Talk:Durham University/Talk:Durham University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Durham University | Talk:Durham University
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I had a great time studying at Durham Uni and this is an excellent article! —Okay

Contents

Motto

Doubtless someone will tell me that my correction is wrong, and that 'Fundamenta eius montibus sanctis' is the correct motto for the University of Durham - that being what the University Calendar says it is. However, I'm pretty confident the University Calendar is wrong - this is a photograph of the arms on the University's original 1832 grant of arms, and 'super' is clearly in there. I'll let the University know their mistake... TSP 18:43, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just had a reply from the University; the motto on their web page had indeed been inadvertently altered. The current Wikipedia page is correct, and the University's own page is going to be altered to match it. TSP 16:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charter

In one version it was stated, "making it (Durham University) arguably England's third oldest University after Oxford and Cambridge (although some London colleges had existed without formal University status since the previous decade)". This is astonishingly false. KCL, for example, received it's Royal Charter in 1831, UCL received its Royal Charter in 1836 (from memory, I may have erred by a year). The usual ignorant comment that KCL and UCL are not "universities in their own right" is simply, again, false - KCL and UCL are universities, and received their Royal Charters years before Durham.

I am afraid that this is simply untrue. KCL and UCL are not universities, they are colleges of the University of London, and the degrees they award are degrees of the University of London. The granting of a Royal Charter does not make an institution a university (otherwise many professional bodies that are incorporated by Royal Charter would be universities), neither does the granting of degree-awarding powers make an institution a university - there are many institutions with degree-awarding powers that are not universities. The only thing that can make an institution into a university is for it to be granted University Status. Nowadays this is done by the Privy Council, generally through the issuing of a Royal Charter that makes an institution a university, but it can also (as with all functions of the PC) be done by an act of parliament, as was done with Durham and with the ex-polytechnics in 1992. Oxford and Cambridge are universities by ancient usage, but all the other universities fall under this rule. Thus Cardiff (founded 1883) became a university in 2004, Nottingham (founded 1798) became a university in 1948, Exeter (founded 1840) became a university in 1955, London was founded as a university in 1836, Durham was founded a university in 1832, and neither KCL nor UCL are universities - they remain colleges of the University of London. That UCL and KCL existed as institutions before Durham is not in doubt, but neither is the fact that neither of them were (or are) a university. That Nottingham pre-existed all the other three is equally true, but it was not a university until many years later.

This is not the same issue as "foundation" (see below). Neither with regards to foundation nor royal charter is Durham "the third oldest university in England".

This is agreed - but is a total red-herring as neither foundation nor royal charter makes an institution a university. With regards to gaining University Status, which is the only thing that actually matters, Durham is the third oldest university in England.
With regard to whether Durham posessed degree-awarding powers in the period 1832-1837, this is unknown. The correspondance of the time (a summary of some of which can be viewed online at Durham University) indicates that there were some legal opinions that the granting of University Status implicitly granted Durham the right to give degrees, while the were others that said that the University needed an explicit grant - which it gained in 1837. What is certain is that it did not actually use its degree-awarding powers until 1837, when it could be sure that it had the legal right to do so. Again, however, this has no bearing on the unarguable fact that it gained the title of University in 1832.

