Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    No I'm at Kings College.

    if you have nothing to add thats informed and intelligent, why are you posting?
    What do you think of King's College London's abandoned plan to rebrand itself 'King's London'?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    What do you think of King's College London's abandoned plan to rebrand itself 'King's London'?
    that was last year so before my time (started September) but from what I know, it seems pretty pointless. I don't understand what's wrong with having "college" in the title?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    I

    that was last year so before my time (started September) but from what I know, it seems pretty pointless. I don't understand what's wrong with having "college" in the title?
    Because a college is less of a university, and King's name is bigger than University of London now among the educated class. One of their arguments was that the other UoL colleges are not branding themselves that way, which I assume refers to the fact that many of them are 'schools' (eg LSE, London Business School, SOAS) and many of them go with abbreviations (eg UCL). The only ones that have given up 'college' are the lesser-known ones such as Queen Mary, St George's, Birkbeck, Goldsmith. I think going by King's like Imperial is fine (or KCL like UCL) but I don't understand King's London.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Because a college is less of a university, and King's name is bigger than University of London now among the educated class. One of their arguments was that the other UoL colleges are not branding themselves that way, which I assume refers to the fact that many of them are 'schools' (eg LSE, London Business School, SOAS) and many of them go with abbreviations (eg UCL). The only ones that have given up 'college' are the lesser-known ones such as Queen Mary, St George's, Birkbeck, Goldsmith. I think going by King's like Imperial is fine (or KCL like UCL) but I don't understand King's London.
    Ah right okay, now I understand. The name doesn't really bother me, but it just seems like a lot of money to remove one word. Anyway, I was more concerned about the course than the name of the university.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Can we beat China in a war?

    No


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, despite the massive population difference technically the UK could launch a pre-emptive nuclear missile strike on China and wipe out most in one hit, but we don't know if China have a missle defence system that could take down nuclear missiles, and even if not Beijing would a launch a retaliatory strike that would wipe out the population of the UK if not Europe as well. Technically the UK might be the short lived victor as it launched the strike first.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    UK doesn't have enough financial nor military strength to fight China.

    However, we must remember that should the UK get involved in a war, other NATO members will have to join us, including USA/France and Turkey- which will tip the balance in our favour again.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What war has Britain won in the last decade? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Because a college is less of a university, and King's name is bigger than University of London now among the educated class. One of their arguments was that the other UoL colleges are not branding themselves that way, which I assume refers to the fact that many of them are 'schools' (eg LSE, London Business School, SOAS) and many of them go with abbreviations (eg UCL). The only ones that have given up 'college' are the lesser-known ones such as Queen Mary, St George's, Birkbeck, Goldsmith. I think going by King's like Imperial is fine (or KCL like UCL) but I don't understand King's London.
    King's isn't famous or distinguished enough to do that. Imperial is famous on it's first name, but King's could be any university in Britain (though I personally think of KCL when I hear "King's").

    Surely something like "London King's University" would be more suitable? Similar to "Cambridge University" and " London Heathrow Airport".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yulebook)
    King's isn't famous or distinguished enough to do that. Imperial is famous on it's first name, but King's could be any university in Britain (though I personally think of KCL when I hear "King's".

    Surely something like "London King's University" would be more suitable? Similar to "Cambridge University" and " London Heathrow Airport".
    London King's University' would be factually inaccurate and illegal. It isn't entitled to have the name 'university'. This is why you see 'Queen Mary University of London' or 'St George's University of London'. They cannot do away with 'of London' without applying for it to the government.

    Which other UK university can you think of when you hear King's? I couldn't even name another one in the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    London King's University' would be factually inaccurate and illegal. It isn't entitled to have the name 'university'. This is why you see 'Queen Mary University of London' or 'St George's University of London'. They cannot do away with 'of London' without applying for it to the government.

    Which other UK university can you think of when you hear King's? I couldn't even name another one in the world.
    I don't know of any other university and I always think of KCL when I hear someone talk about King's, but I would never refer to KCL as just "King's" because I worry about confusing the person I'm talking to.

    What's the actual reason that King's can't use the word "university"? Is it still part of the University of London collegiate?

    IMO: It's a university in every single way. It doesn't need to be part of UoL. Same opinion on LSE, UCL and ICL.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yulebook)
    I don't know of any other university and I always think of KCL when I hear someone talk about King's, but I would never refer to KCL as just "King's" because I worry about confusing the person I'm talking to.

