Talk:University of Oxford

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admissions to raise controversy, it is not fact-based, rather headline-driven, and on top of that it is 7 years old and out of date.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 In addition, it is also a bit out of date (2004), talking in the future tense about admissions tests which are now standard and have been for almost two years.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)? Coldmachine^Talk 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)

It totally fails to acknowledge the opportunities currently being presented by Harris Manchester, and Ruskin. (I know that Ruskin is only a satelite of the University but it offers an Oxford University education to those who want it as you get full access to the bod and lectures).

I put in a note so that people wouldnt be too disheartened if they were interested in applying.

The class system is still an issue, but it is the class of education that the students have before coming, not their parents social standing. The majority of students come from Grammar or specialist state scools, public schools, or are international students. I have read that only a small percentage of accepted students come from comprehensives, when I was in Oxford around Arpil 08.

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)

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)

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)

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). Coldmachine^Talk 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)

How many colleges?

On this page is says that Oxford has thirty-nine colleges, but when you go to the colleges of oxford page is there are 38. Mikedelsol (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The disparity in the numbers of colleges is due to the merging of Templeton College and Green College and the closure of Greyfriars, both effective 2008. 79.75.77.244 (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) Tony S

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)

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. Kane5187 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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...! Coldmachine^Talk 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. Kane5187 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. Bencherlite^Talk 14:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• All the names in the alumni and faculty section are now sourced. Bencherlite^Talk 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)

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. Kane5187 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! Coldmachine^Talk 16:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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! Coldmachine^Talk 11:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't disagree if we've not seen the statement. Can you post the statement here in Talk so we all can work on it? Bushcutter (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Intro line

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! Bencherlite^Talk 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... Coldmachine^Talk 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! Coldmachine^Talk 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)

This is an excellent historical note (if it can be documented, of course). My first question on reading the Cambidge article was,"What was going on when the founders left Oxford?" There's no need to hesitate to add it to both articles . . . but the next question, naturally, is "What happened to the townswoman?" Bushcutter (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Why is this even being debated here?--195.194.143.91 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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. Coldmachine^Talk 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Broken Dubious References

1. s 7 & 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.193.252.4 (talk • contribs)

Green-Templeton College reduces Oxford to 38 Colleges

The merger of Green and Templeton to create Green-Templeton is causing a minor edit squabble over the number of colleges in the university. Unfortunately the university facts and figures page is out of date. (Note, it is right on PPHs). If anyone knows of an up to date source that would help greatly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a list at [1] and the pdf file linked from there which effectively confirms this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now implemented this change. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Eastman professor

Editing the Felix Frankfurter article I read that he was a "visiting Eastman professor in the faculty of Law [at Oxford]", I also find the term Eastman professor in several other articles, but I am unable to figure out what this position refers to. __meco (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a one year visiting appointment for US academics. See this for a recent example. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reputation

The third paragraph of this section is written in the present tense but refers to statistics from 2007...is it worth keeping this statistic and saying it's from 2007 or should it just be deleted? JacobJHWard (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

University Seal

University Seal/Device is dated - new official crest can be found here.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/staff/branding_toolkit/branding_marks_and_logo/the_logo.html

163.1.230.133 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, nobody in the university proper (as opposed to Wellington Square) takes those people seriously. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the IP is correct here. I've updated the article to reflect the fact that this is, indeed, the official primary device of the University. I have sourced it accordingly. A revert, without discussion, would likely constitute vandalism. Coldmachine^Talk 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Article contrib deletions

There seems to be much unnecessary deletion of contributions with the result that this article remains substantially underdeveloped. Unless there is factual error, mistaken perspectives can largely be corrected by balancing co-ordinate clauses----Clive sweeting

Moved this to a new section and responding here. On Wikipedia we use content guidelines to determine whether contributions are valid or not. Primarily these require that additions be verifiable, objective, and refrain from synthesising original research. 'Balancing' out content with multiple views is not the way the community approaches editing: this is an encyclopaedia after all, and not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Coldmachine^Talk 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If so, there seems little room for pluralism----Clive sweeting

