Talk:King's College London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Table ranking 2 Relocation 3 Foundation date 4 Denmark Hill 5 Name of Principal and Dean 6 Created by a duel? 7 Picture 8 Second oldest college in UofL? 9 Don't believe KCL is largest college of the University of London 10 Alumni discussion 11 Fourth oldest university 12 Userbox 13 History of King's College London 14 University Institution 15 University in its own right? 16 Golden Triangle G5 17 Endowment 18 Third oldest university debate article 19 University ratings 20 virginia woolf alumna kcl 21 Famous King's People 22 King's Logo Version 2

[edit] Table ranking

It might also be good to point out, concerning what is written below, that King's placed 8th in the UK in the THES world rankings, after Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial College, London School of Economics, Univ. College, Edinburgh, and Manchester, and I believe in the Shanghai Jiao world rankings placed 9th in the UK--these rankings might demonstrate King's reputation internationally--the school seems very well known outside of the UK.

---

The ranking that placed King's 4th has clearly been chosen in order to put the college in the best possible light. This is not supposed to be an advertisement for King's but rather an informative article about it. It is not the case that King's is generally regarded as the fourth best university in the UK.

In 2006 the Sunday Times University Guide (view as pdf: [extras.timesonline.co.uk/stug2006/stug2006.pdf]) ranked King's 13th after Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Warwick, York, Durham, Bristol, St Andrews, Bath, and Nottingham.

In The Times table King's came 18th after Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, LSE, Edinburgh, UCL, St Andrews, Warwick, York, Bristol, Durham, Nottingham, Bath, Loughborough, SOAS, Royal Holloway, and Manchester.

This table from The Guardian shows King's coming 7th to Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, UCL, Imperial, and SOAS.

The tables change year-on-year and are of course different in the different publications that produce them, but there was a table - admittedly now three-and-a-half years old - that was very useful. According to the Telegraph table of tables 2003 King's was ranked 15th in the UK, coming after Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, LSE, Warwick, Nottingham, UCL, York, Bristol, Manchester, SOAS, Bath, Birmingham, and Loughborough.

In 2003 King's had been ranked 18th= (Daily Telegraph) 10th (Financial Times) 10th (Guardian) 21th (Sunday Times) 18th (Times) 27th (Employers).

--Oxonian2006 13:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do agree that wikipedia is not an advertisement place for any university. So, all the ranking should remain as it is published. It is also true it should not be like your post, it was too rude! Your post tried to underestimate King’s actual reputation. So, please no advertisement and no hate. Let's be neutral. Niaz bd 06:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry to have offended anyone! I didn't mean to. I was just making the point that the information appears to have been selected so as to portray King's in the best possible way. I don't want to underestimate its reputation, which I know is good. However, there are more than three other universities that are consistently ranked higher. These tables are only a vague guide anyway and they come up with some surprising results. Universities all have different strengths anyway - for example, Imperial and Loughborough hold no interest for me as somebody interested in history, art, theology, and Byzantine studies - much better to go to Lampeter, which that 2003 Telegraph table of tables ranked 77th. Goldsmiths came in 56th, but it's produced more Turner Prize winners and nominees than any other art college in the country (or it had done at some point in the Turner Prize's history). I know King's has a very good reputation in theology, and its War Studies department is one of the best in the world. King's also offers disciplines such as dentistry and nursing that aren't available at many of those sometimes higher-ranked universities. Averil Cameron was at King's for many years before she moved to Oxford. I'm not sure what that says. Probably that King's has some first-rate scholars on its staff but that being head of an Oxford college is an opportunity too good to turn down (cf. Colin Bundy, who moved from SOAS to Oxford, and his predecessor Tim Lankester, who made the same move).--Oxonian2006 12:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relocation

Can we relocate this page to King's College London - that is the official name as on the website.

[edit] Foundation date

When was KCLSU founded? UCLU, founded 1893, claims to be the oldest in England, in direct contradiction to KCLSU's claim to be the oldest SU in london...--Si 17:12, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

in light of this page, I'm changing the article.--Si 17:17, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've no idea about which student union is older, but that link is just an older copy of Wikipedia's content (note how similar the pages are). -- DrBob 17:34, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Denmark Hill

Mention needs to be made of the campus in Denmark Hill as well for completeness...

