Notice my claim 'I find that there is... not enough on more important factors like location, teaching, facilities, funding and research, all areas in which KCL stands out.'(Original post by Nameless Ghoul)
The domestic rankings are the rankings you were using as evidence. You're talking about KCL having the best research in the UK, having sky-high satisfaction. Both of these can be extracted only from the domestic rankings and their associated data. If you'd prefer we looked at the international rankings, particularly QS rankings and their subject rankings data, in order to investigate your claims, we can do that.
Research (according to QS):
Cambridge 92 citations and 87.7 H-index citations
LSE 90.4 citations and 86.1 H-index citations
UCL 87.6 citations and 86.1 H-index citations
KCL 83.7 citations and 75.8 H-index citations
Notts 85.8 citations and 75.8 H-index citations
It is clear the data you used to find that KCL has the best research in the UK did not come from QS. It must have come from CUG. It is therefore somewhat questionable that you're criticising my evidencing CUG's data to dispute your claims when it is clear your evidence is in fact CUG's data!
As for my not providing evidence that UCL is in fact superior to KCL, I don't need to. The onus is on the person who makes a claim to support their claim. If you were in a court for libel, you'd be expected to substantiate your publication. The same rules apply here. For now, I am merely going to disprove your attempts at proving your claim. Again, KCL's marketing department are high-fiving themselves at their good work right now.Spoiler:ShowIt's 50:50 UK to non-UK. Not UK/EU to non-UK/EU.
Here I mention research and not citations. The only place in which I mention citations is in the methodology of the QS World Rankings by Subject. This is one further reason as to why I believe that UCL is more or less equivalent to KCL in terms of its Law programmes and, indeed, its Law school. Citations simply represent the use of research in various contexts and not, in fact, the quality and research power existent in a particular Faculty. Whilst I do condemn the CUG rankings, I would never do the same for the REF, which in my opinion is the most accurate indicator of research quality and power. Here you present a Post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, in which you assume that by condemning a league table that uses the REF, I also condemn the REF. You notice that Cambridge has 92 points out of a possible 100 in citations but places 7th on REF because they submitted twice as many pieces of research than KCL. KCL, though, places joint 1st for output. Reputation influences citations but not research, and KCL shines in that department only after its redevelopment in 2012. In 2008, KCL was almost 1 entire point below its current rating of 3.44. This is why I say that at the moment UCL and KCL are equal, yet UCL has the power and ability to rise from its current stance, whereas KCL has done so already to get to this point. https://www.timeshighereducation.com.../sub-14-01.pdf
Next, I would like to draw your attention to how I interpreted student satisfaction. I did not collect data from the CUG league table, but from 2 separate, and distinct sources. Firstly, the student satisfaction presented on this website at https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/university/ and that which was presented on the Which? Univeristy website at http://university.which.co.uk/. The methodology used in these two surveys was varied and systematic, to give a less arbitrary image of student satisfaction overall. On TSR, KCL placed at 91% for Law, whilst UCL placed at a lower 84%. On Which?, KCL placed at 90% and UCL at a slightly lower 88%.
When considering subject rankings, domestic rankings should not be considered in terms of the overall position of a University. Some aspects of the domestic rankings are reliable but have little influence on the overall placement of universities in the respective league table. Student satisfaction and research, especially on the CUG league table, are reliable and can be corroborated by numerous other sources. What is given the most influence on that ranking system, though, is a factually incorrect representation of average UCAS Tariff points and graduate prospects. KCL's mooting team won the UK Jessup moot court competition this year, beating the LSE, Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, to participate in the world championships in Washington D.C., and two of its professors became Honorary QC's; one cannot simply say that there is no edge to be had over UCL in those regards. Maybe a KCL graduate would have a slightly harder time finding a job as a barrister, or earning as much money as a UCL graduate, but this is not what we are debating here.
Finally, what I am trying to say is that UCL has diminished in value due to the fact that its Faculty of Law is going through a transition period that once finished will propel it much closer to the LSE and Oxbridge, at the very least. KCL has already gone through that period and it has brought it this far, meeting UCL's step backward with a step forward. It is arguable that KCL has little room to grow from this position without further investment, but UCL Law will grow in value greatly after its Faculty is rebuilt in September 2017. A prospective student, though, should take into consideration UCL's potential for growth and its overall reputation as a Univeristy since the LSE and KCL will likely remain constant as they have already done for two years in a row on the QS World Rankings by Subject.Spoiler:Show50% non-UK at UCL and 65% non-UK at KCL. One could say that international and and EU students provide a more global, multicultural environment that is attainable to a lower degree at UCL.
Turn on thread page Beta
law universities in London. watch
Last edited by vagrigore1; 31-03-2016 at 16:18.
- 31-03-2016 07:57