Talk:Anglia Ruskin University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anglia Ruskin University article.
Article policies
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 or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the following regions may able to help:
  • Essex
  • Cambridgeshire
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] Requested move

The University has now changed its name. [1] Timrollpickering 22:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Done, removeing template - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 19:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Two campuses to photo - it should be possible to get a better picture of the Cambridge campus front than the current one; one showing more of the Cambridge buildings would also be good. TheGrappler 17:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have you ever seen the Cambridge campus of ARU? This is probably the best photo of the place I have ever seen. There are really no good angles to photograph and there is quite little to see.
I do agree that there needs to be a photo of the Chelmsford campus. youngamerican (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been trying to upload a photo with no sucess. Any direction greatly appreciated.

[edit] Wrting style

This article is unbalanced. Three out of six paragraphs are dedicated to just one of the universityﾕs programs without any mention of the excellence or otherwise of any of the many other programs offered, or of the overall academic ranking of the university. In addition, the paragraphs dealing with Ultralab are written in a breathy, over-exaggerated style more suited to a glossy PR brochure than an ostensibly neutral encyclopedia. One wonders, in fact, which member of the Ultralab team wrote this article, and also why they bothered considering that Ultralab already has a separate page dedicated to it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.242.1.132 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Ultralab

It is well-covered in the Ultralab article. Only a mention is needed on this article. That fits with the WP:MoS. Additionally, the section reads like something from a PR statement and does not conform to npov. youngamerican (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Good compromise, User:Mjeave. youngamerican (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC
Agree. User:Julian 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syd Barret

Should he be listed a an alumni now he is dead? Don't really know how that works.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.69.207 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Patricia Scotland

Patricia Scotland (Baroness Scotland) is listed as an alumna of this institution, but in her own article it is stated that she is a graduate of London University. Does anyone know why Anglia Ruskin is laying claim to her? RomanSpa 00:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship with University of Cambridge

Some stuff needs to be written about the relationship between ARU and Cambridge. I know that a number of Cambridge student societies admit ARU students; some actively promote themselves at both universities. I don't know if there's much on the academic side though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M0ffx (talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] No mention of Technical College and School of Art

No mention of "Chelmsford Technical College and School of Art" period 1960's?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.174.133.41 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Also no mention of high suicide rate: 7 per year, compared with national average of 2.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nancyboy68 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
I'd like to confirm that Anglia Ruskin does not have a high suicide rate. As previously discussed, I have checked the stat with the University's Director of Student Affairs and he confirmed that Anglia Ruskin is not above the national average.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.255.149 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 2 July 2007 (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 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the rating from The Independant Review (104th from 106th) But surprise, surprise, it was removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nancyboy68 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Anglia Ruskin University's values

It is absolutely inacceptable to leave this section the way it is. Sounds like it was copied from the university's web site. "We are committed to..." sounds like an advert. Should be written in a more neutral, balanced way i think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nimes01 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unbalanced POV

As brought up several times below in the sections on 'Writing Style' and 'Anglia Ruskin University's values ' the writing style is unbalanced, full of 'we' statements that read like a prospectus, and un encyclopaedic. I don't have the time to re-write this myself but it urgently needs review. Thankyou. 217.118.114.3 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited this page to include the rankings as printed in the Independant. I was contacted by Anglia Ruskin University (Andrea Corporate Communications Manager T: 0845 196 4727) and asked to remove the statistic as it didn't show the university in it's best light! I thought this information was supposed to be unbias and neutral?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nancyboy68 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC).


Nancyboy was asked to remove the suicide comment as it was untrue. The Independent comment was left. Andrea.

[edit] Images

I'd love some direction how to put an image on this page, I've tried but it's been removed! Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Treeborker (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] History section ?

