![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Does anyone know if Oxford accepts anything less than a first class honours degree for entry to their graduate programmes? If so, does it have to be a good first or will a first "by-the-skin-of-your-teeth" do?!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.1.17 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
I would propose that University Council be merged to the section University of Oxford#Governance and administration. This appears to be a simple task, but I don't know enough to avoid contradiction. Specifically, University Council implies that the council was established in 2000, while this article makes it seem like it's been around as early as 1969. Thanks. BFD1 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done the merge as there has been no objection and all the material is already in the main university article. I made University Council a redirect but it could be developed as above into a good article on university councils. -- Bduke 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
plus its also a college —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.29.189 ( talk • contribs)
whoever changed the founding date I submitted is clearly wrong, Oxford was founded in the 1100's and so this is the 12th Century, not the 11th, pjs68@cam.ac.uk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.42.1 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Unless this is some very obscure reference that I don't understand, I think this is a prank: under the admissions section, the first sentence reads: "Admission to the University of Oxford is based wholly on who you know and the ability of your father to do a funny handshake whilst felating a buxom goat" with a reference at the bottom of the page to Courses and Entrance Requirements. As you would expect, there is nothing related on the referred page. Noticed on 3/18/07 The Crunchy Frog 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A note, if I put this into the actual page it would be considered a prank. It says "citation needed" after "the workload is therefore instense" in the section about the short terms. Citation needed? Take it from a current student who seems to be working round-the-clock... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.62.187 ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 8 May 2007.
When Americans say that they went to Oxford is it generally accepted (in the US) that they mean this institution, or could one reasonably expect that they are referring to one of the other educational establishments of the same name which exist in the United States? We in the UK assume they mean the former, but a recent conversation I had with an acquaintance leads me to suspect that this may be incorrect. -- 86.17.211.191 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I am curious to know whether the spelling used in this article was as a result of the usual procedures, or simply the result of an invisible contention that because this is a "British" establishment, its article must accordingly use British spelling. I care neither way, and I am aware of the policies on this topic. ALTON .ıl 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone add an aerial or satellite photo of the campus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.184.53 ( talk) 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about University of Oxford/Archive 2. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about University of Oxford/Archive 2 at the Reference desk. |
The most selective University in the UK is Durham, regarded as most to be the hardest University to get in to.
When applying to Oxford or Cambridge, you apply direct to the College at which you intend to study.
If you meet the qualifications (3/4 A'Levels at Grade A), pass entrance exams, and perform well in the interview, you can be accepted.
In thery the above applies to Oxford (quals, exam, interview), but Oxford is well known for also taking the rich. You can BUY entry in to University and buy a degree.
At Durham you have to apply to BOTH the University and the College. Both have stringent entrance requirements, like Oxbridge, however you MUST be accepted by both.
If either the University or the College do not accept your entry, you are not offered a place.
It is considered by many people to be much harder to get in to Durham than Oxbridge, and much harder to get in to Cambridge than Oxford, especially if you don't have the money to buy your way in.
-- Oxonian2006 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
on Durham being easier to get into then Oxford: everyone i knew in sixthform who went to Durham failed to get in to Oxford or Cambridge
I assume you mean the MA. That is misleading because you are entitled the MA when you have read the BA/BFA (after seven years etc.). In effect, you are actually reading for the MA when you read an Oxford BA (whether you choose to accept when the moment arrives is another matter). If you can buy it, then we'll all be MAs... -- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You think u lot work hard read this one and think yourselves lucky North East Wales Institute of Higher Education Please leave it alone fact is allowed.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Please place discussion/comments on the GA review here
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article contains wording that
promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/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)
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
If so, there seems little room for pluralism----Clive sweeting
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
These are the ratios (i.e. Norganisation : Norganization) 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: |
Divisions: |
Admin & Policy: |
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Does anyone know if Oxford accepts anything less than a first class honours degree for entry to their graduate programmes? If so, does it have to be a good first or will a first "by-the-skin-of-your-teeth" do?!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.1.17 ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
I would propose that University Council be merged to the section University of Oxford#Governance and administration. This appears to be a simple task, but I don't know enough to avoid contradiction. Specifically, University Council implies that the council was established in 2000, while this article makes it seem like it's been around as early as 1969. Thanks. BFD1 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have done the merge as there has been no objection and all the material is already in the main university article. I made University Council a redirect but it could be developed as above into a good article on university councils. -- Bduke 02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
plus its also a college —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.29.189 ( talk • contribs)
whoever changed the founding date I submitted is clearly wrong, Oxford was founded in the 1100's and so this is the 12th Century, not the 11th, pjs68@cam.ac.uk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.42.1 ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Unless this is some very obscure reference that I don't understand, I think this is a prank: under the admissions section, the first sentence reads: "Admission to the University of Oxford is based wholly on who you know and the ability of your father to do a funny handshake whilst felating a buxom goat" with a reference at the bottom of the page to Courses and Entrance Requirements. As you would expect, there is nothing related on the referred page. Noticed on 3/18/07 The Crunchy Frog 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A note, if I put this into the actual page it would be considered a prank. It says "citation needed" after "the workload is therefore instense" in the section about the short terms. Citation needed? Take it from a current student who seems to be working round-the-clock... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.62.187 ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 8 May 2007.
When Americans say that they went to Oxford is it generally accepted (in the US) that they mean this institution, or could one reasonably expect that they are referring to one of the other educational establishments of the same name which exist in the United States? We in the UK assume they mean the former, but a recent conversation I had with an acquaintance leads me to suspect that this may be incorrect. -- 86.17.211.191 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I am curious to know whether the spelling used in this article was as a result of the usual procedures, or simply the result of an invisible contention that because this is a "British" establishment, its article must accordingly use British spelling. I care neither way, and I am aware of the policies on this topic. ALTON .ıl 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone add an aerial or satellite photo of the campus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.184.53 ( talk) 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about University of Oxford/Archive 2. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about University of Oxford/Archive 2 at the Reference desk. |
The most selective University in the UK is Durham, regarded as most to be the hardest University to get in to.
When applying to Oxford or Cambridge, you apply direct to the College at which you intend to study.
If you meet the qualifications (3/4 A'Levels at Grade A), pass entrance exams, and perform well in the interview, you can be accepted.
In thery the above applies to Oxford (quals, exam, interview), but Oxford is well known for also taking the rich. You can BUY entry in to University and buy a degree.
At Durham you have to apply to BOTH the University and the College. Both have stringent entrance requirements, like Oxbridge, however you MUST be accepted by both.
If either the University or the College do not accept your entry, you are not offered a place.
It is considered by many people to be much harder to get in to Durham than Oxbridge, and much harder to get in to Cambridge than Oxford, especially if you don't have the money to buy your way in.
-- Oxonian2006 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
on Durham being easier to get into then Oxford: everyone i knew in sixthform who went to Durham failed to get in to Oxford or Cambridge
I assume you mean the MA. That is misleading because you are entitled the MA when you have read the BA/BFA (after seven years etc.). In effect, you are actually reading for the MA when you read an Oxford BA (whether you choose to accept when the moment arrives is another matter). If you can buy it, then we'll all be MAs... -- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 16:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You think u lot work hard read this one and think yourselves lucky North East Wales Institute of Higher Education Please leave it alone fact is allowed.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
Please place discussion/comments on the GA review here
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article contains wording that
promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/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)
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
If so, there seems little room for pluralism----Clive sweeting
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
These are the ratios (i.e. Norganisation : Norganization) 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: |
Divisions: |
Admin & Policy: |
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)
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)