The Student Room Group
Waterfront bar, King's College
King's College London
London

King's College or Bristol?

I've got offers from both for English, and I'm having such a hard time deciding. I really do like the modules from both unis, and the league table rankings have also varied for both. King's is usually ranked way higher in international tables, but in the Guardian ones (only in the UK) Bristol is far above King's... so it's a bit confusing.

I'm also an international student, so I didn't really have the opportunity to visit the campuses during open day or anything. I've been to London before, but I've never been to Bristol. Is it a big city? Will there be something to do every day? As long as its not those "middle of nowhere" type areas I'll be good. I'm used to metropolitan cities more and I love the location of King's, but my parents are concerned that it'll be regarded as a like "third-class" uni to Imperial and UCL.

The entry standards are also (quite) higher in Bristol, if that counts as anything. I'm honestly really stuck so if anyone could help me out by giving a little input that would be much appreciated! :smile:

Scroll to see replies

Bristol is on par with UCL as a university and it's still ranked quite high on international league tables. You might as well firm Bristol and insure King's. Also be aware of the accommodation costs; King's is bound to have higher accommodation costs than Bristol because it's located in London.
Waterfront bar, King's College
King's College London
London
Their reputations are very similar and your parents are narrow minded and simply wrong.

Go with the place you'd be happier with. You'll get the same job at the end of it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 3
Both are equally respected. Only difference here is the city, so choose what you like the most.

Posted from TSR Mobile
This is a typical thread by an international student :rolleyes: (not trying to be mean; been there, done that).

I recommend Bristol all the way. It is a superior university to KCL except maybe for law, and is traditionally well-respected both in the UK and internationally.

Last year I applied to UCL, KCL, Bristol and a few others for law, getting offers from all except KCL (which didn't happen due to a formality). UCL was my firm choice while Bristol was my insurance. Back then if KCL had offered me a place I would choose it over Bristol, but today I am glad that they rejected me. London is ridiculously expensive and the student life there is nowhere near Bristol. I can live 5 minutes away from university campus for the price of accommodation in the outskirts of London. Bristol is a medium-sized city which is ideal for students. You will never get bored if you meet the right crew as there is always things to do.

And please, please don't take league tables seriously. There are mostly full of crap and don't reflect the opinion of employers at all; that is what matters at the end of the day. Or actually not even that; just choose where you think you will be most happy because even if KCL hypothetically had a better reputation than Bristol, a high 2:1 or a 1st from Bristol would put you in a much better position than a half-assed 2:2 from KCL.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Raymat
Bristol is on par with UCL as a university and it's still ranked quite high on international league tables. You might as well firm Bristol and insure King's. Also be aware of the accommodation costs; King's is bound to have higher accommodation costs than Bristol because it's located in London.


How the hell did you arrive at the opinion that Bristol is on par with UCL?

You keep on going around TSR giving unsubstantiated opinions.
Original post by Ratach
This is a typical thread by an international student :rolleyes: (not trying to be mean; been there, done that).

I recommend Bristol all the way. It is a superior university to KCL except maybe for law, and is traditionally well-respected both in the UK and internationally.

Last year I applied to UCL, KCL, Bristol and a few others for law, getting offers from all except KCL (which didn't happen due to a formality). UCL was my firm choice while Bristol was my insurance. Back then if KCL had offered me a place I would choose it over Bristol, but today I am glad that they rejected me. London is ridiculously expensive and the student life there is nowhere near Bristol. I can live 5 minutes away from university campus for the price of accommodation in the outskirts of London. Bristol is a medium-sized city which is ideal for students. You will never get bored if you meet the right crew as there is always things to do.

And please, please don't take league tables seriously. There are mostly full of crap and don't reflect the opinion of employers at all; that is what matters at the end of the day. Or actually not even that; just choose where you think you will be most happy because even if KCL hypothetically had a better reputation than Bristol, a high 2:1 or a 1st from Bristol would put you in a much better position than a half-assed 2:2 from KCL.


How do you know the opinion of employers?
Original post by LutherVan
How do you know the opinion of employers?


I have been in contact with a few plus it is just common sense really. A CEO of a large firm will not be following league tables every year; they will have their own opinions on which universities are the best based on their experience and employees.
Original post by Ratach
I have been in contact with a few plus it is just common sense really. A CEO of a large firm will not be following league tables every year; they will have their own opinions on which universities are the best based on their experience and employees.


Well I doubt the few you have been in contact with will be in the hundreds, talk less of the thousands.

There are professsional people that have been in contact with thousands of CEOs of large firms and have asked them their opinions on which universities are the best, based on their experience as employers.

And these thousands of employers seem to contradict your common sense and assumptions:

http://emerging.fr/rank_en.html

So there you have it, the opinion of top employers.
Original post by LutherVan
Well I doubt the few you have been in contact with will be in the hundreds, talk less of the thousands.

There are professsional people that have been in contact with thousands of CEOs of large firms and have asked them their opinions on which universities are the best, based on their experience as employers.

And these thousands of employers seem to contradict your common sense and assumptions:

http://emerging.fr/rank_en.html

So there you have it, the opinion of top employers.


First of all that is not a league table; I was talking about those created by The Guardian, The Times etc. They focus on student satisfaction and research more than anything else. Secondly I think you missed the main point of my response. I never said the employers I have been in touch with prefer Bristol over KCL; they just make it clear that league tables don't bear much significance to their decision. Plus I'd much prefer to see empirical evidence that an employer actually has bias towards candidates who went to a higher scoring university on that table based on their academic background.

