Talk:University College London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stochata (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 14 August 2005 (New logo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Date founded

To the guy who claims Nottingham University is the third oldest university in England, it is not. The origins of what is today Nottingham University may very well go back to the end of the 18th century, but that does not make it the third oldest university. There are many university institutions who can trace some sort of origin to centuries past, but that does not mean they were founded back then.

The real dispute is whether KCL or UCL is the third oldest, as although UCL was founded several years before KCL, KCL received it's Royal Chater several years before UCL. In the strict sense the date of a university is established by the date of it's Royal Charter (that's why Nottingham is not the third oldest university), but it is convention to state UCL is the third oldest, followed by KCL.

Disclaimer: I am not a UCL student, nor am I affiliated to UCL.

Yeah, but the article says the third-oldest higher education institution, not university. I would change it to university, but that wouldn't be accurate as it is only part of a university. Seeing as there's also this discrepency with King's College, London and the fact that a fair compairison would include all British (not just English) insitutions, I'll just put that it's old. By the way, I'm female and only changed it the last time.
PS - The University of Nottingham can't just trace its routes back to 1798, it is the same institution. It was certainly 'established' in 1798, even if it didn't receive its charter until 1948.

Technically speaking, it's very clear legally. An institution becomes a university when it receives university staus - by which UCL is not a university at all and London is the 4th oldest (after Oxbridge and Durham). However, the common and legal usage of the word 'university' are clearly different in the case of UCL. Given that there is obviously debate about this and that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide facts, not opinions, I have changed the article to read that it is often claimed that UCL is the 3rd oldest university rather than to state that it has a valid claim to being the 3rd oldest university. Possibly the article should also note that there are other institutions (such as Nottingham) that also claim to be the 3rd oldest university on the basis of their date of foundation as an institution - or possibly a whole Wikipedia entry is needed on the '3rd oldest university controversy'!

List of subdomains of ucl.ac.uk

This seems like a pretty random selection, and pointless given that all of them can be found via the UCL website [1]. I'll delete it, unless anyone objects. Jihg 18:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems arbitrary. --stochata 00:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Campaign for UCL'

Is the following relevant to an encyclopedia entry? -- it seems more like pontification about the merits of philanthropic funding. Defend it now or I will delete it all :-) --stochata 00:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In 2004, UCL's most high-profile initiative has been the 'Campaign for UCL', which aims to raise £300m from alumni and friends. This aggressive advocacy of philanthropy has reminded some of US-style university funding, and can quite easily be seen as part of a shift towards an increasingly independent (if not completely privatised) university sector. UCL's management has already shown through its attempt at merging with Imperial and its Russell Group membership (both above) that it aims to be one of the most determined institutions in pursuing such strategies in the long term, even if universities remain nominally public in the short term.

I'll just some notes about what I think is wrong with this section. At the start, "most high-profile initiative" is a peacock term. Surely most schools have fund raising initiatives -- why should UCL's be it's most high-profile initiative, and secondly, why should it be a notable event in the history of UCL? The "has reminded some" and the "quite easily seen as a shift" are both weasel terms -- i.e., they shoe-horn in an unsupported point of view via first a disguised passive voice and then a passive voice. Finally, it turns into a full blown argument for the author's own position. This is fine in academic argument (I am sure the author is an academic), but (I believe) it has no place in an encyclopedia entry. The way to include this in the entry would be to publish a paper elsewhere and then reference it on the page. Therefore, I believe that all of this paragraph should be deleted. --stochata 11:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but replace with neutral version. How about "In 2004, UCL began the 'Campaign for UCL' initiative. It aimed to raise £300m from alumni and friends. This kind of explicit campaigning is traditionally unusual for UK universities, and is similar to US university funding." Jihg 12:14, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, Jihg. I'll leave for a couple of days more for any more comments and then change it to your suggestion if no more come in. --stochata 13:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Famous Alumni

The famous alumni section is difficult to check up on as people simply list a person name. It would be much easier if everyone listed the name they want to add here with reasons for inclusion. For example, who is Lewis J Vincent? Do they merit inclusion? --stochata 11:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that UCL has changed its logo -- see http://www.ucl.ac.uk

The new logo is here -- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/corporate-identity/artwork

I'm not putting it upmyself because I don't know the legal status of using it. --stochata 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_College_London&oldid=20984005"