Why is King&#x27;s College London so underrated by The Guardian?!

I found that they have the best online application form.

Reply 5

NerdyMeg

13

Most probably because of students satisfaction.

Reply 6

OMG I just saw it, UCL is 11, Edinburgh is 18, manchester is 33, bristol is 34 king's is 40

That is the Guardians reputation gone, never going to take the Guardian and times as a credible league

Reply 7

Original post by golden tribe

OMG I just saw it, UCL is 11, Edinburgh is 18, manchester is 33, bristol is 34 king's is 40

That is the Guardians reputation gone, never going to take the Guardian and times as a credible league

Surrey is 6th...

Reply 8

username193837

17

Original post by EdCohen

Kings is probably just above QM. It's gone downhill recently, it's definitely not what it used to be, it still attracts applicants because of it's prestigious history.

And the Guardian isn't being biased, Kings has received a lot of negative feedback from students. Administration at Kings is apparently a complete shambles. They regularly enter into clearing for many of their courses. LSE and Imperial don't even enter UCAS extra, never mind clearing lol.

And I'm not hating on Kings. I'm going to be studying there this September. I'm just being honest about it as an institution, it's a good place to study, not a great one.

Kings>>>>>>>>>>>>>QM, and Heriot-Watt is ranked higher than kings this shows Guardian have no credibility on their table.

Reply 9

username193837

17

Original post by Raymat

It's ranked so low, even below universities such as Queen Mary which is just utter BS! King's wouldn't allow anyone into any course with BCC, which Queen Mary does sometimes. King's was once even better than LSE and Imperial from what I heard. King's is highly respected internationally but not so much by The Guardian which doesn't make sense. Their School of Law, School of Medicine, School of Pharmacy, School of Nursing, School of Business & Management etc are all top notch so why is the The Guardian being biased?

I always though Kings was a top 8 university. I still believe its deffo a top 12 at least.

Reply 10

SiminaM

Original post by golden tribe

OMG I just saw it, UCL is 11, Edinburgh is 18, manchester is 33, bristol is 34 king's is 40

That is the Guardians reputation gone, never going to take the Guardian and times as a credible league

Tbh, I never took their rankings seriously :giggle:

UCL 11? yeah right :rolleyes:

LOL Surrey is better than LSE :laugh:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 11

GrahamRodney

9

Original post by 96jaimin96

I always though Kings was a top 8 university. I still believe its deffo a top 12 at least.

Do these general university rankings really mean anything? Do even subject-specific ranking do justice to institutions? I very much doubt it and wonder why anyone gives any credence to the very idiosyncratic Guardian. However: it is true that there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction at Kings and not only in the student body. The large redundancy programme among staff last year especially in the medical school has left staff morale extremely low and confidence in the senior management non-existent. Kings will need to stop the rot or the lower reaches of even the Times Higher League Table beckons :smile:

Reply 12

The Guardian anking is too much focused on student satisfaction. Generally, students expectation is much lower at Surrey than at KCL.

Reply 13

Original post by Josb

The Guardian anking is too much focused on student satisfaction. Generally, students expectation is much lower at Surrey than at KCL.

Guardian and times rankings are a joke, they rank according to student satisfaction. Better to use and look at either the Shanghai rankings or the QS world rankings

Reply 14

Original post by golden tribe

Guardian and times rankings are a joke, they rank according to student satisfaction. Better to use and look at either the Shanghai rankings or the QS world rankings

The more coherent I found is this one:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking
Shanghai ranks according to Nobel prizes and Fields medals and therefore ignores the other disciplines.
QS favours British unis too much.

Reply 15

Theriverboatsong

5

Original post by 96jaimin96

I always though Kings was a top 8 university. I still believe its deffo a top 12 at least.

Based on general reputation, KCL is around a top 10 UK university. You don't rank 16th in the World and 5th in the UK in the QS World rankings if you are not. But prospective students judge universities on UK rankings, whereas governments and universities look at World rankings. The UK league tables favour smaller universities, World rankings favour larger research intensive universities.

The director general of the Russell Group went to KCL :wink:

.

Reply 16

Theriverboatsong

5

Original post by GrahamRodney

Do these general university rankings really mean anything? Do even subject-specific ranking do justice to institutions? I very much doubt it and wonder why anyone gives any credence to the very idiosyncratic Guardian. However: it is true that there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction at Kings and not only in the student body. The large redundancy programme among staff last year especially in the medical school has left staff morale extremely low and confidence in the senior management non-existent. Kings will need to stop the rot or the lower reaches of even the Times Higher League Table beckons :smile:

It is incredibly difficult for a large research intensive university like KCL or Edinburgh to rank highly in the UK league tables. Student/staff ratio tends to be weaker, facilities spend is moderate given the size of the institution, and given the many thousands more graduating, not all of them are going to get graduate jobs. The only real factors that go well in favour of these larger Russell Group universities are the high entry grades and research RAF scores.

If students from state schools are applying to Surrey instead of KCL, that is too bad for them, and better for the more informed students from the best schools who get better advice on which are the elite universities (mostly Russell Group). I was told by my school head to aim for Oxbridge, then the likes of UCL and Durham, then Nottingham etc. The likes of Surrey, Aston, Leicester - these semi-good universities never got a mention.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 17

Original post by Josb

The more coherent I found is this one:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking
Shanghai ranks according to Nobel prizes and Fields medals and therefore ignores the other disciplines.
QS favours British unis too much.

Shanghai looks at every aspect including those fields you mentioned as well as reputation, employment etc. Times and Guardian still put much more importance on satisfaction which is don't think is important because you will never be 100% satisfied

Reply 18

Theriverboatsong

5

Original post by golden tribe

Shanghai looks at every aspect including those fields you mentioned as well as reputation, employment etc. Times and Guardian still put much more importance on satisfaction which is don't think is important because you will never be 100% satisfied

ARWU isn't as respected as QS and THE in the UK generally. The UK league tables kind of got the stuffing knocked out of them when student satisfaction replaced teaching assessment scores. I guess the newspapers thought they could make the whole thing more popular and mainstream by getting student views fed into the rankings. Huge error of judgement.

Reply 19