--User:Robminchin

Note the discussion below. The University of London had no formal University status until 1836. --Ngb 22:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've seen the "discussion" below and it's riddled with the normal ignorant comments about UCL not being a university. But regardless of the UoL and UCL issue, KCL received it's Royal Charter in 1831. It was a full fledged university years before Durham, and only LATER became a MEMBER of the META-university 'University of London'.
It's really sad that you feel the need to lie about the university (claiming that it's "arguably" the third oldest university doesn't turn it into a quasi-truth - I could "argue" that religion X is true, that doesn't make it so). Durham is a good, semi-prestigious UK university; it simply doesn't need to be lied about.
It's really sad that anonymous users feel the need to throw around accusations of lying without doing their research properly. The 'arguably' is there to take account of the fact that people make claims about other UK universities too. However, objectively speaking, the third institution to gain *formal University status* with powers to grant degrees is unequivocally Durham, regardless of when KCL or UCL were founded. --Ngb 11:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There's an arguable point here; but it isn't really that King's College became a university in 1831. It may be true, though, that King's College had about as much legal status in 1829 (not 1831) as Durham gained in 1832.
King's College gained its charter in 1829; this charter "conferred upon the College the status of a self-governing public corporation with a legal personality and established an administrative framework" (source: KCL) However, this charter did not grant any degree-awarding powers, or the style of 'University' (KCL students went on to either Oxbridge degrees, or professional qualifications, or later the "Associate of King's College" award); so I'm not at all convinced that it can be said that KCL became a university at this point. UCL, KCL and the University of Durham each went through a series of stages in the 1820s and 1830s, so it's hard to be precise on exactly when each gained university status; but I'm really not convinced that KCL gained it with the 1829 charter. The best you could really argue is that Durham didn't gain it either until 1837, and therefore is younger than the University of London. TSP 11:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The link you provided, TSP, concerns KCL's "College Charter" not "Royal Charter" which was granted in 1831. The college charter established the university; the Royal Charter granted it university status. The simple fact remains that both KCL and UCL received their Royal Charters, which established them as universities, before Durham. And this is an entirely different point to the "foundation" issue, but even there UCL and KCL predate Durham.
According to the KCL website the 'royal charter' was granted in 1829. Is this incorrect? --Ngb 12:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And as for Ngb, the legal expert based in Durham's languages department, you are deliberatly placing misleading information at the very beginning of the article. It is a highly dubious claim that Durham is the third oldest university in England. The convention is actually that UCL is the third oldest university, but legally it's KCL. I am neither a KCL or UCL student but I get tired of hearing claims from Nottingham and Durham students (amongst others) that they are the third oldest universities.
If this continues I will have to flag this article as breaching neutrality rules.
Your personal attacks are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Are you interested in discussing this issue properly or do you just want to fling insults and insinuations around? Yes, I am based in Durham, but I make no secret of that, and I have made no claim to be a 'legal expert'. If you can't have a discussion without the adolescent use of straw men and ad hominem attacks then I suggest you remove yourself from Wikipedia. --Ngb 12:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As it is, quite a few universities claim to be the third oldest in England. (I've heard someone claim, with a straight face and an almost-valid argument, that the University of Dundee is actually the oldest university in the UK as a whole...) As I understand it, Durham is the most commonly cited as the third; it stands to reason we should mention it. It's in the article, the major competing claims are briefly summarised; that's not a neutrality breach.
Let's see what the press think, since I have a database open. Lexis-Nexis gives 32 hits for "third oldest university" in UK newspapers. Of those -
8 St Andrews (context UK)
5 Aberdeen (context Scotland)
11 Durham (context England)
2 Lampeter (That one surprised me; context Britain! Scotland would beg to differ...)
1 UCL (context England)
and a handful on universities in Europe, as third oldest in Germany or Spain or wherever
Notably, the one that mentions UCL - an August 1998 TES story - also mentions Durham; it's a one-para article about the two institutions having a little spat over the title. (Lovely quote: "Apparently Durham, established 1832, could not really explain itself. 'There isn't anyone here who was there then,' said an unhappy administrator."). Just a little bit of context for common use... Shimgray 12:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide any evidence for the existence of this 1831 royal charter? None of the documents published by King's College itself on the subject appear to mention it. If it did exist, and did establish KCL as a university, it seems curious that King's College never granted degrees (KCL's own documents state that they did not). TSP 12:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS. Please stop reverting; this article has already breached the 3 reverts rule, and waiting a day until we have discussed it more fully will do no-one any harm. TSP 12:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It hasn't breached 3RR which applies to each person: I have now reverted the edits by 81.159.167.218/86.135.46.60 three times and will not do so any more today, but that's no reason why other users couldn't continue to do so. But, as I have said in my edit summary, I would rather we sought this out here, so I second your comment. --Ngb 12:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My mistake - you're right, it hadn't yet. But it was about to :-) TSP 12:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On reading Durham's page about its foundation the issue is sadly complicated further. Durham was unquestionably founded *as a legal University* in 1832 but did not gain the power to grant degrees until 1837: 'On 1 June 1837 a Royal Charter was issued recognising and confirming the constitution of the University. Seven days later the first Durham degrees were conferred under the authority of this Charter.'

