Talk:University of Oxford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article University of Oxford has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Oxford article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives

/Archive 1 — Dec 2002 to Feb 2007
/Archive 2 — Feb 2007 to Aug 2007


Contents


[edit] Admissions

This section, like several on this page, is inadequate. It deals with three strands: procedure, access, and scholarships, and so I propose dividing the section into these three subsections. Currently the information is badly organised and not up to the standard it should be.

I also feel that the mention of the 'English Class System' is anachronistic and out of place. Firstly, the capitalisation of 'English Class System' is slightly ridiculous, it makes it sound likes it's some government agency you can be referred to. So I think it should be removed. The quality of the three references to this section are also questionable. The first is just a BBC 'Talking Point' page which is just a collection of what random people think on the subject - hardly a quality reference. While it shows that Oxford admissions to raise controversy, it is not fact-based, rather headline-driven, and on top of that it is 7 years old and out of date. The second is a similar format (talking point) but is far more up to date (2006), and makes the first article redundant. The third also does not really make sense it relation to the subject matter; it is about academic tests, not the 'English Class System', and the mention of the word 'elitism' in the subheading is pretty much the only thing relevant. In addition, it is also a bit out of date (2004), talking in the future tense about admissions tests which are now standard and have been for almost two years.

Obviously there IS a degree of controversy surrounding Oxford admissions, and the university's Wikipedia article should mention this. I therefore think the Telegraph reference should certainly be saved, as it shows the existence of public debate on the subject. This page, however, is not the place for debates about social engineering, what Oxford should or should not be doing in its admissions policy - it should be about what actually happens. At present it is confusing and potentially discouraging for someone who might be interested in the university, only to be given the impression that the 'English Class System', whatever that is in this day and age, will act against them.

What do others think? Oudweg 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with this view. I would opt for keeping the Telegraph reference, in that case, and for including the others in support of a simple statement within the article along the lines of "Oxford University's admissions policy has caused public controversy in the past", for example. Surely there are HEFCE articles/reports which can be cited on this issue too, to illustrate current admissions levels (e.g. proportion of students of X minority or Y social background)? ColdmachineTalk 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with both of the comments posted here, a set of statistics would be very useful in describing that candidates from higher class families traditionally had a greater chance of admission to the University. Statistics comparing the admissions of 1907 and 2007 would be very useful in this context and maybe even a graph illustrating the increase in uptake of candidates from lower class backgrounds over the period of the last 50 years or so. Of course such information would be hard to obtain, assuming a log even exists. I agree with the removal of any information that has been obtained from a poor source such as the BBC 'Talking Point' page. 84.9.55.184 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Aren't the colleges limited in accepting foreign students? As I understand it, oxford and cambridge have to accept a high percentage of British nationals, but I see now mention of this... Trying to clarify this point. 71.233.44.171 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation

I've made quite an effort to streamline this section. There was much repeated material, often in an incoherent order that was unfriendly to the reader; hopefully now someone new to the university will find the section more useful.

The article is still quite a way from the quality it should be, though. Of the various things that need to be done, sorting out the massive list of 'institutions' (hopefully turning much of it a few paragraphs of prose) would be a high priority.

I think the "Students in Oxford" section should be moved to the article about the town of Oxford; it is not explicitly about the University, and rather adds space to an already long article.

Possibly a new section, maybe after 'Reputation', concerning plans for future development?Oudweg 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finances

The endowment figure cited near the top of the page of £3.6bn is supported by the Observer article cited. However, the Observer article doesn't source it, and it is inconsistent with the latest figures from the Oxford accounts (though these are split colleges and Uni). I have put the split figures in the finance section, which is sourced in its entirity to Can Oxford be Improved. However, the primary source for Coll endowments is here, and for Uni endowment here. Any thoughts as to how we resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.66.80 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This news story, from the University press office (Feb 2007) puts the central endowment at £900m, and the college endowment at £2.7bn, which would give the total of £3.6bn (as cited in the Observer). I'll change the Observer reference to this one. As for the Finances section, I'd be inclined to use the figures that the press office uses; the complicated structure of the university means there will always be bits and bobs not included in the primary accounts, and I think the figures cited by the University's press office are going to be those most easily comparable to other universities, rather than using primary sources than can be misinterpreted. I will change the figures in the Finance section to reflect this, mainly because I don't think it makes sense to have one figure in the infobox, and then a different one (implied) later in the article... what do you think? Oudweg 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