[edit] Name of Principal and Dean

Name of Principal and Dean of relevance?

[edit] Created by a duel?

From Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington:

As Prime Minister, Wellington was the picture of the arch-conservative, though oddly enough the highlight of his term was Catholic Emancipation, the granting of almost full civil rights to Catholics in the United Kingdom. ... Lord Winchilsea accused the Duke of having "treacherously plotted the destruction of the Protestant constitution". Wellington responded by immediately challenging Winchilsea to a duel. The duel is also one of the reasons for the founding of King's College London. On March 21, 1829, Wellington and Winchilsea met on Battersea fields. When it came time to fire, the Duke deliberately aimed wide and Winchilsea fired into the air. He subsequently wrote Wellington a grovelling apology.

Anyone know how that came to lead to KCL being founded? Timrollpickering 20:13, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Cornwall House is alright, but a picture of the Strand Building would be perfect. Anyone have one? --Coffeelover 10:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- Agreed, the picture isn't exactly the best one of KCL. Could someone upload an image of the library or the Strand Building?

I've uploaded a good picture of the Strand but I couldn't replace it with the image of Cornwall House. This is the URL could someone expirienced please replace it with the Cornwall House image. Ozgurgerilla 01:43, 26 April 2006 (GMT)

-- A great picture to include would be of the college chapel, which is celebrated and ornate. Another might be the great hall entrance (if someone could remove the motorbikes habittually parked there. Zach Beauvais 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the college chapel would be a great picture because King's wants to be respected for its religious tolerance and a chapel which represents a religion isn't the best. Maybe the the South Range of Strand I've seen it today and it looks amazing! Ozgur Gerilla 02:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

--It would be good if there was a picture of the Guy's campus as it is one the main campuses. Anybody got any pics?

--There is a new version of KCL's logo which includes 'University of London' term. In the KCL page, it is named as kings_logo_v2.gif. Can we replace the old logo by the new one ? Niaz bd 06:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

---There are some pics of chapel and campuses on http://www.kcl.ac.uk/college/history/campuses/index.html. Somebody could have look to see if any could be added.---

[edit] Second oldest college in UofL?

At the risk of igniting the flames on this one:

King's College London in London is the largest and second oldest college in the federal University of London, with 21,500 registered students. King's was so named to indicate the patronage of King George IV.

Exactly what is the criteria for the order of ages of the colleges? Birkbeck has a foundation date of 1823, Heythrop 1614, (possibly Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry 1785, though that was the Barts end and it's now part of QMUL so maybe not one to dig in on), Royal Academy of Music 1822, Royal Veterinary College 1791, St George's 1733 and UCL 1826. Is there a formal criteria for the age of a college (in which case a lot of the foundation dates on the relevant pages need qualifying) or is this an urban legend from the lengthy debates between KCL and UCL over which is older? Timrollpickering 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the age thing is also related to when they actually joined the University. King's and UCL were the first 2 institutions, and the others joined later, so they are younger in terms of University history, but older as independent institutions... David Underdown 11:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget St Thomas' and Guy's Hospitals were founded so early, and are now part of KCL.. but the compromise above sounds fine.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Coffeelover (talk • contribs) 23:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Got to disagree with the latest version: "...second longest member college...". I see what you are trying to say but it is not coming out right. How can it be the second longest member when it was one of the founding members? It is the oldest member college but not the oldest (or even second oldest) college. Also, the term "longest" is ambiguous and doesn't have to mean age. I suggest it is changed to something similar to the UCL intro, i.e. "...is one of the founding colleges that make up the University of London" --PTSE 03:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My current connection is slow so I'll come back later to dig out the link on this one, but I seem to recall from a discussion about "England's third oldest university" on Talk:Durham University, citing the "official" KCL history, that KCL did not dive straight into the federal university at first, preferring to offer either its own AKCs or Oxbridge qualifications, and that it took a little time to fully begrudgingly accept the federal institute. That suggests to me that UCL rather than KCL is the first member college (in the same way that in the US Delaware is the first State of the Union) and that KCL is the second. Timrollpickering 17:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this one but the specific references are as follows:

