Talk:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
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. |
Somebody has to say it online sometime: the merger may have been a mistake.
There was some opposition from within UMIST, and attempts to gain concrete informaation about the likely impact on courses and staffing levels. However, that opposition was steamrollered.
Post-Merger
haha I love the bit about the lecturers leaving SOOOO TRUE!!....hey I know u were using the university wireless in uni at the time...wish I could buy u a pint :-(
[edit] Post merger
Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a message board for discussing the pros and cons of the merger. If you can find some proper source referring to a debate over the merger after the event (even just a student newspaer) then that might be relevant. Billlion 15:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
A comparison between league table positions pre and post-merger is surely a valid comparison to make? It's certainly the case that the university strongly disapproves of mention of UMIST (stickers with University of Manchester logos placed over UMIST logos, name changes for internal organisations with 'UMIST' in the name or acronym, even the U of M graduation policy ([[1]]) makes a rather patronising argument encouraging students not to get legacy certificates). It also cannot be denied that some class sizes have increased, a lot of (particularly ex-UMIST) lecturers left after the merger and that the league table positions for various subjects UMIST was particularly strong on (mechanical, aerospace, chemical engineering, textiles, computer science etc) have dropped since the merger. Recent building work at the site also shows significant bias towards for former Victoria University of Manchester campus.
Whilst it's not the place of an encyclopaedia article to get involved with the discussion, it must reflect the discussion that is going on. Certainly facts should be reported (league table changes, class size increases) and with evidence like [[2]] and [[3]] suggesting the picture painted by the university is not the entire story. Factgasm 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
A comparison of league table positions to make you argument is valid if it's true across multiple departmental areas. Saying one department dropped 9 places means nothing. I'm sure I could find the reverse (I imagine that Theoretical Physics would be one area that improved). Even years ago the University degree of UMIST was awarded by Manchester Victoria. So England wants to be America (everyone has to go to Uni).....I'm sure that can get discussed somewhere else. Wikinista 05:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Any variation in league table positions between now and before the merger results in some current students who enrolled in UMIST or VUM having their degrees devalued. This isn't acknowledged by the university, who even goes so far as to strongly suggest everyone gets a University of Manchester degree certificate. A single-department comparison is valid - the old UMIST department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering has been merged with the larger Manchester School of Engineering, resulting in significant increases in class sizes, many ex-UMIST lecturers leaving and the devaluation of the degree that ex-UMIST students obtain. Whilst some of that is anecdotal, it represents a definate opinion in the ex-UMIST students within the department. High-lighting the (significant!) change in league table position in the article would at least show some of the problems the merger has caused.
Factgasm 13:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am sure it is fine to quote the league table positions as facts. However any analysis of them to determine the effect of merger would constitute original research WP:NOR. Of course this debate is going on privately within the University, but until something verifiable is published it we cannot refer to the debate here. If someone wants to analyse the effect of the merger, get the results published in a newspaper or other verifiable source. Then we can refer to it here. It seems at the moment we have a a couple of quotes in another univerity's student paper, and the University's official statements. Anyone find anything else more substantial?Billlion 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- I found this story in the FT [4]
Manchester aims high to join the educational elite. Billlion 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello?!?!? Degrees were devalued when they allegedly reduced academic standards, lowered entry requirements, added "refresher" years, and of course made it a pre-requisite for every job that one has a degree -NOT when UMIST and Manchester merged!
The simple fact is that you say your degree was from UMIST, which was, until recently, awarded by University of Manchester Victoria. Both are now part of the Manchester University which is one of the biggest, largest and most profitable universities in the world. It wants to rank alongside Harvard, Yale, Oxford and London. A degree is a degree, its worth as much as you put into it. Wikinista 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