First an apology - I see my earlier edits were unsigned, which would have made it clear that I am one of the authors of 'Can Oxford be Improved', the source I cited. Sorry for not declaring the interest. I agree it makes sense to go with the University press release on the endowments, as Oudweg's changes do. However, this leaves the income figures unsourced. The Uni figures could be sourced to the Uni accounts, but as far as I know the only source for the Coll figures (at least residential income) is 'Can Oxford be Improved', since this was original research based on the individual coll accounts. However, I will pay my penance for earlier unsigned / intrested posting by letting others decide whether to re-source or delete the income figures. Now, let's see if I can do a better job of signing this time: Robkenny 18:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graduate and professional school

Does Oxford have specific professional schools for graduate studies like most American universities (e.g. School of Medicine, School of Law, etc.)? If not, how are graduate degrees in areas like medicine, law, or business awarded? W.M. O'Quinlan 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Law and medicine are undergraduate degrees. Graduate degrees (e.g. Master's, PhD) in these subjects are administered by the respective departments. There is the Said Business School for MBAs and the like. Badgerpatrol 14:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, of course, there are specific Graduate Entry Courses for Medicine (don't know about Law, but there may be). --79.64.19.54 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colleges

With respect to the constituent colleges, do they each have separate faculty? For example, could a student at Balliol College and a student at University College each be enrolled in the same class with the same professor? 76.182.116.210 14:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Teaching is based on expertise, across the University. This means if you take an option in a given subject, the chances are you will be sent for tuition with the expert in that area who may be resident at a different college. Faculties sort of transcend the colleges in this respect: tutors in a subject will be resident across a number of colleges; some colleges specialise in certain subject fields (for example New College is residence to the University's leading Greek historian, whilst Worcester College used to be resident to the University's leading Roman historian). ColdmachineTalk 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so how are the curricula organized? This issue is not clarified at all in this and related articles which focus too much on medieval and caste traditions. As in the United States, are departments organized by subject matter in each college or is that done on a university wide basis with colleges being as much residential and fraternal entities as they are academic units where people study? I became interested in this upon reading about the Claremont Colleges in the U.S. on Wikipedia wherein it was stated that they were modeled on Oxbridge. They are, however actually freestanding schools, unlike most sub-university colleges in America which are defined by subject matter eg College of Arts and Sciences, College of Engineering etc. Tom Cod 05:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Degree examinations are University affairs, as are the curricula for those examinations. The mecahnisms for drawing up these curricula, and lecturing in relevant areas are organised through faculties and (particularly in the sceiences) departments of the University. There reamins a pretence, more real in some subjects than others, that the purpose of a university education is deeper than examination hurdle-jumping, so the College teaching is not necessarily entirely examination-directed (although in some cases you might be hard put to it to see the difference). Dan Dean (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I shall explain by example... I studied Computer Science at University College (Univ), Oxford. This meant that I was affiliated to Univ for all my residential \ pastoral matters (college wide), and affiliated to the Comlab and Maths Institute (university wide). Most of my tutors were Maths or Comp.Sci. professors or postgrads holding fellowships at Univ. Most of my tutorials and classes were held in Univ. Sometimes, however, classes were organised for students of more than one college held at one of those colleges; this would generally occur on an ad-hoc basis. All my LECTURES were given by Comlab/MInstitute professors to everyone studying that subject in the University. All exams were set centrally by the Comlab/Minstitute. Not all colleges run all subjects. Some colleges are "better" than others for a subject, depending on how many they accept for that subject, and who they have teaching it. I hope this helps! 217.154.153.2 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox images

The University relaunched its website and branding on Monday 22 October 2007. Presumably in connection with this, User:Oxforduniversitypublicaffairs uploaded the new device and inserted it in the infobox.

User:Asyndeton reverted to Oxford's belted crest with the rationale 'the crest is far more important than saying 'University of Oxford' (since it's on this page that's kind of a given)'. That said, the new device does incorporate the crest.