Talk:Durham University/Talk:Durham University/Archive 1#The Centenary History of King's College London

Specifically:

Establishment of the modern University of London: Almost the first problem which faced the new principal of the college was [...] the issue of a charter, dated November 28, 1836, establishing a degree-conferring university in London. (p. 131)

King's College would not combine with its undenominational fellow [UCL] to form a single degree-conferring university; the government could not contemplate the absurdity of setting up simultaneously two degree-conferring universities in the metropolis; the only possibility, therefore, was to withhold the privelege of conferring degrees from both of them, and to establish a separate and independent degree-conferring authority whose diplomas would be open to either. [...] The authorities in Gower Street [(UCL)] having intimated their acceptance of the government's terms, the government issued two charters simultaneously on November 28, 1936. One of them conceded to the Gower Street institution, under the title of "London University College", the incorporation which it had so long sought. The other set up, under the title of "the University of London", a new body of "persons eminent in literature and science, to act as a board of examiners, and to perform all the functions of the examiners in the senate house of Cambridge." (p. 132)

The council of King's College, indeed, looked with most unfriendly eyes upon the new examining university; and, probably, but for the urgent needs of the medical department, it would have had nothing to do with it at all. [...] King's College held indignantly aloof from the arts degrees of the new university, encouraging the brilliant boys in the school and the general studetns of the senior department to pass on to Oxford or Cambridge. [...] Only gradually, as King's College students insisted upon taking advantage of the opportunities and priveleges open to them, was the boycott broken down. (pp. 133-136)

Timrollpickering 15:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't believe KCL is largest college of the University of London

I always thought UCL was larger than KCL and was highly dubious of the claim in the article. Some net research have brought up the case against the article:

• The Independent newspaper: "...UCL is the daddy of London's universities. It's London University's biggest college..."
• The Sunday Times University Guide 2005:"...UCL is the biggest college within the University of London federation...'""
• KCL website: "...13,800 undergraduate students and some 5,300 postgraduates..."
• UCL webiste: "...UCL now has a student population of 19,400, of whom 12,100 are undergraduates..."

KCL has never used any claims of being the largest college in any literature I have seen.--PTSE 03:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Latest figures are ~21,500 registered students for KCL and ~19,000 for UCL. Figures pulled from student union election data c. Jan 2005 and while numbers have changed, HEFCE data is available which still reflects KCL being larger than UCL (not to hand) - hence KCL has largest delegation to University of London Union also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.32.2 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UMT).

Okay, thanks for the info. Can you dig up a weblink to the HEFCE data? Their website is full of jargon and is a bit of a nightmare. --PTSE 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay it was on the HESA website: [1] for 03-04. Do a search on the page for King's College London and University College London. I think these are latest official stats. 21,315 registered ~6,400 postgrad and ~14,900 undergrad @ KCL, UCL has total 20,240 registered with ~8,300 PG and 12,000 UG.

Would people please remember the above when editing the statistics in the info box? Most tedious! The latest is 6,970 PG and 14,995 UG, total of 21,965 [2]

[edit] Alumni discussion

How would it be possible for Keats to have attenden Kings College London, as mentioned in the article? He died six or so years before its founding in 1829. Unless he posthumously attained a degree here or his ghost is reading for a much-belated PhD., I can't see how this could be likely. Zach Beauvais 23:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of the Alumni claims on this page are pretty tenuous. In order:

- Sir James Black - staff, not a student

- Maurice Wilkins - staff, not a student

- Sir Charles Scott Sherrington - staff at St Thomas' Hospital

- Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins - student at Guy's Hospital

- Florence Nightingale - founded a nursing school at St Thomas' Hospital

- John Keats - I can't find any connection

- Sir William Gilbert - actual student

- Thomas Hardy - student of a sort - he took evening classes in French at King's

- Michael Nyman - actual student

- Rory Bremner - actual student

- David Bellamy - I can't find any connection (he went to Bedford College, but that's now part of Royal Holloway, not King's)

- parts of Bedford College were absorbed into King's and some students, notably Biochemistry, were awarded King's College, University of London degrees.

