UCL History MA vs. KCL Modern History MA

Received offers from both. Any advice? A lot of the old KCL vs. UCL pages here that sing the praise of KCL's History Department are quite old. It looks to be going down the *****er in recent years. Even so, does the KCL history MA carry more weight/prestige than the UCL course even if every single ranking puts both UCL and now its History Department ahead of KCL's?

Reply 1

Alexty28

Original post by riwvll

Hi, I have applied to both too. In terms of prestige for History MA there isn’t too much difference. UCL’s name does carry more wait than KCL and would be considered the more ‘prestigious’ institution, but King’s is held in high regards for humanities and history. I would say the most important thing when deciding between the two is the course content. UCL seems to offer a greater diversity of module choices and pathways compared to KCL, with King’s having a great emphasis on British history. While KCL does not exclusively teach British history and has other module choices, it is considered one of the best institutions for studying contemporary British and political history.

Personally I am in favour of UCL over KCL, but you really can’t go wrong with either. I would suggest exploring the module options and the faculty. Are you planning on progressing to PhD afterwards? Because this is also crucial when deciding which area of history you want to study at MA.