Talk:University College London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A mortarboard 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.
"The Albert Memorial" - the London Portal's current "Showcase Picture" This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University College London article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Golden Triangle

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)

Hello Everybody, I got a solution about the Golden Triangle issue. 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 by 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)

[edit] Russell Group funding

Does UCL really account for over 40% of the Russell Group's funding? There are 20+ universities in the group, do the other 19+ just share the remaining 60%!? Salamander4000 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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'!

This is all getting out of hand, and is a complete distraction to the article, which now looks like the result of much petty bickering. I have simply excised the following section and referred to the footnote. Note that Durham is a distraction: it received its Royal Charter in 1837, after UCL. --stochata 15:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Its legal status as a university-level institution thus postdates that of Durham (founded 1832); however because it was actually founded in 1826 it is often considered the third oldest university in England, after Oxford and Cambridge. It has also been claimed that, since the charter of King's College London (granted in 1829 in a reaction by the Church to the foundation of UCL) predates that of UCL by five years, UCL should not even be regarded as the oldest college in the University of London.
To muddy the waters even further... although Kings got its charter first, this doesn't make it the oldest college in the University of London as UCL got its charter as the university of London, which later absorbed Kings as a college subserviant to UL. UCL then became The University College, recognising its position as the founding college of the University of London. This makes UCL the oldest college and as Kings isn't a university anymore - it is a college of the University which UCL was before the merger, this leaves the University of London as the oldest, of which UCL is the longest serving continuous member. All part of this muddle between the colleges thinking they are more than colleges...MilleauRekiir 13:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't also forget the claim of University of Wales, Lampeter ( "after the ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and those in Scotland, it is the oldest university institution in Britain, receiving its first charter in 1828" [a slightly muddled wikipedia sentence]) as third oldest. mervyn 08:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Durham isn't totally a distraction; its foundation in 1832 was by act of parliament establishing it as a university, which is why it's the other institution (along with UCL) most often referred to as "England's third-oldest university", even though its charter wasn't issued until after UCL's. It basically comes down to what you think is required to be considered a 'university', which is not necessarily objectively answerable. The current text seems pretty NPOV, but I just wanted to note what the situation is with Durham in case future editors are confused. TSP 09:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The University of Wales, Lampeter is a different matter altogether - it claims to be the third oldest degree awarding institution in England and Wales, which is probably quite accurate - but we are just talking about the oldest institutions in England here. 217.43.124.64 14:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, TSP, you are quite right to mention Durham, and I have now edited the footnote to at least include a mention (although perhaps we also need to mention University of Wales!). On the NPOV, yes, I hope we're finally getting there. I'm would be happier if it didn't mention "3rd oldest" at all -- I hope you will agree that the "Founding" section reads much better sticking to the historical dates and not mentioning it! Having said that, we also need to ensure that a bold editor doesn't think that the issue has been entirely missed. --stochata 13:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [2]. I'll delete it, unless anyone objects. Jihg 18:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] '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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] New logo

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 up myself because I don't know the legal status of using it. --stochata 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, we used the old one without any problems. I've included a version of the new logo (Image:UCL-logo-new.png). Should we keep the old logo in somehow? Jihg 02:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should also add that they royally flushed £600,000.00 down the toilet to come up with that new design.--Sennaista 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naming individual research groups

I've removed the following text from "Founding and Development". Not only is a "famous research centre" not part of the "founding and development", there are many famous research centres in UCL. Listing them all is possible, but I suggest it is done on another page, keeping this page at an institutional level. --stochata 19:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

and it famous for its research output as it is ranked 3rd in research in United Kingdom. One of its famous research centres is the Clinical Operational Research Unit(CORU)http://www.ucl.ac.uk/operational-research/staffcsj.htm which applies Operational Research for monitoring the efficient use of resources in hospitals. CORU is hosted by the Department of Mathematics of UCL but it is funded by the Department of Health of the U.K. Government. The director of CORU is Professor Steve Gallivan.

