The Student Room Group

UCL or Durham for Anthropology?????

i have absolutley no idea whether to go to ucl or durham. the course does look a lot better at ucl, which just seems to have a better all round uni. But at the moment, i live in the middle of nowhere, and am a little scared about going to such a huge city, which will also be a lot more expensive, but saying that im not totally against going to london cos it would be quite exciting! durham is a lovley size and has newcastle near by, but what i have seen from the course doesn't seem as good as ucl. if i can i really want to carry on anth into my career and to do that it would probably make more sense to go to ucl as it seems to be more renowned for anthropology. Any comments on either uni would be really helpful cos i actually dont have a clue what to do!!
My feeling, when it comes to anth, is that if you want to pursue it in the long run, you'll want the best academic experience possible so that you can get a onto a good postgraduate degree.

That said, it is true that London is huge and it can overwhelm. I wouldn't say being in London is sink or swim, rather, at first - most people seem to sink. There's so much to do, so much going on - pressure from all sides about doing this and that... but it dies down and you find your feet, tempo and get on with things as you need to.
Reply 2
Brings to mind an old quote.

Two little mice fell into a bucket of cream. The first mouse quickly gave up and drowned, but the second mouse, he struggled so hard that he eventually churned that cream into butter and he walked out.


You just have to be the second mouse there.
It must be hard to come to such a huge city if you've lived in the country side all you life... But you sound like you wouldn't want to stay there (middle of nowhere) your whole life. And what better time in your life and place to dicover life bla bla bla....
All Im saying is it's good to try new things out. Coming to London will probably help you take the most of your years of study too, as it'll seem like a complete change from your life at school.
Also, UCL is definately a better uni, AND for anthropology! (I got an offer there too). Esp since the anthropology course is so diverse... biological, visual and social anthropology.
I remember when I went to the interview I was just so impressed, and the professor who interviewd me was amazing.

Considered applying for Durham, but it seems a bit... small, quiet, and slightly boring.

By the way, does anyone know if its better to study anthropology at UCL or LSE?
Reply 4
UCL Baby!

That should help you decide :tongue:
Reply 5
I get the impression that Anth is better at UCL.
Reply 6
wow i didnt actually think anyone would reply...i love this website!! deep down i guess i kinda know that it makes a lot more sense to go to ucl, is just actually deciding yay or nay!durham is so gorgeous and i know i would have great fun there and would develop a really good social life staright away. saying that i know i would in london too, but i think it'll just take that bit longer to do...when i went for the interview at ucl the thing that impressed me was the lecturers, they just seemed really eccentric and enthused by their subject. i think most people will be thinking what decision is there to make? cos i keep talking like everyting is sooo much better at ucl but the thing is is not as though the course is great in ucl and terrible in durham, its just ucl is more like the best and durham is still pretty dam good!
l_e_o_n_i_e
when i went for the interview at ucl the thing that impressed me was the lecturers, they just seemed really eccentric and enthused by their subject.


Yes!!! I thought the exact same thing!!! The guy who interviewed me was a lecturer in visual anthropology, and his office was really messy, in the passionate intellectual way with loads of books piled everywhere, and the walls were covered with pictures of hindou gods. (he was doing his research in India on chromeolithographs, and sounded really passionate when I asked him about it). It was wonderfull.
Reply 8
yeh mine had a really messy office too and seemed like a proper anthropology person! what are they like in LSE? cos from league tables and stuff (i know they're not the best things) it tends to rank higher then UCL, is their course much different or is it all pretty much the same?
Yeah, LSE is always 3rd for anthropology, just after Oxbridge. And UCL is generally 4th and varies sometimes.
When I visited UCL for my interview, it just seemed amazing, with all these big glass modern buildings as well as old ones. It seemed like a campus in London. And the course is really broad: biological anthro, social anthro and visual anthro. Which is great because Im also really interested in art, fashion, objects and so on.
But LSE doesnt have visual anthro, just social anthro which they link up with political and economic elements. Havnt vistited LSE yet, but I think all their buildings are a bit more dispersed, and its a much smaller uni, with a lot of postgrads. But at the same time, it's LSE, and the 2nd uni in the world for social sciences.

