King's College London vs Warwick

Historical reputation, present department strength and employability. The middle makes them pip KCL just very very slightly.

For the first KCL is outstandingly better than Durham and Warwick in my opinion, which makes it negligibly better than the 2.

adam0311: from what i see he justified his choice and you are yet to do it.

He justified it with a wikipedia alumni list. That's not justified.

Can't believe that this is still going on...

Can't believe people think that a wiki alumni list constitutes an entire unis relative ranking.

adam0311: from what i see he justified his choice and you are yet to do it.

Can't believe people think that a wiki alumni list constitutes an entire unis relative ranking.

Ironic that potential lawyers don't use proper sources.

Unfortunately, he still can not show alumni of Durham/Warwick that are (as he claimed) matchable to KCL alumni in law.

Yet he will not accept the ones from KCL that have excelled based on Wiki, Blue chip and Legal 500 records that the other 2 do not possess, instead he prefers to tell lies after lies.

we are not talking about ENTIRE uni ranking, we are talking about law ALONE, this is a law thread, not a general uni discussion thread.

Forget poor sources. The bigger problem is the lack of analysis on those sources.


You mustn't have read my post. Post #72, point 6.


Just leave the thread. You clearly haven't been following this thread. I was referring to the law alumni of KCL, just like LutherVan was. So I have no idea how your post is relevant.

Get off the planet, you clearly haven't inherited any common sense from your parents, hence you're not a worthy human being.

You mustn't have read my post. Post #72, point 6.

Y u mad bro?

I avoided the post because you told a lie again that is now representative of your desperate line of arguments, Sir?

You claimed "majority" of KCL alumni on wiki are Africa based. It is clearly obvious now that maths is not your greatest strength, especially also considering your last ratio calculations on the alumni that matriculated at KCL. How did 3 out of 24 count as majority in your calculations?

To go further and for argument sakes count the ones that practiced in any third world country as "AFRICA" (since it will not surprise one an American does not know which countries are in Africa and might think India is an African country), how did 6 out of 24 count as majority in your calculations?

According to you, KCL and Durham have the same amount of Partners at MC and other mid-sized firms. So how does Durham match KCL if KCL has more Legal 500 alumni, more top blue-chip legal supremos (General Counsels) and more accomplished alumni?

You asked what is special about KCL law alumni list?

KCL lists
- the second highest legal official in England (Lord Justice of Appeal)
- 1 Law Lord
- 2 International Court of Justice judges
- 5 UK QCs
- 9 knighted lawyers
- 5 highest national/regional legal official in foreign countries
- A US deputy governor

Durham could not list ONE accomplished famous law alumni on its wiki page and is resorting to listing only Law staff that graduated from other universities.

How can you claim Durham or Warwick have "matchable" alumni?

Sir, you can't prove they are matchable, put a sock in it.

Dont know about Law specifically, but overall Warwick definitely has a stronger reputation with employers today than KCL.