The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

King's vs LSE ??!!

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Copperknickers

Someone else who doesn't know what they're talking about. David Cameron's tutor was Vernon Bogdanor, arguably the foremost living expert on British governmental studies. Its not very often another British university attracts one of the star names at Oxford.


You are talking rubbish?

And so what if he is "arguably the foremost living expert on British governmental studies" and was attracted by KCL?

Even departments in Cardiff, Birmingham, Glasgow etc can attract "arguably the foremost living expert on .......................".

Secondly, that was not your point when you made the statement. Your point was "he was David Cameron's tutor".

So what if he was Tito Jackson's tutor?
Original post by Copperknickers
Well I can't argue with that. You have me beaten sir, with your infallible debating skills, and I as a mere KCL student cannot hope to compete with your superior LSE intellect.


Stop trolling and be a good professional. TSR is mean't to be a resource for others to learn about higher education, and not a forum for personal attacks.
Original post by LutherVan
You are talking rubbish?

And so what if he is "arguably the foremost living expert on British governmental studies" and was attracted by KCL?

Even departments in Cardiff, Birmingham, Glasgow etc can attract "arguably the foremost living expert on .......................".


You think Cardiff can attract the foremost experts in Oxford's most prized departments? Please be reasonable. Not psychology, not business management: politics and government. Oxford has more heads of state than pretty much any other uni, they are the most prestigious university in the world for politics.

Secondly, that was not your point when you made the statement. Your point was "he was David Cameron's tutor".

So what if he was Tito Jackson's tutor?


Oh right. Well I'm glad you identified the real point of my post, I myself was quite puzzled as to what it was, although I could have sworn it was an example (one from many) of the quality of KCL academics. You must tell me how you have gained such a deep insight into the workings of my brain via your internet connection.

Original post by Blitzkrieg15
Stop trolling and be a good professional. TSR is mean't to be a resource for others to learn about higher education, and not a forum for personal attacks.


Do you go to KCL or LSE? No. So please allow someone who actually knows what they are talking about to educate and help others, rather than clogging up the thread with your ridiculous hypocrisies.
Original post by Copperknickers

Do you go to KCL or LSE? No. So please allow someone who actually knows what they are talking about to educate and help others, rather than clogging up the thread with your ridiculous hypocrisies.


You don't own LSE or KCL, and you are too arrogant to take advice from, and you don't respect views other than your own.
Original post by Copperknickers
You think Cardiff can attract the foremost experts in Oxford's most prized departments? Please be reasonable. Not psychology, not business management: politics and government. Oxford has more heads of state than pretty much any other uni, they are the most prestigious university in the world for politics.

What makes you think Cardiff cannot attract foremost experts from Oxford? Does it not have Nobel Laurettes amongst its staff? Those are not foremost experts that Oxford would want?

Original post by Copperknickers

Oh right. Well I'm glad you identified the real point of my post, I myself was quite puzzled as to what it was, although I could have sworn it was an example (one from many) of the quality of KCL academics. You must tell me how you have gained such a deep insight into the workings of my brain via your internet connection.

It was a weak example.

So LSE does not have high quality academics in its staff ranks?

That is as weak as saying Real Madrid is a better team than Barcelona because they have Cristiano Ronaldo.

When comparing two bodies, using a singualr example from one and ignoring examples from, and the entirety of, the other is lame and weak.
The big downside to TSR, always arguments break out over disagreements. The sweet posters are in the minority.
Original post by Blitzkrieg15
The big downside to TSR, always arguments break out over disagreements. The sweet posters are in the minority.


Yeah, I think statements like “So you are getting down about KCL not being valued?” make for real sweet (and meaningful) posts…

For the OP, here’s a sweet post from someone who’s done IR-related work at KCL, St Andrews, Oxford, and the LSE. All are lovely…they give me a real warm and fuzzy feeling…there’s lots of tingling going on. The average person views each of these institutions as prestigious, perhaps the latter three more than the former. If you’re looking at going into domestic (UK) politics, Oxford and the LSE are the best bets. If you’re looking at going into economics or finance, LSE and to a lesser degree Oxford are the best bets. If you want an IR-related career, all four are great. If you want to do IR or political theory, Oxford, St Andrews, and the LSE (plus Aberystwyth) are the best bets. If you want an international security-related career, KCL and St Andrews are the best bets. For straight history, it all depends on your interests, though again all are great. For international history, it’s probably Oxford and the LSE. Many of the best students go to each of the four; you’ll find few if any academically poor students. Quality of life depends on whether you’re looking for a big city or a small university town experience. KCL and the LSE are in the big city, while Oxford and St Andrews are small university towns. Again, all are lovely and make me feel special inside…

