Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The ratings I quoted are for RESEARCH, not teaching.

    And it still holds that if you take away medicine and subjects allied to it, and focus on the more mainstream subjects, then King's doesn't have nearly such a wide breadth of subjects as has been claimed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Umm, thats the same as saying take away business related subjects from LSE, or take mathematical and computing subjects away from Imperial. Which is a rather strange thing to say.

    So you are saying that in order so that Kings can be equally compared with RH, you should not consider any courses relating to medical subjects, such as: nursing, pharmacology, dentistry, biomedical sciences, pharmacy, genetics etc!!!

    Your missing the point, its THESE subjects that make Kings BETTER than RH. For instance if I were to say that "if" Imperial took away all of their mathematical and computing subjects, then Kings would be better than Imperial. But the fact is, that Imperial DOES have those subjects.

    I am sorry, but the logic your argument has not been sufficient to convince me as yet.

    Ps. Sorry I made a mistake while typing, should have said Research Not Teaching - I have changed it now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    The ratings I quoted are for RESEARCH, not teaching.

    And it still holds that if you take away medicine and subjects allied to it, and focus on the more mainstream subjects, then King's doesn't have nearly such a wide breadth of subjects as has been claimed.
    Law and History aren't mainstream?!?

    Wow. I'm learning all sorts of new things today.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    The ratings I quoted are for RESEARCH, not teaching.
    And what do they have to do with rivalries? Also, high scores in teaching or research does not immediately translate into reputation or people wouldnt percieve any gap between Oxbridge and a clutch of other universities. The international rankings pointed out earlier are the best indicator of a universities reputation and RH simply does not compete with Kings. Why cant you just accept that RH is a good institution without pretending it has a reputation/history to match other,larger,older and more famous colleges of the UoL?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    LSE probably mock UCL/KCL, UCL probably mock KCL, KCL mock QM (and for the sake of tradition, UCL), and so on.
    Be careful there....I think many UCL people will take issue with your incorrect implication that LSE is in any way superior (they don't even LOOK like a university, for crying out loud!). ;-)

    But I agree in principle with all your observations about unnecessary academic snobbery.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    At least you proved one point with the ratings kew96158.That in the common subjects between the 2 unis you'll be better off at RHUL than at KCL.
    Now as far as the comparison between UCL and KCL, guys i dont know about the japanese league tables, the fact is that anybody would choose ucl over kcl anytime. I also didnt know about King's med school being one of the best in Europe. Times league table ranks it 16th out of 24 in england, guardian 16th out of 23.
    As far as imperial is concerned,it is a specialised uni in engineering.If you take away these subjects of course KCL is better simply because imperial wouldnt exist(apart from the med school).

    And by the way, somebody mentioned

    "Kings has MANY more subjects than RH, so just by saying that RH is better on some subjects in terms of ratings (which change EVERY year) is absurd as you cant compare the two. Kings teaches more than double if not triple the amount of subjects that RH teaches"

    "So lets put this into perspective, you have quoted that RH does better in 10 subjects, however I have listed 26 subjects that RH doesnt even do! thats more than double"

    Most of the 26 subjects you mention are not being offered by RH.
    Isnt it the same between King's and Imperial.Kings offers triple the ammount of courses Imperial offers.So the same way you justify King's is better than RH, you could also say King's is better than Imperial. It offers many more courses, and in the few courses they have in common Imperial is better, the same way RH is. So King's is better than Imperial????Are they in the same league??How about LSE out of curiosity?King's offers 10 times the courses LSE offers...so???
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Also, high scores in teaching or research does not immediately translate into reputation or people wouldnt percieve any gap between Oxbridge and a clutch of other universities.
    Very good point.


    Anyway, all this pointing out of league table positions, research/teaching ratings and such is ultimately pointless. As I've said, the academic world pays no attention to these attempts to quantify reputation and is simply a way through which The Times and Guardian can sell a few books every year, and a few naive prospective students can base their application decisions on.