[edit] UCL Union

"and is also constitutionally forbidden from being tied to a political party. Candidates for positions cannot campaign on party tickets" - when did this happen? When I ran for a sabbatical in the early 1990s we ran on party platforms. Secretlondon 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slade school of art

appears to have no mention, or article. It was I think independent, and wanted to link Reg Butler to having been head of it. Some idea of official title, and position in UCL now would be useful. Justinc 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Bartlett School of Architecture also needs a mention. Secretlondon 19:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiki entries exist for both Slade School of Art and The Bartlett, but aren't that informative. This raises the question of at what point individual departments (or research centers) should have their own entries or be mentioned on the main page. Someone recently added the "Clinical Operational Research Unit" to the main page (see above), which hardly seemed to merit an entry. --stochata 15:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends a bit on history etc. The Slade was founded independently and was absorbed into UCL, while the CORU is just a department. Justinc 17:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

the Slade School is very important historically for art eduction, just look at the list of artist to come out of it Artlondon 11:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni Page

Fellow Internet Nerds,

I have added an Alumni section which I think given the status of this university is much needed and adds some interest to the page. I have added only those I know of please continue the process.

Thanks--195.93.21.101 00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_College_London_people#Famous_alumni

PRB 10:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kings Playing Football with Jeremy's head

This is false and I have edited it as such. One of my jobs at ucl whilst a student was to provide tours around the campus for prospective students and so I got training in the history of UCL and told interesting stories to tell. The story of the head whilst funny/interesting is completely false. It seems to be one of those things which gets told so many times that it becomes accepted fact, so deserves a mention but I have edited the text so that it is clear that it did certainly not happen.

-- I have edited out the part where it said "This is almost certainly not true", as it is a very long running rumour/legend, and can almost certainly not be proven either way. To say "Certainly not true" is opinion. Darren

[edit] Founding and development

The long section entitled Founding and development really needs splitting up into shorter sub-sections with suitable titles. This will make future edits easier, and is also more pleasing to the eye. As this is somewhat "off topic" for me, I trust someone else will find time to make these improvements. DFH 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campus networking

Why does the "Campus Networking" section go into so much detail, about the price of internet vouchers, the structure of usernames, and so on? This is surely only of interest to students at UCL, who are provided this information in their packs of documentation and on the UCL web site. I've found no other university or college with this level of detail. (JRL)

-Voted to remove because this is not of relevance to anyone but those members of the university who have more accurate information provided in other methods. This content was originally added by an unregistered user [3].

[edit] Auto Icon

I have removed the addition to the article that states that the Jeremy Bentham auto-icon was sold on ebay with a reserve of 7.1 million and that it did not reach that amount. The Auto icon was never sold on ebay officially (perhaps it was a joke) and the auto-icon cannot be sold on ebay by UCL to cover any budget deficits. This is because of two things one: UCL is not in a deficit (UCL is actually one of the most profitable UK learning institutions of 2006; because they are so frugal) and second: because the auto-icon does not belong to UCL outright, but to a foundation. Jeremy Bentham and the Auto-Icon are part of UCLs regulations - he must be present at all meetings of the heads of university. It is most likely that this ebay sale as a very amusing joke, in which case it should be re-written as such and placed in the trivia section. This claim must however all be supported with fact, a source for example and unless it is so, I will continue to revert when it is re-added to the article. Harry Harris 11:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the ebay sale (blatantly sounds like a student prank in response to UC's recent financial problems) but I believe the story about JB being wheeled out for college meetings is apocryphal. Badgerpatrol 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No really, they wheel his body into the boardroom and they bring his head up from the safe and put it on the desk ;) Harry Harris 10:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't even want to have a guess at which bits they might use as paperweights... ;-) Badgerpatrol 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I work at UCL and attended a lecture by Negley Harte and John North, the authors of the official history "The World of UCL 1828-2004", at the time that edition was published. They insisted that the story about the autoicon being regularly wheeled into meetings was a myth. It only happened at the centenary (1926) and sesquicentenary (1976) of the College, and doesn't happen today.The autoicon was loaned to a museum abroad a few years ago, and I passed by while they were removing it from its display case to be packed for shipment. This was done with enormous care because of its fragility - not something that could be done on a regular basis. 86.142.178.106 15:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's obviously a myth- the above interchange was tongue-in-cheek. Badgerpatrol 19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ebay sale has never taken place but was in fact suggested in The Cheese Grater Magazine in October 2006. Nonetheless - UCL IS in deficit. Clearly the College is not as frugal as Lord Harris would like to think, a recent London Student article highlighted the fact that the operating budget was passed in June of this year with a £10 million deficit in mind. The Finance Committee minutes are freely available online at www.ucl.ac.uk and they too confirm this. In fact the large number of disgruntled staff can also confirm that UCL is in the red - after all 15% of them will be losing their jobs because of Malcolm Grant's efforts to reverse the fortunes of the University. False Light

