KCL or Glasgow as an EU student

Hey world, I was wondering if you could help me out with a contemplation I'm currently struggling with. I still haven't heard back from all the unis I've applied to for entry in 2020 but as it stands I have offers from KCL, Glasgow and Bristol. As an EU student I am wondering whether or not paying tuition fees would be justified by the opportunities and prestige of which KCL seems to have more to offer in comparison to Glasgow. The course I want to read is philosophy with a modern language.

Hey world, I was wondering if you could help me out with a contemplation I'm currently struggling with. I still haven't heard back from all the unis I've applied to for entry in 2020 but as it stands I have offers from KCL, Glasgow and Bristol. As an EU student I am wondering whether or not paying tuition fees would be justified by the opportunities and prestige of which KCL seems to have more to offer in comparison to Glasgow. The course I want to read is philosophy with a modern language.

i would like to add to my first comment in saying that if job opportunities was your priority, you wouldn't be choosing to study philosophy

lol, in terms of prestige at an undergraduate level KCL and Glasgow are literally exactly the same. KCL only has the edge for research which should not worry you too much.

That’s a lie

no i'ts not, i take it you're a KCL student....

no i'ts not, i take it you're a KCL student....

Lol no, I’m from Leicester and still in college, didn’t even apply to KCL, not my thing but I just know personally Glasgow and KCL aren’t on the same level. Not especially for my course. In a degree like philosophy I could see KCL having a more obvious prestige aswell with its grand history and data archives and content etc.

I’ve visited both universities a number of times and would find it very easy to enter into a tit for tat argument on which is “better”, but as far as “prestige” is concerned... Glasgow is significantly the older institution, has as many notable alumni, was a founding member of the Russell Group, is rated QS 5*, etc., etc.

Both institutions are very good, if not excellent, and easily trade places across a number of university league tables and across a number of criteria; the prestige the original poster is referring to is a social construct more closely linked to geography than with the quality of education you’ll receive.

King’s absolutely has its advantages over Glasgow, but choosing one over the over based on prestige - when in reality they are so closely matched - makes very little sense.

Tbh Kings is still more prestigious. The London Unis come just after Oxbridge prestige wise. If you check the QS University Rankings for the top 10 Universities in the UK you’ll find KCL but not Glasgow. Don’t see what being a founding RG member adds? Nobody thinks about that, RG nonetheless. They don’t easily trade places your just looking at the wrong league tables. They may be closely matched (aren’t) but KCL is still significantly a more ‘prestigious’ institution

The one issue to consider is that because the UK is leaving the UK how will it affect the no fees in Scottish universities. Up until now Scottish universities have had to accept EU students on the same basis as Scottish students due to EC law. As the UK is leaving the EU then the EU students will be treated as foreign students and charged foreign student fees, I suspect the Scottish government wont be accepting EU students without fees from now on. The question is when this takes place.

This seems like a serious case of confirmation bias; I’m looking at the “wrong” league tables? You mean the ones which don’t support your assertion?

Glasgow ranks higher for almost all metrics (both overall and subject-specific) on The Guardian, The Complete University Guide, UK Uni, and the National Student Survey; the gap between King’s and Glasgow across both the Times and QS is consistently fewer than five places when comparing UK universities, and both these latter two rankings use a survey methodology that weighs in favour of research output... And, yet, none of these rankings allow us to filter by “prestige”, so either one of us using any of these league tables to answer the original posters question is a misappropriation of the data (thankfully, if you reread my earlier argument, I didn’t rely on the league tables for my response).

You are entirely entitled to your opinion that King’s is the more prestigious of the two institutions, because - as I’ve already said - the concept is a social construct... but let’s be absolutely clear: it is just that, your opinion (and one perhaps shared or influenced by your peers), nothing more, nothing less, and I can only caution the OP on basing their decision to attend a university on something as flimsy as that.

Perhaps, instead of entering into a pointless debate with me, if you’re interested in assisting the OP, you might elaborate on other factors (which may well contribute to why you’re of your opinion) which could meaningfully influence their decision to choose one institution over the other?

No? Because you failed to ask the question of why some league tables differ. Glasgow tops off on The Guardian, The CUG and all those others because they put more effort into STUDENT SATISFACTION. Why else would KCL be 66th on The Guardian? Actually read how they collate their data. QS takes all those and academia + prestige globally (which is more important for an EU student) into account and guess whose in the top 8 in the UK and top 40 globally? KCL guess who isn’t top 70? Glasgow. You only need to look at global rankings (sth ur other aforementioned league tables can’t provide) because remember we’re speaking to an EU student. You can’t filter prestige but you can filter reputation, job markets and research quality. All of which QS offers and KCL wins with which is why they’re a top 10 UK uni.