    Put it this way, you have an offer from Essex and Oxford to do Economics. Using your logic, you'd choose Essex given its 5*B RAE score (compared to Oxfords 5B) and 24 TQA score (compared to Oxfords 23). The distinguished history of Oxford would have no influence in your mind? Rubbish.

    However, I've said this before, and you're only retort, ironically, is by throwing a bunch of statistics aimed at quantifying academic reputation at me! Entirely fruitless.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    Law and History aren't mainstream?!?

    Wow. I'm learning all sorts of new things today.
    If you look carefully, you'll find I never said that either Law or History aren't mainstream subjects - I was strictly talking about Medicine and subjects allied to it, like Dentistry. I have absolutely nothing against those subjects - for a start, my Dad's a GP - it's just that its clear that they can't be called 'mainstream' if only a few universities offer them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The thing is, it seems logical that a university's reputation with the outer world should rest reasonably substantially on the standing of its academics. And how can you gauge the excellence of an academic without rating the standard of their research? Surely the correlation between research ratings and a university's reputation is pretty high?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    The thing is, it seems logical that a university's reputation with the outer world should rest reasonably substantially on the standing of its academics. And how can you gauge the excellence of an academic without rating the standard of their research? Surely the correlation between research ratings and a university's reputation is pretty high?
    There's a correllation, but its not exactly proportionate. The idea of trying to quantify and rate academic research repulses me and many others. It acts contrary to what academia is about - the exploration and testing of new ideas. It contributes to the idea that nothing is sacred or above the 'market', and thus the values which govern markets have to apply to academic institutions - leading to the valuation of unvauable things through rating every aspect of its functions (teaching, research, etc).

    It leads to petty debates like these which undermine the whole notion of a 'learning experience'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingslaw)
    There's a correllation, but its not exactly proportionate. The idea of trying to quantify and rate academic research repulses me and many others. It acts contrary to what academia is about - the exploration and testing of new ideas. It contributes to the idea that nothing is sacred or above the 'market', and thus the values which govern markets have to apply to academic institutions - leading to the valuation of unvauable things through rating every aspect of its functions (teaching, research, etc).
    Yes, I agree. Though I would argue that as there is undeniably some correllation, then having some form of research ratings can be helpful, particularly for students wishing to find out which are the most prestigious universities to apply to. But that's just opinion, of course.

    It leads to petty debates like these which undermine the whole notion of a 'learning experience'.
    Well, you needn't take part then! Anyway, debates can be a 'learning experience', even if all you learn is that other people have a different point of view...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The thing is, it seems logical that a university's reputation with the outer world should rest reasonably substantially on the standing of its academics. And how can you gauge the excellence of an academic without rating the standard of their research? Surely the correlation between research ratings and a university's reputation is pretty high?
    Its a shame, but unfortunately its not. A university's reputation is more based on its historical background, previous discoveries, alumini, and most of all, its RESOURCES. The reason why most American universities are in the top of the league tables is because many of them have vast amount of resources that other universities dont have.

    The reason why its not fair to compare RH with Kings based on petty ratings and rankings, which change every year, is because you end up ignoring the more important features of the university such as the discovery of DNA, the leading research Kings is doing on stem cells etc. Also the links the university has had with top notch academics such as James Clarks Maxwell (famous phyisist), Charles Wheatsone (introduced the Wheatstone Bridge) , Maurice Wilikins & Rosalind Franklin (discovered the structure of DNA) and even Flourence Nightingale (she founded the nursing the school). Plus many many more!

    You cant just ignore the university's history and discoveries over some ratings! (and even in the ratings apart from one, Kings is much higher than RH - I am not going to list them again) Im afraid reputation comes from much more than that. So again im sorry but I have still to be convinced about RH being in the same league as Kings!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kew96158)
    Yes, I agree. Though I would argue that as there is undeniably some correllation, then having some form of research ratings can be helpful, particularly for students wishing to find out which are the most prestigious universities to apply to. But that's just opinion, of course.
    Still, given the huge amount of discrepancy between research ratings and prestige (even if there is SOME relationship present), you may end up making some pretty bizarre judgements. The only way research ratings will be truly helpful is, strangely enough, if you decide where to go purely on reserach scores.