    What's the actual reason that King's can't use the word "university"? Is it still part of the University of London collegiate?

    IMO: It's a university in every single way. It doesn't need to be part of UoL. Same opinion on LSE, UCL and ICL.
    'University' and 'college' among some other terms are legally protected terms in the UK. You need to meet certain standards and be approved by Her Majesty's Government to be called a 'university'.

    King's College remains a constituent college of the University of London, just like UCL, LSE, St George's, Queen Mary, SOAS, London Business School, Royal College of Music, Goldsmith, Birbeck etc. unlike Imperial College (who left the left in its centennial anniversary) and Regent's Park College (who left UoL ages ago to join Oxford). Whilst it remains a college under a university, it is definitely not a university on its own. It's logically impossible to have a 'university' in a 'university' - the only similar thing to this could be a university having its degrees accredited by another university, but I cannot think of an example where a 'university' does this. There was University of Southampton (which was not a university) having its degrees granted by University of London; Westminster College (which doesn't exist any more) getting its degrees conferred by University of Oxford; and University College Birmingham getting its degrees awarded by University of Birmingham (which in no way owns UCB).

    I'm sure if King's wants to, they will be able to be upgraded to a university, but they cannot do this without applying and leaving University of London. They consider themselves a university with a small 'u'. They can choose to leave UoL, subject to the approval of the Senate, but they aren't, probably because UoL still is a bigger automatic brand name, that it gives them better distance-learning promotions and arrangements, better research collaborations, and a better value for students enrolled. There's also the fact that King's and UCL were the founders of the University.

    They are, of course, for all intents and purposes, an independent university. They even have their own Privy Council register. But legally speaking it's impossible for them to call themselves 'London King's University' - they can do 'King's University of London' but people wouldn't really recognise them.

    I agree with you that 'KCL' has the better name recognition, and that remains their website link and email address; but I reckon they tried to make 'King's London' happen to not be considered a 'college' any more, so 'King's' could be a viable alternative. Since no other university has claimed that so far (unlike 'Imperial University' which exists in Japan) I definitely that can happen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    'University' and 'college' among some other terms are legally protected terms in the UK. You need to meet certain standards and be approved by Her Majesty's Government to be called a 'university'.

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    King's College remains a constituent college of the University of London, just like UCL, LSE, St George's, Queen Mary, SOAS, London Business School, Royal College of Music, Goldsmith, Birbeck etc. unlike Imperial College (who left the left in its centennial anniversary) and Regent's Park College (who left UoL ages ago to join Oxford). Whilst it remains a college under a university, it is definitely not a university on its own. It's logically impossible to have a 'university' in a 'university' - the only similar thing to this could be a university having its degrees accredited by another university, but I cannot think of an example where a 'university' does this. There was University of Southampton (which was not a university) having its degrees granted by University of London; Westminster College (which doesn't exist any more) getting its degrees conferred by University of Oxford; and University College Birmingham getting its degrees awarded by University of Birmingham (which in no way owns UCB).

    I'm sure if King's wants to, they will be able to be upgraded to a university, but they cannot do this without applying and leaving University of London. They consider themselves a university with a small 'u'. They can choose to leave UoL, subject to the approval of the Senate, but they aren't, probably because UoL still is a bigger automatic brand name, that it gives them better distance-learning promotions and arrangements, better research collaborations, and a better value for students enrolled. There's also the fact that King's and UCL were the founders of the University.

    They are, of course, for all intents and purposes, an independent university. They even have their own Privy Council register. But legally speaking it's impossible for them to call themselves 'London King's University' - they can do 'King's University of London' but people wouldn't really recognise them.

    I agree with you that 'KCL' has the better name recognition, and that remains their website link and email address; but I reckon they tried to make 'King's London' happen to not be considered a 'college' any more, so 'King's' could be a viable alternative. Since no other university has claimed that so far (unlike 'Imperial University' which exists in Japan) I definitely that can happen.
    What I was trying to get across was that IMO it would be better for all of London's universities to achieve "university" status. If that means disbanding the University of London then so be it, but IMO the University of London could exist and rule in some sort of "union" with all of London's universities (including ICL), reminiscent of how the European Union isn't a country but still manages to be a formidable political union.

    If it's a matter of tradition then I think it's neither important nor useful to stop KCL from gaining university status.