- Gary Lineker - actual student (briefly)

- Martin Bashir - actual student

- Desmond Tutu - actual student (postgraduate)

TSP 02:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Keats studied at Guys, so would now be classed as a King's alumnus by extension [3].Daduzi 00:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth oldest university

86.140.115.200 added the claim that King's is the fourth oldest university in England which was subsequently removed by 194.74.160.114 without comment. As 86.140.115.200 correctly stated King's often uses the claim to be fourth oldest in its press releases [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Furtermore a glance at the other old universities in the UK supports the assertion:

1. Oxford: 1167
2. Cambridge: 1209
3. UCL: 1826
4. KCL: 1829
5. Leeds: 1831
6. Durham: 1832
7. Manchester: 1851
8. Nottingham: 1877
9. Liverpool: 1882
10. LSE: 1895
11. Birmingham: 1900

I've reverted the change, and unless 194.74.160.114 can offer a good reason why this statement is incorrect I recommend we keep it in. Daduzi 22:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on what you count as a University.

UCL was founded in 1826 as 'the University of London'; but with no charter or legal recognition.

KCL was founded by royal charter in 1829, and opened in 1831; but was it a 'university'? Many organisations, not only universities, can be chartered; KCL's website only says that "The charter conferred upon the College the status of a self-governing public corporation with a legal personality and established an administrative framework." Like UCL, it didn't award any degrees until after it became part of the federal University of London in 1836 - its students went on to the sub-degree 'Associate of King's College' qualification or to degrees at Oxford or Cambridge.

Durham was founded in 1832, by Act of Parliament specifying it as a University; it then received a royal charter in 1837, the same year its first students graduated.

Leeds traces its history back to the founding of the Leeds School of Medicine in 1831; but did not call itself a University until it became part of the Victoria University in 1887; it became an independent university in 1904.

So yes, that list above is one possible chronology (though your Leeds date is a bit dodgy - I'm not sure why the Leeds School of Medicine (1831) should be considered a university, but not the much older Guys and St Thomas' schools of medicine incorporated into King's). By another one (going by earliest legal recognition as a university) Durham puts itself third. I suppose it's possible that King's may be fourth by ALL commonly-used methods of estimation.... TSP 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm when has KCL ever actually been a university? Since 1836 it has been a college of the University of London and before that wasn't it still just a college? Timrollpickering 00:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well King's (like all UoL colleges) exists in some sort of weird grey area between a college of a university and a university in its own right. The King's website itself reflects this confusion where on the same page [9] it contradicts itself: "King's is one of the oldest and largest colleges of the University of London" compared with "King’s is in the top group of universities for research earnings". It should also be remembered that the "fourth oldest university" claim originally came from King's itself, clearly King's sees itself as a both a university and a college (as does UCL, for that matter). Daduzi 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the article. The term "Higher Education Institution" (HEI) seems to the most common catch-all phrase and it's better to use this than "university".

As for the founding arguments, I'd be fascinated to know who has supposedly deemed, and by what authority, the charter date to be the crucial point, especially as even the history book that King's regards as definitive doesn't say "a university was founded in 1829". Also to throw a real cat amongst the pidgeons, how distinct was Wales back in the 1820s? Would a contemporary have not used "England" to mean rather more than the current usage of the term? Timrollpickering 23:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with using the term HEI is that could be seen to include teaching hospitals and technical institutes, and there were many of those around before King's founding. As for the question of Wales, Wales has never been considered a part of England as far as I'm aware and in any case it doesn't really matter: the distinction is clear now and so Welsh universities can't be considered English universities, even if they were in the past. --Daduzi ^talk 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a time when "England" often really meant in modern terms "England and Wales" (and even the wider UK - for instance Andrew Bonar Law, a Scottish Canadian with strong Ulster links and distinctly not English, said he was "Prime Minister of England" in the 1920s; see also the A. J. P. Taylor quote on the Oxford History of England page). The habit of confining the use of "England" to, say, the land where you (or parents/grandparents) had to be born to qualify for the football team is quite a modern practice. Wales traditionally was rather subsumed into the Union, unlike Scotland which retained a distinct edge. It's really a bit of a side point, although Lampeter does very occassionally come up in searches for "third oldest university", but one that deserves at least consideration in all these debates since one needs to be clear whether we mean "England" now or "England" at the time. Timrollpickering 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

