridge
5. Oxford/Warwick.

Be nice enough to prove this.

Please don't say "I know tons of people". Show a source like I did.

Original post by INTJ

And even that isn't a great indication of a university's overall strength.

What is then, if not employability and reputation? Based on the employment statistics you alluded to earlier, UCL was last.

Original post by INTJ

It is you who needs to stop classing LSE and Imperial in their own league. Have you not noticed that EVERYONE else constantly refers to them as UCL, LSE and Imperial...then KCL. In polls, people have shown that UCL tends to be more popular/recognised. In terms of international reputation, they are equal (except in the States, where LSE does have the advantage). Ask anyone else; see what they say when you ask them to divide universities into tiers. You - and maybe one other person - are the only people I know who think that it goes ICL/LSE > UCL/KCL.

Entry requirements, citations, reviews, reputation, average grade offers, research, funding, name recognition, the number of 1:1s/2:1s etc would all disprove your theory. In fact, I can't think of one thing you've said which would corroborate your claim. Your argument that KCL is in the same league as UCL is closer to being legit than your argument that ICL and LSE are superior.

That is not true. I have shown you how employers have bias for LSE and Imp, which UCL NEVER has.

UCL is not in that class. It just rates high in league tables, it does not have any wow factor. Just like York rates high in league tables but is really not a spot for elite hiring and is not even in the class of the likes of Edinburgh for top jobs. UCL is in the same bracket as KCL, Durham etc only marginally better.

For reputation, it is LSE/Imp > UCL > KCL.

For employment, it is LSE/Imp > KCL/UCL

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 91

Original post by slylion1

lol is that 1 other person me :wink:

intj systematically raped by luthervan for over a month now.

long may it continue :biggrin:

You said this in the last debate despite the fact that everyone else generally confirmed my points/ended up arguing with the other guy. But, of course, on TSR, the person you agree with is always 'the winner' :rolleyes:

Reply 92

Original post by Cesar Lecat

So what nerve have you hit actually? :biggrin:

Furthermore, I'll just like to state that I am not a KCL student.

Now to answer your point. How do I look at the international reputation. Those I know from outside the country, rate it as highly. That's how I look at it. How do you? Is there some sort of table that ranks each university according to its international reputation? :s-smilie:

Yep, I've looked at the entry requirements of KCL. You get a mixture of AAA, AAB, ABB and BBB. Same with UCL and LSE. With ICL, it is so specialist that it's always AAA or at worst AAB.

Have you even read LutherVan post? He quite clearly states the facts. I'll repeat it for you again if you want....

Can't really put it better myself to be honest. Now after reading that post, how can you say their not in the same league and place it in the same league as QMUL, Goldmsith, SOAS and RHUL? :s-smilie:

1. Can you name mediocre' universities that have had some impressive alumni? I don't just mean 3 or 4. But in the tens if you could please.

2. Lighthearted. It was bull**** and I had to refute it. Funny your response to that is it was lighthearted and it was meant in jest. :rolleyes:

If you're going to go round talking utter rubbish, then back it. You obviously can't.

3. Who are these people? Subject of the course would be helpful. I really would love to know the names of the courses. Because I think your talking utter rubish. Furthermore there are students who (some I know) state that they go to kings....as in Kingston. Maybe those are the people you're confusing with KCL :s-smilie:

Just did a quick research and I can state that there are plenty of courses that offer ABB or BBB at LSE, KCL and UCL.

For example at your beloved UCL. I found about 4 or 5 courses in just a minute that offered BBB. Very high grades, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Now that was just BBB. I can with out a doubt find plenty of more courses that offered ABB, if I spent just 10 minutes looking the UCL website. Do you want me to? Because I'd be more than glad to :biggrin:

The people who you know who got in with AAB or higher, were probably doing Medicine, or Law, or History or English etc. Now please don't tell me, you found students who were doing similar subjects at KCL and got in with okay grades such as BBB, because that's not even possible. :biggrin:

So, please, tell me the courses that they got into. Even just the departmnet? Was it humanity subjects? Science?

Now with LSE, I found 1 and plenty of ABB courses. Not exactly A*AA? However with LSE and ICL, the thing is, all its entry requirement will be high because it's a specialist universities.

Now for example, History, Law, Geography etc, the grades are similar. LSE in some are lower than KCL, while UCL it's higher.

Like I said. Please tell me the courses the 20 or so people you know who got into King's with grades such as BBB. Because I'm asuming that is what you meant by okay?