I'm tempted to raise the section called "history" into the introduction to offer the initial sentence some context. It seems a little odd to just start with that sentence then wait for the rest. Comments? Also, I moved the picture down. I agree some more may be useful but the layout was severely compromised. Bill Pollard 14:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links with Industry section

I'm considering some edits to this section. It seems to have an unbalanced POV, as mentioned here previously. SteveArnott 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Be bold youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independent reviews

No offers of independant reviews, such as [2] I did add the external link, but it was immidiately removed by Amanda Holland of ARU. --62.249.211.226 10:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced

I just wanted to add that this page is extremely unbalanced and reads like an advert. Negative aspects have been consistently removed from the page, and there should be more information on courses and links with Cambridge. I know there is a tag on there already for being unbalanced, but is there anything else we can do?Mrsradcliffe23 11:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that I should add, shortly after putting back the NPOV template, I received this message on my user page from MHolland:

I have recently made significant adjustments to Anglia Ruskin University in order to remove bias from the article. This includes the removal of a great deal of material, both positive and negative, and the improvement of referencing. If there is further information which you would like to see added, please add it, ensuring that you cite appropriate sources. Unsourced information, particularly unsourced negative information may be removed at any time.

I think this, if anything, confirms the neutrality of the wiki if negative information is going to be deleted. The implication here to me is that it will be deleted even if it is referenced if it is negative, as can be seen from the swift removal of the link to the Glasgow suicide bomber who attended ARU.

Wikipedia is a folksonomy, it is a shared encyclopedia, not a promotional tool. I am sure ARU has its own website for such things. Also, why has the unofficial guide been removed when it contained mostly positive things??Mrsradcliffe23 13:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Properly referenced information is always welcome. Unreferenced negative information is potentially libellous, and it is Wikipedia policy that it should be removed. I removed the link to unofficial-guides.com because it is an unencyclopedic, unreliable source containing unedited anonymous contributions. No other articles link to this website: it offers nothing in the way of statistics which cannot be obtained from a more reliable source, and a lot of unscholarly opinion. I would urge User:Nancyboy68 to reconsider adding it again. — mholland (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Positive unreferenced information may also cause problems, and yet that remains. Once again, the original creator of a wiki is not the 'owner' and does not possess editing rights. Such is the nature of a wiki; it is a collaborative document. Please also do not urge any users of wikipedia to subscribe to your will. I appreciate that you want only properly referenced information on the wiki, but one cannot simply remove referenced information if it conflicts with one's own views.Mrsradcliffe23 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any links to Anglia Ruskin, nor any particular desire to see positive or negative information omitted, but I agree with Mholland that the two 'Unofficial Guides'-style links are rubbish-links that should be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reasonable published sources, not any old chat site or online tittle-tattle. Most of the negative comments about ARU on one of the sites are from people who seem never even to have attended the University, but went to Cambridge instead. Should we include negative comments about Cambridge from ARU students on the Cambridge page?

I am, on the other hand, equally dubious about retaining the list of honorary graduates. Every University has honorary graduates, who are - by definition - celebrities or achievers in some field, but they have very little real connection to the University, and there seems no reason to list them unless they are in some way more notable than usual (Kermit the Frog received an honorary degree from a University in the States, for example, and that seems unusual enough to warrant mentioning). Stephen Fry's comments - although they may have been intended to be funny and polite rather than anything else - might just about warrant keeping, but the general list of honoraries is probably not worth retaining. ThomasL 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you were right to remove the unofficial links. Also, thanks for putting the English stats. up there - I was just about to comment that the English Department did very well recently.Mrsradcliffe23 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the honorary graduates list, but for the moment have retained the quote from Stephen Fry. I'm really not sure if that should be included (as Stephen Fry probably knows as little about ARU as those Cambridge students in the 'Unofficial Guide' links), but I'll leave it to others to decide whether it should stay or not. ThomasL 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a funny quote, but might be too snarky towards Cambridge U. It might be a good candidate for being moved to Wikiquote. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Hello, I've just added a reference from the guardian newspaper to substantiate one of the points raised. Many thanksMrsradcliffe23 13:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow suicide bomber

Please note that I removed the link to the Glasgow suicide bomber as, at this time (13 July 2007) identities are still unclear. We have issued the following press statement "We are aware of media speculation about possible links between recent events at Glasgow Airport and one of our research students. We are co-operating fully with the police in their inquiries. At this time identities are still unclear and it would, therefore, be inappropriate to comment further."