(reindenting)I think the general rule is that it is assumed modern day borders are being talked about. So, for instance, a reference to "the oldest building in Austria" would generally refer to the oldest building in modern day Austria, rather than the oldest building in the countries of the Austrian Empire. On that basis I don't think we need to worry overmuch about whether or not Wales was considered part of England at the time King's was founded. I stand corrected on my earlier historical assumption, though, thanks for the info. --Daduzi ^talk 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely happy with the term "higher education institution" (for the reasons outlined above, namely that it could incluyde teaching hospitals and technical institutes of which there's many that are older than King's or indeed UCL). There must be some alternate wording we can settle on that accurately reflects the claim. --Daduzi ^talk 20:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

And once again footnotes trying to explain things get modified, throwing in stuff about the LSE not having a charter (when the LSE is not technically a university and this is a crucial distinction in all this!) and the three pages drift out of sync. Would it be better to have a page for something like Third oldest university in England debate that could set out all the arguments for Durham, King's and UCL (and for that matter others like Manchester - whose current logo says "Est 1824" - Lampeter, Nottingham and any others that get thrown about), rather than trying to keep at least three pages all singing from the same hymn sheet without bias on a very convoluted topic? Timrollpickering 16:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox

Just to let you all know there's now the userbox {{user KCL}} you can add to your user page, which will add you to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: King's College London. --Daduzi ^talk 16:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of King's College London

Recently I have gone through lot many web pages and got to know an extraordinary and thrilling history of King’s. But, unfortunately this article lacks at that point. It failed to present King’s history in a proper way. Don’t we incorporate some other sorted points and dates ? Rivalry with UCL can also be included here. What do you think guys ? Niaz bd 7:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are good sources that could be used also.Coffeelover 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University Institution

The word Higher Education Institutes is a confusing one which may mislead someone. In fact, King’s or UCL or Imperial or LSE, all are University Institution. All the colleges, schools or institutes of University of London are basically Institution with in the university. As, University of London is a Federal University, there is no provision for the students to get in directly. In past it was possible but now it has been abolished. I have done some search on the web and got to know few info about Uni of London. I will put them in the Uni of London page later.

So, I have changed the HEI term and replaced it by University Institution. Niaz bd 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University in its own right?

King's calls itself a university. It has degree-awarding powers and has signalled to the University of London its right to use them. How is it not a university in its own right? https://www.kcl.ac.uk/about/governance/acboard/

194.74.160.114 17:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a constituent college of a federal university. Holding degree awarding powers doesn't automatically bring university status - most of the large colleges are seeking them.

A lot of the colleges are seen as de facto universities on a par with actual ones and may use the term "university" quite casually, but de jure they are not. Timrollpickering 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since when has Wikipedia favoured de jure definitions over de facto ones? For that matter, what is the de jure definition of a university in the UK? --Daduzi ^talk 20:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this "de jure" and "de facto" application does seem rather odd. It's obvious that KCL is a university and a member of the federal University of London, just as UK is both a state and a member of a confederation (EU).

The EU is a union of countries, not a state in its own right. As for King's, when has it ever been granted the title of "university" in its own right? Timrollpickering 16:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Triangle G5

The University of London (UoL) has no authority to state who is entitled to be classed as a 'Golden Triangle' institution. Indeed, it is in its interests to increase the number of its institutions that it classifies as being included, especially as ICL will be leaving UoL later this year, and LSE and UCL threatening to do the same. If LSE and UCL also left, the UoL would have none of the G5 institutions remaining, and therefore it is attempting to impose the Golden Triangle badge onto Kings (who have stated they want to remain as part of the UoL). This is a biased source which cannot be relied upon.

