Talk:University College London

UCL main page

I'm sure UCL used to redirect to this article with a link to a disambig page. I think it's pretty clear from Google/ Yahoo that this is the primary use of the abbreviation as well, in fact some of the other wiki articles referenced don't even mention this contraction. What do other people think about redirecting UCL to here and just having a disambig link for other uses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.179.31 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"[UCL] is a fully independent university"

I am not sure of the validity of this statement. I think "[UCL] operates as a fully independent university" is closer to the truth. However, it is still officially a college of the University of London. The ability to award degrees does not change this; there are Oxbridge colleges that also have this ability but no one would refer to them as fully independent universities. For UCL to be fully independent it would have to do what Imperial has done and completely sever ties. This statement is inaccurate and I will change it, unless someone can come up with a valid argument for UCL's independence.--Zoso Jade (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Which Oxbridge colleges can award their own degrees? None that I know of. See Recognised Bodies. No Oxbridge colleges on there. They are Listed Bodies, so can offer a course leading to a degree, but they do not have degree-awarding powers. That power is vested in the universities themselves. At least, that is my understanding.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"London University" or "University of London"?

In the history section it states that when it was founded it was founded under the name "University of London", are you sure this is correct? I have a book in front of me that states and I quote

Gradually a group of liberal politicians and wealthy merchants came together and in 1826 established the new London University which was to provide an education in "Mathematical and Physical Science, Classics and Medicine"... It was in the days preceding the establishment of London University that De Morgan first met Frend and was introduced to his family...

— page 81 of A History of Mathematics Education in England by A.G. Howson (1982)

Having re-read a few pages on I have found a reference to the creation of the University of London, I'll put in the quote

London University was essentially the creation of Whigs and nonconformists. In order to counter its influence, a rival institution, King's College, supported by the Tories and the Established Church, opened in the Strand in October 1831. Initially, neither of the rivals was empowered to grant degrees, an unsatisfactory situation. After attempts to persuade the colleges to unite had failed, a royal charter of November 1836 created the University of London as a body with powers to examine candidates and to award degrees. To avoid confusion with this new body, the older college adopted a new name, University College. This move, which placed the examining in different hands from the teaching, was to have a great but far from beneficial effect

— page 94 of A History of Mathematics Education by A.G. Howson (1982)

Either I have misunderstood this book or there is an error somewhere. I haven't just corrected in case someone has evidence that contradicts with this, thanks, A happybunny 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The establishment of University College, called at first the London University...

— page 24 of Memoir Of Augustus De Morgan by Sophie Elizabeth De Morgan

I found this today while looking for something completely different so thought I would add it. In the same book however I did read it being refered to as University of London also, however it could be possible that it was also refered to as the University of London although it was officially called London University, much in the same way the University of Manchester is sometimes refered to as Manchester Univeristy. A happybunny 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question and it's possible there's no definitive answer. It is very common in the UK for universities to use both forms (for example a lot of organisations at the University of Oxford use "Oxford University" in their official title) and normally nobody ever bats an eyelid (although some recent corporate rebrandings to "Foo University" have provoked backlashes and insistences on "University of Foo"). And of course the institution founded in 1826 didn't have a charter so just what constitutes the "official" name? (University use isn't necessarily the best to go by - a lot of institutions use a variant from their charter title.)

I can take a look through Negley Harte's history of the federal UofL to see what was being used in any of the sources quoted/shown. Timrollpickering 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an image of wikipedia dated 1827/1828 entitled London University - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_London_University_by_Thomas_Hosmer_Shepherd_1827-28.JPG not sure if that helps. But at least thats two sources that state London University. LordHarris 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't guessed yet, I'm actually looking for info on Augustus De Morgan, I've just looked at the Wiki page for him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan#London_University

and it explains it quite well. If we are convinced yet that it should be London University feel free to correct it, I would do it but when it comes to writing articles I spend along time trying to word it correctly and I don't have the time right now, I am still open to being told I am wrong however. thanks, A happybunny 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

An invitation to the foundation ceremony for the College have it as the "University of London": view image

GA nomination

I have made a lot of edits recently to improve and expand the article. Firstly I hav elinked most of the articles on UCL, that were within the template, actually to the UCL page. I have also created sections and linkages to other UCL things such as the union, the hosptial, filming etc (I created a new page about filming at UCL). I have added references for everything I felt needed a reference and have answered the citation requests. I have done a general tidy as well, renaming some sections as well as creating some new sub sections such as the library subsection. I have also tidied the museum/collections and the notable buildings and departments subsection. I have also made the campus networking section more concise, as it was extremely long. I have also archived the talk page. I now feel that the article is up to GA criteria and have nominated it to be reviewed.LordHarris 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

The article is very well written, comprehensive, and cited properly. However, I would strongly suggest that the 'sidebar' of images be at least partially moved to the gallery at the bottom of the page-as it looks a bit intrusive. Other than that, this article deserves GA. ErleGrey 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I will put some images in the gallery. Thank you for the review and the GA status. LordHarris 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

First non-religious college?

