History at King's College or UCL?

crastle

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 1

TVIO

Original post by crastle

Could someone please help me make this decision. I have offers to study history from both.

I like the tutorial system that UCL offers but I've heard that socially King's leads, which is a big deciding factor for me.

However King's accomodation application system means that I really have no control over which halls I go into and I could end up ages away from Uni. I have no idea what the application system is like at UCL.

Also, I've heard there are a lot of Chinese people at UCL. I don't want to sound racist at all but they do tend not to have the same interests as me so I'd rather be somewhere with less of them. (please don't take offence)

Anyway could someone please give me some insight as to how true these claims are and give me their own opinion on which to firm?

So you've met everyone in China and decided you don't like them have you? Sounds pretty racist to me, don't come to UCL thanks.

University College London

London

Reply 2

ljamest

Original post by crastle

Best to say "where there is a diverse yet balanced mix of race" rather than "where there is less of them"...

(edited 4 years ago)

Original post by crastle

Lived in China for two years. Enough to form an opinion. At which point was I racist? I merely said I'd want to be somewhere with less Chinese people - nothing offensive, just a preference of conditions.

At the end of the day someone can find something offensive in anything people say, but I asked for advice and not stupid comments on my preferences from a keyboard warrior keen to start a debate.

Please don't reply to my thread unless you're actually going to reply to MY THREAD.

There are a fair few chinese people here. So my advice is still sound. Don't come here if that's important to you.

Reply 5

Attempt

Original post by TVIO

There are a fair few chinese people here. So my advice is still sound. Don't come here if that's important to you.

Okay you've made your point .

Can you leave the thread now? Keyboard warrior?

Reply 6

JIRAIYA-ERO-SENNIN

Original post by crastle

I went to King's so I'm biased. Both are very good departments but King's has far better modules in my view, there's a lot more to choose from especially in the first year.

At King's you'll have one compulsory historiography module called HSSA but besides that you'll that you have to choose three other modules in Medieval, Early Modern and Modern History. Everyone in the first chooses the British Empire module in the first year, it's always a King's favourite. You'll get a far better grounding in British History at KCL than UCL if that's what interests you.

In your second year you'll have another compulsory historiography module called 'History and Memory I&II' and then choose 4-5 other modules. In your third year you'll write a 10,000 word dissertation in one of your main modules in which you will also be examined on. You will also have the option of taking a second dissertation on a topic of your own choosing, so long as you can get a suitable supervisor for it. The module system is a lot more flexible at KCL than UCL from what I can see.

Socially, you'll probably like King's more since there are hardly any chinese students in the history department, it's very white and middle class if that's what you're looking for. The department is at the very top of the building so you get a panoramic view of London, King's also has by far the best student bar in London, The Waterfront. If you get the chance of being taught by famous Historians like Peter Heather you'll love them--the department has some very interesting characters.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/history/undergraduate/current-undergraduates/ug_course_choices/history_students

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/history/modules/index.aspx