4. Where are you getting the fact that it doesn't have a good reputation. Instead of asking me that question, ask yourself that question and give me an answer. Because like I said earlier, I'd love to know.

5. What unis have you applied to? Or what uni are you at?

1. Learn to write properly.

2. It doesn't matter what the exact number of notable alumni from every university on the planet is, because it goes back to my original point (which I DID say): alumni alone doesn't determine overall reputation.

3. I looked at the KCL site (admittedly, only briefly - so correct me if I'm wrong), but I have found no A*AA requirements at KCL, which is something that's demanded to some extent at LSE/UCL/ICL. I went on their website and found that, while there are some AAA subjects, overall, the requirements are lower more often than not.

4. Anecdotal points? Well, in my experience, people abroad have always heard of UCL and the LSE, (usually they have heard of Imperial, too), but almost never KCL. They only know King's college, Cambridge. There is also a reason why KCL has a reputation for being the UCL/LSE/ICL reject pool. Even KCL students will often admit that (which has already been shown based on comments here).

5. People I know who got AAAA are doing anthropology. The few people I know who got AAB were doing archaeology. The people I know with even better grades did English etc.

Reply 93

Original post by LutherVan

You sure love to live in self-denial based on your inferiority complex.

I have proved it to you time and again.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29016925&postcount=109
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28866254&postcount=93
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28700418&postcount=84
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1403791
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-141689.160.html#msg6774001
http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-141689.0.html#msg4632089
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=29017275&postcount=80
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28696002&postcount=79

Those are the proofs. Do you have anything contradictory you can produce?

Key points from the proofs:

- UCL is not in the same class as LSE and Imperial.
- There is no evidence of employment a UCL student can get that a KCL student can not.
- KCL students have better employment records than UCL students.

So really the employability goes LSE/Imp > KCL/UCL.

Those are the same statistics that are used to build the league tables that are the bases of all your arguments. It is from the TIMES!!!

As faulty as they might be, they still have the top unis there and LSE/Imp/KCL all trump over UCL in ALL categories. So there must be some element of truth that says UCL is last in employability for the London 4.

Be nice enough to prove this.

Please don't say "I know tons of people". Show a source like I did.

What is then, if not employability and reputation? Based on the employment statistics you alluded to earlier, UCL was last.

That is not true. I have shown you how employers have bias for LSE and Imp, which UCL NEVER has.

UCL is not in that class. It just rates high in league tables, it does not have any wow factor. Just like York rates high in league tables but is really not a spot for elite hiring and is not even in the class of the likes of Edinburgh for top jobs. UCL is in the same bracket as KCL, Durham etc only marginally better.

You assert this based on what? Your experiences? In my experience, people have ONLY heard of UCL out of the three. Swings and roundabouts.

As for your employment/salary statistics, I have found sources which actually put KCL below all of those.

Reply 94

jthlm

I've never been to King's or really done much research, but I applied there this year because I had an extra choice left and I remembered watching a programme when I was younger about the discovery of DNA, and they kept talking about KCL and I just instantaneously thought I wanted to go there 'when I grew up', haha. (Stupid, I know! And naive!) Even though DNA has got absolutely nothing to do with English, which I've applied to do!

But anyway, this thread gives me no hope! Surely it can't be that bad! Irrespective of the notable alumni, I've always heard good things about it... I got told by a London uni student that the best all-round good universities in London are UCL and King's (she didn't include LSE as it doesn't do the subject I want so that's irrelevant to me). But you TSRians seem to disagree entirely... :frown:

Reply 95

Original post by INTJ

1. Learn to write properly.

2. It doesn't matter what the exact number of notable alumni from every university on the planet is, because it goes back to my original point (which I DID say): alumni alone doesn't determine overall reputation.

3. I looked at the KCL site (admittedly, only briefly - so correct me if I'm wrong), but I have found no A*AA requirements at KCL, which is something that's demanded to some extent at LSE/UCL/ICL. I went on their website and found that, while there are some AAA subjects, overall, the requirements are lower more often than not.

4. Anecdotal points? Well, in my experience, people abroad have always heard of UCL and the LSE, (usually they have heard of Imperial, too), but almost never KCL. They only know King's college, Cambridge. There is also a reason why KCL has a reputation for being the UCL/LSE/ICL reject pool. Even KCL students will often admit that (which has already been shown based on comments here).