Does Wikipedia have guidelines about how far we should try to use an organization's official branding? Omassey 21:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


If one follows the link to the university's logo site, you see that the logo has actually been redesigned and is different to the (now old-style) one that has been reverted to. Given that the change, by a user called 'Oxforduniversitypublicaffairs', occured simulatenously with the launch of a new website, I'd guess that we can take it as given that this is the university's new branding.

With regards to using an organisation's official branding, well, I'd say that the crest currently used in the article WAS the official branding - it has now been replaced. Therefore, we should either use the NEW version of the crest, or the 'Quandrangle' (as the University terms the blue square) - there's no rationale for using the old version of a crest which has been updated, even if you object to the inclusion of the words 'University of Oxford'. Oudweg 23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew that the university had revised its website design, but I didn't know that they had a new logo; I hadn't actually seen the site for myself. By saying that the crest was 'far more important' I meant that it deserved more prominence than taking up only a quarter of the infobox image, as it does in the new one and, as such, I reverted. I suppose if this is the new official logo, then it should be in the infobox, but I still think the old image, just of the crest, should be somewhere in the page. Apologies. asyndeton 10:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There is provision in the infobox template for two images - see Queen Mary, University of London. The fields are confusingly named but I've added the logo field to the box. If someone can find a good image file then the crest can go there. Timrollpickering 11:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay how does that look? Timrollpickering 11:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I like it. Good job. asyndeton 11:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverted back to the blue logo at the top, Soakologist had gone back to the old crest. As has been noted, it seems commonplace among British universities to have the logo commonly used at the top, and then the crest at the bottom of the infobox if at all (see LSE, Imperial, UCL, Warwick, QMUL, Bristol, Durham etc). If anything, it's Cambridge that should be changed. Oudweg 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the 'old crest' (belted device) was invented at the end of the 20th century when OU realised they didn't own the rights to their arms, and couldn't use copyright law to prevent commercial exploitation of the University's name and image by souvenir manufacturers, perhaps what we need is an article about the evolution of the University's public relations office and the University's souvenir tat production arm. 89.243.72.148 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The infobox still displays the (much nicer) old crest. How about using the logo found here? It's a re-vamped version of the crest (of dubious aesthetic value, by the way) which Public Affairs call "the logo", as opposed to the current image, which is called "primary brand device" -- whatever that means. Any thoughts? JREL (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I've put this article on GA hold. There's a lot to address, but I figured I'd give you a chance to fix things. I fixed a few things as I was going through (some of them were spelling things, which may have been me inadvertently changing British to English American spelling, so I apologize in advance for that if I made those mistakes).

Problems:

  • A lot of this article is uncited. I put {{fact}} tags on specific, dubious statements, but it's a systemic problem. "History," "Organisation," "Admission | Procedure," "Oxford in literature and other media," and "Notable alumni and faculty" have few or no citations.
  • A few organizational things. "Other students at Oxford" could be merged into "Organisation" (perhaps intact, as a subsection) and retitled, as it's not about other students, it's about other programs. "Affiliations" section down at the bottom -- it's only one sentence, and should be also merged into somewhere else, wherever it fits.
  • "Oxford in literature and other media" (I think simply an "In popular culture" could suffice as the section header) is a very rag-tag and sloppy section. Things shouldn't be in list form -- try to translate it into prose. It seems that there's enough material to start a University of Oxford in popular culture article, which would help a lot in terms of siphoning off material from this article. You could posit that new article as the {{main}}, which would permit you to only cover the highlights here as you see fit (rather than having to cram everything in).

Like I said, it's a lot to deal with, so I'm not sure you can fix it all within the week. If the GA does wind up failing, please feel free to contact me personally for another review once you've addressed these problems -- I've already had a look at the article, and I've also done FA work on university articles, so I'd be happy to take another look if you'd prefer not to wait in a weeks-long queue. Dylan 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Please place discussion/comments on the GA review here

