![]() | 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 |
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, 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)
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
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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.115.67 ( talk) 02:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
After having read the article, I find I must deduce whether or not there is any formal relationship between the University, and the British government, or the Crown, or the Church of England for that matter. Am I correct in concluding that Oxford is a private institution? It's rather dismaying such basic information is not immediately clear in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.8.227 ( talk) 04:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of University of Oxford's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Guardian 2011":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Jonathan A Jones removed well sourced and important information with a strange edit summary "Over the top publicising of his own article". Jacob Barnet is not my new article, it is wikipedia's new article. University of Oxford is not User:Jonathan A Jones's article. It is wikipedia's article. I linked to one article from another article, an usual practice for any new article that is written for the project. I added relevant, well sourced, and important information about the history of the University. Please discuss at the talk page before reverting me again.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oxford college was founded in 1005 before Oxford University founded in 1203 as a university. The town Oxford was founded in 810. I am a former Oxford University student and my Oxford history professor provided me the history of Oxford University. So the true start of Oxford University as a college was 1005 yet the University was founded in the same location and same body in the institution. of the college which became a university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 ( talk) 07:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
When did Oxford first effectively become an 'English-speaking institution'-did it do so before Harvard, Trinity Dublin, etc? (The Latin text of the Laudian Statutes clearly held sway for two centuries). Suggest 'the oldest university to have become an English-speaking institution'! ----Clive Sweeting
http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/oxford-cambridge-universities.html
When you refer oldest to first, please think about that again. First is also the same defination category as oldest. Your mis-phrasing the argument on the terms of first with Oxford. I had tour guide books that are printed in 1930, 1980, 1997 that all state Oxford University is an institution and the first of its kind to speak English, not England but in the world. Shall I take imageshot to state the fact to reference the facts more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 ( talk)r 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Oxford is an institution, and an educational institution, of course. I don't think anybody is arguing about that. But it was not the first institution, or even the first educational institution (putting aside all the other types of institution) to speak English. If you allow for Old English then the oldest English speaking institutions would have been Anglo Saxon (a law court, perhaps?) and the oldest English speaking educational institution would probably have been one of the schools that was created centuries before Oxford University existed (see List_of_the_oldest_schools_in_the_United_Kingdom). In any case, didn't Oxford teach entirely in Latin for some centuries (I'm open to correction here - although this is repeated many times, I can't find a reliable source for it after a quick search)? I have to agree that "the oldest university in the English speaking world" is the correct description. I would be interested to see any verifiable evidence that you have for "Oxford College" in 1005, but most sources seem to agree that we know nothing of detail about Oxford University's origins in that period. ThomasL ( talk) 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If you have sources, then please cite them. I am wondering whether you misunderstood what you were told. Incidentally, Oxford University Press didn't print books in the eleventh century. Not surprising, as the printing press hadn't been invented. They published their first book in 1478. And of course buildings predating the University probably didn't belong to the University when they were built. ThomasL ( talk) 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, anyone who claims they have a degree from Oxford yet still refer to Oxford having a "campus", which it most certainly does not, forfeits any right to be taken seriously in this discussion. I leave to one side the question of the IP's distinctly poor English, since this may just be a question of poor typing. However, bizarre claims that Oxford University was founded in 1203 (no source, and contrary to all accepted learning which states that no precise date for the university's foundation is known), that there are books in English from 1080 (before, as ThomasL points out, the printing press was invented) and so on lead me reluctantly to conclude that we are all being trolled and should ignore this time-wasting IP. There is a clear consensus against the IP's edits; s/he refuses to listen to discussions; the sources s/he proposes to use are hardly high-quality; s/he cannot understand the difference in nuance between "first" and "oldest", let alone the obvious difference between "university" and "institution". Let's move on. Bencherlite Talk 05:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Oxford Press was formed in 14th century, there are books on campus that say 1180 for example in Latin but I have found some in English. The National Archives [7] Records in Kew London has information on this dating more than 1000 years back but Oxford has even older records are in the university libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 ( talk) 07:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I say again, if you have sources please cite them. I think you are mistaken. The University of Oxford website, with a history of the University written by university officials, seems to think you are mistaken [8] (no mention of "Oxford College", and nothing happening in 1005 or 1203 - indeed "By 1201, the University was headed by a magister scolarum Oxonie" who became the Chancellor in 1214). Oxford University Press's website seems to think you are mistaken [9], and obviously there cannot have been an "Oxford University Press" until the printing press had been invented (all previous books would have been written by hand). This site from another university suggests