My Previous Confusion that I posted at UCL's discussion page "I came to know from the web that Oxbridge and UCL-ICL-LSE are considered as the member of Golden Triangle (GT). But, later on from a wiki page I got to know KCL is also with in the GT. Some other page said, as LSE is not strongly involved in the research work and GT is a research based grouping, ICL-KCL-UCL are the best choice as the member of GT from UofL. So, I became confused. This article also says KCL is a member of GT. Which one is true ? Please discuss. - Niaz bd 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)"

Finally I got the solution. I found a pdf file at UCL's official webpage written the following lines. "Imperial College, King’s College, the LSE and UCL are all in the small group of leading universities in the UK and with Cambridge and Oxford are sometimes referred to as “the Golden Triangle”." The future of the University of London: a discussion paper from the Provost of UCL by Malcolm Grant, President and Provost, UCL. (p.6)

I guess, this may bring a solution about the Golden Triangle issue.

Here is the link of this PDF [10]

Niaz bd 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endowment

Wouldnt a category of "Endowment" of the university be appropriate in the quick facts pane like for other universites?

The Financial Statements of Kings states the endowment of the college for 2005 as £103 million as can be found on page 14 of this link. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/finance/financialstatements/financialstatements2005.pdf

Therefore can some once change it or is alright if i add it to the main page quick facts?

[edit] Third oldest university debate article

I have now created Third oldest university in England debate to try to explain all the debate about whether it's Durham, KCL, UofL or UCL. This was mainly because attempts to explain it on the individual articles were getting out of sync (e.g. both the Durham and King's articles were asserting the claim as fact in the main article, whilst a footnote on King's mentioned the point of the Charter and was added to by an anonymous user asserting that the London School of Economics proves an institution doesn't need a charter to be a good university!). I think it would work best if the detail and explanation for this is kept on one page. Please come and help enhance the article. Timrollpickering 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is the ratings in terms of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) tests. The article, under "Departmental", states first that 5 is the highest rating, then that 5* is the highest. In fact (and I will try to track down my source soon) the highest rating is 6*, which means that the Dept in question has achieved a 5* rating in the last 3 consecutive RAEs. Even if, for lack of sources, we do not include the latter point, we should at least try for some uniformity in the article about what is the highest attainable grade in an RAE. Chrisfow 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] virginia woolf alumna kcl

Woolf alumna of king's college london? the oxford world's classics edition of 'to the lighthouse' has a woolf timeline which says that she studied history and greek at kcl...please update

[edit] Famous King's People

I have started working on Famous King's People section. Hope to get constructive ideas and advices. Niaz bd 09:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The easiest available source for alumni and academics is Category:People associated with King's College London and its daughter cats. You could go through and take a selection of names (but please, not all) from there. Please check, as you go, that each person you add to the list is verifiably an alumnus or academic; in the case of alumni, WikiProject Universities recommends adding graduation date and degree, where available. — mholland 14:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am not going to add all the names of the alumni here as there is already a separate article on them. What I am trying here is to give an idea on King's alumni and academician. I have a plan to divide King's People into three different sections: 1.Nobel Laureate 2.Famous Academician and 3.Alumni. These three sections will only contain people with so called 'Celebrity' image. Rest of the people will be listed in the main King's alumni/people article. Niaz bd 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King's Logo Version 2

I tried to add the current logo of the college which is used every where including webs and publications. But unfortunately it does not look good though the file quality is pretty fine. I think it is getting stressed. Is there any one who can solve this problem ? Thanks in advance. Niaz bd 09:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you enter the parameter image_size beneath image_name in the infobox, you can override the default size: set it to the width in px of the image you're using. I have reverted to the 'old' logo for the time being, as your replacement is marked for speedy deletion because it has a permission-only copyright tag on it. I'd be glad to help you with the copyright/sourcing, but the new logo is very similar to the old logo. — mholland (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)