ÖйúAƬ

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 ÖйúAƬ 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 ¨C this compounded my idea that it was some bizarre sort of further education college ¨C 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