there were no (manuscript) books written in English between 1066 and 1205 [10], so that it would be impossible for you to read books printed or written in English in 1080 or even 1180 (loose manuscripts, perhaps), and these would have required training to read. The oldest building in Oxford is a tower, now part of a church, from 1040 [11], and the oldest educational building was Convocation House built in 1320, possibly the oldest university building in the world, [12] so there are no buildings from "Oxford College" in the 10th or mid-11th century and before. Finally, I have no doubt that the Oxford libraries have manuscripts dating from before the foundation of the university, but rather obviously this doesn't prove that "Oxford College" existed at the time that they were written, they could have been purchased or donated at a later date. My own library contains lots of nineteenth century books, but I am not a hundred and fifty years old. Given that most of your claims are contradicted by academic sources, and that the sources you do cite don't support your arguments, and are not academic sources (indeed, your initial source cites Wikipedia as its own main source for the descriptions of Oxford and Cambridge Universities) I do not think your arguments pass the verifiability test. I would certainly be willing to reconsider your arguments if you produced sources to support them, but this would depend on the quality of the sources. ThomasL ( talk) 12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking in more detail at the "Oxford University Press" website, the first official recognition of a University Press took place in 1586, although books had been printed in Oxford (sometimes with University support) since 1478. There was certainly no "Oxford University Press" in the 1300s. ThomasL ( talk) 13:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There was no "Oxford Press" before the printing press. Handwritten books were not produced by a Press. But in any case, what makes you think that the books you were looking at (whether in English or Latin, from 1080 or 1180, handwritten or printed) were produced by "Oxford College" rather than purchased by the University of Oxford at a later date? The Bodleian website says the University's central library was "denuded of its books" in 1550, and the collections had to be built up again. [13] I am not sure whether the same happened to the College libraries, if these existed at the time (and there were no Colleges to have libraries in 1080 or 1180), but the vast majority of Oxford's ancient books did not belong to the University when they were first written or printed.
Anyway, this seems beside the point. You claim that there was an institution named "Oxford College" founded in 1005, and that the "University of Oxford" was founded from this institution in 1203. You asked for academic sources to refute your claims. Usefully, Amazon's "Look Inside" feature allows you to look inside "The History of the University of Oxford: Volume One: The Early Oxford Schools" [14]. You can read a substantial portion of the text, which does not support your claims, and you can search for "1005" (which does not appear in the book) and "1203" (which produces two references, neither anything to do with the founding of the University). You could of course support your arguments by showing us another authoritative source that supports your claims. Otherwise, I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. ThomasL ( talk) 08:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
From R.W. Southern's chapter in the aforementioned book: "The first sign of scholastic activity in Oxford was the appearance of a schoolmaster who taught in the town from about 1095 to 1125". So no "Oxford College", and no 1005. ThomasL ( talk) 09:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It is clear to me that this discussion is not going any ware 75.128.15.231 has been asked to provide sources, s/he has not - so time I think to draw a line under it and close this discussion - any objections? Codf1977 ( talk) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It is clear to me that this dicussion is clearly not getting answered when the Adminstrator asked to use Talkpages and questions are being ignored about Oxford University as the first English speaking university or instition. For example user Codf1977 has not provided a single source of fact but objects and comments disagreement only. What is this? Use the talkpages qand get ignored. This discussion remains a question of matter on the facts of Oxford University being the first English speaking institution vs. the oldest speaking university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 ( talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
Does anyone think that a brief note on the old entrance examination system would be helpful? I can't supply it myself because I never took the exams and I never studied at O or C, due to a regrettable talent / energy problem. Regards to all. Notreallydavid ( talk) 02:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the phrase "comparable" in "Students who apply from state schools and colleges have a comparable acceptance rate to those from independent schools (25% and 32% of applicants accepted respectively, 2006)" should be deleted, and it be noted that success rates vary significantly by school (a one in three chance and a one in four chance are radically different, calling them comparable is misleading). Perhaps comparable should be replaced by "a consistently lower"? The statistics supporting this also need updating, though the substantive - revised - point would remain accurate. 128.122.79.88 ( talk) 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
the cite for endowment (#2) says: In the 2008/9 fiscal year, the University's endowment stood at £585 million, with combined college endowments reaching £2.4 billion. i dont understand how the infobox arrived at its numbers 207.238.152.3 ( talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop reverting this introductory sentence, which we have agreed upon, by consensus, for every other British university (excluding the University of Buckingham). I understand that the terminology is American. But according to this American usage, British universities are public universities - actually less independent than some of the major American public universities. Avaya1 ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
(i) The public/private distinction we're using, as applied to universities, is an American usage. By American criteria, British universities are public universities. Those opposing the introductory sentence (that, again, we've agreed by consensus to use for every other British university except Buckingham) are going against the standard use of the distinction, as applied to universities. Many American public universities are more "private" than British universities in their funding.