I suggest you read WP:NOT, and specifically WP:NOT#OR. I've already pointed out the content policies which guide editorial practice, and I have already explained this is an encyclopaedia, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. Coldmachine^Talk 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I appeal to a wider consensus than that composed of recent systematic deleters of opinions (imposing and repeating rather their own) and facts. Oxford is a multi-facetted institution and its history (as well as other chapters) is inadequately represented----Clive sweeting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.134.95.126 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see The pillars on which Wikipedia is built - the first says:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.--Alf ^melmac 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

it is the best school from england —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.62.197 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

All students must be members of a college or hall?

Jezzabr (talk · contribs) has added this today. I'm no expert, but surely that's an overstatement. For years (since at least the 1974 grey book Ch. X, Sect VIII, pp677-8) there's been a non-member model for some certificates and diplomas—see the current Examination Regulations > 20. For example, the PGCert and PGDip in Software Engineering says No college affiliation is required for students studying for the Postgraduate Certificate or Diploma (you have to matriculate via a college if/when you have done enough modules to be able to step up to the part-time MSc). We could just kill the offending sentence, but I think it's worth rescuing if someone can encapsulate the situation in a pithy phrase. It isn't straightforward because other certificates and diplomas do require college membership (drill down in Examination Regulations > 19 for examples). BTW Jezzabr isn't really to blame: it looks his change is just a rewrite of the original statement "All students... are affiliated to a college", which dates back to this 17 Sept 07 revision by Oudweg (talk · contribs). Oudweg stopped editing in Nov 2007, so I guess it is down to current editors—at least two of whom are members of Congregation—to fix it. - Pointillist (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that you can not be a member of the university unless you matriculate and you can only matriculate if presented by a College or Hall. Maybe the regulation you quote is allowing people to get some awards without being a member of the university. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's how I read it, too: it is possible to be a "student" for some awards without being a "member of the university" in the traditional sense, so saying "all students must be members of [or affiliated with] a college or hall" is incorrect. The problem is that there is no obvious way of correcting the sentence, but the general point it makes is so useful that it would be a shame to delete it. I've thought of alternatives like "all full-time and most part-time students must be members" but that's clumsy and makes readers think about exceptions too much—like saying that almost all inorganic compounds are more water-soluble at higher temperatures. Maybe it will look clearer in the morning! - Pointillist (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to leave my "dubious" tag tainting the rest of the article, so I've reworded the phrase as "All resident students,... must be members". Yes, this begs several questions, but it is fairly safe because general readers will get the main sense of the sentence, and more well-informed readers will probably accept the wider premise. I'm open to correction by wiser heads, anyway. - Pointillist (talk)

Have just seen this, and I think the current phrasing is good. I think the real source of the confusion is the difference between being a student and a junior member. Only members of the university can be awarded degrees, but non-members can in principle be awarded diplomas and certificates (although not all diplomas are available to non-members). The normal way to become a member is to become a junior member, which requires presentation by a college, hall or society, or under certain circumstances by Ripon College Cuddesdon as described in the Grey Book Regulations for Matriculation of Student Members. It is also possible to become a member by direct admission to the MA, and I think that in that case you can be presented by a faculty instead of a college (or at least that was true in the old days; it may have become untrue with the advent of MA status).Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising Campaign

Should this be included in the crrent article as part of the universities current activites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamn2009 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A comparison between the historic endowments and current rate of donations to universities would be useful: I know that Oxford claims it attracts far fewer donations than Harvard, for example. However to ensure balance and NPOV it might be best to develop this as as stand-alone article (e.g. on voluntary funding of Universities) that would attract oversight from all H.E. communities. A comparative article on Universities' management of IP and patent rights might be similarly useful. - Pointillist (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this might best form part of a collective article on 'HE funding' or something similar. Coldmachine^Talk 08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It would also offer a plausible excuse for some reckless undergraduate to immortalise Prof. Jones pictured wearing stylish Brasenose 500th Anniversary memorabilia ("for when you need your casual wear to be a little more ready for the rough and tumble of daily life" - ideal for AFDs and vivas). - Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Organization/organisation

