hey, i know this topic has been discussed in the forum, but still, would you please tell on the following. i got offers from QM and KCL. i am interested in corporate and financial law. which of these schools would have good basis for these areas?

many thanks!

Hi Troy.

I'm at QMUL but am taking a course at KCL so will try to give you my perspective.

KCL.

You'll find good professors at both schools but there the equity ends. QMUL doesn't seem to care about it's students. Petitions were signed in December from students looking for basic things...a Coke machine, for example...lacking at the CCLS site. The administration could care less.

Careers and the woeful library are located far away at Mile End. Most students don't go there. IMHO the extra tuition at KIng's is worth it if you want to attend a real university.

Definitely King's!!!!
It's a much, much better school I would say..

Basic common sense scenario: Accepting the QM offer means you will save cash and STILL have the opportunity to take half your LLM at KCL. I have put out feelers at KCL and the general view is that students are left to their own devices and to carry on by themesleves on the LLM. Those commenting (lamenting actually) say they are in limbo. The general consesus is that, in any event, these LLM programmes are cash cows, aimed to get as many international fee paying students. There is no follow-up on academics at KCL

HELLO THERE,
I GOT OFFERS FROM QM AND KCL AND I AM REALLY LOST; AFTER I CHECKED THE RANKING I WAS MORE CONFUSED.
I ACTUALLY LIKED THE IDEA OF HAVING HALF COURSES IN KCL AND THE OTHER HALF IN QM HOWEVER , I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHICH ONE IS ACADEMICALLY BETTER AND WHAT IF THE CAMPUS SITUATION IS BAD TO A POINT THAT IT MAY COMPROMISE ALL QM'S ADVANTAGES.
THX