You report on your website that King’s College London is planning to change its name to “King’s London” (“King’s London rebrand plan sparks uproar”, News, timeshighereducation.co.uk, 16 December).
I was about to scorn the idea that somehow “King’s College London” confuses potential applicants who can’t understand what it is, but then I remembered my own ignorance about the UK higher education sector at the time of applying as an undergraduate. I had considered King’s but dismissed it after learning that its history department did not specify a minimum grade requirement – this compounded my idea that it was some bizarre sort of further education college – and I moved on to other prospectuses.
People, particularly reputation-conscious undergraduates, will always be resistant to change. I was at one of the University of Exeter’s Cornwall campuses when the neighbouring institution, University College Falmouth, rebranded itself as Falmouth University, which was panned at first but soon accepted.
All that said, “King’s London” is ridiculous. Why not “King’s University, London”? It would be simple, but it brings forth what I think is the real issue here: the confusing and perhaps doomed nature of the collegiate University of London.
Daniel Simpson
Via timeshighereducation.co.uk