So the issue of granting degrees may not be relevant, and the question of when KCL and UCL gained legal University status becomes more significant. It's unquestionable that KCL/UCL weren't granting degrees until 1836, but is that also when they gained legal University status? If so, Durham's claim is pretty ironclad and should, I think, be preserved in the article. If not, I think it should be reduced to 'making it one of the oldest Universities in England, after Oxford and Cambridge'. --Ngb 12:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ngb, I'm a reasonable woman and am prepared to compromise on this issue. I can accept a statement like "and is argued by some to be the third oldest university in England" but I will not accept the statement that KCL and UCL existed without "formal University status" before Durham - that is simply a lie. I'll leave it to you to make the appropriate amendment should you wish to compromise on this issue.
And UTC - you're quite right. The Royal Charter was 1829, not 1831 - I'd confused the established date by Royal Charter (1829) with the opening date (1831) of the college. But with regards to degree awarding powers, this is neither a condition nor a sufficient condition for university status.
PS - I also love the way that "degree awaring powers" ceases to become the arbitary criteria for what is and isn't a university as soon as it's discovered that Durham didn't enjoy such powers until a year after U of L. If not that (and it wasn't in the first place), then what? If by Royal Charter (as I argue), then KCL\UCL predates Durham. If by established date, then again UCL\KCL predate Durham.
So actually, I withdraw the compromise offer mentioned above - under no critera can Durham be the third oldest uni in England. Hence even the "it can be argued" reference must be removed. However, the statement "making it one of the oldest Universities in England, after Oxford and Cambridge" is acceptable as it is truthful.
It rather seems you're deliberately misreading what I write in order to provide an excuse to fling accusations around and provoke argument.
Above I preserved an argument made by another poster below (I'm not sure who, as they didn't sign their edit) that Durham was the oldest institution with legal university status and the power to grant degrees. As soon as I discovered that this conflation of the two was inaccurate (Durham had legal University status in 1832, but not the power to grant degrees until 1837) I acted in good faith and posted to that effect. I had assumed that legal status as a University and the power to grant degrees ran together: as the timeline shows, though, this is not the case, which is why I have now said I do not believe the earlier argument to be relevant. This is *not*, as you claim, because I am choosing 'arbitrary criteria' that merely support Durham's position. I am interested in making Wikipedia a useful resource, and I am uninterested in promoting falsehood, despite your repeated accusations that I have 'deliberately inserted misleading content'.
The timeline seems to run as follows:
Foundation: KCL 1831, Durham 1832
Royal Charter: KCL 1829, Durham 1837
Gains the right to grant degrees: KCL 1836, Durham 1837
Legal status as a University: KCL ?, Durham 1832
I am wondering if we can find clarification on that '?'. When did KCL gain legal status as a University? Was it in 1836, when it gained the right to grant degrees? (In this case, its status as a University postdates Durham by four years.) Or was it at some stage beforehand, with its founding or with its Royal Charter? (In which case, its status as a University would predate Durham.) Does anyone have any accurate information (with sources) on this topic? --Ngb 13:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've yet to see anything stating that King's College has ever been recognised as a university. It never appears to have had degree-awarding powers, at least. The 1836 degree-granting power was that of the University of London, not of KCL itself. TSP 13:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mmm, OK -- that would strongly support Durham's case, I think. I note that the King's College London WP entry currently claims it to be 'the fourth oldest university in England [after] University College London', whereas the page for UCL says that 'it was not until 1836, when the University of London was established, that the college was legally recognised'. The three entries for King's College London, University College London and University of Durham are thus inconsistent and this needs to be resolved. :/ --Ngb 13:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The UCL entry for a while stated that it was the third-oldest university in England, in an addition put in by the person with whom I had the debate preserved below. This claim now appears to have been removed. It is not implausible, however, that all three articles could include a note that the institution is arguably England's third-oldest university; preferably with an explanation of the claim and a caveat explaining counter-claims. TSP 13:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Further to this, I've just spoken on the phone to a rather helpful Archivist at KCL who, while (unsurprisingly) unable to answer a question this specific ('Did King's College ever have legal status as a University as a separate institution from the University of London?') has suggested the answers may be found in F.J. Cobb Hearnshaw, The Centenary History of King's College London (London: G.G. Harrap & Company, 1929) which, rather usefully, is in the Library here at Durham. I'll pop down and consult it this afternoon to see if it throws any light on the situation. --Ngb 14:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See below. --Ngb 16:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe Durham's claim to being the third oldest, incidentally, is that it was founded in 1832, by an act of parliament establishing it as a university. The counter-claims to other claims are, respectively, that University College London was founded without legal recognition; that King's College London was founded as a college, not as a university (it never appeared to be intended to grant its own degrees); and that the University of London was founded after this date. It's not a well-defined claim, but few of them are; Oxford, for example, doesn't have a foundation date or a charter of establishment at all, it is just generally recognised that at some point between the 11th and the 13th century it became a university. TSP 13:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ngb, you wrote: Foundation: KCL 1831, Durham 1832 \\ Royal Charter: KCL 1829, Durham 1837