The opening paragraph has been amended recently to include "and the first to be founded on a non-religious basis". What does this mean? The first in England? The UK? The world? Obviously it can't mean the first in London - that would be obvious as it was the first college of all in London.

Rueful Rabbit 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I *think* it was because it was an alternative to King's College London,which at the time exclusively Christian or Protestant.(and possibly similar at Oxford University and Cambridge University.) That's what they told us at any rate! Paulbrock 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (UCL Alumnus)

No, King's College was founded in 1829, three years after London University (as UCL was known in 1826). The only other universities in England in 1826 were Oxford and Cambridge, and debatably Durham, all of which were religious institutions. Should the phrase read "and the first to be founded in England on a non-religious basis"? Rueful Rabbit 00:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (UCL staff)

Famous alumni

Surely, if it's neccessary to give famous alumni in the main article Trevor Lock's noteworthiness is debateable compared to UCL's handful of Booker, not to mention one Nobel, prize-winning authors. He's a comedian who's recently had fringe success: they're authors who've been celebrated in academic and literary circles for decades. Considering he's referred to as a 'comedian' by his Wikipedia article, it's hard to see how Lock even qualifies as an 'important author'.

UCL information on Google Earth

What determines what appears in the information box when you click the little marker on UCL in Google Earth? It appears to be extracted from the Wikipedia page. How does it decide which picture to show? The current one is the rather ugly one of the Petrie Musuem, rather than a nice one of the UCL Portico. Rueful Rabbit 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth will include (I think) up to three images along with the article intro for any geotagged article. It will only include images from the Commons, because those are guaranteed to be available under a free licence. The Petrie Museum photo is the only one here currently on Commons, although I notice that there are other photos here eligible for moving to the Commons. — mholland (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Three photos of the main building

Isn't it a bit much having three of the same building? Unusual Cheese 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Those three photos are presenting three different pictures, Main building in general, at night and in the snow. I think they are quite fine. Niaz bd 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Accounts for more than 40% of the Russell Group's research funding"

This rather outlandish claim is made prominently in the second paragraph of the article. The given citation makes no such reference. Does anyone know where this came from? From common sense, it's highly unlikely that UCL alone accounts for 40% of the research funding of a group of 20 universities, which also includes Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, KCL etc. I'm almost positive it's not true, but thought I'd post here before I removed it, in case anyone can enlighten me. Oudweg 21:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Something is corrupted in the references, so that only the first few are appearing. Can someone rectify this - I dont seem to see whats wrong with the format? LordHarris 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done - just an incomplete reference template. — mholland (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. LordHarris 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"the oldest multi-faculty constituent college"

What does this mean? Did UCL adopt faculties before KCL? --86.1.110.71 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Other specialist colleges in the UoL (e.g. Heythrop College) are technically considerably older than UC (albeit obviously they have not been a part of the federal system since their inception). UC is manifestly older as an institution than KCL, there's no ambiguity about that. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

However Birkbeck is three years older than UCL and is definitely multi-faculty - its specialism is in the delivery method not the academic content. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fair cop, I never knew that; in fact I was never happy with that wording (it was a compromise edit [1] to satisfy a KCL propagandist ;-) which always seemed a bit clunky. Change as appropriate, Tim. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct casual use of name

Today Lord Woolf was on Radio 4, when he mentioned his time at "University College". He did not say "University College London", "UCL", or "University Colllege", but "University College", lacking the word "London", not abbreviated to mere letters, and with the emphasis on "College" rather than on "University". I suppose "University College" might be taken to mean University College, Oxford (though this is almost ubiquitously called "Univ"). Might one understand that if the former Lord Chief Justice calls it at "University College" the other variations, "University College London", and perhaps to a greater degree "UCL", are more plebeian locutions?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard "University College" used be a few at UCL, usually longer standing academics or a few who've apparently learnt from somewhere that it's the "correct" form (I take such claims with a pinch of salt as very often it's based on personal interpretations of documents and not on the official style guide). The names of a lot of the London colleges are regularly subject to branding exercises that try to get a consistent form in place and very often provoke backlashes and people going out of their way to use a particular form in protest when previously they wouldn't have bothered. But presumably Woolf is just using a more old fashioned form that was far common in his days there (when the usual rendering for most colleges was "Name of College, London" and many often dropped "London" in casual speech). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