  • I've had a go at restructuring some of the content as you suggest: the organisation section didn't seem appropriate for the independent institutions such as Oxford Brookes and Ruskin College, so I moved these under the existing 'Institutions' heading and renamed it 'Affiliates and other institutions'. I also moved the overseas student and mature students paragraph into 'access', and reworded it slightly. I'll have a go at finding more references in the meantime. If someone else wants to tackle the mammoth task of moving the Oxford in popular culture material off to its own article then feel free...! ColdmachineTalk 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, the nice thing is that you could just copy-and-paste dump that info into the new article, and then sort it out later. This article is the only one that has to look nice as far as GA goes. Dylan 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I've sourced some of the fact tags, leaving just two at the moment: efforts to attract working-class students (which is an important topic, and needs some thought in writing about) and one about the number of Oxford novels (533 as of 1989) – I was tempted to remove this whole sentence since that is such a old date to use, but I'll leave it in for now to see if anyone has any better source. I agree more work needs to be done on sourcing and tidying up. I've left a message at WP:OX and that may attract a couple more helpers. BencherliteTalk 14:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • All the names in the alumni and faculty section are now sourced. BencherliteTalk 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As suggested, I've moved the 'Oxford in culture' section to a new article. It was just a copy-and-past job, so the new article is not in the best of condition, but as has been said that does not matter as far as the main article is concerned. Oudweg 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

You guys have done some great work on this article! All my concerns have been addressed. One thing, though -- in the Reference section, I see a lot of redlink dates. They should be in YYYY-MM-DD format to default to user's settings. Dylan 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed! And thanks for the review. Everyone worked pretty hard on this, so I'm glad the nomination passed in the end! ColdmachineTalk 16:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degree titles

I am not sure that the use of D Phil does back to the middle ages. I think it goes back to about 1890. However, I do not know why Oxford selected this title and others, including Cambridge, selected Ph D. Of course the odd use of MA (license to govern) and BA (license to teach) do go back to the middle ages. I think this needs more research. --Bduke 00:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. I reworded the statement so it was less a case of WP:OR but I've removed it now, as an unsourced statement. Can always be added back when there's a reference to go with it, but for now with GA nomination underway it makes sense to rm it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to rv me! ColdmachineTalk 11:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro line

 The quality of this article or section may be compromised by wording which promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.
You can help Wikipedia by removing peacock terms or finding content which backs the claims.

I am bothered by the throwaway line "It is also regarded as one of the world's leading academic institutions." in the beginning of this article. First, it's in a massively passive voice. Regarded by whom? By me, yes. By you, probably. But that's not good enough. Just as bad, it's a peacock term WP:PEACOCK that serves little purpose. You don't need to say that it's regarded as such, the rest of the article should speak to that. Compare this to articles of other well known institutions- Harvard, Stanford, etc and you can see the difference. That little blurb probably shouldn't even be there, but if it is, it should be written more actively (i.e. the European Council on Education issued a report indicating that it regards Oxford as one of the world's leading academic institutions).Epthorn 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. "Peacock statements" that are universally acknowledged to be true aren't peacock statements. Oxford is one of the world's leading academic institutions; Shakespeare is generally considered the greatest writer in the English language; etc. Saying that the European Council on Education issued a report indicating that Oxford is one of the world's leading academic institutions creates the false impression that this report is stating something new and interesting, when in fact such a hypothetical report would merely be indicating something that is common knowledge and that everybody already knows and agrees about. john k 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See the Reputation section, which has referenced statements about Oxford being highly placed in international surveys of universities. This sentence is in the lead, not the body, and is there to act as an introduction to that section of the article (WP:LEAD). That said, if you can improve it, go ahead! BencherliteTalk 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually agree with User:Epthorn here; it can be considered a peacock term. If it's already testified to in the article body then it should perhaps be removed (i.e. its redundant). Personally, I think it should be reworded and supported by a source. That said, it's not worth edit warring over... ColdmachineTalk 22:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In the University of Cambridge article, which has a similar phrase in the intro, there is a link to the "Reputation" section of the article, where the claims are sourced. Bluap (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good compromise; basically as long as there is some sort of source linking to that sentence, I see no reason why it can't be included! ColdmachineTalk 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Probably - though of course everyone knows that Oxford is better than Cambridge :) Deb (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to make it a separate issue, but since it involves the intro paragraph I'll put it here: the intro describes the founding of Cambridge, saying "some of the academics at Oxford fled north-east to the town of Cambridge, while the Cambridge article says it was founded "by scholars leaving Oxford after a dispute with local townsfolk there". Though "fleeing" may be closer to the truth, there is a slight discrepancy, and this should be cleared up, maybe even by editing Cambridge's article (although that would seem a bit unfair). Crazy coyote (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The account of the founding of Cambridge University goes something like this (from my draft page on the history of CU): "In 1209, two Oxford scholars were convicted of the death of a townswoman, and hanged by the town authorities, with the apparent consent of the king. In protest at the executions, the University of Oxford (which would normally have held juristiction over prosecuting the scholars) went into voluntary suspension. Many scholars, fearing the hostility of townsmen, migrated to other cities. Some followed the Oxford Chancellor to his home town of Cambridge; others fled to Paris, or to Reading. Five years later, the University of Oxford reformed itself, and many of the dispersed scholars returned. However, enough remained in Cambridge to provide the nucleus of the new university" Bluap (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok that clears it up, thanks! Crazy coyote (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