Actually it's: Foundation: KCL 1829, Durham 1832 \\ Royal Charter: KCL 1829, Durham 1837

See KCL's old logo which had "Established 1829" on it.

The Centenary History of King's College London

This book confirms unequivocally at my reading that neither UCL nor King's has ever had legal University status in its own right, and never had degree-granting powers (until they became 'Recognised Bodies' of the UoL). Some key quotations:

  • Founding of UCL: 'The university [of London] was opened in October 1828. [...] Strong efforts were made by Brougham and his colleagues to secure from the government a charter incorporating the university and authorizing it to confer degrees. At the time, however, these efforts -- largely owing to the "godlessness" of the institution -- were unavailing.'
  • UCL lack of a Charter: 'Before the opening of King's College, the "University of London" in Gower Street applied in vain for incorporation by charter. In May 1825 a bill for the purpose was introduced into the House of Commons, but it was received so unfavourably that it was abandoned. Five years later, when the institution was in its second successful session, a petition was presented to the king begging him to grant the desired diploma: this time the open and energetic opposition of the old universities of Oxford and Cambridge caused the request to be refused' (p. 67)
  • UCL status as a University: 'One of the prime reasons for the resistance [to the request for a Charter] was the assumption by the new institution of the title "university" rather than the title "college".' (ibid.)
  • KCL status as a University: 'The fact that from the very first King's College openly proclaimed that it entertained "no intention of erecting in the metropolis a university, with the power of conferring degrees" greatly facilitated its gaining of its charter.' (p. 68)
  • KCL Charter: pp. 70-74, the word "University" is mentioned nowhere in the Charter.
  • Establishment of the modern University of London:
    • 'Almost the first problem which faced the new principal of the college was [...] the issue of a charter, dated November 28, 1836, establishing a degree-conferring university in London.' (p. 131)
    • 'King's College would not combine with its undenominational fellow [UCL] to form a single degree-conferring university; the government could not contemplate the absurdity of setting up simultaneously two degree-conferring universities in the metropolis; the only possibility, therefore, was to withhold the privelege of conferring degrees from both of them, and to establish a separate and independent degree-conferring authority whose diplomas would be open to either. [...] The authorities in Gower Street [(UCL)] having intimated their acceptance of the government's terms, the government issued two charters simultaneously on November 28, 1936. One of them conceded to the Gower Street institution, under the title of "London University College", the incorporation which it had so long sought. The other set up, under the title of "the University of London", a new body of "persons eminent in literature and science, to act as a board of examiners, and to perform all the functions of the examiners in the senate house of Cambridge."' (p. 132)
    • 'The council of King's College, indeed, looked with most unfriendly eyes upon the new examining university; and, probably, but for the urgent needs of the medical department, it would have had nothing to do with it at all. [...] King's College held indignantly aloof from the arts degrees of the new university, encouraging the brilliant boys in the school and the general studetns of the senior department to pass on to Oxford or Cambridge. [...] Only gradually, as King's College students insisted upon taking advantage of the opportunities and priveleges open to them, was the boycott broken down.' (pp. 133-136)

