King's College London
London
Loss of "Prestige"
With all that's gone on with King's College London over the last few days (with UCAS having to step-in and set applications to "reject by default" en masse because King's missed the deadline for offers/rejections), there's discussion on some other threads as to the impact that this will have on their reputation and whether people will steer clear of them in future.
Instinct tells me that their perceived "prestige" will survive this debacle, but it got me thinking about the quote that, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it." (Warren Buffett)
This doesn't seem to apply to universities. Sure, it takes them a long time to build a reputation, but once they have it it seems to "stick", regardless of what occurs thereafter.
Can anyone recall a UK university which used to be considered prestigious, and which is now just considered "one of the pack"? Are there any?
Instinct tells me that their perceived "prestige" will survive this debacle, but it got me thinking about the quote that, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it." (Warren Buffett)
This doesn't seem to apply to universities. Sure, it takes them a long time to build a reputation, but once they have it it seems to "stick", regardless of what occurs thereafter.
Can anyone recall a UK university which used to be considered prestigious, and which is now just considered "one of the pack"? Are there any?
Original post by DataVenia
With all that's gone on with King's College London over the last few days (with UCAS having to step-in and set applications to "reject by default" en masse because King's missed the deadline for offers/rejections), there's discussion on some other threads as to the impact that this will have on their reputation and whether people will steer clear of them in future.
Instinct tells me that their perceived "prestige" will survive this debacle, but it got me thinking about the quote that, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it." (Warren Buffett)
This doesn't seem to apply to universities. Sure, it takes them a long time to build a reputation, but once they have it it seems to "stick", regardless of what occurs thereafter.
Can anyone recall a UK university which used to be considered prestigious, and which is now just considered "one of the pack"? Are there any?
Instinct tells me that their perceived "prestige" will survive this debacle, but it got me thinking about the quote that, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it." (Warren Buffett)
This doesn't seem to apply to universities. Sure, it takes them a long time to build a reputation, but once they have it it seems to "stick", regardless of what occurs thereafter.
Can anyone recall a UK university which used to be considered prestigious, and which is now just considered "one of the pack"? Are there any?
No, this just the administrative departments, not the academic ones. It might make a small proportion of undergrads apply elsewhere but it won’t have a significant impact the reputation, probably blow over in a few weeks. Everyone who was supposed to receive an offer got one.
King's College London
London
There is an element of 'King with No Clothes' about KCL, UCL, LSE etc.
Everyone thinks they are 'prestigious' and therefore they get away with this image, although the basis for this is not clear.
There are numerous other top Unis in the UK that are as good as if not better for many of the subjects that they offer, however they are not 'in London'.and the perception of glamour this attaches to these Unis adds to this idea that they are somehow 'better'.
As has been realised over the last few weeks, the attitude of some of the London Unis towards applicants is exceptionally poor - and I dont subscribe to the 'its just the admissions office' idea, as this lack of honesty towards applicants will have been sanctioned by staff far higher up the food-chain and is therefore indicative of a University wide culture.
The KCL debacle has infuriated schools - and this will impact future applications. KCL are going to need to work hard to re-establish their gilded image - and they will need to reassess their attitude towards undergraduate applicants.
Everyone thinks they are 'prestigious' and therefore they get away with this image, although the basis for this is not clear.
There are numerous other top Unis in the UK that are as good as if not better for many of the subjects that they offer, however they are not 'in London'.and the perception of glamour this attaches to these Unis adds to this idea that they are somehow 'better'.
As has been realised over the last few weeks, the attitude of some of the London Unis towards applicants is exceptionally poor - and I dont subscribe to the 'its just the admissions office' idea, as this lack of honesty towards applicants will have been sanctioned by staff far higher up the food-chain and is therefore indicative of a University wide culture.
The KCL debacle has infuriated schools - and this will impact future applications. KCL are going to need to work hard to re-establish their gilded image - and they will need to reassess their attitude towards undergraduate applicants.
That article is indeed interesting. I haven't read the referenced report itself yet, but this sentence in the article caught my attention:
A simplistic view of things would suggest than attending a university where 70% of students get a 1st or a 2:1 would mean that students have, on average, a 70% chance of getting a 1st or 2:1. Likewise, those attending a university where 30% achieve a 1st or a 2:1, would have a 30% chance of doing so.
However, the report seems to be implying that a student capable of obtaining a place at the first university might have a better than 70% chance of achieving a 1st or a 2:1 at the second university.
That seems counter-intuituve to me.
Figures in the report also suggested it was less difficult to obtain a higher-class degree outside selective universities with competitive entry requirements, despite those universities tending to award a larger proportion of 2.1s and firsts.
A simplistic view of things would suggest than attending a university where 70% of students get a 1st or a 2:1 would mean that students have, on average, a 70% chance of getting a 1st or 2:1. Likewise, those attending a university where 30% achieve a 1st or a 2:1, would have a 30% chance of doing so.
However, the report seems to be implying that a student capable of obtaining a place at the first university might have a better than 70% chance of achieving a 1st or a 2:1 at the second university.
That seems counter-intuituve to me.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A Level Italian paper 2
- Coursework: the yellow wallpaper & The Bell jar
- Muslim - Am i allowed to have physical contact with the in this circumstance
- HNC science
- Christmas is RUINED News Compilation thread Mk II
- Electrcity Help
- OCR A physics question
- Has anyone met someone from TSR in person?
- Jack Grealish loves alcohol and women
- Car thefts Birmingham
- Electro acoustic guitar 🎸
- Sainsbury's and some Tesco deliveries cancelled over technical issues
- Units help
- A Level Physics OCR A Paper 2 unofficial mark scheme
- Multisum circuit
- Teenager given 2 year youth sentence for killing an 82 year old man.
- King Charles to appear in public at Easter Sunday church service
- Incorrect unit conversion
- Anaesthetist who stole drugs from NHS hospital for sex use jailed
- Trying to fill a Tesla with petrol!
Latest
Trending
Last reply 21 hours ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadTrending
Last reply 21 hours ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