    (Original post by kew96158)
    Well, you needn't take part then! Anyway, debates can be a 'learning experience', even if all you learn is that other people have a different point of view...
    I feel I'm under duress to do so. A socialist despises the idea of participating in work only to fill the pockets of his boss, but still has to work otherwise he'd starve.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "So again im sorry but I have still to be convinced about RH being in the same league as Kings!"
    The same way i am not convinced that King's is better than RHUL.Someone compared essex with oxford.Of course i would choose oxford over essex.There's a big gap between the 2.But choose King's over RHUL???What for?only if i wanna study Law...I really cant see the gap in anything else.Most of the academics see a gap though...they tend to encourage people towards RH ;-)
    And dont tell me now,that if you mention king's and RH people would go crazy about King's.They might not even know it.on the other hand,Try to mention Essex and oxford...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vigo)
    "So again im sorry but I have still to be convinced about RH being in the same league as Kings!"
    The same way i am not convinced that King's is better than RHUL.Someone compared essex with oxford.Of course i would choose oxford over essex.There's a big gap between the 2.But choose King's over RHUL???What for?only if i wanna study Law...I really cant see the gap in anything else.Most of the academics see a gap though...they tend to encourage people towards RH ;-)
    And dont tell me now,that if you mention king's and RH people would go crazy about King's.They might not even know it.on the other hand,Try to mention Essex and oxford...
    What a well thought through and thorough attempt to tackle all the issues raised previously :rolleyes:.

    If you actually look at what I posted I said that those who are claiming RHUL is more prestigious than Kings over a couple of research ratings (I dare you to ask any academic what they think of them) would, applying the criteria aforementioned, would choose Essex over Oxford.

    I give up. If you really believe the RHUL is above Kings then good for you. Most people will tell you its absurd, but do as you wish. Its pretty inconsequential anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually i asked a lot of academics about king's.For maths and computing they told me it's not worth it.For the rest they said |you'd be better off at UCL, it is way ahead of King's.As far as the prestige,well that's what i thought too,King's is prestigious.But believe me,80% of the people(i'm not referring to academics) didnt even know the uni which is pretty weird since it is a prestigious uni.
    Now as far as your comment "What a well thought through and thorough attempt to tackle all the issues raised previously "...well i raised some issues above regarding someone's thought that King's is better because it has more deps than RHUL including one of the top med deps in europe but nobody seemed to "tackle" the issues i raised.
    Anyway, we've taken it very far here, to be honest i dont have anything against king's.I know that students at King's would say that their uni is better, if you ask students at Queen Mary they would say they are better than king's.
    Just out of curiosity, do you honestly believe that employers would favour a graduate of king's over someone from RHUL for the same subject. That they might say "Let's go for the king's graduate because King's has more prestige?"
    I dont think so, they might favour someone from CAM,IC but not when they have to choose between these 2 unis.If you doubt that, just ask.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually i asked a lot of academics about king's.For maths and computing they told me it's not worth it.
    I would like to know WHO are these academics and what is their academic standing? And academics at YOUR university are obviously going to have a biased opinion.
    But believe me,80% of the people(i'm not referring to academics) didnt even know the uni which is pretty weird since it is a prestigious uni
    Not sure where you conjured up the 80% figure, and im not sure who you asked either. But I can tell you one thing for certain, on a global scale more ppl have heard of Kings than of RH - I can guarantee you that (the global rankings I gave earlier are a good indication of awareness of universities globally). Its silly to even try to compare which uni is a more well known uni, Kings would beat RH hands down in terms of awareness, as its a historically and globally renowned university.
    King's is better because it has more deps than RHUL including one of the top med deps in europe but nobody seemed to "tackle" the issues i raised.
    Ok firstly about Kings having more departments - your missing the point, those "other" departments are TOP departments and World renowned departments, which RH dont have. The War Studies department, the Law department, the Medical Departments are not just merely a few additional departments, but are WORLD LEADING departments. And I dont think RH has ANY World leading departments which are globally renowned for excellence.
    Again for the medical school argument, all you do to prove your point is throw a league table position at me? League tables are NOT an indicator of a universities repuation or academic standing in the global world I cant seem to get that point through somehow.
    Just out of curiosity, do you honestly believe that employers would favour a graduate of king's over someone from RHUL for the same subject. That they might say "Let's go for the king's graduate because King's has more prestige?
    Umm I am afraid so, and overall employers tend to prefer to take on graduates from a Russell Group university than non Russell Group universities, especially top investment banks, consultancies and accountancy firms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "I would like to know WHO are these academics and what is their academic standing? And academics at YOUR university are obviously going to have a biased opinion"