From this it seems very clear not only that UCL and King's have never had legal status as Universities in their own right, King's was explicitly founded not to be a University. I think we should be reinserting Durham's claim to be the third oldest University and making the appropriate changes in the King's College London page. (University College London already fits with the material here.) --Ngb 16:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me see if I've got this straight. KCL was founded before Durham (KCL founded in 1829, Durham 1832), received it's Royal Charter before Durham (KCL 1829, Durham 1837), and, as a member of the University of London, received degree powers at the federal level before Durham (Uni of London 1836, Durham 1837). And yet it is still maintained that Durham is older than KCL. How does Ngb arrive at this remarkable conclusion? By examining the mental states of those involved in the founding of KCL! This desperatism is worthy of a Monty Python sketch. The goal posts have moved from foundation, to royal charter, to degree awarding powers and now, thanks to Ngb, to the mental states of dead people! Perhaps we should get an occultist and ask her to contact the dead to resolve this issue……(no Ngb, don’t bother contacting an occultist – the mental states of the founders of KCL is an irrelevant issue).
I am beginning to lose patience with you now. Let me put this in words of as few syllables as possible. KCL was founded before Durham. KCL received its royal charter before Durham. Yet, as KCL's own 'official' history (the Archivist I spoke to at KCL described this book as 'our bible for historical issues') efficiently demonstrates, KCL was not founded as a University, was not chartered as a University, and did not have the power to grant degrees in its own right. QED. --Ngb 17:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oxford wasn't founded to give BA degrees; that developed later. The issue of degree granting power is a red herring. But even if we took this one piece of evidence into consideration, here again KCL outdates Durham by a year via membership of the University of London. Appeal to secretaries in KCL's archive office by all means, appeal to statements in the KCL Bible concerning the intentions of dead Victorians, but none of it is sufficient to establish Durham University as the third oldest in England.
It's quite sad that you feel that Durham must bogusly retain the title of 'third oldest university in England'(which, conventionally, goes to UCL anyway). Do you think Durham magically becomes an Oxbridge, or an Imperial, or an LSE if you manage to deceive people about when Durham was founded relative to other universities? If you're that insecure do your PhD* at a university who's prestige doesn't depend on a warped interpretation of history (as if being the third oldest university per se generates any status anyway - look at poor KCL - regardless of whether you rank it the 3rd, 4th, 5th oldest it's decline, in public perception, from its hayday as a rival to Oxbridge has been astonishing).
*But, then again, I doubt any other university (except Thames Valley University) would offer PhD research into comic book translation http://www.dur.ac.uk/n.g.boalch/ .
I don't intend to debate this with you any further, as it's clear you have no interest in this article documenting matters as accurately as possible but would rather throw wild and random insults at me. (For instance, whilst I thank you for your unrequested advice as to where I should do a Masters degree, I feel it is unnecessary as I have already completed one.)
On the real matter under discussion, as far as I am concerned the historical evidence I have cited above bears out my opinion on the matter: that although many educational institutions existed before the University of Durham none of them had the status of University. If you can provide any evidence to the contrary I would welcome it, but if all you have to offer is more petulant mud-slinging then this will be my final word on the topic. --Ngb 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll let you get back to translating those comic books.
Now we've got past the inappropriate ad hominem attacks, no evidence seems to be being presented that KCL or any other institution had a legal foundation as a university any time before 1832. I shall replace the statement on the main page, in its initial form, unless anyone can produce a good reason not to before tomorrow. TSP 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Foundation

TSP - sorry - some of the Uni of London teaching establishments date back to the eleventh century (Bart's Hospital) - so lets keep it historically accurate and not "sigh" or turn this into a pissing contest please.

