It is still a narrow and selective singular tool to measure prestige.
If one should then go on “per capital basis”, then we can as well conclude based on this narrow tool that LSE is by far the most prestigious university in the UK. More prestigious than Oxbridge.
That would be a wrong conclusion, just as much as wrongly concluding because Warwick is good at sending students to IB it is more prestigious than KCL.
In Italy, Bocconi is also very good at sending people to IB than any other university but it is yet still not seen as the most prestigious Italian university.
IB is not the singular measure of prestige. The important point is to be able to define prestige and use broad assessment to measure it.
If you go to all the Ivy League universities’ websites to check their Study Abroad programmes, the universities all 8 of them send their students to are:
Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, UCL, KCL, Edinburgh and St Andrews.
Warwick had 2 out of 8, Exeter had 1, while Durham had zero.
All those 3 universities had far less ivies sending their students to them than to SOAS, Queen Mary, Bristol and Manchester.
So one cannot say Warwick, Exeter and even Durham have more “cachet” than KCL.
Durham is hugely popular in the UK due to its ability to attract posh kids with its Oxbridge set-up imitation, but that is really about its limit of prestige.
It is a great university to network at though and I would rate it higher than Warwick in prestige. But they are just not in the league of the Golden Triangle.
If one does a reverse check and then looks at the most prestigious US private universities these UK universities send their students to for Study Abroad programmes. You will find:
Warwick: UPenn and Cornell
Durham: Boston College
Exeter: GWU and American University
KCL: Columbia, Chicago, UPenn, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Georgetown
And I never said that “all or the most “intellectually brilliant UK students” [are] born into families that can pay £40,000 per year in schools fees.” The majority of students at Oxbridge didn’t go to those schools. It’s perfectly possible for a first gen kid from a poor northern town to get into Oxbridge by being “intellectually brilliant” and then benefit from the experience just as much as the students who went to .Westminster, St Pauls, etc.
It seems you have something of an obsession about Oxbridge and about prestige in general, which is distracting from the point of the original post to compare KCL with US schools.
Exactly same can be said by any other top professor at LSE, UCL or whatever of one of their students, yet these students are not becoming Prime Ministers etc.
Ronald Reagan is regarded as one of the best US Presidents of all times and he attended unknown and unranked Eureka College.
Jimmy Carter attended GIT.
Graduates of LSE could not even dream of such positions back in the day, hence why it was a running joke on “Yes, [Prime] Minister”.
In virtually all elections, the choice to the public was “this privately educated Oxbridge candidate” or “that privately educated Oxbridge candidate”.
The party structures are designed in such a way that “privately educated Oxbridge grads” are frequently the ones that major party officials put forward. In most cases when they don’t (mostly this is in the Labour Party), then the privately educated Oxbridge journalists help them finish the job by talking down the Pleb.
If Boris was not an Eton and Oxbridge graduate but was rather a Pleb, with the racist and islamophobic stuff he has repeatedly stated, the gaff he made regarding the Radcliffe women jailed unjustly in Iran (putting her in more danger), campaigning selfishly to achieve Brexit mess people felt he didn’t personally believe in and admitting that he took cocaine, he would not dream of having a chance in hell to be PM.
But as an Eton and Oxbridge graduate, with the help of his circle in the established system, he can be the “Comeback kid” and replace another Oxbridge grad.
I never stated you said so. I just highlighted to you the typical background of those who most frequently get these posts.
So it definitely is not because they are the “most intellectually brilliant UK students”. It is because they are the members of the aristocracy that attended Eton and then Oxbridge.
The first gen kid from a poor northern town that gets into Oxbridge is a good example of brilliance and definitely doors will start opening up for the person too. But not as much as the Eton students.
Also there are many first gen kid from a poor northern town who did not pass the Oxbridge interviews because they did not have the right coaching, but get into non-Oxbridge Golden Triangle universities. They are probably far more naturally able and nicer than most Eton and Oxbridge graduates, but will never get these top appointments the Eton/Oxbridge boys get with ease and like a birth right.
That is Classism, not intellectual snobbery.
I am just highlighting to the OP that KCL is as prestigious as the lower Ivies and top near Ivies. And I corrected any erroneous perception that it is not highly regarded in the UK, or some so-and-sos below it are more prestigious.
It has a lot of similarities with Cornell, when the data starts being presented it just shines through. It is definitely well over Durham, Warwick, Exeter, NYU, University of Wisconsin etc.
That is the point the OP was seeking some enlightenment on. My first response gave him very good insights.
In general, someone who goes to KCl will not be at a disadvantage compared to someone who went to any of the unis you just mentioned apart from Oxbridge. I would argue that St Andrews, Exeter and Warwick aren’t as good as KCL in general. Edinburgh is about the same as Kings but UCL and LSE are just a little better and won’t put you at a huge advantage against a KCL graduate apart from some courses, imperial on the other hand I think is even better than UCL or LSE. This is just my opinion but id strongly argue that KCL is better than Exeter, St Andrews and Warwick.
