This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- University Freshers Threads 2023 *Official Thread*
- Are any London Universities ex-polys?
- University far away
- Best business & management unis?
- The honorable non-russell group hurt/heal game
- Accounting and Finance
- Which universities have been affected by the strikes?
- Edinburgh vs KCL for English
- Staying in London for university or moving out?
- CAS delay by East london
- Urgent Tenancy Takeover For Student Accommodation
- Uni choices unrealistic?
- university in london?? london students please respond
- Advice on Picking a London University
- Studying in London or Edinburgh?
- Which Masters in Branding or UX/Interaction school to choose. Advise me
- Official Northeastern University London Applicant Thread for 2024
- Ucas application (sticky situation)
- Queen Mary University or City University of London
- Retake Year 13
London Universities?
I am applying for Law next year, and I want to apply to apply to two of the London universities, but I don't know which ones. I am deciding between LSE, UCL and King's. I went to all three of the open days and I still have no clue.
So what are the differences between the three of them? Which one has the best teaching? What are the people like in each of them? Student satisfaction? Accommodation? Seriously anything to help me out, thanks
So what are the differences between the three of them? Which one has the best teaching? What are the people like in each of them? Student satisfaction? Accommodation? Seriously anything to help me out, thanks
Scroll to see replies
Original post by JohnGreek
UCL/LSE are interchangeable. There's a difference in their location and the attributes of their students (LSE ones are more competitive on average, and more work/CIty oriented), but that's about it. The differences in everything from entry tariffs to student satisfaction to % in employment/education after 6 months to salaries after 5 years are too small to be meaningful. Visit both again, see what sort of uni accommodation they offer in the first year, look at the ordering of their course modules, gauge whether you'd enjoy the surrounding areas, and make a decision off that.
Don't go to KCL.
Don't go to KCL.
KCL is actually pretty okay if you get a scholarship. It's not that bad.
Original post by maisie22
What's wrong with KCL?
Well, if you get a scholarship like I did, then there's nothing wrong with KCL. Lol
It's just that UCL and LSE are slightly better ranked. I took the scholarship instead and now I'm in a top commercial law firm.
Original post by JohnGreek
No one doubts that KCL is good. It's excellent. It's just not as good as the other two for the 95% of the cohort that don't get in via DP's grant money. (Congratulations on getting it btw, I know people who got accepted but missed the grades)
The interesting thing is that, salary wise, UCL/LSE will, on average (not trying to be deterministic here, this does not apply to all of their law students), cover the scholarship difference by having higher salaries for UK-based graduates 5 years down the line.
The interesting thing is that, salary wise, UCL/LSE will, on average (not trying to be deterministic here, this does not apply to all of their law students), cover the scholarship difference by having higher salaries for UK-based graduates 5 years down the line.
Depends what scholarship you get. They have a number: including the Hafer Scholarship worth £30,000. You're not going to make back in 5 years.
Original post by JohnGreek
Wouldn't firm them based on a scholarship that requires A*A*A* to get. Not least because, if you miss it, you're still stuck at KCL.
No one in their right mind considering UCL/LSE would go to KCL if they had the choice.
No one in their right mind considering UCL/LSE would go to KCL if they had the choice.
Guess I'm insane then cause I picked KCL over UCL (Had offers from both).
Original post by NotKidding
Guess I'm insane then cause I picked KCL over UCL (Had offers from both).
Are you even a law student?
Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.
Are you even a law student?
No, but his comment was about the Universities as a whole, not just specifically Law
Original post by NotKidding
No, but his comment was about the Universities as a whole, not just specifically Law
This comment in the Law forum by a Law student might have been specifically for Law, ya know?
Stop being precious.
This is slightly disappointing to read. I've just started the LLB at KCL this week and found my induction and first lecture (legal reasoning intro) to be extremely good, including Law societies, networking opportunities, careers/entrepreneurship services, and general reception from the faculty.
The lecturers all seem interesting and reasonably dedicated, at least from the introduction. I'll reserve judgement on that, for now. Ultimately I'm here to work, be educated effectively, have my work marked fairly, and to be given adequate careers assistance, which I think KCL is likely to provide.
I like the academic environment of the KCL campuses and the location - the Strand campus particularly. I ultimately consider KCL worth going to for Law as they have a pretty decent careers service and the Law department has improved over the years. However, if I had been fortunate enough to have the option to go to UCL or LSE I would have preferred them, more so LSE.