Sorry I cant let that one go unrefuted. Firstly my comments were about the falsesale of tha auto-icon. I however was right in saying that UCL has for a long time been in surplus and will be by the following financial year in a surplus again.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/finance/report_accounts05/report_account05.pdf

In 2005 UCL had a 4.4 million surplus. It is in fact one of the most financially stable members of the University of London and it is widely supposed is the only member who may be able to buy out the UL properties in the coming years. They have recently spend a vast amount of money on new building projects such as the panoptican. The UCL finance division predicts that by 2007 UCL will have a budget surplus higher than anything it has ever had.

As for this 15% of staff losing their jobs, its completely ridiculous, I would like to see some evidence that supports that statement. The 15% actually refers to staff costs - not job losses. UCL is committed to reducing its expenditure on ancillary staff by 15% - that doesnt mean firing 15% of its workforce, that means reducing wages by 15% or letting a small amount of staff who are not needed go to raise that 15%. If they fire any staff it will be because they have been far too greedy in the past year demanding increased wages when they actually recieve one the highest salaries for many of their job categories in the UK! Furthermore its considered courtesy to sign name and date using tildes, when you reply to a discussion. Harry Harris 10:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. We'll start with the job cuts - to call academics too greedy is foolish. Pay rises for lecturers amount to a 3% increase over the last decade - this is minimal when compared to the rate of inflation and rises in other similar job sectors. The only greed I detect is the fact that when the bill for top-up fees was introduced, at least a third of the money generated was promised to lecturers to go towards their pay. Presumably it lined the pockets of the Vice Chancellors of UK universities instead.

Moving on to the 15% job cut proposals. You obviously haven't been doing your reading properly - the reform proposes that 375 jobs must be cut by 2008 in order to prevent financial losses. Hardly the "small number" of staff you suggest. I will admit to being wrong about an actual 15% loss of staff, that was an oversight when I replied in the discussion. Nonetheless - 375 will have a detrimental effect on services, facilities and courses. If UCL is as frugal as you claim it to be, perhaps the College Executive should reconsider blowing £0.6million on its bland corporate logo.

Finally, UCL IS IN DEFICIT. URL: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/committees/finance-committee/

The latest Finance cCommittee report, viewable by all UCL Staff and Students clearly states that the College is operating at a loss. Indeed, they even had the foresight to propose a £10.1 million deficit for the next academic year. 88.109.27.14 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

£600,000 is completely justified for a new logo! I mean it took like 3 minutes to draw and instead UCL could have purchased 40,000 new books for their libraries. How can you not love UCL in every way? LordHarris 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third oldest university debate article

I have now created Third oldest university in England debate to try to explain all the debate about whether it's Durham, KCL, UofL or UCL. This was mainly because attempts to explain it on the individual articles were getting out of sync (e.g. both the Durham and King's articles were asserting the claim as fact in the main article, whilst a footnote on King's mentioned the point of the Charter and was added to by an anonymous user asserting that the London School of Economics proves an institution doesn't need a charter to be a good university!). I think it would work best if the detail and explanation for this is kept on one page. Please come and help enhance the article. Timrollpickering 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bentham's role

The article claims "The philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) is considered to be the spiritual father of UCL as he played a major role in the development of the college. Whilst he is often credited with founding the college, Jeremy Bentham played no part in the establishment of the institution." So he was heavily involved in its development but not its establishment - what does this mean he did exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] first to admit women?