(ii)We have guidelines against WP:OTHERSTUFF, however, in this instance the use of "is a public university" in the introductory sentence for all the other British university articles seems to be a format-consensus among editors. It is open to argument whether we should remove it - however, if we do remove it, we have to agree to do so for all the other British university articles. Moreover, to me, it seems to be an informative sentence, that is technically correct if "public university" is understood in its American sense, which is no doubt how the majority of the readers of Wikipedia will understand it. Avaya1 ( talk) 02:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the assumption that the majority of the readers of Wikipedia will understand it in its American sense. The point is that the link to the article is not helpful for British universities. I think the "public university" bit should just be omitted from the lede for all UK universities, even Buckingham. A mention that Buckingham does not directly receive government funds can go further down its article
Everyone is aware that British universities aren't completely state owned and controlled. But the term "public university" doesn't imply that a university is entirely state-owned or controlled. Many public universities in America are a lot more "private" than Oxford. But Oxford (and all British universities, apart from Buckingham) are "public universities", as that term is internationally applied. The disagreement seems to come from an eccentrically literal interpretation of the word "public". Avaya1 ( talk) 01:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary has no definition of "public university" or "private university". It does include, under the word prevent, a quotation from Sir William Blackstone, writing in 1758, "to collect all the common lawyers into the one public university", by which he is referring to the Inns of Court when they were first founded. That usage seems to be similar to that in "public school" as the expression is now used in England and is clearly very different from the U. S. meaning. The fact that the OED does not find it necessary to define the terms underlines their inappropriateness in a British context. There is no internationally agreed meaning of either, and we can only interpret what they mean outside the United States by referring to usage. It is hardly surprising that there is very little usage in the UK to refer to, but what there is is not consistent. It surely follows that to use such terms in articles on British universities is unhelpful. Moonraker2 ( talk) 09:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
dear lord. i can't believe you lot are arguing about this. just say oxford university and get over yourselves. seriously. if you had the brains to go you would have read bruno latour had a cup of tea and realised that it makes no difference. i know it would be embarrassing to back down at this stage, but just grow up. it doesn't matter. whatever you call it is questionable, the modernist notion of an encyclopedia is an absurdity anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.5.224 ( talk) 13:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It is quite clear that there is no consensus on this issue and that includes consensus on the sources. I thought we were close to getting consensus that any mention of public or private was not appropriate in the lede and that the issue should be discussed in a more nuanced way further down the article. That could say something like "Oxford University is a public university in the sense that it receives a large amount of public money from the government, but it is a private university in the sense that it is entirely self-governing and could chose to become entirely private by rejecting public funds". Can we see whether consensus can build on something like this? The argument is silly, and it is failing to actually tell readers what the situation actually is by the false choice between "public" and "private". Oxford is really neither one nor the other. but a bit of both. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Also we aren't only debating it for this one article. It's surely a decision we have to make, one way or the other, for all the university articles - otherwise singling out Oxford (as the only non-public British research university) might create some confusion. My view is that, while it might not be perfect, the phrase does easily communicate some basic points about the financing and control of the universities (on the former point, e.g. why Oxford has a similar endowment to somewhere like Brown University, but an income many times higher). Avaya1 ( talk) 02:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research told me over dinner last week that it isn't a public university. It belongs to the dons, who are private individuals, not to the government. It is true that the University's research depends heavily on public funding, but that does not change the fact that the University is private. I draw an analogy with General Motors, which is indisputably a private company, which is nevertheless unable to subsist without public money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.240 ( talk) 12:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Can we ensure that the 'private' reference is now deleted by overwhelming consensus. Arguments for the public nature (sometimes in a historical sense)have been cited in abundance. They include also with various degrees of strength the Royal Proclamation preceding the 39 Articles, privileged publication rights,the requirement to submit certain kinds of change for approval by the Privy Council.----Clive sweeting
I'm not sure which reference you are referring to? It took a long time to find a form of words on which there is anything resembling consensus, and I really see no reason to change this. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The words 'If any Publick Reader in either of our Universities' (Proclamation above) surely settle the issue. In British usage 'public' is scarcely synonymous with 'belonging to the government' or 'funded by the government'. The Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research's remark is scarcely apposite here----Clive sweeting.
As an old-fashioned writer who prefers -z- to -s- in words ending in -ize, I should just like to note that Oxford English also prefers the -z-. Does anyone mind if the Oxford spellings are used throughout this article? Moonraker2 ( talk) 04:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"Academic dress is still commonly seen at Oxford; until the 1960s students wore it at all times". This not correct. I went up in 1957 as a science student. I only wore a gown for formal hall on a regular basis. Arts students wore gowns for lectures, but still not "at all times". I think that situation went back at least to after the war. We need better references on this. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The History section starts with a "Teaching at Oxford existed in some form in 1096,....". I'm sure that in most other towns and cities with an ancient universities, teaching in some form took place well before the university was founded. What sort of encyclopedic information is that? In my opinion it should be removed. -- Dia^ ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Please answer for me. May I ask any question to you. Which languages are teaching in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.175.36 ( talk) 03:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just read this page through and this to me looks like it could easily be a Featured Article. I haven't checked the requirements in depth but I think it is close. Rafmarham ( talk) 21:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Since this question has implicitly come up again I thought it might be helpful to summarise the position. Oxford is the second oldest university in continuous operation, beaten only by the University of Bologna, but it appears third in the List of oldest universities in continuous operation. The reason for this is that the list page anomalously includes the University of Paris, although Paris does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as (1) it had an extensive break from 1793-1896, which is undeniably long enough to break continuity, and (2) it no longer actually exists, having been broken up into a number of successor institiutions.