I view UCL and LSE as equally prestigious in terms of graduate employment, but LSE with its specialism in social sciences does seem like the best London university for Law. I would have also preferred to go to LSE as I like small campuses with a smaller student body. You're less likely to have people there who aren't as driven and are potentially likely to waste lecture/tutorial time. However, at King's I have joined more varied societies that will allow me to cultivate a specialism in technology, the AppsConnect society and Entrepreneurship society in particular look great. Not sure if LSE provides these opportunities as they have a small campus and don't teach CompSci, Engineering, etc.
What's ironic is that I met the requirements at A-level for LSE and UCL - A*A*A. I was also eligible for the DP scholarship but I unfortunately ended up applying to university in a very unorthodox fashion, due to various unpleasant reasons, including health issues that required me to have a relatively serious operation during my A-levels. The university application process took a necessary back seat in my life, but my A-levels did not, and it is rather a shame that as a result of this I wouldn't have been considered eligible at the time of interviews (didn't apply to either LSE/UCL), despite my demonstrated intellectual capability.
I would also like to raise the point that it is rather disproportionate that those who choose 'easier' A-levels such as Sociology, English Literature and so on will be more likely to achieve A*s (and henceforth be accepted by a 'top' university) than someone who chooses more difficult subjects like History or Psychology. Universities such as LSE, Oxford, UCL and so on would be better off taking subject choices into consideration as, to me, someone who has managed to do well in History/Psychology at A-level - considering the way these two are marked - would perhaps be better equipped to handle the demands of a law course than someone who has done sociology.
I mean no offence to those who have done so, I'm sure it's just as content heavy. I myself also chose an 'easier' A-level - I found Philosophy and Ethics a ridiculously easy subject in which to achieve full marks or an A* overall compared to History. I feel that students who choose harder A-levels in order to challenge their intellect rather than meet requirements are let down by this when it comes to the majority of university applications.
I find our internal rankings of these top London unis in terms of their student body to be somewhat ludicrous as so much of a degree is, and should be, self-motivated. Paying £9250 a year should guarantee us the best faculties, the best teaching and the best careers opportunities. That should be the purpose of a university, not the ideological minefield many of them are becoming. Overall, however, our grades are due to our own hard effort, understanding and indeed respect for the academic discipline. Doing any subject as degree level without a natural aptitude for it is what concerns me, as so many students end up in this situation due to pressure from schools and parents. This situation can occur at any university.
TL;DR: The implication/employer perspective that a 1:1 at LSE is better than a 1:1 at King's saddens me somewhat, but I don't consider myself less intelligent than those at LSE/UCL because of it. Quite the opposite, in fact, though I accept that the LSE course is more challenging and I would have liked to have done it myself (will probably apply for an intercollegiate module in third year). Successful LSE/UCL applicants may have been more fortunate than me in their teachers, in the subjects they chose at A-level, in how uninterrupted their A-level experience was, and so on.
But that's about it. Employers should be on the lookout for the best person for the job, and as university acceptance is somewhat arbitrary these days, I think that internships/work experience/practical skills are rightfully becoming far more important than where you got your degree. (Not advocating that anyone goes to a low-ranked university. I hope that what I've illustrated here is precisely why you should not.)
The lecturers all seem interesting and reasonably dedicated, at least from the introduction. I'll reserve judgement on that, for now. Ultimately I'm here to work, be educated effectively, have my work marked fairly, and to be given adequate careers assistance, which I think KCL is likely to provide.
I like the academic environment of the KCL campuses and the location - the Strand campus particularly. I ultimately consider KCL worth going to for Law as they have a pretty decent careers service and the Law department has improved over the years. However, if I had been fortunate enough to have the option to go to UCL or LSE I would have preferred them, more so LSE.
I view UCL and LSE as equally prestigious in terms of graduate employment, but LSE with its specialism in social sciences does seem like the best London university for Law. I would have also preferred to go to LSE as I like small campuses with a smaller student body. You're less likely to have people there who aren't as driven and are potentially likely to waste lecture/tutorial time. However, at King's I have joined more varied societies that will allow me to cultivate a specialism in technology, the AppsConnect society and Entrepreneurship society in particular look great. Not sure if LSE provides these opportunities as they have a small campus and don't teach CompSci, Engineering, etc.
