BA English Literature - KCL v UCL

[Ranleigh]

A family member has an offer from both KCL and UCL to study English Literature. They
are inclined to go with KCL because they
think the KCL course has more interesting modules and also offers students the chance to study abroad. UCL ranks higher in the league tables for English Literature but is more traditional (and possibly more dry with a more intense workload?).

Does anyone have any insights they could please share on the KCL and UCL English literature courses and overall university experience?

Any information/experiences greatly appreciated!

Yes, it's a flawed methodology. Arts and Humanities graduates tend to have careers which take a bit longer to get off the ground, but there are still very good jobs to be had after than initial period.

Ucl students are likely to be more motivated and do the readings. Seminars/tutorials will be then proper discussions rather than a rejig of the lecture. This makes a big difference

It’s all the info students have though regarding employment, education and training - flawed or not. So all reasonable post grad activities are considered. Obviously rich parents can support not working or training dc. Lots of others cannot.

Extra curricular activities can be great. Some are useless. Relevant work, volunteering or internships are better. I don’t actually think employers favour an English degree. The important thing to remember is that an English degree holder will be competing against Sociology, Psychology, Law, History, Classics, MFL, Politics, Film, Management, Business, HR, Marketing, etc etc etc degree holders. So trying to stand out is worth the effort and I don’t think uni alone will push through the door. It’s about far more than that.

For choosing between university options I always advise considering; location/accommodation options, content of course against student's areas of interest, style of teaching or examinations and extra curriculars (for example a friend of mine is an avid climber and one of their criteria for shortlisting universities was proximity to mountains). The first one is clearly not hugely relevant to choosing between two central London unis.

If KCL feels like a better course for their interests I'd go for that. I did my undergraduate at Oxbridge and knew people there who wished they'd picked a different university rather than gone for "best" because the particulars of the course didn't suit them or their ambitions.

Also as a humanities graduate myself, a good humanities degree demonstrates strong skills in things like research, analysis, developing arguments etc. which do well across a variety of careers. Also worth noting that a lot of recruitment is institution blind so the prestige of the university doesn't count. I'm public sector and can only say what my degree is in and the classification, not where it's from.

Having said all that, I did my Masters at KCL so that's clearly the best 😁

Hi, OP -

Study abroad can be a real asset to the CV in the early years. I was the academic advisor for my (Russell Group STEM) school’s study abroad programme for a while, one of my more enjoyable service jobs. This fact was consistently fed back to me. So it is worth keeping in mind.

Are you sure UCL does not offer this option?

Hi @poetryandwine, thank you, that's really good to know. We know that the comparative literature course has a study abroad component but don't think the English Literature one does (but we're double checking!).

Thanks, OP. In many degree programmes without a Study Abroad component as such, the opportunity exists. I suppose UCL may feel that leaving England to study English Lit elsewhere is counterproductive, however

Good point @poetryandwine, i hadn't thought of that but that does make sense.

Yup. Lots of UCL courses (eg history) have a year abroad option but english doesn't. Plus you have to apply for the year abroad courses in the first place.

The OP's DD hardly appears unmotivated, and as she has evedently evaluated both courses for personal 'fit', it would be reasonable to assume that she, personally, would be more motivated to engage fully with the course at KCL. The personal motivation of other students, wherever they study is up to them.

@MarchingFrogs the issue is the motivation of the other students. The lecturer teaches to the median student and if this student has not done any work it can be very boring for those that have

What evidence is there that KCL English students are lazy and don’t do the reading? What a bizarre thing to think. It’s not like they are ab initio linguists who aren’t up to speed.

Self-fulfilling prophecy? I am not at UCL, therefore I must be an unmotivated layabout who doesn't bother to do the reading for my course?

(Perhaps I was really at UCL when I did a PGDip at King's, because I distinctly remember doing all the required reading, with a full-time job, to boot).

I didn't mean to say they were lazy. Just giving an argument why places that are tougher to get in may be a better fit for the more motivated student.

Required A levels for both at AAA. So why would there be any noticeable difference?

The crucial thing to do whilst studying an English degree in London is a) join the student drama society or comedy club and write scripts, also become a journalist on either student TV, radio, or print media, and try and get p/t work at an advertising agency, barristers' chambers, or for a London theatre. Dull people do dull things. Future employers want someone who stands out. Just doing studying for a degree is dull and means the person will have lower chances of employment. Those who have a portfolio of experience, with details about projects, articles that they have written, etc show gumption. Future aim for City to do Broadcast Journalism, BPP to convert to law and become a Barrister, and develop character and personality via drama/comedy - if you do this then go to The Edinburgh Fringe, as you will really standout, and will not be dull. This will give you a choice of careers, and drama sets up for education careers too!

