Talk:Imperial College London
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imperial College London article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The content of Imperial College Halls of Residence was merged into Imperial College London on 2014-03-05. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
removing a statement
- This focus on technical and scientific subjects allows Imperial to compete with other, larger institutions such as Manchester, Sheffield and Bristol, all of which have to offer courses across the spectrum of academia thus diluting their overall impact on league tables.
I think this original statement is a bit of a misnoma as Imperial College is infact a large institution regarding undergraduate/postgraduate student numbers, and it is often incorrectly presumed to be a small specialist institution like the LSE. Also no institution is compelled to offer any courses they do not deem suitible, hence the comment of "have to offer" is incorrect. The main advantage is as a comparable sized institution with a lower number of key departments and subjects a greater emphasis can be placed on each, as typified by the seperate departments of Mechanical/Aeronautical/Electrical/Civil engineering that are often combined in other universities.
"as its name suggests" -> "as its previous name suggests" ?
The Imperial College Factsheet gives the ratio as 63.2:36.8. Would a better approximation be 6½:3½, or 13:7? This is also the value the Daily Mail uses in its table, 64:36. M Blissett 12:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- When quoting ratios it is always done with integers, so 13:7 (which is *way* better than the 13:1 of my day) --Vamp:Willow 14:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
ICSM - Imperial College School of Medicine
I didn't realise Imperial's medical school had such an outstanding international reputation as suggested by the article. I'd say of the London University medical schools Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' (King's College) or St. Barts and the Royal London (Queen Mary and Westfield College) would be held in equally high regard to either Imperial's or UCL's medical schools. Perhaps even higher amongst those in the medical sphere. In any case, Imperial College didn't have a medical school prior to 1998, but acquired it through the merger of two existing and separate University of London medical schools: St. Mary's Hospital Medical School and the Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School. These were in themselves prestigious schools of medicine, but seem to have lost their identities in the merger unlike the other London medical schools, which retained their distinct identities in their newly merged institutions after the mass amalgamation of the London Medical Schools with the multifaculty colleges of the University of London took place in 1998.
Imperial, with no existing medical school, merged with the St. Mary's Hospital Medical School and the Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School
QMW, like Imperial had no existing medical school, acquired The Royal London Medical College and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical School
King’s College, which already had a medical school (King’s College Hospital Medical School), merged with the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospitals.
UCL, which already had a medical school (University College Hospital Medical School), merged with the Royal Free Hospital Medical School and the Middlesex Medical School.
The only original London University Medical School which remains unattached to a multifaculty College or University is the St. George’s Hospital School of Medicine.
In response to the above, Imperial Medicine does have an outstanding international reputation. Have you talked to anyone in the 'medical sphere'? All London med schools are of a very high standard and very similar. Their strengths at the end of the day lie to a large extent with their hospitals. Imperial's, for that matter, are at the top of UK hospitals. UCL's also. You say Imperial didn't have a medical school and acquired it by the mergers. Your point?? How is that bad? The constituent schools have a history of excellence from the 19th century. Following a few years of sorting itself out after the merger, the new school has improved substantially. Mary's and CX were some of the finest med schools in the country and big rivals. CX merged with Westminster and the Royal Postgrad Med School and then with Mary's to form Imperial College School of Medicine. The hospitals and professors remained the same. Today, the course is of the most intense among UK med schools and this differentiates it from many other schools. You suggest that just because they are not in the name of the merged school, they lost their identity? That's irrelevant. They form the different campuses of the med school. The opposite is, in fact, true and could even be slightly negative. The campuses retain a lot of their original character; their strengths and teaching style and even the competition among them. The mergers between London unis and hospitals was an organized plan so that each uni got the hospitals roughly of its geographic area, if they weren't merged already. Imperial got northwest and it turned out they were damn good ones. Similarly the rest got theirs. The foundation schools also reflect that geographic arrangement.
To talk about the med schools, like any other school, you must consider both 1. their undergrad course and 2. their research. Imperial is at the top for both and many people believe the undergrad course at Imperial is one of the best (even UCL staff are known to admit it). But really schools are rather similar overall, it's more a matter of opinion on specific teaching methods. ex-ICSM student
Back in the day of separate medical schools, it was widely accepted that St Mary's and St Thomas' were the two most prestigous schools in London, with St Mary's being the most competitive (numbers wise). Now all but 1 of schools have merged with universities and/or other schools at some point, this doesn't dilute the prestige of the former schools at all. As for retaining separate identities, we will always have RUMS, Imperial students will always be the Mary's men, and King's medicals will always be GKT. Believe me it's not lost.
Central London (its not so much true as you move out) university hospitals, specifically the big 5, are clinically and academically the best institutions in the country, and each are specialists in different fields. I studied at UCH in the 90s and am now in ST resp medicine. So in my field, I can say that The Royal Brompton and National Heart and Lung at Imperial are world famous without a doubt.
Ignore published rankings, if you were to believe them then I suppose we should be mentioning Hull-York as being world famous too. Imperial and UCL are catagorically the best medical schools in London; I see F1 and F2 doctors from across the country coming to London and more often than not, you can hedge your bets with a London student over anyone else. I wouldn't rely on zealous students for any serious opinion that states otherwise. They're probably from Manchester or Peninsula and the like.
Do my edits get changed so fast?
something about the bars on campus (apparently ICU does something other than fund clubs and societies), including the late southside bar perhaps?