Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eve Joy)
    Hi Michel, I suspect this one's a would-be undergrad. Admissions at this level are a very different ball game, with a much larger applicant pool. I wouldn't understate the the difficulty of King's, but it's certainly not out of reach if you meet the basic requirements.
    Perhaps, my experience and the one of all those 4 friends is for a postgrad course.

    But, in my case, my course had almost 10 applicants per place, so there's a reasonable demand, but since I have a strong background, I was accepted, even with a lower grade than other applicants.

    Therefore, based on my experience with its admissions policy, I believe KCL can still accept the OP.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For Biosciences they'll most likely take you in with one grade lower that's basically what the admissions guy said to me on the open day.
    But obviously bioscience isn't as competitive as law, medicine etc etc
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes! i know a girl who applied for pharmacy at KCL. They gave her a conditional offer of AAB however she achieved ABB. She still managed to get in and is now going on to her second year in pharmacy
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I've tidied this thread and will keep an eye on it. Please can we keep on topic. Thank you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichelBraga)
    After Oxbridge, Imperial, UCL, LSE, St Andrews, Durham and maybe Warwick, KCL does a good job, it's not the crème de la crème, but it's surely a great uni.
    And what makes you place St Andrews, Durham and Warwick above KCL?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    A girl from my school last year had an offer of AAA for Maths and I think she got in with A*BB. Granted, the A* was in Maths, but she didn't meet the offer regardless! Heads up, you never know how you've done.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    And what makes you place St Andrews, Durham and Warwick above KCL?
    I would say that they're neck to neck, but the other three provide a better study environment, facilities and prospects than KCL. The teaching is pretty much the same in general, each uni has its strengths, but nothing that will make one of them to stand out from the others.

    The thing with KCL is that much of its reputation/employability is inflated by the NHS-KCL partnership that guarantees a place for every KCL Med graduate, while the rest of the university doesn't enjoy much prestige from the job market.

    Of course, it's just my opinion, but this a quite common understanding. KCL is a great uni (in the middle of London, which is a major plus), but it's a bit overrated, so I really don't see it being better than St Andrews, Durham and Warwick.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichelBraga)
    I would say that they're neck to neck, but the other three provide a better study environment, facilities and prospects than KCL.
    What are those facilities & environment offered by Durham, St. Andrews etc?

    The thing with KCL is that much of its reputation/employability is inflated by the NHS-KCL partnership that guarantees a place for every KCL Med graduate, while the rest of the university doesn't enjoy much prestige from the job market.
    I know many students from various departments especially computer science, and mathematics. All of them are working with reputable employers and earning well.

    Of course, it's just my opinion, but this a quite common understanding. KCL is a great uni (in the middle of London, which is a major plus), but it's a bit overrated, so I really don't see it being better than St Andrews, Durham and Warwick.
    Why is it overrated?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichelBraga)
    I would say that they're neck to neck, but the other three provide a better study environment, facilities and prospects than KCL. The teaching is pretty much the same in general, each uni has its strengths, but nothing that will make one of them to stand out from the others.

    The thing with KCL is that much of its reputation/employability is inflated by the NHS-KCL partnership that guarantees a place for every KCL Med graduate, while the rest of the university doesn't enjoy much prestige from the job market.

    Of course, it's just my opinion, but this a quite common understanding. KCL is a great uni (in the middle of London, which is a major plus), but it's a bit overrated, so I really don't see it being better than St Andrews, Durham and Warwick.
    I can understand the specious argument of them having better "study environment" due to the "student satisfaction" based survey of the Guardian and their single main-campus model. So I would not bother with that that much because I think it is a specious argument.

    But in terms of "facilities" and "prospects", please can you provide me with your sources that made you come to that conclusion?

    To my knowledge, KCL is far richer than all these 3 universities, its graduates have a higher employment rate, its graduates have higher average starting salaries, employers and academics rate the uni higher than all the other 3 and all the league tables that are based on prestige put KCL higher.

    Also to my knowledge, all 4 universities have a medical school, not only KCL. All be it, Durham shares its medical school.

    And KCL's medical school is only about 15% of the student body. Are you saying this 15% is so strong, it is carrying the rest of the 85% to such heights?

    If it is, then it must surely be the best medical school in the country. Even in Europe. Maybe even in the world. Which we can sensibly agree none of these 3 postulations is true?

    So how can you say only the medical school is good and the rest are not respected? Are you saying employers employing KCL students and paying them more on average only employ the medical students? Are you saying the other 3 universities' medical schools are not good? What facilities do the other 3 offer that is better than KCL?

    The only place I know where KCL is not rated higher than the other 4 based on reputation and where it is "a quite common understanding" that the other 3 are better, as you stated, are UK-based league tables and TSR. Are these your sources?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    I can understand the specious argument of them having better "study environment" due to the "student satisfaction" based survey of the Guardian and their single main-campus model. So I would not bother with that that much because I think it is a specious argument.