--195.194.143.91 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post Grad Admissions

Does anybody know of an instance whereby somebody with a 1st class degree was rejected by Oxford for post-grad study? Similarly, does anybody know of an instance where by somebody with a 2.1 was accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.224.160.14 (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2.1 or Oxford Second Class were quite common in the 1960s when I was there. I'm not sure about now as Firsts are now more common than then. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot would depend on the subject. In subjects where grants are few and far between, someone would be unlikely to get funding for post-graduate study, whatever their initial degree. Conversely, in subjects where grants are plentiful, there are likely to be students with less good first degrees. Bluap (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Stupid question. How could anyone know? --79.64.19.54 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Know what? Deb (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I know somebody with a 2.2 who just finished his DPhil. BA results aren't everything. Take A.E. Housman...--195.194.143.91 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of my revert on 21st April

I've reverted to an earlier version of the page; the edits made in the meantime had all been reverted anyway but two still stood. One; the change to crest display. That still remains and was unaffected by my revert. Two; the change to the lead in removing the link to the section on reputation. I have reverted this edit because preliminary consensus was reached on the talk page regarding this and the edit was made in the face of that. Potentially controversial edits should always be discussed on the talk page...particularly in this case since many editors worked hard to get this article up to GA status. ColdmachineTalk 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Student numbers

In response to this edit, by 78.181.43.124 (talk · contribs), while I do not "think that HESA is more accurate", I do support the use of the same statistics across the UK. HESA publishes several data tables, and current convention is to use the table which counts every student individually. I have started a discussion at WT:UNI, to see if there is consensus for using FTE figures, but for the time being, I have reverted the above edit, to keep this article in step with other articles on British universities. Editors here may wish to contribute to the discussion. — mholland (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...I was just about to change it once again but I have decided to not to.(I did first but then took it back) Anyways the data is way more the actual data that was announced by the University itself.. <http://www.ox.ac.uk/about_the_university/facts_and_figures/index.html> is the source that shows the actual number of students. I suppose university itself would know better than some 3rd party statistics society. Also on HESA's website there are two completely different spreadsheets regarding Student Numbers. One of them matches the numbers on University's website. The other (the one you insist on using) is off by 6000 students in total. In my opinion that may either be students+faculty+staff or every single student matriculated(that means that those students who dropped the course also stays there..but according to university's policies when you leave the course, you are out!) or it may just be the number of students who were offered a place (including conditional offers which were not met) As a result, I suppose we should either use the data on ox.ac.uk or the other HESA data that I have suggested. Which both show total enrollment around 18k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.34.168 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First off HESA is not merely "some 3rd party statistics society", it is the recognised main source of data about higher education in the UK. And it gets its figures from the universities directly (with clear pro forma) - the differences between the HESA tables and the respective university publicity (Oxford is not the first institution where this query has been raised) are primarily down to how things are counted, including extra-mural students and whether part timers are counted per head or as a fraction (and more minorly over when in the year the figures are for). They're certainly not counting staff or academic departments. You may have a point about using a different HESA table but it should be standard across the board for UK universities for consistency and comparison - if we let each university article pick whichever table fits local impressions best then the information will be less useful overall. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to me to keep something wrong just because same mistake was made in other places...There is a CORRECT HESA table that we can use, if you are that picky about using HESA data tables. As I have said University itself states numbers much less than this and it quite matches HESA's other table. If you are that scientific and claiming that we can't use different methods for similar data in different places, you may call this a "systematic error" but you normally fix them as soon as you find them. SO I think we must fix these numbers! Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.32.48 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)