The line "It was possibly the first to accept women on equal terms with men (the University of Bristol also makes this claim - as both were admitting students to University of London degrees at the time, it is quite possible that this was a simultaneous action)" sounds like its a claim that hasn't been verified and it seems really quite odd to give a speculative explaination of the inconsistency in the UCL and Bristol pages. UCL claims that it "bec[ame] the first British educational establishment to admit women on equal terms with men" in 1878 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl/history Whereas Bristol claims that it admitted women on "an equal basis" in 1876 and was the first to do so http://www.bris.ac.uk/university/history/ It could be pointed out that the University of Bristol wasn't founded as such until 1909, so UCL was the first university to admit women on equal terms as men but the former University College Bristol was the first educational establishment to do so (which...would suggest that that UCL's claim is incorrect). However, its made obvious later in the same Bristol page that classes and academics were gender segregated at the time ("the first woman lecturer, taught ladies during the day") and that there was no halls of residence for women until 1909, so depending on what is thought to count as "equal terms", UCL's claim might be more accurate if its terms were more equal. Anyways it does again just seem weird to speculate that it was a "simultaneous action" as part of the UoL and this is from their websites, clearly not the case.

Looking at the relevant bits of Negley Harte's The University of London: An illustrated history (page 126 onwards) women were admitted to degrees in stages by quite a campaign throughout the 1860s and 1870s. In 1869 separate exams were initiated for women and following a supplemental Charter in 1878 women could be admitted to degrees in all faculties. The first non-sexist exam was in 1879 and the first women graduates in 1880. Page 132: In 1878 University College became the country's first co-educational institution... followed by details of how women had been gradually integrated since 1868 (slowly bringing the lectures into the college premises), with from 1871-2 gradual mnoves were made towards mixed classes, first in art and political economy.
My semi-stab in the dark is that Bristol in 1876 was doing segregated teaching, albeit with identical entry requirements, wheras UCL in 1878 seems to have been an actual co-educational institution. Timrollpickering 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UCL buildings

Is the list of "notable" buildings, actually significant or is it just every university building that exists? I fail to see how student residence buildings are "notable". If no answers I will remove them from the list next week.

It is not a list of every building, but a comprehensive list of UCLs largest buildings and the main departments and student residences. They are notable in being a major element of the University College Built Environment, which is why they are on this page. Next time please sign your name and new comments go at the end of a talk page. LordHarris 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I have made a new template to link university articles together.

v • d • e
University College London

Because the UCL article was getting too long, I have aslo created a seperate page for the large UCL history section. LordHarris 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faculties?

I suggest there should be a category which lists the names of faculties/departments UCL has (with URLs directly linking to the UCL faculty website). UCL is an academic institution and it seems that the wikipedia page does not talk much about the academic aspect of the uni at the moment... Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.219.167 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Position of [edit] links under Firefox and Safari

I don't know if this is just a problem with this page, or with MediaWiki styles in general, but when using Firefox (PC or Mac) or Safari on the Mac, the [edit] links do not appear by the section headings from "History" to "Museums and collections", and then a bunch of them turn up in the middle of the "Campus Networking" section. Rueful Rabbit 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem by putting the images within a <div> tag as recommended at WP:BUNCH. Rueful Rabbit 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to LordHarris for fixing my fix by removing the right-allignments on the individual images. Rueful Rabbit 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge of Bentham Club

I think that the Bentham Club page can be expanded rather than merged. 16 scholar and 4 news archive, and 6 worldcat hits for "Bentham Club". There is further room for expansion by including "Bentham House", with 2 news archive and 49 google scholar hits distinct from those returned by "Bentham Club". John Vandenberg 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Feel free to remove the tag and expand the article. Part Deux 01:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUniversity_College_London_db99.html"