    But in terms of "facilities" and "prospects", please can you provide me with your sources that made you come to that conclusion?

    To my knowledge, KCL is far richer than all these 3 universities, its graduates have a higher employment rate, its graduates have higher average starting salaries, employers and academics rate the uni higher than all the other 3 and all the league tables that are based on prestige put KCL higher.

    Also to my knowledge, all 4 universities have a medical school, not only KCL. All be it, Durham shares its medical school.

    And KCL's medical school is only about 15% of the student body. Are you saying this 15% is so strong, it is carrying the rest of the 85% to such heights?

    If it is, then it must surely be the best medical school in the country. Even in Europe. Maybe even in the world. Which we can sensibly agree none of these 3 postulations is true?

    So how can you say only the medical school is good and the rest are not respected? Are you saying employers employing KCL students and paying them more on average only employ the medical students? Are you saying the other 3 universities' medical schools are not good? What facilities do the other 3 offer that is better than KCL?

    The only place I know where KCL is not rated higher than the other 4 based on reputation and where it is "a quite common understanding" that the other 3 are better, as you stated, are UK-based league tables and TSR. Are these your sources?
    :ditto:

    I guess this is the best answer to all haters & jealous people. King's may not the top 1 nstitute of the world but it is among top universities in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kcl hope)
    Did you or do you know anyone who got into kings without getting the grades, if so, what subject and what grades did they get, please share as I'm lacking any motivation and have no positivity, thanks x
    I got into Kings College for Pharmacy with ABB but had a conditional offer of AAB. There are even a few (only a few) people in my year who had offers of AAB but got in with BBB and yeah, proud to say ive just passed my year one exams, onto year two! lol

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by universal_set)
    What are those facilities & environment offered by Durham, St. Andrews etc?



    I know many students from various departments especially computer science, and mathematics. All of them are working with reputable employers and earning well.



    Why is it overrated?
    About the facilities, Durham and St Andrews, being campus universities, naturally have a better spacial organization and availability than a city university, and offer much more infrastructure (bigger and more modern libraries with better resources, sports facilities, better accommodation, etc). Every year thousands of people reject KCL to go to 'countryside universities' due to this factor. But that's changes from person to person, of course.

    Of course that there are students in KCL beyond the Med scope that are doing fine, but that's not the general fact. King's is almost a "specialist" school, the departments that have good prospects are Med, Classics, Law, War Studies and Pharmacy (if you consider the over-saturated market), which is really not much for a multi-faculty university with more than 25,000 students. There are other good courses, like Classics and History, but they don't stand out that much compared to other universities.

    I think KCL is overrated sometimes because it is an university with a failed project and that lives on the reputation that it had a long time ago. I don't see much effort from the administration to change that and make KCL the center of excellence that it could be. Today the gap between KCL and the other 3 main London schools is huge, and it tends to continue growing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LutherVan)
    I can understand the specious argument of them having better "study environment" due to the "student satisfaction" based survey of the Guardian and their single main-campus model. So I would not bother with that that much because I think it is a specious argument.

    But in terms of "facilities" and "prospects", please can you provide me with your sources that made you come to that conclusion?

    To my knowledge, KCL is far richer than all these 3 universities, its graduates have a higher employment rate, its graduates have higher average starting salaries, employers and academics rate the uni higher than all the other 3 and all the league tables that are based on prestige put KCL higher.

    Also to my knowledge, all 4 universities have a medical school, not only KCL. All be it, Durham shares its medical school.

    And KCL's medical school is only about 15% of the student body. Are you saying this 15% is so strong, it is carrying the rest of the 85% to such heights?

    If it is, then it must surely be the best medical school in the country. Even in Europe. Maybe even in the world. Which we can sensibly agree none of these 3 postulations is true?

    So how can you say only the medical school is good and the rest are not respected? Are you saying employers employing KCL students and paying them more on average only employ the medical students? Are you saying the other 3 universities' medical schools are not good? What facilities do the other 3 offer that is better than KCL?

    The only place I know where KCL is not rated higher than the other 4 based on reputation and where it is "a quite common understanding" that the other 3 are better, as you stated, are UK-based league tables and TSR. Are these your sources?
    I didn't see your reply, so please check the earlier one.

    You talk like I'm downgrading KCL to a second-rate status university. It looks like you think that Durham, St. Andrews and Warwick are second-rate unis, is that right? My argument was not intended to devalue KCL, actually, I was simply valuing the other 3.

    If you want prospects, just look at the THE, AWRU rankings and the league tables, which you mind find absurd (and I do for some aspects, but it provides an accurate employability statistic). QS is extremely biased torwards UK universities, and I'm sure you will agree with that.

