Talk:University of Bristol
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Bristol article.|
|University of Bristol 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|Current status: Good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia CD Selection|
- 1 Merchant Venturers' technical school
- 2 Peer Review
- 3 Student numbers...
- 4 League tables
- 5 Image:Ubristol-logo.svg
- 6 Hood colour
- 7 2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy
- 8 File:University of Bristol Victoria Rooms, Department of Music.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 9 Introductory Statements
- 10 Bristol Wiki Meetup
Merchant Venturers' technical school
I think that the first paragraph should include a reference to the Merchant Venturers’ Technical College (founded as a school 1595 and which became the university Engineering faculty . Only an English university would fail to mention such a legacy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
A peer review has taken place on the article allowing it to be ripped apart or allowing constructive criticism depending on your viewpoint. The above link allows you to view the comments. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The figures in the article are plain wrong...
The numbers cited are those that university submits to HE Stats Agency (HESA). They will include those students who are specifically noted as not being included on the university's page which you link to because they are "dormant" (mostly taking a year out), research students who are writing up or students on the university's continuing education programmes. Pauln1964 (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it's rather disingenuous that the Guardian league table placing has been removed from the table in this article - probably to disguise the fact that we dropped to 32nd in their estimation this year. The claim that Bristol is in the top ten according to most published league tables is simply no longer true (unless you're counting the placings from previous years as well - again, rather disingenuous if so!).
This is supposed to be a factual encyclopedia article. It is not supposed to be an advertisement or a place to publish massaged figures in order to make a few members of the student body feel better about studying here...22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I would argue strongly the other way: the Guardian ranking is misleading as the 'teaching score' is no measure of reputation at all (accordingly second and third tier institutions, such as the University of Aston, are ranked higher). The Guardian ranking should be excluded and the reference to top 20 changed back to top 10. It is not disingenious it is good sense and in keeping with responsible handling of information, and the Guardian's information/data is 'soft' and unrelated to Bristol's perception as a centre of learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, the statement "ranked in the top 10 in most league tables" is completely inaccurate, so has been changed to "top 20", though even that is a push. I have no doubt in my mind that as far as word-on-the-street prestige is concerned, Bristol is a top 10, probably top 5 university. But it is not generally that highly regarded as far as the 4-5 major league tables go. --Tomsega (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, the Times, QS rankings of worldwide shouldn't be included in either if the criteria is accuracy. Both Times and QS rankings are dodgy when the methodology is looked into- UK institutions artificially ranked higher than they should be. That UCL is ranked 4th in QS (above MIT, Stanford, all the Ivy league except Harvard) in the world is nonsensical, especially by a table which ranks UCL below 20 in every subject area. Even Oxbridge is no longer what they used to be in terms of research- fewer nobels on faculty, fewer star faculty, fewer citations, less funding, but they are still ranked 1st and 3rd in QS. So in that respect many of these 'league tables' sound doctored and misleading. Most of these tables have an unfair bias towards English language institutes anyway. European academies that produce many field medalists and nobels, major schools of philosophy, literature, etc., which are often merely packaged in Anglophone universites aren't represented for variety of reasons in these tables. The choice of metric, the definition of an institution/university,the subject descriptions etc- have inherent bias towards the kind of academic activities in anglophone institutions. Plus in case of peer reviewed rankings, the choice of peers for the review tend to be from anglophone/anglophilic institutions. Further these rankings hardly tell about the quality of students and the education they receive, at best case they are just an indication of how well the anglophone universities clique of academics rank themselves in terms of research (i.e. using objective criteria such as citations and awards), at worse a pure subjective quantification of inherent biases (using peer review). A better league table would be based on how well graduating students perform in the workplace, or on a standardised test- this won't be perfect but at least it will be fair and the ranking won't have pretence for being something other than how well students do on a test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
"The University is widely regarded as one of the best in the United Kingdom and and enjoys a strong global reputation, consistently being ranked as one of the top 10 in Europe." - Surely Bristol is a good university, but isn't this a bit much? The only citation for "widely regarded...", "strong global reputation" and "*consistently* being ranked..." (by whom?) is a single reference to the much questioned QS rankings.
The descriptions of University of Edinburgh and University of Manchester indulge in less peacock wording (and their references to the QS rankings, while perhaps equally regrettable, are at least more specific). Note that both institutions seem to do a bit better than Bristol in the QS rankings; perhaps they also have a bit more in the way of actual facts to prop up the image they wish to project.
QS is clearly slanted towards Anglophone institutions - their measurements make sense only for universities structured in certain particular ways; that's a different matter, however. Feketekave (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Under "Academic Dress", the page currently specifies:
Unusually for British universities, the hoods are required to be 'University red' (see the logo at the top of the page) rather than black.
I wasn't aware that it was unusual for universities to have coloured hoods - I've graduated from three, of which only one was black. I see a wide range of colours when at events where hoods are worn: large, national gatherings of robed church choristers and as a member of staff at graduations. In fact, the only ones that spring to mind as black are Oxford, Cambridge and London. —Nineworlds (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the distinction is that Bristol's BA hoods are completely coloured red (picture here). Most British universities' (although I don't have a source) BA hoods are coloured black, and edged or lined with another colour. The other university in Bristol, UWE, uses black hoods, lined with red (picture here). — mholland (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
2003 University of Bristol admissions controversy
File:University of Bristol Victoria Rooms, Department of Music.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:University of Bristol Victoria Rooms, Department of Music.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
I have toned down the introductory passage, as was mentioned in the talk page sometime ago. I have tried to keep this section as close to an encyclopedic entry as possible but it may still be a little too strong in terms of institutional bias. Let me know if you think so. The citation for the numbers of applicants per place and the average entry standard was also dead/blocked.
I will update the world rankings table when i get the chance
- In my view it's an improvement, although for me the lead still contains too many broad promotional claims and too little facts. Personally I would like to see research income included, as well as more specific info on world rankings. It is also inaccurate to state that Bristol is generally in the top 30 of world rankings when it is well outside that in at least one of the three major rankings. Better to actually state which ranking it is, or give the placing for all three.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah - I can answer my own question. This claim comes from an institutional page at Bristol University (no surprises there). The latest Nobel prize winners 'associated' with Bristol are: a French writer who was an exchange student for one academic year; Harold Pinter, whose only connection to Bristol was getting an honorary doctorate from there; Sir Nevill Mott, who was a professor at Bristol for a long stretch before moving to Cambridge [this is the first one so far that most people would count as being substantially associated]; a chemist who was once a post-doc at Bristol... The only Bristol graduate who won a Nobel Prize turns out to be Paul Dirac, a local boy who, according to his Wikipedia entry, did not go to Cambridge right away because of a lack of money, did not study physics at Bristol, and went on to study physics at Cambridge as soon as he had enough funds. With all due respect, the "associated with eleven winners" talk now comes across as potentially NPOV and a little unreal. Feketekave (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I completely understand your comments on the rankings. I was wary of toning the article down further than the general trend for university pages but having come back to it after a few days it still reads quite strong. And on principle they should all be neutral.
You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)