Why is King's College London so underrated by The Guardian?!

Watch
Gnomes&Knights
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
It's ranked so low, even below universities such as Queen Mary which is just utter BS! King's wouldn't allow anyone into any course with BCC, which Queen Mary does sometimes. King's was once even better than LSE and Imperial from what I heard. King's is highly respected internationally but not so much by The Guardian which doesn't make sense. Their School of Law, School of Medicine, School of Pharmacy, School of Nursing, School of Business & Management etc are all top notch so why is the The Guardian being biased?
1
reply
_Fergo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Irrespective of your rather absurd statements, why exactly do you place so much value on rankings? All follow different methodologies and all will yield different results. That's it. No need to go ballistic.

Posted from TSR Mobile
3
reply
EdCohen
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Raymat)
It's ranked so low, even below universities such as Queen Mary which is just utter BS! King's wouldn't allow anyone into any course with BCC, which Queen Mary does sometimes. King's was once even better than LSE and Imperial from what I heard. King's is highly respected internationally but not so much by The Guardian which doesn't make sense. Their School of Law, School of Medicine, School of Pharmacy, School of Nursing, School of Business & Management etc are all top notch so why is the The Guardian being biased?
Kings is probably just above QM. It's gone downhill recently, it's definitely not what it used to be, it still attracts applicants because of it's prestigious history.

And the Guardian isn't being biased, Kings has received a lot of negative feedback from students. Administration at Kings is apparently a complete shambles. They regularly enter into clearing for many of their courses. LSE and Imperial don't even enter UCAS extra, never mind clearing lol.

And I'm not hating on Kings. I'm going to be studying there this September. I'm just being honest about it as an institution, it's a good place to study, not a great one.
4
reply
User1248243
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
King's doesn't always listen to it's students which pissed people off and hence the low rankings. Also the social scene being a non campus uni makes the whole "atmosphere" less fun.
0
reply
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
I found that they have the best online application form.
1
reply
NerdyMeg
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
Most probably because of students satisfaction.
0
reply
golden tribe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
OMG I just saw it, UCL is 11, Edinburgh is 18, manchester is 33, bristol is 34 king's is 40

That is the Guardians reputation gone, never going to take the Guardian and times as a credible league
8
reply
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by golden tribe)
OMG I just saw it, UCL is 11, Edinburgh is 18, manchester is 33, bristol is 34 king's is 40

That is the Guardians reputation gone, never going to take the Guardian and times as a credible league
Surrey is 6th...
2
reply
username193837
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by EdCohen)
Kings is probably just above QM. It's gone downhill recently, it's definitely not what it used to be, it still attracts applicants because of it's prestigious history.

And the Guardian isn't being biased, Kings has received a lot of negative feedback from students. Administration at Kings is apparently a complete shambles. They regularly enter into clearing for many of their courses. LSE and Imperial don't even enter UCAS extra, never mind clearing lol.

And I'm not hating on Kings. I'm going to be studying there this September. I'm just being honest about it as an institution, it's a good place to study, not a great one.
Kings>>>>>>>>>>>>>QM, and Heriot-Watt is ranked higher than kings this shows Guardian have no credibility on their table.
2
reply
username193837
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Raymat)
It's ranked so low, even below universities such as Queen Mary which is just utter BS! King's wouldn't allow anyone into any course with BCC, which Queen Mary does sometimes. King's was once even better than LSE and Imperial from what I heard. King's is highly respected internationally but not so much by The Guardian which doesn't make sense. Their School of Law, School of Medicine, School of Pharmacy, School of Nursing, School of Business & Management etc are all top notch so why is the The Guardian being biased?
I always though Kings was a top 8 university. I still believe its deffo a top 12 at least.
0
reply
SiminaM
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by golden tribe)
OMG I just saw it, UCL is 11, Edinburgh is 18, manchester is 33, bristol is 34 king's is 40