University_College_London#Academic_Reputation

The Thomson ISI section is completely lifted from the UCL website, as the reference indicates. Why not go to the original source? Ah... I know why! Because the original source has not been spun in such a way as to put UCL in the best light. This version shows how UCL is the best outside north America, the second best in Europe, and so on. Why not show that it is the nth ranked in the world? What is there at the moment is not untrue, but it is advertising for UCL. We all know that UCL likes to claim that it is better than Oxford and Cambridge, and here's the evidence it needs to prove it. I think this is known on Wikipedia as boosterism and POV. Please can we have a more faithful exposition of the evidence, not one spun by UCL for its own ends?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that your totally unbiased take on things, Oxonian? Badgerpatrol (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I should say that my view is informed rather than biased. I am in the position of being able to compare the experience of studying at both Oxford and UCL and I can say that, as the colloquial expression has it, there is no comparison. But on the point of the use of sources I can say that it certainly does seem to be an uncritical approach. If you wanted to know how the British media covered the Falklands War would you rely solely on the account of British media coverage given in the memoirs of Margaret Thatcher? (She may not even comment on it, I am just making up an example.) No, of course not. You would go to the British Library at Colindale to read the original newspaper accounts; you would consult audio and audio-visual material held in the archives of the BBC and other broadcasters. Then you would ask questions about each individual source, such as the political views of writers and editors. All universities do this (though it must be said the better universities naturally do it less). The most crass examples are those one sees on advertisements on the underground (at least that is where I see them). The University of X asks you to study there because it is rated the best in the UK. Only when you read the small print do you discover that it is rated best in the UK in the student satisfaction survey, or it was rated as having the best online learning resources, or something else equally marginal to its actual quality. Then to say, "X is the best university in the UK", would be to use that source uncritically. You would say, "According the X's own advertising, such a survey rated it best in the UK for this aspect. Further research shows that The Times rated it overall 90th in the UK, The Guardian 91st, etc. There are also over five hundred American universities whose academics were more frequently cited in peer-reviewed journals". The UCL article is, like so many university articles on Wikipedia, just advertising for UCL. By all means include this information, but put it in context; go back to the source, ad fontes; tell us what the original source said, not what UCL said that it said.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that the information in this section as it stands is derived from UCL's own advertising or a press release, but I confess that's not how it reads to me. However, I suggest then that you compose a table comprising the rankings if every UCL science department in the Thompson citation index survey, and include that, rather than the selected list that is now included, and reference it clearly to the original source. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to see how you can fail to read the section as being derived from UCL's own advertising or a press release. The reference given in the article is this page: 'Research powerhouse: UCL top-cited in UK', UCL website, 15 July 2008. That seems conclusive to me. Alas I have tried via Athens to log in to the website that contains the original source and I just get a blank page.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the direct Comparison to Oxford and Cambridge is somewhat superfluous (this is an article about UCL after all). The highlighting of research in certain areas I don't however see as a problem. Characterising the strengths of a particular institution’s research is a large part of its "Academic Reputation" i.e. UCL has a reputation for conducting excellent medical research. Also Oxonian, I could add that your experience of studying at these schools may not inform your oppinion as much as you think about international research citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rely Day (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First secular British uni?

Though they had ecclesiastical origins, the Scottish universities did not require the religious tests that debarred nonconformists from Oxford and Cambridge, and so attracted many English students – for example Erasmus Darwin, whose grandson Charles Darwin was brought up in Unitarianism but baptised and educated Church of England, and who went to the University of Edinburgh before dropping out and going to Cambridge. It may also be worth noting that London University along with private medical schools attracted many Scots medics when it opened, notably the anatomist Robert Edmund Grant whose views were anathema to the established church. . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Rankings, etc...