If you have any specific questions or are in need of employment advice from someone who's worked in an IR-related field within the UK and abroad, PM me.
Original post by LutherVan
What makes you think Cardiff cannot attract foremost experts from Oxford? Does it not have Nobel Laurettes amongst its staff? Those are not foremost experts that Oxford would want?


Two Nobel laureates, neither of whom are full staff members (one is chancellor, one is helping out part time with one of their projects). And no, I rather doubt Oxford would want them, they haven't done anything significant for some time now from what I can see.

When comparing two bodies, using a singualr example from one and ignoring examples from, and the entirety of, the other is lame and weak.


I agree entirely. So will you stop ignoring the other examples now then? That is rather the point of examples: to give a piece of evidence which is indicative of the whole truth, where giving the whole truth would not be practicable. There are many hundreds of world leading academics at KCL.
Original post by Copperknickers
Two Nobel laureates, neither of whom are full staff members (one is chancellor, one is helping out part time with one of their projects). And no, I rather doubt Oxford would want them, they haven't done anything significant for some time now from what I can see.


Oxford would not want Nobel Laurettes?

Who are you? Who are you to know what they are doing and if it is significant?

Oh, I see?

These are just another of the juvenile, unsubstantiated statements you formulate.

Original post by Copperknickers

I agree entirely. So will you stop ignoring the other examples now then? That is rather the point of examples: to give a piece of evidence which is indicative of the whole truth, where giving the whole truth would not be practicable. There are many hundreds of world leading academics at KCL.


The whole truth is practicable.

Look at the REF reports.

LSE generally has a slightly better department in Politics and International Studies.

So mentioning "David Cameron" is not an intellectual contribution even though you claim to be a good judge of the work of Nobel Laurettes.

Also when next you have to give a piece of evidence which is indicative of the whole truth, where giving the whole truth would not be practicable, make sure you give it for both parties, not just one. That is more sensible.
LSE > KCL...overall rep

However a degree from KCL in medicine or dentistry is more reputed than a degree in 'economic history' or 'management' or 'geography' from LSE
Original post by solarplexus
LSE > KCL...overall rep

However a degree from KCL in medicine or dentistry is more reputed than a degree in 'economic history' or 'management' or 'geography' from LSE


Why?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by solarplexus
LSE > KCL...overall rep

However a degree from KCL in medicine or dentistry is more reputed than a degree in 'economic history' or 'management' or 'geography' from LSE


It includes Medicine, Dentistry, War Studies, Music, Classics and Psychology.

All these are more reputable if studied in KCL than studying weaker subjects of LSE.

But that said, most give a narrower career option and, more importantly, are subjects LSE does not offer. So not a direct comparison.

For most subjects both universities offer, LSE tend to be more prestigious. And for the few it is not more prestigious in, it is on par with KCL in virtually all of them.
Original post by LutherVan
It includes Medicine, Dentistry, War Studies, Music, Classics and Psychology.

All these are more reputable if studied in KCL than studying weaker subjects of LSE.

But that said, most give a narrower career option and, more importantly, are subjects LSE does not offer. So not a direct comparison.

For most subjects both universities offer, LSE tend to be more prestigious. And for the few it is not more prestigious in, it is on par with KCL in virtually all of them.

yeah

tbh all i care about is KCL medicine which is obviously more prestigious the weaker lse subjects....I would say that economics and law are the most prestigious of LSE and are almost on a par with medical degrees.....that is if one HAD to compare them of course....(can't really compare though in reality)
Original post by LutherVan
Oxford would not want Nobel Laurettes?

Who are you? Who are you to know what they are doing and if it is significant?


A person with the ability to read.

The whole truth is practicable.

Look at the REF reports.