In general, someone who goes to KCl will not be at a disadvantage compared to someone who went to any of the unis you just mentioned apart from Oxbridge. I would argue that St Andrews, Exeter and Warwick aren’t as good as KCL in general. Edinburgh is about the same as Kings but UCL and LSE are just a little better and won’t put you at a huge advantage against a KCL graduate apart from some courses, imperial on the other hand I think is even better than UCL or LSE. This is just my opinion but id strongly argue that KCL is better than Exeter, St Andrews and Warwick.
I agree …almost 100% (lol), except for the LSE-Imperial part.
I think LSE is very marginally better than Imperial based on all the academic achievement, brand name and alumni quality data I have seen. (e.g. like the ones I have posted on this thread)
But I know it is such a hairline difference it can be a matter of opinion.
A “one-up” your opinion might have over mine is that the world is moving towards one in which technology and genetics will be taking more prominence. Imperial is the institution who would be better in these areas out of the two.
I “have no dog in this hunt” (if such expressions are permitted in this thread… what about “no scone at this tea” ??)
But Fwiw, NYU, like other multi-college universities in the US, is not a monolith. The undergrad business school disproportionally attracts people who want a Wall Street career, and it is more selective than other colleges of the university. Hence relatively high Wall Street numbers.
Its Tisch school of the Arts is highly prestigious in the areas it covers.
But some of its other colleges may be considered, IMO, a couple steps down from these, in their repective areas. Again with some exceptions (eg mathematics). Setting a denominator covering the university as a whole may not be appropriate for some “percentage of the student body” calculations, since the students in the disparate colleges have more disparate goals from the start than those of a school consisting almost entirely of liberal arts students . And also differing capabilities due to differences in admissions standards.
I don’t know if this “lumpiness” applies to any UK universities as well. But if so, perhaps the relevant reputation measure should relate to the area of social work, rather than some overall lumping together of an aggregate of disparate fields that are not meaningfully lumped together. Is it possible that some UK universities do better with financial employment that some others not because they are globally considered “better”, but because they have a bigger undergraduate emphasis in related fields ??
Is Imperial College really known for its programs in social work?.. I don’t know, I’m just asking…
Manchester too is very selective in certain fields it has strengths in like Physics, Mathemetics, Computer Science and Engineering. In most of the other fields, it is just above average/quite good and less selective.
Also, just like NYU, Manchester produces some high quality alumni, Nobel Laurettes and does very well in most international rankings, sometimes better than members of the Golden Traingle (for Manchester)/Ivy Plus (for NYU), yet they both struggle to be seen in the same light as these universities because of their size.
They are just not seen as highly selective enough and don’t ooze prestige when mentioned. There are many brilliant students studying in them and many just above average students as well, as they have a lot of bums to fill.
One of the industries that historically had this severe classism is the Legal industry.
Now the industry is trying to change and be more open. More and more solicitor firms are now actively trying to reduce their bias of hiring privately educated Oxbridge candidates.
One of the Magic Circle firms, the biggest “Clifford Chance”, led the way in 2014 by introducing a “CV Blind” policy at the post-CV stages of recruitment to specifically lower its Oxbridge bias. At these later stages, firms remove/omit the educational background (i.e. university and secondary school) of candidates from interviewers knowledge.
Now that the interviewers cannot know the background of the candidates, they are hiring with less bias and based on abilities presented to them. This dramatically changed the outcomes of the profiles of people being hired by top solicitor firms. Some are now hiring from universities like even Oxford Brookes and BPP.
Chamber Student website did a survey of the universities with the highest average Newly Qualified (NQ) solicitors’ salaries in the UK, i.e. those getting the top jobs from highest paying law firms, and here is the Top 20 UK universities in 2019:
LSE £86.8K
SOAS £81.0K
Oxford £78.1K
KCL £74.5K
UCL £72.8K
Cambridge £72.4K
Warwick £70.2K
Durham £70.0K
St Andrews £69.1K
Edinburgh £68.0K
Oxford Brookes £66.3K
Queen Mary £66.3K
Bristol £65.0K
Cardiff £64.1K
Nottingham £63.6K
BPP £63.0K
York £62.6K
Exeter £59.5K
Manchester £59.4K
Southampton £59.1K
Note: Again, the “Golden Triangle” dominates with SOAS being the breaker this time. Imperial is not in the list as it is a STEM university where its graduates rarely switch to law.
The London universities are now able to compete toe-to-toe with Oxbridge; and considering NQ salaries of UK Magic Circle and US White-Shoe law firms were at the ranges of £86K to £149K in 2019, it can be logically said that it is the students of these universities that are getting majority of the elite solicitors’ jobs. Oxbridge still gets about 28-30% of these types of elite solicitor jobs.
For the next tier of top law firms, Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol, Exeter and Warwick are the top feeders. Followed by KCL, UCL, Nottingham and LSE. With Oxbridge still getting about 22% overall of these types of near-elite solicitor jobs. (See: “Law firms’ preferred universities 2019” by Chamber Student)
This shows what can happen when classism is eliminated and abilities are judged based on merit and competition.
Yes, it would still be Oxbridge candidates that will dominate hiring [and rightfully so], but it would not be ridiculous hoarding like 50 to 90 percent of hiring for top jobs.