All things aside, my point in the last paragraph still stands. OP would be better off choosing the university that will give him what he wants, not just because Employer A or B thinks it is a better place. Even with the (somewhat questionable) evidence you have provided, the difference between KCL and Bristol isn't significant enough to make or break his decision, i.e. we are not talking about Oxford and Sheffield Hallam here.
(edited 8 years ago)
King's cos I enjoyed my time there as an undergrad
Original post by Ratach
First of all that is not a league table; I was talking about those created by The Guardian, The Times etc. They focus on student satisfaction and research more than anything else. Secondly I think you missed the main point of my response. I never said the employers I have been in touch with prefer Bristol over KCL; they just make it clear that league tables don't bear much significance to their decision. Plus I'd much prefer to see empirical evidence that an employer actually has bias towards candidates who went to a higher scoring university on that table based on their academic background.

All things aside, my point in the last paragraph still stands. OP would be better off choosing the university that will give him what he wants, not just because Employer A or B thinks it is a better place. Even with the (somewhat questionable) evidence you have provided, the difference between KCL and Bristol isn't significant enough to make or break his decision, i.e. we are not talking about Oxford and Sheffield Hallam here.


What other empirical evidence do you want to see?

The table says that is exactly what they said when surveyed.

The further up the table a university, the more employers stated they have a bias to employ those students based on their academic backgrounds.

Also, if that is not a league table, then I don't know what a league table is.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by LutherVan
What other empirical evidence do you want to see?

The table says that is exactly want they said when surveyed.

The further up the table a university, the more employers stated they have a bias to employ those students based on their academic backgrounds.

Also, if that is not a league table, then I don't know what a league table is.


If I'm not blind the website says recruiters have merely expressed their opinion that those universities have produced better recruits for them so far. That does not allow us to infer that they will have a bias towards those unis when looking at future candidates. An employer may mention a few university names off the top of their head, but going to the aforementioned universities does not necessarily translate into better job prospects. If we were looking at two candidates with virtually identical qualifications, only difference being the name of the institution, and the one who went to the supposedly better uni got the job solely on that basis, then that would be a proper empirical evidence.

That is not a league table in the conventional sense of the word. I certainly haven't heard of Emerging.fr before and the sloppy format of their website makes the reliability of their findings slightly questionable.
Original post by Ratach
If I'm not blind the website says recruiters have merely expressed their opinion that those universities have produced better recruits for them so far. That does not allow us to infer that they will have a bias towards those unis when looking at future candidates. An employer may mention a few university names off the top of their head, but going to the aforementioned universities does not necessarily translate into better job prospects. If we were looking at two candidates with virtually identical qualifications, only difference being the name of the institution, and the one who went to the supposedly better uni got the job solely on that basis, then that would be a proper empirical evidence.

That is not a league table in the conventional sense of the word. I certainly haven't heard of Emerging.fr before and the sloppy format of their website makes the reliability of their findings slightly questionable.


First of all, they were also asked to consider the university of the future.

Secondly, you are saying the fact employers state that a university produces the best recruits for them, and also the universities are the universities of the future, does not translate to better job prospects for graduates of that university?

That level of reasoning to produce such conclusion is shocking, I don't even know what to say anymore.

You can as well say Iran knowing USA can crush them in a war does not translate that Iran thinks the USA has a stronger military.
I'm from Bristol and it's definitely not one of those "middle of nowhere" type places - it's got so much fun stuff going all the time! It's got quite a lot of the benefits of London but without being as expensive/stressful. If I didn't grow up here I would move here for university - it would be an amazing place to be a student and the transport links are great too - if you really want to go to visit London you can get the coach there for under £10.


First of all, in every single link you produced there, Bristol was below UCL.

Secondly, you appear to have come to a conclusion that Bristol is on par with UCL based on a SINGLE criterium.

This is an exceptionally poor attempt at proving your statement.

We can as well conclude that UCL is on par with Oxford since, based on the links you provided, it isn't far from Oxford in all the tables. Even beating it in some years. So Oxford and UCL are on par.:confused:

Can you see how weak your argument is when you use a single criterium?
Original post by LutherVan
First of all, they were also asked to consider the university of the future.

Secondly, you are saying the fact employers state that a university produces the best recruits for them, and also the universities are the universities of the future, does not translate to better job prospects for graduates of that university?

That level of reasoning to produce such conclusion is shocking, I don't even know what to say anymore.

You can as well say Iran knowing USA can crush them in a war does not translate that Iran thinks the USA has a stronger military.


I'm basically saying it is unlikely that a future employer will Google "university rankings by reputation", come across that particular table and decide who to recruit on that basis. Plus since you did not attempt to dispute the last and most important point in my initial response, I interpret it as you also agree OP should ignore all of this and just choose where he actually wants to go. Your rankings may even be useful if he wants to convince his parents that KCL is better than Bristol should he decides to go there.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Ratach
First of all that is not a league table; I was talking about those created by The Guardian, The Times etc. They focus on student satisfaction and research more than anything else. Secondly I think you missed the main point of my response. I never said the employers I have been in touch with prefer Bristol over KCL; they just make it clear that league tables don't bear much significance to their decision. Plus I'd much prefer to see empirical evidence that an employer actually has bias towards candidates who went to a higher scoring university on that table based on their academic background.

All things aside, my point in the last paragraph still stands. OP would be better off choosing the university that will give him what he wants, not just because Employer A or B thinks it is a better place. Even with the (somewhat questionable) evidence you have provided, the difference between KCL and Bristol isn't significant enough to make or break his decision, i.e. we are not talking about Oxford and Sheffield Hallam here.


Don't waste your breath, this guy loves masturbating over league tables. That is, quite literally, all he speaks about on here.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Latest