LSE generally has a slightly better department in Politics and International Studies.


I never said it didn't! I said KCL's specialist subject is War Studies, so you can't compare that with LSE's government department because LSE doesn't offer War Studies.

Also when next you have to give a piece of evidence which is indicative of the whole truth, where giving the whole truth would not be practicable, make sure you give it for both parties, not just one. That is more sensible.


Not in this context. I never said LSE's politics department was not as good as KCL's, don't put words into my mouth.


Original post by solarplexus
LSE > KCL...overall rep

However a degree from KCL in medicine or dentistry is more reputed than a degree in 'economic history' or 'management' or 'geography' from LSE


That depends whether you want to do medicine or dentistry.
Original post by solarplexus
yeah

tbh all i care about is KCL medicine which is obviously more prestigious the weaker lse subjects....I would say that economics and law are the most prestigious of LSE and are almost on a par with medical degrees.....that is if one HAD to compare them of course....(can't really compare though in reality)


I would say Economics at LSE is more prestigious than Medicine at KCL.
Original post by Copperknickers
A person with the ability to read.


Wow!

So anyone in the world literate enough to read (to save you some face, just a little, I would help you assume you mean read in English) can know what Nobel Laurettes are doing and judge its significance.

You, my friend, sound like Einstein!

Another brilliant point and logic from you once again.:albertein::party::clap2::clap2::clap2::king1::king2::king3:

Original post by Copperknickers

I never said it didn't! I said KCL's specialist subject is War Studies, so you can't compare that with LSE's government department because LSE doesn't offer War Studies.


You don't get it.

The best approach to judge is to use the judging tool set up and used by the UK government instead of your "David Cameron's tutor moved to KCL" measurement brilliance.

Based on that tool, REF, LSE is slightly better in that field generally than KCL.

Original post by Copperknickers

Not in this context. I never said LSE's politics department was not as good as KCL's, don't put words into my mouth.


That is irrelevant.

Stating "David Cameron's blah blah blah" is not impressive and a weak point.

If you had said "Vernon Bogdanor who did blah blah and is known for blah blah blah works at KCL", that would have been a meaningful argument.
Original post by LutherVan


You don't get it.

The best approach to judge is to use the judging tool set up and used by the UK government instead of your "David Cameron's tutor moved to KCL" measurement brilliance.

Based on that tool, REF, LSE is slightly better in that field generally than KCL.


How can LSE possibly be better than KCL in a field which LSE doesn't even do?


If you had said "Vernon Bogdanor who did blah blah and is known for blah blah blah works at KCL", that would have been a meaningful argument.


I did. He's known for educating our current prime minister, some would argue that's a reasonably good achievement.
Is this a joke? LSE crushes KCL. LSE is world class. KCL is along the levels of nottingham/machester. They are good unis don't get me wrong, and are quite good in their own fields, but NOWHERE near the likes of LSE/Imperial/Oxbridge. Kin gs college is a multi-faculty so it is hard to compare directly, but no doubt LSE is much much better anyway. Literally no point debating this.
Original post by LutherVan
I would say Economics at LSE is more prestigious than Medicine at KCL.

do you know how hard it is to get medicine (especially at KCL)?

I would say Medicine at KCL is more prestigious (harder to get into, higher entry requirements, interview process, longer degree).
Original post by Copperknickers
How can LSE possibly be better than KCL in a field which LSE doesn't even do?


You still don't get it.

The REF groups subjects of similar field. War Studies would fall under Politics and International.

In Politics and international, LSE was marginally better.

Original post by Copperknickers

I did. He's known for educating our current prime minister, some would argue that's a reasonably good achievement.


My GAWD!

That is a juvenile point.

Does your "educating a prime minister means you are great" logic include his high school teachers?

So the departments/school hosting all the teachers that educated Ban Ki Moon, Obama, GW Bush, Goodluck Jonathan, Mugabe, Tony Abbott, Sarkozy are great by the virtue of the hosting.

What a silly and juvenile argument.

Learn for once in your life:

Stating "David Cameron's blah blah blah" is not impressive and a weak point.

If you had said "Vernon Bogdanor who did blah blah and is known for blah blah blah works at KCL", that would have been a meaningful argument.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you