Durham or King&#x27;s?

W.A.S Hewins

People come and go from Durham all the time, and as far as I know they have never gone to Stockholm or anywhere else to collect major prizes (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've asked people repeatedly to tell me if they have so done)...so how come Durham has such high standing?

How exactly does such research help with teaching? It doesn't actually have 'such high standing' anyway, except for in subjects like geography - for which it is genuinely good. Plus, it's old and traditional...

Ben

Reply 42

W.A.S Hewins

I can't believe you're serious. I really don't have the time to go into it in depth. Institutions have cultures, traditions and collective memories and environments. Distinguished faculty help to create a climate of achievement and energy and they attract other distinguished faculty and students-the sort of people who in the future will win prizes. The greater the achievement the greater the impact on the college. Places like King's have a consistent record of achievement over nearly 200 years.

The opposite happens at the other end of the scale. People in mediocre institutions lack aspiration and drive-everybody has a down on everybody else and too many people slope off home at 5pm.

Reply 43

W.A.S Hewins

I can't believe you're serious. I really don't have the time to go into it in depth. Institutions have cultures, traditions and collective memories and environments. Distinguished faculty help to create a climate of achievement and energy and they attract other distinguished faculty-the sort of people who in the future will win prizes. The greater the achievement the greater the impact on the college. Places like King's have a consistent record of achievement over nearly 200 years.

The opposite happens at the other end of the scale. People in mediocre institutions lack aspiration and drive-everybody has a down on everybody else and too many people slope off home at 5pm.

Sorry, they may be great scientists (or whatever) but that is NO guarantee of their lecturing quality (I know this from boring experience). There is a huge distinction between undergraduate teaching and research! Yes, King's is good.

Ben

Reply 44

J.S.

7

Bigcnee

Because University decisions are based on more than historical alumni?

I really can't understand how you can't see this.

To Hewins; if you're a student at the LSE you should realise that all this talk of alumni/history with such alarming regularity is mostly propoganda that's used by mediocre students who cannot stand up on their own two feet.

At the end of the day, sure you can use the brand name, but you have to make it on your own. I think it's important to go to a university (as I keep saying) where students have a high pre university attainment, this is solely because you can learn far more via interaction from students that are hard working and dedicated. All this talk of history is just misleading.

Reply 45

J.S.

7

Ben.S.

Sorry, they may be great scientists (or whatever) but that is NO guarantee of their lecturing quality (I know this from boring experience). There is a huge distinction between undergraduate teaching and research! Yes, King's is good.

Ben

Very true, many high profile academic researchers are absolutely useless at teaching. There may not even be any particularly significant correlation actually between good teaching/world class research.

durham

J.S.

Very true, many high profile academic researchers are absolutely useless at teaching. There may not even be any particularly significant correlation actually between good teaching/world class research.

J.S. rocks my socks :smile:

P.S. Sorry just had to break the intellectual discussion.

Reply 48

samd294

For sum1 who says "There are no facts, only interpretations", perhaps you should accept that Durhams perceived standing is as important as its "actual" one, and that KCL's physics department could discover cold fusion, and that it wouldn't make much difference to their standing.

Reply 49

JoKing

OP

Hmmm...well it seems from ppl's opinions on this thread that Durham is big on reputation but low on substance and that KCL is vice versa...How true that really is, I am not sure...So it seems, I must revert back to making a list of pros and cons for each university...But thank you all for your opinions.

JoKing.

Reply 50

Gnostic

I am only defending my personal honour – I went to a prestigious Law School – any attack on the KCL School of Law’s distinction is an attack on me.

No, I didn't mean it as a dig at you. I was wondering since I feel no attatchment to UCL whatsoever.

Reply 51

Ben.S.

How exactly does such research help with teaching? It doesn't actually have 'such high standing' anyway, except for in subjects like geography - for which it is genuinely good. Plus, it's old and traditional...

Ben

Becuase you are being taught by these professors who carry out research! The quality of your lectures therefore, stems from how good these professors are.

Reply 52

Mysticmin

Becuase you are being taught by these professors who carry out research! The quality of your lectures therefore, stems from how good these professors are.

Oh, I don't doubt their academic capabilities - just their lecturing ability. A lot of the really clever people couldn't lecture if their life depended on it - they're brilliant in their field, but rubbish at teaching!

Ben

Reply 53

Ben.S.

Oh, I don't doubt their academic capabilities - just their lecturing ability. A lot of the really clever people couldn't lecture if their life depended on it - they're brilliant in their field, but rubbish at teaching!

Ben

Hmm, not so, the teaching at oxbridge is superb, and the talks at LSE were brilliant. The professors that I met were all easy to get on with, and explained things perfectly.

Reply 54

Mysticmin

Hmm, not so, the teaching at oxbridge is superb, and the talks at LSE were brilliant. The professors that I met were all easy to get on with, and explained things perfectly.

Some of the teaching at Oxbridge is far from superb, methinks!

Ben

Reply 55

TheWolf

15

Ben.S.

Some of the teaching at Oxbridge is far from superb, methinks!

Ben

who cares , its still pxbrdige, demand will still be pretty inelastic even if the teaching is worse than expected, but i know that most of the teaching is really great in oxbridge. Why do you think that it is far from superb?

Reply 56

TheWolf

who cares , its still pxbrdige, demand will still be pretty inelastic even if the teaching is worse than expected, but i know that most of the teaching is really great in oxbridge. Why do you think that it is far from superb?

Because I've had to endure some plain awful lecturers and put up with some VERY arrogant supervisors! Some of the lecturers are awful. The results are good mostly because the students are well motivated (allegedly) and clever. I don't think it's far from superb - I know it is. At times! It's not as fantastic a place as you might think!

Ben

Reply 57

Ben.S.

Some of the teaching at Oxbridge is far from superb, methinks!

Ben

Well in my was-potential department it was. Who wouldn't want one to one tuition? Where I'm heading for, its 13-16 in one class, that's bigger than I'm used to now at Sixth Form.

Reply 58

Mysticmin

Well in my was-potential department it was. Who wouldn't want one to one tuition? Where I'm heading for, its 13-16 in one class, that's bigger than I'm used to now at Sixth Form.

It's not one to one! 2 to 1 is about the smallest - but supervision groups can be much bigger. Plus, it's not 'tuition', it's 'supervision'. You can't really understand the distinction until you go. They aren't trained to get you to understand everything - most of them end up confusing the life out of you because they're just so damn advanced! Lots of the lecturing is good, though.

Ben

Reply 59