    Brand is important and influences the choices people make. KCL probably wanted to re-brand themselves to make the university seem more credible (rather than somewhere that "can't achieve university status as Imperial did".

    I think the brand "King's" would only work within London. Outside London, people would probably still need to ask whether the university of topic was the one in London, just in case there was another university somewhere else in the country. There needs to be the word "London" to help people out.

    I prefer the name "London King's University" because it offers a streamlined branding method for all of London's universities (i.e. London Imperial University) while it gives "university" status to London's universities (all of which really deserve to be called a university).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yulebook)
    What I was trying to get across was that IMO it would be better for all of London's universities to achieve "university" status. If that means disbanding the University of London then so be it, but IMO the University of London could exist and rule in some sort of "union" with all of London's universities (including ICL), reminiscent of how the European Union isn't a country but still manages to be a formidable political union.

    If it's a matter of tradition then I think it's neither important nor useful to stop KCL from gaining university status.

    Brand is important and influences the choices people make. KCL probably wanted to re-brand themselves to make the university seem more credible (rather than somewhere that "can't achieve university status as Imperial did".

    I think the brand "King's" would only work within London. Outside London, people would probably still need to ask whether the university of topic was the one in London, just in case there was another university somewhere else in the country. There needs to be the word "London" to help people out.

    I prefer the name "London King's University" because it offers a streamlined branding method for all of London's universities (i.e. London Imperial University) while it gives "university" status to London's universities (all of which really deserve to be called a university).
    Having 'London' in the beginning with a word in between is more associated to poor universities - Manchester Metropolitan University, London South Bank University etc. Top universities in the world without the location as the name usually work without the location altogether - Harvard University, Stanford University etc. This is mostly because the second university in a city usually is not a good one.

    Imperial hasn't been officially called a university, by the way.

    If KCL is to become a university, I think King's University London is better.

    You haven't established why leaving UoL would be better - I already have explained with some possibilities why they don't. Better for the students, better for the researchers, and better for the university as a whole. People know 'University of London' because they know London; people may not know 'King's College London'. Imperial left probably because as a smaller institution, the costs are bigger for them whilst the benefits, not as much - and I don't think they have anything to do with UoL's international programmes.

    There's also the factor that if UoL is to be disbanded, there will be a scramble for the name 'University of London'. If KCL is to leave now, they will not be a contender for that. They'd have the second best chance at the moment to get that title after UCL.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    You haven't established why leaving UoL would be better - I already have explained with some possibilities why they don't. Better for the students, better for the researchers, and better for the university as a whole. People know 'University of London' because they know London; people may not know 'King's College London'. Imperial left probably because as a smaller institution, the costs are bigger for them whilst the benefits, not as much - and I don't think they have anything to do with UoL's international programmes.

    There's also the factor that if UoL is to be disbanded, there will be a scramble for the name 'University of London'. If KCL is to leave now, they will not be a contender for that. They'd have the second best chance at the moment to get that title after UCL.
    I don't think it matters that my style is used for lower class universities. London has such a high reputation for universities that it wouldn't matter as long as all universities followed suit. You are also forgetting about LSE.

    I prefer London Kings because it sounds better than Kings London. Similar to how Cal-Tech sounds better than Tech-Cal.

    I don't think the brand "University of London" is that famous. I remember that I knew about UoL's constitute colleges a long time before I head about UoL. People want to get into "UCL" not "UoL".

    It's not that I think UoL should be disbanded. I think UoL should exist but as a "union" rather than a "university" with each constitute college being given "university" status.

    The UoL can continue to operate exactly the same way it does today, with some functions "devolved" to it's members.

    Anyway, this entire conversation is dead if Government allows KCL to use the word "University" in it's name. It's ceremonial and has no major consequences.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yulebook)
    I don't think it matters that my style is used for lower class universities. London has such a high reputation for universities that it wouldn't matter as long as all universities followed suit. You are also forgetting about LSE.
    A 'school' is different. Different word has different connotation and collocation.

    (Original post by yulebook)
    I prefer London Kings because it sounds better than Kings London. Similar to how Cal-Tech sounds better than Tech-Cal.
    For 'institute', it's very unconventional to place the location after, this is mostly because two 'of's would make it sounds very clumsy.