It's a small point (and I know this has come up before, e.g. in June 2007) but "Organization" is the correct spelling for use in this article. The Oxford English Dictionary has used this form for a long time: it is in my copy of the Third Edition Shorter OED and on the current Ask Oxford website. It's part of a wider system called Oxford spelling and apparently there's even an IETF language tag for it (en-GB-oed). - Pointillist (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

While you are correct in a pedantic way, this is a British article and I think all British articles should use normal British spelling and that is "organisation". I think you were over-hasty in editing the article immediately after raising the matter here. I will revert you edit in 24 hours unless a consensus develops here that agrees with you. The article has used "organisation" for a long time and when it has been changed it has normally been people who think only US spelling is used on WP and not for the reasons you give. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, try a google search for Oxford english "organization" organisation and you'll see how prevalent the "z" form is. I'm only making the case for it on this article, not as a precedent for all British-English institutions. Anyway, there's no need for us to get into an edit war if other contributors would like to get involved. I imagine most of the edits to this article come from Oxonians, after all. - Pointillist (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I did not revert to the situation we have all been happy about for years. I am an oxonian too, but I still think we should stick to the general British consensus of spelling on wikipedia and not have Oxford articles being a special case. What do others think? Either way, we are going to have people who do not understand the situation changing the spelling. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Bduke on this: personally I use -ize a lot in my own writing, but this is certainly not standard. Stick to the principle that "all British articles should use normal British spelling". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke and Jonathan A Jones: British spelling for British articles. Coldmachine^Talk 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored "Organisation", because I can't find any area of the University where the "z" spelling predominates nowadays (see below). Thanks for your good-natured feedback, anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ratio of Organisation:Organization

These are the ratios (i.e. N_organisation : N_organization) between counts returned by Google searches in the form organization site:xxx.ox.ac.uk on 20 April 2009. Data for colleges (I sampled those apparently associated with the four of us) includes MCR pages but excludes most JCR and other undergraduate societies' pages.

Sample of Colleges:
15:9 at bnc.ox.ac.uk
4:2 at ccc.ox.ac.uk
16:5 at merton.ox.ac.uk
17:6 at queens.ox.ac.uk
24:16 at sjc.ox.ac.uk
7:5 at worc.ox.ac.uk

Divisions:
17:1 at humanities.ox.ac.uk
86:19 at medsci.ox.ac.uk
22:1 at mpls.ox.ac.uk
9:2 at socsci.ox.ac.uk

Admin & Policy:
554:88 at admin.ox.ac.uk (and some of the 88 are references to the World Health Organization, so they don't count)

The Z comes from the classical not from the US. The worryingly anal scanning of oxon websites is highly irrelevant as the age of the spelchecker and auto correct have dehumanised spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.162.66 (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support, but please don't give away the secret that—though of course I was right first time—my wrong-headed opposers outranked me because they stuck to chemistry while I made the fatal leap to humanities:-) When I did those search counts I expected they would show a far greater ratio in favour of "z", but having chosen that measure it wouldn't be very honest if I'd ignored it just because the results didn't support my stance. If university people are telling their spellcheckers not to bother with Oxford spelling, that's part of the evolution of the language, too. At least now we have a consensus and can move on to other areas that need improvement. - Pointillist (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

hello

I see that Keio University is bragging harder than you guys; does this mean that you two are related? You can read about how Keio bragged in [2]. thanks Nobrag1 (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

it might also mean that you guys are at the same level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobrag1 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Double-first - mis-defined

As a graduate and a contender for the definition in the main page, I would be happy to believe that a double-first is a first in Mods and a first in Finals. But that is not the case, at least it was not in the 1970s. A double-first at that time meant a first in one degree AND a first in a second degree (eg a first in Physics AND a first in Law), normally (but not always) accomplished by people who started with a traditional academic degree and then took a career-oriented degree.

Perhaps the definitions has changed?