This article reads as if the only important thing about UCL is its position in the league tables, and the organistions it is party to. No doubt, league tables are important but must it be the first thing to appear after the introduction? I fear editorial decisions like these are made by present and former UCL students, in an attempt to make clear the academic standing of our institution lest it come under question by others. Read the articles on other 'peer' institutions, and you will see that they are much more modest and focused on the history and activities of the institution.

n.b. I'm a UCL undergraduate. 212.183.134.209 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to say, but the articles for Imperial College or King's College are "boasting" much more ostensively and UCL seem rather conservative in this comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.92.41 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The table in the article appears to be shrinking, so might as well stick a pre-edit back-up here:

UK University Rankings

	2011	2010	2009	2008	2007	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000	1999	1998	1997	1996	1995	1994	1993
Times Good University Guide	7th	5th	7th	6th	5th	6th	6th	6th	11th	5th	5th	5th	5th	5th	7th	8th=	4th	4th=	4th
Guardian University Guide	5th	6th	7th	5th	-	4th	7th	6th	5th	7th
Sunday Times University Guide	4th	4th	4th	6th	5th	5th	5th	5th	5th	5th	8th	6th	6th	5th	5th
Independent Complete University Guide supported by PricewaterhouseCoopers	9th	8th	8th	6th
The Daily Telegraph					6th				7th	7th
FT									5th	5th	4th	4th	4th

83.104.51.74 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Page overhaul / ideas on how to move forward

I've now re-organised the page, following the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities and generally followed by UCL's peers (particularly in the U.S.), added some more information (mainly in the new Organisation and administation section), and done a bit of a general tidy-up.

In my view there is still a lot of room for improvement on the page, particularly in the History section (which I feel needs expansion and ideally subdivision into centuries) and the Notable buildings sub-section (which I feel needs tidy-up and perhaps slimming down). The Organisation and administration section could also do with a proper Central administration sub-section.

However I feel strongly that the page should be a collaborative effort so I will not make any more substantive changes until others express their views on how to take the page forward. It would be great to work towards Featured Article status in time.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Boosterism

Relating to some comments mentioned on this discussion page, there is quite of boosterism going on in this article which needs to be removed. I tried to put a more neutral pic, however, Ragoon11 reverted all my changes. I believe that the lead should reflect the summary of history, key memberships, and rankings (if necessary at all) and don't promote UCL. However, we can see now lots of biased expressions such as "most highly-ranked", "elite", "prestigious" just in one paragraph. Furthermore, the lead states only international rankings which put UCL in a favourable position (UK league tables show absolutely a different picture). I'm not going to fight with editors who are apparently directly or indirectly connected to King's but there are real problems with several uni articles (I noticed UCL, LSE, King's at least) which need to be addressed as soon as possible. 188.223.81.158 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly thanks for coming to the talk page. To take your issues in turn:

- The lead is factual and cited. UCL is one of the most prestigious universities in the world, and that is cited. UCL is one of the most highly ranked universities in the world, and that is cited.

- Regarding which league tables are referred to, this article will be read by people from all over the world, not just the UK. To describe UCL's position in global league tables in the lead therefore seems most appropriate. To avoid the possibility of bias the position in all three major international league tables has been given, not just the most favourable to UCL. UK league table positions are detailed in the Rankings section, there is no attempt to hide them. The lead is designed to give a flavour of the university only.

- The word 'elite' in relation to the Golden Triangle has already been deleted, although this is almost certainly a fact I accept that the word 'elite' evokes negative feeling in some and could be misleading.

- I personally have NO current connection with UCL.

- Since you are so keen to suggest that editors of this article are connected with UCL, perhaps you would like to describe your connections with University of Durham, where you have been actively editing.

The lead to the Durham article currently states that Durham is 'a prestigious collegiate university' (with no citation) and includes a quote from a newspaper that Durham is "Long established as a leading alternative to Oxford and Cambridge". Rangoon11 (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's sensible to delete information about rankings completely from the lead. Also words "prestigious" and "highly ranked" are very subjective unless they literally appear in a reliable source not connected to UCL marketing department. From my standpoint, highly ranked uni in the UK are only Oxford and Cambridge but their articles don't have such phrases in the lead. 87.194.84.46 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at the citations before deleting them. Your opinion on the prestige of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL is that of one person, the broad consensus of the media is in clear disagreement with you. UCL is prestigious. Fact. Get over it and try and improve the site of whichever third-rate institution you went to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.190.146 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting into further arguments with an editor who tries to insult members of Wikipedia community. Good luck with your edits. 87.194.84.46 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck improving the rankings of Durham. Perhaps start with the Wikipedia article, its pretty poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.190.146 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)