We will issue another press statement as soon as the police confirm identities.

Corporate Communications Manager, Anglia Ruskin University—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.255.149 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please understand that Wikipedia has strict editorial standards, governing what can and cannot be included in an article. In this specific instance, it has been widely reported that Kafeel Ahmed, a man who set himself on fire last week, took his PhD at Anglia Ruskin. This article can and should reflect that, with links to appropriate sources.
Please also understand that editing articles related to you, or an organisation that you represent is strongly discouraged.
In light of the above, I have reverted your removal of the relevant information, and I would encourage you to read the page I have linked to above, and also Wikipedia:About, to learn more about contributing. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unbalanced tag.

I have now removed the unbalanced tag that I originally put on this wiki as it now reads more neutrally. There are good points and bad points, a general summary and proper references. If anyone disagrees please leave a message here Mrsradcliffe23 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article protected

I've given the article full protection for the time being so that users can sort out which rankings by which papers should be used and whatnot. y'am'can (wtf?) 17:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add the following text in regard of the reputation and ranking:

Recent evaluation discrepancies were noted. The Guardian University Guide 2008 ranked Anglia Ruskin 72nd of 119 institutions in UK, a gain of 32 places compared to last year ranking.[1]. However, The Sunday Times University Guide ranked Anglia Ruskin 123 over 123 institutions and the The Times Good University Guide ranking was 104 over 123 institutions.[2]. The Sunday Times University Guide rely heavily on the undergraduate student evaluation performed annually. Anglia Ruskin fared "comparatively badly" mainly due to poor ratings for teaching organisation and management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siberian36 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This year Sunday Times classification makes no sense in regards of Anglia Ruskin and I think it arm the school to publicize unjustified ranking. The article does not discuss any reason for this arbitrary ranking.

The university has made substantial investment in the last 5 years and most experts are positives about all the change occurring the and progress made recently. The school will be evaluated again in 2008 by the UK QAA and we should wait when the report is public prior making any false judgments on the school. This is armful not only for the school but also for the graduates and the students.--Siberian36 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

The Sunday Times University ranking is basically based on NSS survey which even students from University of Cambridge are saying that results are meaninglessness. I think we should be very very sensitive to this issues since it may have some impact on graduates and student. www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/campaigns/education/nss/--74.58.144.22 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

NSS survey is widely contested and boycott by a lot of student unions. Please refer to :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Student_Survey http://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/campaigns/education/nss/

This is not in my opinion a fair assessment of university ranking.--Siberian36 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


The current form of the section regarding the reputation and rankin is incorrect and must be revised properly. The current form is not acceptable. I have made suggestions and would like to see some sort of implementation in order put different aspect into perspective. Sunday Times Rankin is not a university ranking, it is base on student survey that are vastly boycott in UK.--74.58.144.22 (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Recent evaluation discrepancies were noted. The Guardian University Guide 2008 ranked Anglia Ruskin 72nd of 119 institutions in UK, a gain of 32 places compared to last year ranking.[3]. However, The Sunday Times University Guide ranked Anglia Ruskin 123 over 123 institutions and the The Times Good University Guide ranking was 104 over 123 institutions.[4]. The Sunday Times University Guide rely heavily on the undergraduate student evaluation performed annually. Anglia Ruskin fared "comparatively badly" mainly due to poor ratings for teaching organisation and management.--Siberian36 (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Give it a go. y'am'can (wtf?) 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made the modification. hopefully this will be more representative and provide the adequate information. Thank you for your time.--Siberian36 (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Siberian, neatly written. I'm Sure the PR department at ARU will soon remove any rankings which show them in a bad light though, and probably replace it with a cut and paste from their prospectus! Nancyboy68 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the bit on the NSS - you can't really use Wikipedia as a reference within Wikipedia, and even that article points out it's only CUSU that actively boycotts the NSS. Incidentally, have you got a source for the Sunday Times ranking being "basically based on NSS"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.40.1 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)