UCL Vs KCL for a masters degree in Physics?

[Nooginy]

Hi everyone, just a quick post regarding the above. I have been accepted by both onto a part time (two year) masters degree. I got the KCL offer first and accepted but paid a £500 deposit that I will not get back if I switch. Even though I can't afford it I will switch if I decide UCL is a better degree for me.

Anyway, just wondering if anyone has any post/undergrad experience with these two departments. I graduated from the University of Bristol in 2013 in physics and mathematics and had a few issues with the degree. I found the way modules were taught within the physics department were quite poor, in comparison to the math. Just poor teaching, notes (mostly boring slideshows), organisation, and some errors in the exam papers on the big day. The lab work was much better, even though I ran into some huge issues in my final year project.

If anyone has any experience such as this within the physics departments of KCL and UCL please let me know. I found this lack of professionalism a great disappointment, and hope this does not continue into my masters.

Thanks for reading,

 

[artfullounger]

UCL is generally considered superior to KCL overall. I would rate UCL above KCL just because it's got better brand name visibility, but they're both good. It's also worth noting that as they're both part of the University of London consortium, they both participate in the intercollegiate physics MSci, which the 4 year undergrad degrees share courses in the 4th year. This extends to the UCL MSc in (Astro)Physics at the very least, idk about KCL. This allows you to take modules from other UoL universities in your programme. Thus you could end up taking courses from both universities in any case. Much more important are the supervisors and facilities available for you for your project/thesis work, I would say.