King’s London rebrand plan sparks uproar

Students and alumni of King’s College London have reacted with horror after the university announced it will change its name to “King’s London”.

December 16, 2014

From February, the central London university will start to be known as “King’s London”, it was announced on 16 December.

The name-change follows consultation with staff, student and alumni over the past 18 months and is designed to remove confusion among prospective students and parents over whether King’s is a college or university, a spokeswoman said.

In an email to staff and students on 16 December, King’s principal Ed Byrne calls the rebrand “a very modest change similar to how several other large London university institutions are now presenting themselves”.

But students have been quick to denounce the plans.

Since news of the name change broke on 15 December, more than 6,000 people have signed a petition in less than 24 hours, calling the rebrand “bizarre” and “ridiculous”.

The cost of the redesign – which has been put at an estimated £300,000 – is also labelled in the petition as “an obscene amount of money…which could be spent on improving student life at King’s”.

“Not only does this undermine almost 200 years of tradition, as well as sabotaging a worldwide reputation built on the name King’s College London, but it serves as a huge and unnecessary expense,” said the petition’s founder Emily Braddock, a second-year theology student.

The petition also dispute claims by King’s and its students’ union that it had consulted with students about the rebrand, saying “it seems as if the majority of the student population at King’s College London have only just heard about such a move”.

Various commenters on the petition also criticised the wisdom of removing the college moniker, with Reece Warren claiming that “King’s London sounds like more like an aftershave than a credible university”. Martijn Wallage agreed, stating that “the proposed new name lacks a noun to indicate that this is a university”. Reehan Aslam claimed that “Kings London sounds more like a train station than a world renowned university”.

Professor Byrne said the university would keep King’s College London for legal documents, academic citations and the awarding of degrees, but that “introducing the new brand is one part of a process of incremental change at King’s to improve our performance in both education and research as we aspire to be universally recognised as one of the world’s great universities”.

King’s College London, often abbreviated to ‘KCL’, is well known to the academic community and to most students in the UK,” he said.

“However, our research conducted over the last 18 months with potential students, parents, staff, students and alumni, revealed that our current name was causing considerable confusion: is King’s a residential college, is it an academic college akin to the colleges of Oxbridge, or is it an educational institution of some other type such as a further education college?

“Internationally, there was further misunderstanding because ‘college’ is not a widely understood term in many countries,” he added.

Professor Byrne, who took over at King’s in August, admitted that many staff and students had an emotional connection to the term “college”, but he believed that “in today’s highly competitive global marketplace, King’s needs to be bold about its ambitions and shout about its many achievements”.

“The purpose of a very modest repositioning is to deal with these concerns sensitively and constructively,” he said.

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Reader's comments (4)

My previous critique here of King's College London sad present situation KL's management is certainly aware of the ridicule that ensued when another University management wanted to strike out the term University from its title (mimicking the wish of the managerial types at KL to eliminate collegiality from the academic institution). It is pompous that Ed Byrne et al. consider changing the name of KCL is open to them. It is prime time to start calling for Ed Byrne's resignation.
Perhaps they know something we don't. 18th December: King's London announced that the astoundingly poor REF results for KCL clearly had nothing to do with them, as KCL no longer existed...
Consultation? No. As a senior academic at King's College London, I can confirm that there was in fact no meaningful consultation about this with the staff. So, not only is this "re-branding" of our college name a spectacular, ocean-going bad idea, it is also another example of the high-handed, top-down senior management style that has become such an unwelcome feature of life at KCL. It's that which needs to be changed, not our name.
From my perspective it is good that Stevie MacNeice made a wrong prediction and King's College London was ranked together with the elite institutions in the UK, as it surely deserves. I invariably visited from the East End UCL, KCL and Imperial College, while working at Queen Mary and at least in my field within Biology they all hosted beautiful science. What is troubling is seeing appalling management receiving credit - not for the deaths of their academics, the premature termination of careers, the degradation of academic standards, public disservice, promotion of unfairness etc. - but instead being ranked highly in a government-sponsored quality-control exercise. Somehow those (managers) who most accutely threaten academic excellence and human progress are permitted to play politics on the backs of scientists, students etc. This cannot be right and must change. I understand plans to change the name of Kings College London are being withdrawn. If true, it is a good sign. Resistance to tyranny should grow and academics should reclaim their universities. Alternatively they should follow management instructions and be happy (not a joke, the "instruction" did take place, guess where)