Check out KCL and UCL student societies and student media. remember KCL is closer to the key theatres in London, so may offer networking opportunities. Look at the background of the Professors and Lecturers, are they interesting. do any of the halls of residence have drama clubs, as they would be key to target.

I don't know much about KCL or UCL, as I went to Durham and Edinburgh 9yes the Fringe was a deciding factor).

Forget about league tables, but do use LinkedIn to examine which universities journalists, literary agents, dramatists, etc go to at The Times, BBC, etc,

Drama experience - don't forget that English opens doors at NFTS too! Today...London, tomorrow Palm D'or and Oscars

I think any aspiring uni student choosing to study a degree simply for the love of the subject without considering future career or job prospects afterwards is incredibly privileged.

They are inclined to go with KCL because they think the KCL course has more interesting modules and also offers students the chance to study abroad.

I'm in this field and they're both absolutely excellent departments. Your relative should go with the department in which she feels she'll enjoy herself more.

She might look at:

Available modules
Core/compulsory modules
Range of optional modules
modes of assessment & examination
Structure of the course overall
Staff research interests & publications & how thse connect with what she's interested in studying

Although she should be aware that optional modules will change over the 3 years of her course, mostly due to student numbers & staff availability.

This, 100%

Some of my undergrads have gone on to have spectacular careers (director of major art gallery; famous TV presenter etc etc etc). Others have become excellent teachers, educating your DC. We need those graduates even more than the 'spectacular' ones.

An interesting and irrelevant fact with no bearing on the merits of UCL vs KCL is that Christopher Nolan who wrote and directed Interstellar and Oppenheimer studied English Lit at UCL.

And Emma Thomas studied Ancient History at UCL.

The notion that grads can live on thin air after graduating while waiting for their "slow burn" career to take off is also a privileged position. Who pays the bills in the meantime ? There's no guarantee of great riches by attending any uni for any subject. Some people are just better at their jobs and promoting themselves than others. However Nolan and Thomas took positive action to further their careers.

Honestly I don't know how this is even a question. It's a case of "six of one, half a dozen of the other".

Your DD should just go with the course she’s most interested in. In all honesty, it’s unlikely to make much of a difference and she would probably enjoy both but it’s nicer to feel a bit excited about choosing certain modules.

I don’t think there would be any difference in career prospects at all - I honestly think students and parents overthink this. I say that as someone who works at an RG uni and spends a reasonable portion of my time advising academically struggling students who are desperate to graduate with a degree from (my uni) but would probably be better off in a course more suited to them elsewhere.

Not suggesting this is relevant to your DD, just part of the bigger picture that a lot of students have a really tough time and end up with a lower class of degree because they buy into the idea that employers are primarily focused on specific unis. I mean, that’s true to an extent, but mostly for the high fliers, not for those scraping by.

Also, much recruitment for graduate jobs, the big name companies in particular, will deliberately avoid any mention of uni past the initial selection to interview phase of the process. Eg. Applicants will be invited to interview based on CV/application form including all info. Interviewers are unlikely to have seen application documents and will often ask competency questions. The main benefit of ‘big name’ universities is that they are more likely to be visited by recruiters so students are more likely to know what kind of jobs are out there and have the opportunity to find out what might suit them. But that doesn’t mean that students from other universities don’t get invited to interviews or get offered excellent jobs.

The notion that grads can live on thin air after graduating while waiting for their "slow burn" career to take off is also a privileged position.

I don't think any of us who actually teach undergrads in this field have said that, or think it. We write references for them, advise them on career strategies etc etc. We know what they go on to do.

My undergrads/graduates are quite aware they'll need to get jobs to pay the bills. They are pragmatic about the way that a standard office job, for example, can give them valuable skills for their "side hustle" that they hope to develop.

And I'm always impressed by the entrepreneurial outlook of the proportion of my students who are ambitious for 'non-standard' careers.

I'm also impressed by some of my 2nd years who have their sights set on careers in teaching at primary school, for example, as a way of making a difference in their communities. And these are highly qualified undergrads at an elite institution.

The kids are alright.

Even those doing degrees that those MN 'experts' try to denigrate.

Just wanted to say how much I disagree with TizerorFizz on this thread, both about the value of a humanities degree and whether it matters which course.

I’m a lawyer and involved in my firm’s recruitment programme- we love Eng lit grads- the ability to argue, to weigh evidence, to study a text in depth are all hugely valuable.

Both UCL and KCL are well-respected (UCL marginally more so), but the courses are quite different so from the pov of her enjoyment (which in turn will increase her engagement and hence her chance of doing her absolute best) it matters a great deal.

If she really can’t choose, I would go for UCL.