Talk:Golden Triangle (UK universities)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
Contents |
[edit] Golden Triangle
My Previous Confusion that I posted at UCL's discussion page "I came to know from the web that Oxbridge and UCL-ICL-LSE are considered as the member of Golden Triangle (GT). But, later on from a wiki page I got to know KCL is also with in the GT. Some other page said, as LSE is not strongly involved in the research work and GT is a research based grouping, ICL-KCL-UCL are the best choice as the member of GT from UofL. So, I became confused. This article also says KCL is a member of GT. Which one is true ? Please discuss. - Niaz bd 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)"
Finally I got the solution. I found a pdf file at UCL's official webpage written the following lines. "Imperial College, King’s College, the LSE and UCL are all in the small group of leading universities in the UK and with Cambridge and Oxford are sometimes referred to as “the Golden Triangle”." The future of the University of London: a discussion paper from the Provost of UCL, Malcolm Grant, President and Provost, UCL. (p.6)
I guess, this may bring a solution about the Golden Triangle issue.
Here is the link of this PDF [1]
Niaz bd 06:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm highly sceptical about KCL's inclusion. It can be said without much debate the LSE, ICL (as specialist institutions) and Oxbridge and the very top four universities in the UK. UCL is next. But KCL has been overshadowed in recent years by the likes of Warwick, York, Durham, Bristol etc.
Nonesense. KCL has a global reputation, in North America and Europe and Asia. Its name is taken to mean quality. The likes of Bristol et al cannot be deemed as equal. Not in academic reputation and marque value.
- Okay the use of the term "Golden Triangle" is confused because AFAIK there is no official definition or even general agreement on just what the London angle encompasses. Everyone seems to include Imperial and UCL, but beyond that it depends upon the individual user's preferences/biases. I've seen it limited to just Imperial/UCL as well as being used for the full University of London (some other college faculties rank just as highly as some Imperial/UCL ones), with various combinations of colleges in between. Timrollpickering 16:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I tried a lot to find the actual data when I started this discussion page and also started to extend this golden triangle article in 2006. But, I could not find the stuffs. If anyone have the data (distribution of research funding) please post it here. It may help us to make an end regarding KCL debate. It's me who included KCL as a Golden Triangle university in Wikipedia. So, I am personally feeling guilty until I get any authenticated data. I include KCL based on a source which I found while searching UCL page. I have mentioned the link also. Still, I have doubt regarding the matter and waiting for any constructive reply.
Another thing, please post your new discussion section at the bottom of the page as it helps other to get the flow. It is also a common practice at Wikipedia.
Niaz bd 05:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Golden Triangle refers to research funding...
I believe that, the term "Golden Triangle" actually refers to the universities with the most research funding (by far), rather than the most prestigious universities, (the 'golden' part refering to money)...meaning Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial, with Kings sometimes being included (having considerably less research funding than Oxbridge UCL and Imperial, but considerably more than the other unis), but LSE never being included as it doesn't have exceptional research funding despite its prestige.
A guardian article here defines it this way: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,968896,00.html "The golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge, University College London and Imperial College, show no sign of slowing down in their race away from the rest of the sector when it comes to research funding. " Including Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial but excluding KCL ad LSE.
A New Scientist article here defines it this way, also not mentioning Kings College London or LSE. http://www.newscientistjobs.com/insider/article.action?article.id=insider132&focusId=u
Here, Bristol University Vice Chancellor Professor Eric Thomas again, refers to the "Golden Triangle" as the best funded universities http://www.bris.ac.uk/university/vc/financial-times.html "Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, University College London and, possibly, Kings College London - the "Golden Triangle". ", notably excluding LSE and indicating that Kings College London's status in it is questionable.
The grouping of universities refered to as the "G5" (Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL and KCL) as a sub-group within the Russel Group, refers to something different.
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/events/hecu3/documents/frederico_matos.doc.
- LSE does have exceptional funding - it has the highest funding for social sciences (hence its place in the Russell Group) but because it doesn't do science (where most of the money is) its total funding level is significantly lower on the lists. One could interpret it either way. Timrollpickering 08:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- This point about research funding is correct, and on that count KCL is certainly a leader: its research revenues are around £100m annually.--Duncan 12:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Golden Diamond?
How should we relate to the rise of manchester after its merger? UCL, for examples, refers to a 'golden diamond' [2] and this useage is widespread [3]. It's also interesting that UCL tries to introduce a further qualifer: performing well in research funding across all areas (to reduce the standing of Imperial's science focus, LSE's leadership in social science and KCL's focus on medicine and the humanities. --Duncan 12:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- And the first page of the Google search includes one page talking about the Triangle becoming a Diamond and another talking about the Diamond being shattered! To be honest we're dealing with terms that have never been official or completely defined (i.e. the London angle) - a lot of the usage seems to be in specific subjects so in, say, the sciences (where this term seems to be most popular) the inclusion or not of LSE is irrelevant. One has to wonder if the term is really used to raise or diminish the relative standing of institutions as part of institutionalism egotism. Timrollpickering 12:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] King's excluded from list
If you're going to mention that King's has decided to stay in the UofL for the time being, you should also mention that LSE and UCL are no longer considering leaving UofL. What evidence do you have to support the assertion that the UofL has stated that King's is a part of the Golden Triangle as insurance against institutions such as LSE and UCL leaving? It was the provost of UCL's statement that IC/UCL/LSE/KCL made up the London part of the triangle which this article has based its information on. The Golden Triangle also does not refer to the G5, as you suggest, which refers to a group of five universities within the Russell Group--you are welcome to create an article about the G5. Since the Golden Triangle refers to -research money--, please stop cutting KCL out of this article; please create an article on the G5. Also, where has the article gone which listed KCL as part of the Golden Triangle?
The University of London (UoL) has no authority to state who is entitled to be classed as a 'Golden Triangle' institution. Indeed, it is in its interests to increase the number of its institutions that it classifies as being included, especially as ICL will be leaving UoL later this year, and LSE and UCL threatening to do the same. If LSE and UCL also left, the UoL would have none of the G5 institutions remaining, and therefore it is attempting to impose the Golden Triangle badge onto Kings (who have stated they want to remain as part of the UoL). This UoL document is a biased source which cannot be relied upon.
88.107.168.156 11:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is King's often excluded from this list? To my knowledge the school has the fifth largest research budget for universities in the UK, and has a strong reputation which is growing (see recent THES world rankings, where King's went up 30 places to 46th in the world in the past few years). I realise that UCL, IC, and LSE seem to make up the top 3-5 universities in the UK, but why exclude King's from this list, when it is clearly amongst the top research universities in London?
[edit] KCL and SOAS
It is interesting what is written below. I think that most people would agree that SOAS has a much stronger reputation than King's. (So, too, does the Courtauld Institute and the Royal Academy and Royal College of Music). Maybe they are considered too small to be golden triangle candidate? Maybe their smallness means they get less money.--AlexanderLondon 20:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that most people would think that SOAS has a much stronger reputation than King's College. King's College was a founding member of the University of London, is much larger than SOAS, has greater funding than SOAS, and is a member of the Russell Group. It is commonly referred to as being in the "Big Four" of London universities, along with UCL, London School of Economics, and Imperial College.
If entry requirements are considered SOAS would not be equivalent to KCL given that it's entry requirements are low. History at KCL for example requires AAA at A-level I believe as opposed to BBC-BCC at SOAS. SOAS and the other named institutions are also very specialist, their research is not as broad as KCL. Subject rankings for KCL are very high and overall it usually comes above the other institutions. --Disillusioned- 14:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