Foundation date IS relevant - sorry. Either make the info accurate or remove the paragraph altogether please. At best it's impossible to say with any certainty which is the oldest, at worst you can tell a tale of governmant anti-semetism and sexism that denied UCL a charter because it gave degrees to Jews and Women whlst Durham did not.

I wasn't trying to turn it into a pissing contest - I'm well aware of London's history before the 19th century (I understand that King's College had to quietly remove its '1824' tag from its logo after some of the medical establishments that help make it up objected that actually they were far older). I was merely pointing out that if we chose to go on foundation dates, the whole situation was far more complicated. However, the only claim that paragraph is about which is oldest university in England; and my understanding is that, while UCL and several other institutions had foundations earlier than 1832, the first formal awarding of university status and degree-awarding powers after Oxford and Cambridge was to Durham, in 1832. I see that a recent edit to the article claims that UCL was awarding degrees in the 1820s - I've never heard that before, is there a source for it? The UCL Wikipedia page says: "However it was not until 1836, when the University of London was established, that the college was legally recognised and granted the power to award degrees of the University of London." Is that incorrect?
Discussion of anti-semitism and sexism might be relevant, yes, but probably in the History section rather than the opening paragraph. TSP 02:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
PS. Apologies for the '*sigh*'; that did sound unreasonably dismissive. It's more that I've had this whole debate one too many times, rather than annoyance with the person who made the change. In retrospect it does look terribly rude, though, so I'm sorry about that. TSP 02:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
----------
I guess my problem comes from the fact that UCL was a university although it did not have a Royal Charter in 1826. I dont see the Royal Charter as being particularly relevant - a number of other UK universities were not founded by grant of Royal Charter (eg Glasgow - was founded by papal bull in 1451 and Aberdeen founded by the loacl Bishop in 1495 - and both the Oxford and Cambridge claim a date of foundation which predates their Charter) - and the CNAA happily awarded degrees without one in England from 1966 to 1992.
All of the "new universities" (Oxford Brookes, Manchaester Metropolitan etc) operate under the Further and Higher Education Act, 1992 - without a Royal Charter at all.
The source for the foundation date of UCL (1826) was http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl/history. Note that the federal University of London post dates UCL by some time - hence the UCL Wikipedia reference which explicitly talks about UoL not UCL degrees. If they weren't issueing degrees at UCL - what were they doing?
Does "although a number of other Universities, albeit without Royal Charter, had been founded in the previous decade" seem like a compromise?
Using the grant of the charter as the only official foundation date for a Uni is a bit bogus really - given that nearly half of England's Uni's dont seem to have one and osme of the UK's oldest weren't founded that way.
True, the oldest universities in England were founded without royal charter, but then they were founded before there was felt to be a need for one. I don't think they'd have been considered to be awarding degrees at that time anyway; I don't think the concept existed. People would simply go there, and after studying for seven years or so would be considered a "Clerk of Oxenford" (as Chaucer has it). They could then be granted the title of 'Doctor', meaning the right to teach; but I don't think either of these was regarded as a qualification as such. It was simply that once you had been a Doctor (teacher) at Oxford, it was recognised widely that you were entitled to teach. It's probably true that Oxford and Cambridge didn't become universities as we understand the term until well after their known dates of foundation; but it's not reasonable to expect them to, because at the time there were no universities as we would recognise them.
The lack of a charter proved absolutely fatal for the nascent University of Durham both in 1539 and in 1657 (when the restored King - under pressure from Oxford and Cambridge - refused to continue the charter which actually had been issued by Cromwell); and similarly lack of recognition by the government and the established universities killed off for other early foundations in places like Northampton and Stamford, which I don't think are now generally considered to have been universities.
Aberdeen, incidentally, WAS founded with a charter, granted by the pope on the request of the King of Scotland; but in any case, as you or someone else said in an edit comment on the main article, Scotland is a separate jurisdiction. CNAA and the New Universities have a legal basis on which they are allowed to grant degrees and be considered universities, which can be considered equivalent to a charter; whereas the 1826 'University of London' had no legal standing as a University at all, it was simply a company with 'University' in its name.
I'm not wholly happy with the current text, because it essentially reads (to me at least) as "the University of Durham has been argued to be England's third oldest University, but actually there are some older ones". I think Durham has one of the better claims to being the third oldest, being the third (still existent) to gain degree-awarding powers, which I would regard as essential in the modern world to being considered a university. Without wishing to sound insulting, in purely legal terms the "University of London" of 1826, which was simply a company, had no more legal standing as a university than the people who email you and say "YOU CAN GET A MASTERS DEGREE WITH NO STUDY"; and I think this was recognised by them. All the references I can find seem to say that no degrees were awarded by this 'University' before the royal charter was granted. What were they doing? Well, teaching, studying; and waiting to award degrees, just as women attended Oxford for 42 years before the first one was awarded a degree.
If you choose to go by some metric other than legal granting of degree-awarding powers, then the question probably is unanswerable. You might have noticed that the new University of Manchester is using an "Est 1824" logo - which would seem to be a claim to predate UCL as well as Durham. They claim this because UMIST was descended ultimately from the Manchester Mechanics' Institute of 1824. If things like this are possible, then it's not unlikely that "England's third oldest university" could be founded now, if, say, Eton College or the Royal Naval Academy were to branch out into Higher Education (similarly, I think Oxford has four different 'oldest colleges', depending on which method you count by). However, I don't think that any company founded now with 'University' in its name would be considered one until it had attained some form of legal recognition and right to award degrees; and it still appears to me that no body before 1832 had this, so no other body could properly be considered a University before 1832. TSP 08:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not unreasonable - however I just disagree with you about the Royal Charter. Much of the impetus for the foundation of UCL was to break the Govt. of that day's power to impose a monopoly to grant degrees, which was being exercised on religious ground. It did this very well it seems.
I agree Durham has one of the better claims - but this is an ecylopedia - and that's all it is; a claim.
In all truth if it's this contentious an issue (and you say you have argued this numerous times) - and it would seem impossible to come to any true picture of what was really England's "third oldest University" - why not just leave it out?
Tried a slightly different form of words - although I think your summary of "been argued to be England's third oldest University, but actually there are some older ones" is actually, factually, pretty correct.