5. People I know who got AAAA are doing anthropology. The few people I know who got AAB were doing archaeology. The people I know with even better grades did English etc.

1. Same to you

2. Don't dodge the questions. You said there are plenty of 'mediocre' universities that have had some impressive alumni. Now I'm asking, please tell me the names of those "mediocre universities that have impressive alumni. And, I said not 3 or 4 impressive Alumni, but in the tens. If you could do that, then that would be nice. If however you can't, then once again you're spouting complete and utter nonsense and can't back it up when challenged :rolleyes:

3. Well to answer your question. UCL entry requirement on a lot of courses ranges. From AAA to BBB. Now when it ranges like that, it's hard to pinpoint what it offers because someone might get AAA offer and another person might get an ABB offer for the exact same course. On the KCL website, a lot of their courses are either AAA or AAB. Is AAB now considered low?

Now, you said you didn't find a single A*AA requirement. Well, their Mathematics & Physics with Astrophysics is A*AA, if you have less than A2 Further Mathematics. That's the first subject under the letter A for heaven sake.

Now to completely destroy your incredibly stupid argument. OXFORD university does not have a single A* in their requirements. It's all AAA for strong subjects such as History, Law and Medicine etc. So, Oxford really must be piss poor. LSE/ICL/UCL >>>> Oxford :rolleyes:

4. Funny how they've heard of all those 3, but never of KCL. I just don't buy that, especially from my own experience and the fact that you seem to have a Vendetta against them.

Now read this article....

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=410351

It mentions the key words "Internation reputation". Now for a university that is never heard of as you claim, then it doesn't have one surely? :s-smilie:

Furthermore, if you read the comments section in that article, One of the first comments is this....

Sam A. Nicolosi 11 February, 2010
Over here in the U.S. we have long thought of Kings College as a prestigious and well respected academy. Sorry to hear the the old girl is "on the ropes" and headed for a downhill slide. Oh well, all good things must come to an end...especially when politicians are making the decisions.

Dayton, Ohio, USA

Can you see the bit I higlighted in bold? :wink:

5. Can you please answer the questions I have asked you...

A) What courses did the 20 or so people you know, get into KCL, with okay grades such as BBB or less? Please, I'm asking you for the subjects. If you can't tell me that, then do the decent thing and tell me the department? That way, I can have a quick look and verify your claim.

B) What uni are you at?

Can once again, do the decent thing and answer the questions I put to you, as oppose to dodging it.

Reply 96

Original post by jthlm

I've never been to King's or really done much research, but I applied there this year because I had an extra choice left and I remembered watching a programme when I was younger about the discovery of DNA, and they kept talking about KCL and I just instantaneously thought I wanted to go there 'when I grew up', haha. (Stupid, I know! And naive!) Even though DNA has got absolutely nothing to do with English, which I've applied to do!

But anyway, this thread gives me no hope! Surely it can't be that bad! Irrespective of the notable alumni, I've always heard good things about it... I got told by a London uni student that the best all-round good universities in London are UCL and King's (she didn't include LSE as it doesn't do the subject I want so that's irrelevant to me). But you TSRians seem to disagree entirely... :frown:

So wait, your basing it on one thread...this thread as you stated? Good lord, normally I'd give out a decent advice, but is there any point giving out a decent advice to someone who can be so easily swayed by just one thread? :s-smilie:

Anyway, just do some basic background research on the university. Plus there's a search engine, hundreds of threads have been created about KCL. Read them and then make up your mind.

UCL and KCL are the best all rounded good universities. LSE and ICL are specialist uni. So for example, if you go to ICL, you won't find a student doing humanities. Only certain types of students.

Reply 97

jthlm

Original post by Cesar Lecat

So wait, your basing it on one thread...this thread as you stated? Good lord, normally I'd give out a decent advice, but is there any point giving out a decent advice to someone who can be so easily swayed by just one thread? :s-smilie:

Anyway, just do some basic background research on the university. Plus there's a search engine, hundreds of threads have been created about KCL. Read them and then make up your mind.

UCL and KCL are the best all rounded good universities. LSE and ICL are specialist uni. So for example, if you go to ICL, you won't find a student doing humanities. Only certain types of students.

Haha, that's fair. However, it's not that I'm being swayed, because this website won't affect my decision. I've done my research about the university especially since applying, but I just find it intriguing what people actually have to say about the uni (as opposed to what the university says about itself).

Reply 98