Paris survives on the list apparently because of its centrality in the history of early universities, but there are regular discussions about removing it so that the list actually follows its stated criteria. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 19:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
An update: I removed Paris from the list a while back and my edit seems to have stuck, so the discussion above is currently a bit moot. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 18:03, 24 February 2013 (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 |
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, 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)
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
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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.115.67 ( talk) 02:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
After having read the article, I find I must deduce whether or not there is any formal relationship between the University, and the British government, or the Crown, or the Church of England for that matter. Am I correct in concluding that Oxford is a private institution? It's rather dismaying such basic information is not immediately clear in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.8.227 ( talk) 04:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of University of Oxford's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Guardian 2011":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Jonathan A Jones removed well sourced and important information with a strange edit summary "Over the top publicising of his own article". Jacob Barnet is not my new article, it is wikipedia's new article. University of Oxford is not User:Jonathan A Jones's article. It is wikipedia's article. I linked to one article from another article, an usual practice for any new article that is written for the project. I added relevant, well sourced, and important information about the history of the University. Please discuss at the talk page before reverting me again.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 19:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Oxford college was founded in 1005 before Oxford University founded in 1203 as a university. The town Oxford was founded in 810. I am a former Oxford University student and my Oxford history professor provided me the history of Oxford University. So the true start of Oxford University as a college was 1005 yet the University was founded in the same location and same body in the institution. of the college which became a university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 ( talk) 07:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
When did Oxford first effectively become an 'English-speaking institution'-did it do so before Harvard, Trinity Dublin, etc? (The Latin text of the Laudian Statutes clearly held sway for two centuries). Suggest 'the oldest university to have become an English-speaking institution'! ----Clive Sweeting
http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/oxford-cambridge-universities.html
When you refer oldest to first, please think about that again. First is also the same defination category as oldest. Your mis-phrasing the argument on the terms of first with Oxford. I had tour guide books that are printed in 1930, 1980, 1997 that all state Oxford University is an institution and the first of its kind to speak English, not England but in the world. Shall I take imageshot to state the fact to reference the facts more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 ( talk)r 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Oxford is an institution, and an educational institution, of course. I don't think anybody is arguing about that. But it was not the first institution, or even the first educational institution (putting aside all the other types of institution) to speak English. If you allow for Old English then the oldest English speaking institutions would have been Anglo Saxon (a law court, perhaps?) and the oldest English speaking educational institution would probably have been one of the schools that was created centuries before Oxford University existed (see List_of_the_oldest_schools_in_the_United_Kingdom). In any case, didn't Oxford teach entirely in Latin for some centuries (I'm open to correction here - although this is repeated many times, I can't find a reliable source for it after a quick search)? I have to agree that "the oldest university in the English speaking world" is the correct description. I would be interested to see any verifiable evidence that you have for "Oxford College" in 1005, but most sources seem to agree that we know nothing of detail about Oxford University's origins in that period. ThomasL ( talk) 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If you have sources, then please cite them. I am wondering whether you misunderstood what you were told. Incidentally, Oxford University Press didn't print books in the eleventh century. Not surprising, as the printing press hadn't been invented. They published their first book in 1478. And of course buildings predating the University probably didn't belong to the University when they were built. ThomasL ( talk) 22:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, anyone who claims they have a degree from Oxford yet still refer to Oxford having a "campus", which it most certainly does not, forfeits any right to be taken seriously in this discussion. I leave to one side the question of the IP's distinctly poor English, since this may just be a question of poor typing. However, bizarre claims that Oxford University was founded in 1203 (no source, and contrary to all accepted learning which states that no precise date for the university's foundation is known), that there are books in English from 1080 (before, as ThomasL points out, the printing press was invented) and so on lead me reluctantly to conclude that we are all being trolled and should ignore this time-wasting IP. There is a clear consensus against the IP's edits; s/he refuses to listen to discussions; the sources s/he proposes to use are hardly high-quality; s/he cannot understand the difference in nuance between "first" and "oldest", let alone the obvious difference between "university" and "institution". Let's move on. Bencherlite Talk 05:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Oxford Press was formed in 14th century, there are books on campus that say 1180 for example in Latin but I have found some in English. The National Archives [7] