Graduate - letters after name

It would just be BSc. Nothing else. You don't get extra letters for going to a specific university. Plus a lot of people don't even bother putting them on after their name.

It would just be BSc. Nothing else. You don't get extra letters for going to a specific university. Plus a lot of people don't even bother putting them on after their name.

You do, they're called post-nominal letters e.g. Oxon, Cantab, Lond, Dunelm, etc.

That said, KCL and UCL no longer award University of London degrees so I don't think their graduates would be able to claim the UofL's post-nominal letters either...

It would just be BSc. Nothing else. You don't get extra letters for going to a specific university. Plus a lot of people don't even bother putting them on after their name.

Really? I don't think I've ever seen it written down but I'll take your word.

surely you wouldn't even bother if it was just a BSc? Would it not make you look desperate?

Obviously if you went around introducing yourself to passers-by as Mr Frederick Grindlewald MA (Cantab) BSc (Hons) (Oxon) DipABRSM, then that's a bit weird.

Just sayin, I believe AKC is a separate set, not descriptive of a Bachelor's

AKC =Associate of King's College.

In many ways it is the most distinctive of all undergraduate qualifications. I would strongly recommend anyone attending King's to do it. People who have it are normally very proud of it. I recently saw a CV for a consultant surgeon, but his AKC had pride of place.

Yeah, I'm doing it... though pretty much everyone I know who are doing it just do it for the extra set of letters, and no one's really proud about it to the extent that they brag. We really joke about it. Not sure whether you're at King's but honestly, everyone just jokes about it.


In all honesty, it takes no effort. Resitting if you failed is to write an essay at home over the summer and submitting it.

With respect, teenagers and people in the early 20s joke about it. Folk in their 40s and upwards seem to treasure it. I am not a KCL graduate but I see enough older graduates who are, that I strongly recommend that anyone with the opportunity takes it.

If your future employer, hslakaal asks you what the AKC is for and you give the answer 'It was nothing really, I just wanted the letters' Then expect to leave to the interview soon. Conversely, if you want to give a convincing spiel, why not just put some effort into the AKC?

I was one of those who did it in the 80s when it was - in formal terms - less rigorous than it is now. But I am proud of it and found it useful because it gave my education some breadth; and if you're getting a course for free, I see no merit in not putting some application to it. There aren't many things for free at uni these days.

I joked about all sorts of things as an undergraduate that I took seriously then, and take more seriously now. No-one wants to look earnest. But it was useful, alright, and I'm not alone in thinking that amongst my contemporaries.

Incidentally, I strongly recommend the AKC for lawyers. When it comes to jurisprudence, to have some idea of how moral theories are put together is essential. Some people go into a flat spin with JP - the AKC is a very useful way of giving you a soft landing. It also proved useful when I recently did a Masters in medical ethics and law at King's.