    And, yes, KCL Medical School mostly carries the rest of the university. It is not the best medical school in the world, in Europe or even in London, but it is pretty good. KCL hospital is even older than the university itself, and made most of the university fame during the last century. So yes, I do think that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichelBraga)
    About the facilities, Durham and St Andrews, being campus universities, naturally have a better spacial organization and availability than a city university, and offer much more infrastructure (bigger and more modern libraries with better resources, sports facilities, better accommodation, etc). Every year thousands of people reject KCL to go to 'countryside universities' due to this factor. But that's changes from person to person, of course.
    I second most of what you have said in terms that campus universities have almost all their buildings close together in one place and students living on campus have everything they need to study and socialise all easily within walking distance. Plus, campus universities may have big buildings. But how does it affect on teaching quality and student's performance? For example, University of Durham may have a bigger Computer Science department than KCL (in terms of a bigger building) but in no way it is close to its research & excellence. For example, KCL's Algorithms/Bioinformatics etc offers highly demanding courses such as MSc computer science, its algorithmic research group is working on very important and difficult topics. Similarly, although LSE, which is a city university/institute, has very few buildings in Holborn and their maths department is very small (in context of "building's size") plus at several occasions they have borrowed teachers from Imperial & KCL (for example, Prof N. H. Bingham is a professor at Imperial College & he used to teach Stochastic Analysis to MSc students at LSE until 2012 as a part time teacher, another example is Dr. Lokka from KCL. I can give several such examples), also LSE doesn't offer straight maths degree but yet its courses such as MSc Financial Mathematics, BSc Maths & Econ are highly respectable & demanding in related industry. Which proves that if city universities students are studying in a comparatively small buildings then it doesn't put negative impact on a student's performance or teaching or overall excellence because institutes like KCL invest in their students, "not" in buildings. Another advantage of city university is employment. London is one of the largest cosmopolitan cities in the world therefore it is expensive but it offers more opportunities than any other city in UK.


    Of course that there are students in KCL beyond the Med scope that are doing fine, but that's not the general fact. King's is almost a "specialist" school, the departments that have good prospects are Med, Classics, Law, War Studies and Pharmacy (if you consider the over-saturated market), which is really not much for a multi-faculty university with more than 25,000 students. There are other good courses, like Classics and History, but they don't stand out that much compared to other universities.
    Your knowledge is based on few newspapers' articles or TSR threads. KCL has many other excellent departments such as Mathematics which is older than LSE, also older than your favourite Durham uni + it offers more joint degrees + it has really good faculty members (in UK) + it offers very good job opportunities etc. Nobody knew the name of University of St. Andrews before Prince William joined it, lol. Your judgement/evaluation is based on a narrow comparison chart, which doesn't cater many vital factors which I have already mentioned above.


    I think KCL is overrated sometimes because it is an university with a failed project and that lives on the reputation that it had a long time ago. I don't see much effort from the administration to change that and make KCL the center of excellence that it could be. Today the gap between KCL and the other 3 main London schools is huge, and it tends to continue growing.
    Project? I don't really understand it, what do you mean?

    Although, KCL is behind in rankings from other London's institutes but who cares? At least, not me because I don't give any importance to such rankings which are based on students' surveys/opinions. I can give you hundreds of valid contacts of students from LSE & UCL who are unemployed or running shops such as bakery stores etc. I am not trying to say that LSE or UCL doesn't offer good employment opportunities. I believe in excellence, things like ranking, big buildings etc reflects poor mentality.

    A fascination with the subject, a creative urge, and pride in their work are enough to keep the KCL's students working.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichelBraga)
    I didn't see your reply, so please check the earlier one.

    You talk like I'm downgrading KCL to a second-rate status university. It looks like you think that Durham, St. Andrews and Warwick are second-rate unis, is that right? My argument was not intended to devalue KCL, actually, I was simply valuing the other 3.

    If you want prospects, just look at the THE, AWRU rankings and the league tables, which you mind find absurd (and I do for some aspects, but it provides an accurate employability statistic). QS is extremely biased torwards UK universities, and I'm sure you will agree with that.

    And, yes, KCL Medical School mostly carries the rest of the university. It is not the best medical school in the world, in Europe or even in London, but it is pretty good. KCL hospital is even older than the university itself, and made most of the university fame during the last century. So yes, I do think that.
    At no point did I call any university a second-rate university.

    All I asked was for you to provide me with the sources that made you come to the conclusion that St Andrews, Warwick and Durham were better than KCL as you asserted. Most data I have seen seems to suggest it is the other way round.

