Talk:Imperial College London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Well Written Main Article[edit]

The introduction is great.

The main article could use your help editing, especially if you are articulate. Since Imperial is mainly a technical engineering/science university, please be mindful of your strengths and weaknesses in written composition. This is especially relevant if English is your second language. Please write with proper grammar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2015

Male:Female Ratio[edit]

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)

It would make sense to write this as: Imperial's student population is composed of more men then woman, with 63 percent of students male and 37 percent of students female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2015


I found it awesome that both of Prince Harry and Kate's babies were born at Imperial's hospital at Saint Mary's, should the article mention that? I thought it would be rather fascinating and enlightening, especially as an outsider I never knew this before reading it in the newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2015

something about the bars on campus (apparently ICU does something other than fund clubs and societies), including the late southside bar perhaps?

Great idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015‎

Rankings Textbox[edit]

Ranking Textbox Design - People had previously complained that the textbox was difficult to read. I improved the ranking textbox so that it is easier to comprehend by updating the infobox to the world university rankings textbox that other universities have used. I know the topic of rankings can be a hot topic and universities in the UK are especially a hot topic because of their placement within the european Brexit context. Therefore I added this discussion topic for consensus and discussion. Do people like a cleaner presentation of rankings?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6003:5900:496c:89f7:43cc:3275 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2016‎

Disagree, we should stick with the previous table which is used by all UK universities for consistency. This table omits the complete and guardian rankings, which are two major league tables in the UK. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Agree, I like the new textbox. I think it is easier to read. Other thoughts?
I do like 51jlzl's new table he made, which I think is quite nice! Maybe we should put the Complete. Guardian. and Sunday Times rankings below in a national ranking as per the thoughts of aloneinthe wild, to include a national rankings for consensus. Then we would only need Europe and World for the THE, QS, and ARWU rankings. Seeking to establish consensus. I like 51jlzl's table just as he made it too with the current columns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Disagree, I have the same opinion as Aloneinthewild. It makes no sense for Imperial to use another ranking template when every British university in the UK - including Cambridge and Oxford - use the standard UK ranking template. Imperial does not have a strong valid argument to be the exception.EmyRussell (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Lieden Rankings - There is not an agreed consensus in regards to Lieden's rankings. Just because Aloneinthewild and EmyRussell like it, others such as Biomedicinal and myself have questioned the Lieden's rankings. There was further discussion on this ranking on UCL's talk page. Biomedicinal had a good idea to synthesize the rankings to just the major ones. I am not sure why this ranking as opposed to others, such as Reuter's Innovation Ranking (which adds a new dimension to the rankings) or The Ranking of Rankings (a composite of the top 5 major global university rankings or the Round University Ranking would be used. I personally feel Lieden is a very biased ranking, for example this year it has UC Santa Barbara above Oxford. There are currently 6 University of California public extremely large campuses who have a large research output because of the size of their school (40,000 students) in the top 20 rankings in the world. There is a bias against schools with less than 20,000 people. This for example does not mean that UC Santa Barbara is better than Oxford at research. Moreover there is a great deal of variability in this ranking measure, where it fluctuates dramatically. The Lieden ranking is not on the US ranking textbox either. This is not the consensus that Lieden should be used, perhaps there are other rankings that you may want to suggest instead. Please refer to Archive 2 on the established consensus.

Hi, please see Template talk:Infobox UK university rankings for the discussion. "I personally feel Lieden is a very biased ranking, for example this year it has UC Santa Barbara above Oxford" - personally, I think your own biasness is showing by making this statement. And upon looking at your edit history, it seems that you have a vested interested in Imperial College London. I would like to remind you to look up WP:COI closely, Wikipedia is an impartial platform for information to be disclosed. All further comments should be directed to the UK university rankings talk page there to prevent those who are only interested in one university from influencing the consensus. EmyRussell (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with your conclusion EmyRussell, this user (possibly other IPs) have a vested interest in trying to improve the appearance of Imperial College. In this case they don't like the lower ranking. IP if you have something to comment then see Template talk:Infobox UK university rankings Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, and personally feel you have bias against non-user name people. There is no consensus on this talk page that Leiden should be added, the previous consensus was on using the top three major rankings. ARWU (which does not favor imperial college), QS, and THE. I had proposed three other world university rankings systems besides leiden. Yet, there is no consensus leiden should be the additional indicator used here.
Some of my reasons for feeling leiden is biased:
1. bias against smaller institutions, example Caltech is ranked 172. Yet, zhenjiang university (45,000 students), university of sao paolo (88,000 students), shanghai jay tong university (43,000 students), Seoul National University (28,000 students), University of Tokyo (29,000 students) are all in the top 10 in this research based measure.
2. alignment of the rankings to other world university metrics (very far off... for example, University of Sao Paolo with over 88,000 students is ranked 8th in the Lieden ranking and between 100-250 in the QS, THE, and ARWU)
3. Useful of Ranking (this ranking is not in alignment with any of the other major rankings... ex. 5 of the top universities in the world are from large institutions in china, seoul, brazil, and canada), while typically top research powerhouses are not ranked as highly. (example, zhenjiang university and sao paolo are placed higher than MIT (49), Oxford (13), ETH Zurich (66), or Caltech (172) and few students should base school decisions off of this metric.
If you wish to propose other ranking metrics to include, that would be fine, otherwise I think the ARWU, THE, and QS are the rankings used on every other countries world rankings textbox to describe world university rankings. this ranking has a lot of biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:ACDF:7F38:B0B2:2859 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)I agree with this logic. The consensus seemed to be to use the three main rankings ARWU, THE, and QS that every country reports. From archived discussion on the talk page.