They both ask them same (14 in the french baccalaureate). So I basically still have no idea which one to pick.
My dilemna!
Yeah, LSE is always 3rd for anthropology, just after Oxbridge. And UCL is generally 4th and varies sometimes.
When I visited UCL for my interview, it just seemed amazing, with all these big glass modern buildings as well as old ones. It seemed like a campus in London. And the course is really broad: biological anthro, social anthro and visual anthro. Which is great because Im also really interested in art, fashion, objects and so on.
But LSE doesnt have visual anthro, just social anthro which they link up with political and economic elements. Havnt vistited LSE yet, but I think all their buildings are a bit more dispersed, and its a much smaller uni, with a lot of postgrads. But at the same time, it's LSE, and the 2nd uni in the world for social sciences.

They both ask them same (14 in the french baccalaureate). So I basically still have no idea which one to pick.
My dilemna!
Reply 11
i know its impossible to decide, but if i were you UCL sounds better for you if your that interested in the visual anth and LSE don't do it. my problem is i have really fallen in love with durham, and it looks like sucha nice place to live but i just prefer the course in ucl but with the biggness of london and the expense, i have to weigh up whether its worth compromising those to go for the better course and amazing lecturers!:confused:
At the end of the day its your decision, but really, its the course (and lecturers) that count the most.
The issue of finance: most students have financial difficulties anyway. But I think there are several threads on this site where ppl argue that London isn't that expensive. But even if London is expensive, it's worth it just because it's London, and there are so many amazing things to do. Same with the bigness issue. London is huge, but there are so many thigns to do (museums, theatres, cinemas, bars retaurants, and greenery with the parks and loads of clubs and associations).
You're prob gona live in a big city at some point in your life so u might as well do it while ur a student (its more fun). Yeah it is scary, but in life you have to take risks :smile: (carpe diem and all). It'll just be exciting and enriching and a new experience.

And UCL's better than Durham for anthropology, and in general. There are great facilities (you get to use all of london uni libraries I think) as well as usefull anthropological related stuff (british/national museums for biological anthro & archeology, the tate and a billion exhibitions for visual anthro).
Also, I found UCL has a very campusy feel (which is one of the Durham + sides), because a whole mini part of london, loads of roads, are just full of UCL buildings.
Reply 13
when it comes down to it, i totally agree!!
Reply 14
Both Durham and UCL have great Anthropology departments. Now the question is where you'd prefer to study. Remember it's very expensive to live in London so if you went to Durham you'd save yourself a lot of money (if money is an issue for you).
Reply 15
i guess i would prefer to live in durham and yes it would be a lot cheaper, but i do prefer the course in ucl.....but i am going to visit durham to possibly sit in a lecture to get a better idea of the lecturers and im gonna nag them about the course a bit so i can find out if it covers what ucl cover. i kinda feel like if i do get convinced by the course then i may go to durham, but then part of me likes the challenge of going to london and the lecturers seemed amazing when i went to ucl on the open day!
I've heard (but can't confirm) that one of the anthropology courses starts with a lecture where a picture is put up. There is a man standing behind a pig. The pig in distress. The man's face looking contorted and he is naked.

Supposedly the lecturer starts by asking 'What is going on here?'
Reply 17
that is mighty random....!!!:smile:
Reply 18
PsychadelicTreeHugger
But LSE doesnt have visual anthro, just social anthro which they link up with political and economic elements. Havnt vistited LSE yet, but I think all their buildings are a bit more dispersed, and its a much smaller uni, with a lot of postgrads. But at the same time, it's LSE, and the 2nd uni in the world for social sciences.


Don't buy into that league table too much. In the same league table, MIT is ranked higher than Chicago and Columbia in terms of social sciences. MIT does have top programmes in economics and psychology, but it is commonsensically and academically impossible that MIT can beat Chicago and Columbia, both of which have top programmes in sociology, political science, psychology, law, and economics, archaeology.