Most overrated second-tier London uni

Watch
Poll: Most overrated second-tier London university
Queen Mary, University of London (9)
19.57%
King’s College London (22)
47.83%
Royal Holloway, University of London (11)
23.91%
Birkbeck College, University of London (4)
8.7%
Edulcorante
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
People often say that the top London universities get overrated just because they’re in London. The LSE in particular gets accused of relying on hype without justifying its high reputation. The consistently low student satisfaction scores it gets and the“bronze” rating it had in the recent teaching assessment exercise certainly suggests this is true.

But what about the “second-tier” London universities that are lower down in the pecking order? Do they tend to be overrated too? And which is the most overrated?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Never heard anyone say that except you.
The bit about LSE and satisfaction appears to ring true though. Different from reputation.

I havent noticed anyone overrating the ones you had selected. I would say Kings has the higher rep especially internationally , whereas I doubt many foreign students have heard of the bottom two you selected.
0
reply
Dreamcast
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
King's shouldn't be there
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
UCL.
0
reply
SarcAndSpark
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
I agree that Kings doesn't really belong on the list- maybe 10-20 years ago it did, but it has a strong reputation now, especially internationally.

What about City as well?

I do think London universities are perhaps more popular with EU/International students than unis elsewhere in the UK, but that's a location thing, not just a reputation thing.
0
reply
akbar0123
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
I don’t think KCL is a second-tier University.
0
reply
ChemistryGuy1998
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Agree with OP, Kings is definitely a second tier London uni. The amount of courses it has in clearing, it can't be compared to LSE, Imperial or UCL. It is second tier.
3
reply
federam
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
KCL is an elite university, it is an insult for it being here.
Birkbeck is ranked in 90s to 100s it is the most overrated 2nd-tier University because its a 3rd or 4th tier University but with the " University of London " name
0
reply
Edulcorante
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#9
Just to explain the choices for the poll, I see King’s as a second-tier London university because the first tier in London is so far ahead of the rest. Imperial and LSE are among the world leaders in their respective fields (at least in research) and UCL is better at doing most things that King’s does. King’s also tends to be the second choice for people who are rejected by the top-tier London institutions. That’s just my perception, though. It’d be interesting to see if people associated with Imperial, LSE or UCL consider King’s to be their equal.
0
reply
username4851058
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Most people on this thread seem to be talking about abstract rankings, and seem to have a very undergraduate mindset.

I'm a postgrad, not at any of the Londons, so I don't really care either way.

The reason I think London unis are rated highly internationally is (1) the city's name recognition, and (2) because many international students also plan to stay on to do postgraduate study. In my field, KCL in particular has a long reputation for excellence in the subject and has a very prestigious endowed chair.

Whenever people on TSR rank unis, they are using scores across unis, rather than particular departments or sub-departments. In my niche field, the University of Sussex (which I do not go too) is extremely good because of a certain professor. TSR often seems to think that going to a 'lower' uni for postgrad is actually bad - often slightly lower unis are hte ones with specialists in particular subjects (at postgrad, supervisors matter not unis as a whole).

NB: I am not trying to justify my own choices. I went to a RG uni for UG and then Oxford for PG.
(Original post by Edulcorante)
Just to explain the choices for the poll, I see King’s as a second-tier London university because the first tier in London is so far ahead of the rest. Imperial and LSE are among the world leaders in their respective fields (at least in research) and UCL is better at doing most things that King’s does. King’s also tends to be the second choice for people who are rejected by the top-tier London institutions. That’s just my perception, though. It’d be interesting to see if people associated with Imperial, LSE or UCL consider King’s to be their equal.
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 (516)
33.68%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (634)
41.38%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (312)
20.37%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (70)
4.57%

Watched Threads

View All