    Also, please enlighten us on what data you used to conclude that KCL Medical School carries the rest of the university. Out of its roughly 15,000 undergrads, medical students make up only about 2000. Of this 2000, about 300 are EMDP students because KCL is the only top Uni that is not anal about grades. The medical school is not even rated in the top 10 in the UK, and is not even in the top 20 for entry requirements into Medicine. So how did you get to your conclusion that the medical school carries the whole university on its shoulders?

    It would be interesting to see your sources and understand your reasoning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Both arguments are pretty good, but please, my opinions aren't based on TSR forums. If TSR was my bible, I would be saying that KCL is the worst place in the UK, which is not the case. I was an exchange student at KCL and I chose it because of the whole image KCL has projected abroad, but I was a bit disappointed when I got there. Sure, it was much better than my home university and the experience was great overall, but it was really average in terms of excellence. I didn't like the facitilies (Strand) as you could observe and I felt the teaching to be just ok.

    I visited Warwick and Durham recently, and both impressed me a lot, so I'm biased about this whole discussion, tbh.

    And about the project, I'll quote what one of you mentioned earlier: "KCL invest in their students, 'not' in buildings". Observing the mass layoffs in the last years, and the celebration of new architectural projects and building acquisitions, I have to disagree. As you both must be aware of, KCL lowered their entry standards and decreased its investments in teaching (in general) in the last decade. I don't think a really rich university would do that. In London you see both UCL and Imperial investing in research partnerships with top notch US schools and increasingly attracting more world leading scholars. So, my opinion is that KCL policy now is based on getting more money by providing more "circus" to its students, while the real important thing (teaching and excellence) has been decreasing considerably.

    However, I didn't say that KCL isn't a top notch school. I think that other unis are catching up, and KCL is holding its place much due to its past reputation.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    the KCL hate is strong in this thread..........
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jagsy)
    My offer for law is A*AA, I think I at least have A*ABB, would KCL let me in with that?
    Unlikely but still a small chance.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MichelBraga)
    Both arguments are pretty good, but please, my opinions aren't based on TSR forums. If TSR was my bible, I would be saying that KCL is the worst place in the UK, which is not the case. I was an exchange student at KCL and I chose it because of the whole image KCL has projected abroad, but I was a bit disappointed when I got there. Sure, it was much better than my home university and the experience was great overall, but it was really average in terms of excellence. I didn't like the facitilies (Strand) as you could observe and I felt the teaching to be just ok.

    I visited Warwick and Durham recently, and both impressed me a lot, so I'm biased about this whole discussion, tbh.

    And about the project, I'll quote what one of you mentioned earlier: "KCL invest in their students, 'not' in buildings". Observing the mass layoffs in the last years, and the celebration of new architectural projects and building acquisitions, I have to disagree. As you both must be aware of, KCL lowered their entry standards and decreased its investments in teaching (in general) in the last decade. I don't think a really rich university would do that. In London you see both UCL and Imperial investing in research partnerships with top notch US schools and increasingly attracting more world leading scholars. So, my opinion is that KCL policy now is based on getting more money by providing more "circus" to its students, while the real important thing (teaching and excellence) has been decreasing considerably.

    However, I didn't say that KCL isn't a top notch school. I think that other unis are catching up, and KCL is holding its place much due to its past reputation.

    I don't know about other subjects or departments as I have very little interest in them. I am always interested in maths & CS ergo I can confidently say that KCL doesn't accept students with lower grades with huge margins/gaps in these two departments. Even if some students are accepted then they must have some other strong attributes such as work experience, circumstances, disability etc Even Oxbridge accept students if they fail to achieve the required grade with a very low margin.

    If you liked Durham and Warwick then it's your personal choice because I have been to Durham and I didn't like their CS department. Which means that your or mine opinions are based on personal experiences and they are not applicable to a wide rage of data.

    Many universities in UK follow very common and traditional teaching methods. For example, they run computer slides on big screens in their lectures and lecturers just read them and occasionally answers the questions asked by participants (students) & offer guidance in office hours. Rest is students' job to create/achieve excellence in their respective fields through self study, group study, usage of resources like libraries, computers etc. I am not counting subjects like mathematics because they can't be taught through generic methods. Many students in Oxbridge fail in their degree programmes or get lower grades. It doesn't mean that anyone can doubt on Oxbridge's prestige or excellence. Similarly, if you were expecting something and you didn't get it from KCL during your stay in London then it doesn't mean the others didn't get same.

    Did you attend an open day at Durham or Warwick? Or have you done a degree course?

    Certainly, KCL is not the number 1 institute in the world or UK but it is a prestigious institute and it is definitely among top 5 or 10 institutes in UK.

    Edited note: BTW, KCL's CS algorithms group have close connections with top universities at US, Israel, and other countries.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Can't speak for all the courses but know that loads of people in my History cohort were allowed in despite missing the offer grades of A*AA. Mate of mine got in with AAB. King's have lowered the offer back down to AAA in light of this.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.