rant about kings&#x27; reputation

13th best is also not something to be celebrating about either. Many posters are saying that KCL should not enter clearing - the only other unis that didn't were Oxbridge and a couple of others. Saying it is 13th in the UK is just showing how overrated it is

Reply 162

morningtheft

The OP complained about LSE, ICL, and UCL people looking down on KCL; he didn't complain about UCL being higher on league tables than KCL. Maybe you should reread his post. There's quite a difference.

As you didn't read my post, I will post it again showing the part you seemed to have missed

But the OP spoke about LSE, ICL and UCL people looking down on KCL. You have decided that KCL can't be compared to LSE and ICL so there is only one option left...

UCL is better than KCL therefore UCL students will look down on KCL
LSE and ICL are better than KCL in their subject areas so there students will look down on KCL
KCL is better than UEL therefore KCL students will look down on UEL

Reply 163

Are there any departments where KCL consistently scores in the Top 5?

Reply 164

shyopstv

As you didn't read my post, I will post it again showing the part you seemed to have missed

UCL is better than KCL therefore UCL students will look down on KCL
LSE and ICL are better than KCL in their subject areas so there students will lok down on KCL

A very good summary :cool:

Reply 165

Maybe Law and a few minority subjects like War Studies and that is about it IIRC

Reply 166

*puts KCL in black list of places not to apply to*

Reply 167

too_cool4skool

Queen Mary and Royal Holloway are also multidiscipline colleges of the UoL. Ppl seem to forgot them a lot of the time.

Reply 168

Being better than 2 average institutions does not make you world class and does not mean that you aren't overrated though

Reply 169

la fille danse

17

shyopstv

Being better than 2 average institutions does not make you world class and does not mean that you aren't overrated though

Being slightly worse than one world class institution does not make you not world class and does not make you overrated either, though.

KCL is not only better than "two average institutions". It's also better than all-but-a-dozen institutions in the UK, which is over a hundred - many of which are FAR better than average.

If you're comparing KCL only with the most elite, prestigious colleges, of course it's not going to come out on the very top. You're missing out on the bigger picture though, which includes more than just UCL, ICL, LSE and Oxbridge. It's the same thing as saying that Ivy Leagues such as Columbia or Cornell aren't world class, just because they're not as good as Harvard and Yale.

Reply 170

London2005

I'm at LSE. Sure we call King's "strand poly" but its out of affection not snobbyness. Everyone respects King's. It had a rough time in the 1990s but its an ancient university and has a great present and future. If King's got rid of some of the **** departments like computer science it would easily be the equal fo UCL.

Reply 171

dazmanultra

1

Kings seems to do very well in The Guardian's tables...

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,,-5183112,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/Education/universityguide2005/table/0,15905,-5163920,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityguide2005/table/0,15905,-5163894,00.html

Unless you have more of an insight into the courses, departments and staff/lecturers involved in KCL, then it's probably an idea to take into account the views and opinions of those that do. Maybe they're biased - but then everyone is. You need to take a range of opinions and then make up your own mind.

tktaylor6 comes across as a petulant, trolling child... it scares me that he will apparently be studying at one of the UK's top institutions.

Reply 172

The Guardian is a lot of shi*te and its weighting criteria automatically favours crap unis

Reply 173

dazmanultra

1

ramroff

The Guardian is a lot of shi*te and its weighting criteria automatically favours crap unis

Any evidence for this?

Seriously... they've been around to all the universities, they've graded them such.

Have you been round to all the universities (so as to give you opinion weight?) and discredit the guardian's opinion?

Reply 174

dazmanultra

Any evidence for this?

Seriously... they've been around to all the universities, they've graded them such.

Have you been round to all the universities (so as to give you opinion weight?) and discredit the guardian's opinion?

Take a look at some of its subject rankings, they are ridiculous and the Guardian is regularly mocked for this. Its 'value added' rating for one thing is biased against better performing unis because it is a rating of how much a uni has improved, which is a useless measure against an already excellent university.

If you actually think the Guardian tables are worth going by and league tables should only be a rough guide to give you an idea of which ones are good then your ridiculous :rolleyes:

Reply 175

la fille danse

17

ramroff

The Guardian is a lot of shi*te and its weighting criteria automatically favours crap unis

Translation: "The Guardian is crap because it ranks King's highly. The only good sources are sources which rank King's lowly. Everything else should be disregarded as crap. If you take a look at the league tables that I consider good (ie. the ones that don't rank King's highly) you will see that King's is in fact crap. Thus, I have proven my point! Hurrah!"

P.S. I take it you consider Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College, SOAS, LSE, KCL, UCL, York, Warwick, and Edinburgh all to be "crap"? Since The Guardian does after all favour "crap unis," as you have just informed us, and those are the top ten according to them...

Reply 176

dazmanultra

1

ramroff

Take a look at some of its subject rankings, they are ridiculous and the Guardian is regularly mocked for this. Its 'value added' rating for one thing is biased against better performing unis because it is a rating of how much a uni has improved, which is a useless measure against an already excellent university.

If you actually think the Guardian tables are worth going by and league tables should only be a rough guide to give you an idea of which ones are good then your ridiculous :rolleyes:

League tables are only an opinion, and like you say are biased a) by the way that they are scored and b) by the people that they are scored by. I just think that if you haven't visited an institution and experienced any kind of teaching, then your opinion is basically irrelevant.

I'm not even trying to "big-up" The Guardian here, I'm just trying to get across the idea of an alternative viewpoint, and a viewpoint that cannot be discounted.

Reply 177

morningtheft

Translation: "The Guardian is crap because it ranks King's highly. The only good sources are sources which rank King's lowly. Everything else should be disregarded as crap. If you take a look at the league tables that I consider good (ie. the ones that don't rank King's highly) you will see that King's is in fact crap. Thus, I have proven my point! Hurrah!"

P.S. I take it you consider Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College, SOAS, LSE, KCL, UCL, York, Warwick, and Edinburgh all to be "crap"? Since The Guardian does after all favour "crap unis," as you have just informed us, and those are the top ten according to them...

No, this is not about Kings and its perceived performance, this is about the Guardian in general, they are the worst tables ever seen and can seriously misleed a student looking at different unis before applying. The Times is far more respected because it does not have strange weightings like the Guardian. Don't you dare try believe Essex is better than Bristol for Economics because I won't even warrant such a crazed statement with a dignified response :rolleyes:

Reply 178

la fille danse

17

The Times uses as one of their criteria the numbers of students who get firsts or 2:1s, which is hardly a measure of educational quality.

Reply 179