Perhaps it is only a claim; though any form which includes 'University' attached to UCL pre-1836 - like the form of words I originally reverted, and several of the ones we've been through during this debate - is ALSO a claim, and in my opinion a less well-founded (and, which is perhaps more important for Wikipedia, less widely-accepted) one. As you say, this is an encyclopaedia, and we are asked (in policies like 'no original research') to report only what is generally held to be true; in my experience Durham is considered England's third-oldest university more widely than UCL is, so I would be unhappy with any form of words (like the one I originally reverted) which baldly stated that UCL was an older University than Durham; but perhaps Durham's claim also needs to be clarified more.

I prefer your current version to any of the ones before it; though I'm not sure if the specific reference to London, rather than a general reference, is justified (in an article which is specifically about the University of Durham, rather than about Universities in general). Several institutions were founded around that time, including those from which the University of Manchester is descended; and while I think that UCL's claim is certainly the best after Durham's to be considered the third-oldest university, I would rather not put in a London-specific exception then have someone come in and add "...and Manchester" in a month's time.

I actually quite liked my most recent form: "It was founded in 1832, making it England's third oldest University after Oxford and Cambridge (though a number of other institutions without degree-awarding powers had been founded in the previous decade)." Certainly 'arguably' after 'making it' is an improvement - though it's a bit [[Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms|weaselly], if you like that policy... there might be a better turn of phrase - but the bracketed section seems to me to give as much detail as is required. As far as I'm aware, the 1826 University of London didn't award degrees; it only seemed to consider that it had gained this power on the awarding of a royal charter in 1836. UCL is an older higher education institution than Durham, certainly, as its own article says; but then various other institutions could also claim to be so. UCL was founded to open up University education to a greater range of people (so was Durham, incidentally; but Durham's aim was to open education to those barred from Oxbridge by the expense, rather than to those explicitly barred by Oxbridge entrance policies); and it succeeded; but I believe it only succeeded in being a university open to those people when it became part of a chartered university in 1836, not when it simply set itself up and claimed to be one in 1826.

I think this information in some form should be included, because it's notable that Durham was the third chartered, degree-awarding university in England; I think it's in general considered to be "England's third-oldest university" - to take an astonishingly unscientific test, all of the Google front-page hits for "England's third-oldest university" (with or without quotes) are about Durham - which would be still more notable, but perhaps that claim is too controversial to include, because its precise meaning is ill-defined. We just need to find the right form of words to get across all the notability without either unfairly either weakening the facts or making claims that aren't demonstrably true. TSP 13:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Tim. On an entirely random aside to an earlier comment, from [1] - the second attempt to found a university at Durham was quashed by Richard Cromwell not Charles II - a petition was presented to Richard, then Protector, from both the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, against it, and some were sent up from both Universities, to give reasons against a third University, and especially against conferring degrees there, which was much endeavoured by some. Whereupon a stop was put to it.. (This also means it'll have had to be quashed in 1658/9, although a date's not given) Shimgray 15:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That was unusually decisive for Richard Cromwell. Oopsadaisy. Makes no difference - I'd have looked it up if it mattered. PS: 'ello :-) TSP 15:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to delete the ref to U o L then get rid of the ref to Oxford and Cambridge?

Well, a reference to the University of London doesn't really seem appropriate - the current institution by that name definitely postdates Durham, even if, on foundation, it accepted within its ranks certain bodies predating Durham. Remove mention of Oxford and Cambridge? Possibly, though three is a sufficiently small number that, if mentioning a claim to be the third anything, it would seem natural to specify the first and second; this seems to me more appropriate than mentioning other 'competitors' for a particular title, particularly if they are multiple (in this case, for example, both UCL and KCL, and I suspect others, seem to have different claims to being third oldest). It's not an issue I feel strongly about, though.... TSP 03:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One issue that is being missed is that whatever the foundation dates of the constituent colleges are, London gained legal University status in 1836, Durham in 1832. Nottingham was established before these dates, but didn't gain University status until post WW2. The third oldest University isn't the third oldest institution to gain University status at some point - and UCL is not a University anyway, it's a college - it's the third institution to gain University status. That is unarguably Durham.

Removed Notable Alumni entry

I've just removed this line:

  • Christopher Betts (Hild Bede), Special Olympian Great Britain

from the Notable Alumni. Mr Betts doesn't currently have a Wikipedia page establishing his notability, and I can't find any relevant Google hits for him. This article says "Special Olympics, founded in 1968, holds more than 20,000 competitions around the world each year for its 1.5 million athletes." Being one of 1.5 million competitors is impressive; but probably not notable by Wikipedia standards. It's possible that Mr Betts is more than just one of these 1.5 million; but if so, this doesn't seem to have been established. Secondly, is he actually an alumnus? There's a Mr C J Betts who's a current Hild Bede student - is this the same person? If so - while a Notable Current Students list might be called for - he doesn't seem eligible for this one. TSP 12:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/r/Talk%7EDurham_University_Talk%7EDurham_University_Archive_1_d02f.html"