That is the Guardians reputation gone, never going to take the Guardian and times as a credible league
Tbh, I never took their rankings seriously :giggle:
UCL 11? yeah right :rolleyes:
LOL Surrey is better than LSE :laugh:
1
reply
GrahamRodney
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by 96jaimin96)
I always though Kings was a top 8 university. I still believe its deffo a top 12 at least.
Do these general university rankings really mean anything? Do even subject-specific ranking do justice to institutions? I very much doubt it and wonder why anyone gives any credence to the very idiosyncratic Guardian. However: it is true that there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction at Kings and not only in the student body. The large redundancy programme among staff last year especially in the medical school has left staff morale extremely low and confidence in the senior management non-existent. Kings will need to stop the rot or the lower reaches of even the Times Higher League Table beckons
0
reply
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
The Guardian anking is too much focused on student satisfaction. Generally, students expectation is much lower at Surrey than at KCL.
0
reply
golden tribe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Josb)
The Guardian anking is too much focused on student satisfaction. Generally, students expectation is much lower at Surrey than at KCL.
Guardian and times rankings are a joke, they rank according to student satisfaction. Better to use and look at either the Shanghai rankings or the QS world rankings
0
reply
Josb
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by golden tribe)
Guardian and times rankings are a joke, they rank according to student satisfaction. Better to use and look at either the Shanghai rankings or the QS world rankings
The more coherent I found is this one:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u.../world-ranking
Shanghai ranks according to Nobel prizes and Fields medals and therefore ignores the other disciplines.
QS favours British unis too much.
0
reply
Theriverboatsong
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by 96jaimin96)
I always though Kings was a top 8 university. I still believe its deffo a top 12 at least.
Based on general reputation, KCL is around a top 10 UK university. You don't rank 16th in the World and 5th in the UK in the QS World rankings if you are not. But prospective students judge universities on UK rankings, whereas governments and universities look at World rankings. The UK league tables favour smaller universities, World rankings favour larger research intensive universities.

The director general of the Russell Group went to KCL .
0
reply
Theriverboatsong
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by GrahamRodney)
Do these general university rankings really mean anything? Do even subject-specific ranking do justice to institutions? I very much doubt it and wonder why anyone gives any credence to the very idiosyncratic Guardian. However: it is true that there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction at Kings and not only in the student body. The large redundancy programme among staff last year especially in the medical school has left staff morale extremely low and confidence in the senior management non-existent. Kings will need to stop the rot or the lower reaches of even the Times Higher League Table beckons
It is incredibly difficult for a large research intensive university like KCL or Edinburgh to rank highly in the UK league tables. Student/staff ratio tends to be weaker, facilities spend is moderate given the size of the institution, and given the many thousands more graduating, not all of them are going to get graduate jobs. The only real factors that go well in favour of these larger Russell Group universities are the high entry grades and research RAF scores.

If students from state schools are applying to Surrey instead of KCL, that is too bad for them, and better for the more informed students from the best schools who get better advice on which are the elite universities (mostly Russell Group). I was told by my school head to aim for Oxbridge, then the likes of UCL and Durham, then Nottingham etc. The likes of Surrey, Aston, Leicester - these semi-good universities never got a mention.
0
reply
golden tribe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Josb)
The more coherent I found is this one:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u.../world-ranking
Shanghai ranks according to Nobel prizes and Fields medals and therefore ignores the other disciplines.
QS favours British unis too much.
Shanghai looks at every aspect including those fields you mentioned as well as reputation, employment etc. Times and Guardian still put much more importance on satisfaction which is don't think is important because you will never be 100% satisfied
0
reply
Theriverboatsong
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by golden tribe)
Shanghai looks at every aspect including those fields you mentioned as well as reputation, employment etc. Times and Guardian still put much more importance on satisfaction which is don't think is important because you will never be 100% satisfied
ARWU isn't as respected as QS and THE in the UK generally. The UK league tables kind of got the stuffing knocked out of them when student satisfaction replaced teaching assessment scores. I guess the newspapers thought they could make the whole thing more popular and mainstream by getting student views fed into the rankings. Huge error of judgement.
3
reply
golden tribe
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Theriverboatsong)
ARWU isn't as respected as QS and THE in the UK generally. The UK league tables kind of got the stuffing knocked out of them when student satisfaction replaced teaching assessment scores. I guess the newspapers thought they could make the whole thing more popular and mainstream by getting student views fed into the rankings. Huge error of judgement.
Absolutely
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (706)
33.93%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (889)
42.72%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (393)
18.89%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (93)
4.47%

Watched Threads

View All