Just 2 universities? Come on!!! That surely is not an outcome due to only superior ability, it is an outcome of non-compete old boys network.
Unlike the US, the UK legal sector is split into Solicitors and Barristers. Barristers being the smaller pool of lawyers.
Unfortunately, Barrister chambers are still strictly engaging in classism. 80% of Barristers are Oxbridge graduates.
re #30, “Chamber Student website…” is not adjusted for cost of living , is it?
Didn’t I read on this very thread (maybe not) that the cost of living in London is at least 30% higher than the rest of the UK? Wouldn’t law schools physically located in London be likely to have a relatively higher proportion of their grads get initial jobs in London, vs. grads of some of these other law schools?
Firstly, the UK is not like the US; people are highly and comfortably mobile as it is a small country.
Those studying in Warwick, Exeter, Durham etc. are as likely to be from London & South East as those studying in LSE, UCL or KCL.
And those studying in LSE, UCL or KCL are as likely to be from North & Midlands as those studying in Warwick, Exeter, Durham etc.
It should be noted that Northern and Midland universities get the highest volume of university applicants. And I suspect many of these are London/SE residents, and these residents probably also make up the largest proportion of student population.
Majority of top graduates of elite universities try to get a London job and majority of graduates who are originally from SE & London would try to get a London job.
Many of the students from the regions (i.e. outside London) who are not top graduates may be happy to go back to the regions to get a job. Including the ones that graduated from London universities.
Furthermore, there will not be much top law jobs in small towns. They will primarily be in London and major regional cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield etc.
Overwhelming majority of students of Durham, Exeter or Warwick will not be that place’s “locals”; they are probably from London/SE or cross-region (e.g. going from Birminghman to study in Newcaste). And hardly anyone would be waiting behind in Durham, Exeter or Coventry after graduation to get law jobs as there would be hardly any in such small cities/towns. Majority would be heading to London or the cities in their home regions of origin.
Another key fact is that the statistics on Chamber Student website shows that Durham, Exeter or Warwick graduates ALL actually account for getting more of the London jobs than LSE, UCL or KCL graduates are getting. They were only beaten by Oxbridge. This just suggests that the Durham, Exeter or Warwick graduates mostly head to London. But they just don’t get as much as the elite “magic circle” and “white shoe” jobs the 3 London universities’ graduates are getting.
And a final point, the Chamber Student website said:
“Non-city firms are pulling in trainees from a wider array of universities. 80 universities were mentioned by non-City trainees compared to just 67 mentioned by their City counterparts. City firms are either more selective, or targeted more heavily by Russell Group students.”
This should tell us that it is in the Regions/Outside London law firms that lower tier universities’ law graduates are being hired. The more prestigious universities’ top graduates head to London.
The only universities this cost of living point is relevant to are the Scottish universities.
Why?
They are a bit further out, and
Scottish students are more likely to go to Scottish universities because it would be £30K cheaper for them than studying in London. (partially true for Welsh students too)
And this is reflected in the Chamber Student study. No Scottish or Welsh is in the top 10 of London law firms’ hires.
And I think that is why Edinburgh and St Andrews salaries are lower. They are all mostly working in Edinburgh and Glasgow, which is home for most of them and where they are elite graduates but salaries are lower. This is another example why it is faulty and risky to use a singular measure for prestige assessment. It would probably give a wrong insight.
After looking at US’ most prestigious universities’ perception here, if we bring it back home and look at the UK’s most prestigious universities: Oxford and Cambridge, we can get more insight.
When Oxbridge student’s were surveyed by the Guardian Datablog about which other UK universties they saw as equal to their university (i.e. equal to Oxford or Cambridge), the only universities students of BOTH Oxford and Cambridge mentioned are:
Imperial
LSE
UCL
Edinburgh
Durham
KCL
Note: Again, it contains the rest of the “Golden Triangle”.
This is another solid evidence of the local “cachet” I am talking about.
Link: “Which universities do you think are your equals?” Guardian Datablog
"When Oxbridge student’s were surveyed by the Guardian Datablog about which other UK universties they saw as equal to their university (i.e. equal to Oxford or Cambridge), the only universities students of BOTH Oxford and Cambridge mentioned are:
Imperial
LSE
UCL
Edinburgh
Durham
KCL
Note: Again, it contains the rest of the “Golden Triangle”."
As well as Edinburgh and Durham. KCL is more on their level than close to ICL or LSE.
Manchester too is very selective in certain fields it has strengths in like Physics, Mathemetics, Computer Science and Engineering. In most of the other fields, it is just above average/quite good and less selective.
Also, just like NYU, Manchester produces some high quality alumni, Nobel Laurettes and does very well in most international rankings, sometimes better than members of the Golden Traingle (for Manchester)/Ivy Plus (for NYU), yet they both struggle to be seen in the same light as these universities because of their size."
Anyway, @LutherVan, if you want to keep trying to convince people that a large public bureaucratic uni with a roughly 70% admit rate* and 20% yield and isn’t ranked in the top 10 by any UK-specific ranking** is super-prestigious on par with the Ivies/equivalents, go for it, but it’s silly, as I don’t have the time to read most of what you write anyway.