What's ironic is that I met the requirements at A-level for LSE and UCL - A*A*A. I was also eligible for the DP scholarship but I unfortunately ended up applying to university in a very unorthodox fashion, due to various unpleasant reasons, including health issues that required me to have a relatively serious operation during my A-levels. The university application process took a necessary back seat in my life, but my A-levels did not, and it is rather a shame that as a result of this I wouldn't have been considered eligible at the time of interviews (didn't apply to either LSE/UCL), despite my demonstrated intellectual capability.
I would also like to raise the point that it is rather disproportionate that those who choose 'easier' A-levels such as Sociology, English Literature and so on will be more likely to achieve A*s (and henceforth be accepted by a 'top' university) than someone who chooses more difficult subjects like History or Psychology. Universities such as LSE, Oxford, UCL and so on would be better off taking subject choices into consideration as, to me, someone who has managed to do well in History/Psychology at A-level - considering the way these two are marked - would perhaps be better equipped to handle the demands of a law course than someone who has done sociology.
I mean no offence to those who have done so, I'm sure it's just as content heavy. I myself also chose an 'easier' A-level - I found Philosophy and Ethics a ridiculously easy subject in which to achieve full marks or an A* overall compared to History. I feel that students who choose harder A-levels in order to challenge their intellect rather than meet requirements are let down by this when it comes to the majority of university applications.
I find our internal rankings of these top London unis in terms of their student body to be somewhat ludicrous as so much of a degree is, and should be, self-motivated. Paying £9250 a year should guarantee us the best faculties, the best teaching and the best careers opportunities. That should be the purpose of a university, not the ideological minefield many of them are becoming. Overall, however, our grades are due to our own hard effort, understanding and indeed respect for the academic discipline. Doing any subject as degree level without a natural aptitude for it is what concerns me, as so many students end up in this situation due to pressure from schools and parents. This situation can occur at any university.
TL;DR: The implication/employer perspective that a 1:1 at LSE is better than a 1:1 at King's saddens me somewhat, but I don't consider myself less intelligent than those at LSE/UCL because of it. Quite the opposite, in fact, though I accept that the LSE course is more challenging and I would have liked to have done it myself (will probably apply for an intercollegiate module in third year). Successful LSE/UCL applicants may have been more fortunate than me in their teachers, in the subjects they chose at A-level, in how uninterrupted their A-level experience was, and so on.
But that's about it. Employers should be on the lookout for the best person for the job, and as university acceptance is somewhat arbitrary these days, I think that internships/work experience/practical skills are rightfully becoming far more important than where you got your degree. (Not advocating that anyone goes to a low-ranked university. I hope that what I've illustrated here is precisely why you should not.)
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by JohnGreek
Wouldn't firm them based on a scholarship that requires A*A*A* to get. Not least because, if you miss it, you're still stuck at KCL.
No one in their right mind considering UCL/LSE would go to KCL if they had the choice.
No one in their right mind considering UCL/LSE would go to KCL if they had the choice.
Can you at least provide any concrete argument or evidence why you think KCL is out of the class of these universities for Law?
From all indicators I have seen they all seem to be in the same league for Law, so if KCL is throwing in a scholarship on top of this, then surely it is not only on par, it is edging it.
Original post by JohnGreek
Read the thread again
I read it again, still can't see any concrete arguments or evidence from you.
Can you point me to it?
Good points.
Hahaha KCL is much more well-known in the US than UCL. LSE is brilliant but for little subjects. I’d say both are awesome, but King’s and LSE are better than UCL.
Related discussions
- University Freshers Threads 2023 *Official Thread*
- Are any London Universities ex-polys?
- University far away
- Best business & management unis?
- The honorable non-russell group hurt/heal game
- Accounting and Finance
- Which universities have been affected by the strikes?
- Edinburgh vs KCL for English
- Staying in London for university or moving out?
- CAS delay by East london
- Urgent Tenancy Takeover For Student Accommodation
- Uni choices unrealistic?
- university in london?? london students please respond
- Advice on Picking a London University
- Studying in London or Edinburgh?
- Which Masters in Branding or UX/Interaction school to choose. Advise me
- Official Northeastern University London Applicant Thread for 2024
- Ucas application (sticky situation)
- Queen Mary University or City University of London
- Retake Year 13