    (Original post by yulebook)
    I don't think the brand "University of London" is that famous. I remember that I knew about UoL's constitute colleges a long time before I head about UoL. People want to get into "UCL" not "UoL".
    But you're from the UK or at least you care about British education. I'm talking about the global public who doesn't know much about anything. They would assume that 'University of London' exists and is probably good.

    As someone from outside of the UK, I can tell you there definitely are more people who talk/know about 'London University'/'University of London' then King's or UCL. In fact, many people think UCL was UCLA.

    (Original post by yulebook)
    It's not that I think UoL should be disbanded. I think UoL should exist but as a "union" rather than a "university" with each constitute college being given "university" status.
    Like the Russell Group or the Ivy League? In that case it cannot be called a 'university'. It can be called 'Universities of London' though. But why? The good ones are already in Russell Group. It'd be very unconventional for there to be a UoL arrangement as it is if they are all recognised as proper, independent universities. Research collaboration can definitely be done, but international programmes and students going to other modules and libraries would be quite difficult (libraries can potentially be done as they have in other cities). But the biggest question is, why keep a union at all? Individual colleges can just negotiate with each other.

    (Original post by yulebook)
    The UoL can continue to operate exactly the same way it does today, with some functions "devolved" to it's members.
    But this is exactly what has happened. UoL doesn't admit, doesn't award degrees, doesn't hold ceremonies, doesn't rule over anyone, doesn't write courses etc. It's essentially like the Right Honourable Lord Mayor of London and the City of London corporations. Or like HM The Queen and HM Government.

    (Original post by yulebook)
    Anyway, this entire conversation is dead if Government allows KCL to use the word "University" in it's name. It's ceremonial and has no major consequences.
    There's no major consequences indeed. Well, you asked why they wouldn't be allowed to use 'London King's University' and this is why. But as I've said they can use 'King's University of London' if they want to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    A 'school' is different. Different word has different connotation and collocation.
    I wonder why LSE is still called a school when it's obviously a university specialising in economics. It's the perfect example of why London's universities should be given "university" status.

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    For 'institute', it's very unconventional to place the location after, this is mostly because two 'of's would make it sounds very clumsy.
    I agree that it's clumsy but I think most people would accept Institute Technology California or Technology Institute California. It's no different to Kings College London.


    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    But you're from the UK or at least you care about British education. I'm talking about the global public who doesn't know much about anything. They would assume that 'University of London' exists and is probably good.

    As someone from outside of the UK, I can tell you there definitely are more people who talk/know about 'London University'/'University of London' then King's or UCL. In fact, many people think UCL was UCLA.
    It's not that people don't know what UCL is. If someone came across the term "UL" I doubt they would know what that meant too, similar to how most people on this forum would have no clue what "UC" stands for.


    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Like the Russell Group or the Ivy League? In that case it cannot be called a 'university'. It can be called 'Universities of London' though. But why? The good ones are already in Russell Group. It'd be very unconventional for there to be a UoL arrangement as it is if they are all recognised as proper, independent universities. Research collaboration can definitely be done, but international programmes and students going to other modules and libraries would be quite difficult (libraries can potentially be done as they have in other cities). But the biggest question is, why keep a union at all? Individual colleges can just negotiate with each other.
    No. I am thinking about something more integrated and with soft authority. Maybe a "London High/Supreme University" or something similar. Or even a "London Universities Union".

    The union would help share resources and reduce expenditure for the universities. The reasoning is similar to why London has it's assembly and government.


    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    But this is exactly what has happened. UoL doesn't admit, doesn't award degrees, doesn't hold ceremonies, doesn't rule over anyone, doesn't write courses etc. It's essentially like the Right Honourable Lord Mayor of London and the City of London corporations. Or like HM The Queen and HM Government.
    IMO London's universities should be given "university" status. Where I think UL could play a role is with intra-London university relations.

    It's seems stupid to me if situations arise where King's and LSE both have a lab that they use only once a week. Or if Imperial has massive financial trading floor that they only use once a year which LSE could use everyday.


    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    There's no major consequences indeed. Well, you asked why they wouldn't be allowed to use 'London King's University' and this is why. But as I've said they can use 'King's University of London' if they want to.
    True. It's a matter of taste. I prefer the city + name format because it's far more common to see names in that order (London King's Cross or London Heathrow).

    I don't mind about which order the names are in but "Kings University of London" sounds odd to me. I prefer KCL or London Kings Uni. KUL also gives UL too much prominence.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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