    Why would they be biased at Imperial?

    "Not sure where you conjured up the 80% figure, and im not sure who you asked either. But I can tell you one thing for certain, on a global scale more ppl have heard of Kings than of RH"

    If by global scale you mean anything outside england(dont wanna say outside london and upset you) i'm afraid nobody has heard of king's.Just ask to confirm...the same goes for RH though(even in england they hardly know it)

    "Umm I am afraid so, and overall employers tend to prefer to take on graduates from a Russell Group university than non Russell Group universities, especially top investment banks, consultancies and accountancy firms"

    I'm afraid you're really fooling yourself.
    They might call for an interview straight away someone if they hear CAM,IC,LSE or OX(just interview this doesnt guarantee the job), but any other uni especially a university of London branch is just the same for them.
    Nevertheless, i have friends from RH and KING's and the RH ones have found slightly better jobs in IT but maybe that's a coincidence considering that RH is not in the Russel Group...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If by global scale you mean anything outside england(dont wanna say outside london and upset you) i'm afraid nobody has heard of king's
    I would like to know where you are getting ur facts from? As I would be interested in reading that literature! Kings is a very well known university worldwide, and has many links with external universities and insitututions as well as with academics worldwide. I have cousins in America who said that Kings is quite well known in America (especially for medicine) - although thats not substantial evidence, it disproves your argument of: "nobody" having heard of Kings outside England.
    I'm afraid you're really fooling yourself.
    They might call for an interview straight away someone if they hear CAM,IC,LSE or OX(just interview this doesnt guarantee the job), but any other uni especially a university of London branch is just the same for them.
    I am not completely sure what your trying to say there, but I can tell you one thing, I have had many assessment centers over the past year as I was applying for jobs with the Big four as well as with large consultancies such as Accenture etc. For these assessment centers you normally have a sizable group of students, and not once have I ever seen a single person from RH. Now again that is not much substantial evidence, as it might be by chance that I didnt ecounter anyone from RH, although in total I have probably met more than 100 students altogether from various selection stages at these firms. But I can say in each event there were mostly students from the Russell Group unverisities, although there were quite a few students from York and Bath as well.

    This argument seems to be going is circles, you seem to be adamant about RH being better than Kings, and it seems that there is no changing your mind, no matter what evidence or arguments I throw at you. So I am now officially giving up, if you really want to believe RH is better than Kings then good for you, although most people are likely to strongly disagree with you.

    Ps. If you really want to test your theory I dare you to start a voting pole in the general discussion page to prove me wrong .
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm also giving up :-)
    As i said i'm at imperial, i dont have anything against these 2 universities, i just happen to know that RHUL is better than King's in the subjects they have in common.Plus i definetely didnt expect to convince a student at King's.
    At least you cant doubt that the research rating's are higher for RHUL for the majority of the subjects they have in common.
    Surely King's was better in the past,but it is a common fact that it has declined a lot nowadays.

    PS:I dont wanna start a voting pole asking students, i want you to find me an academic outside King's who would tell me that for subjects like physics,maths,computing etc King's is better than RHUL.You'll be surprised of what they'll tell you :-)
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 16, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.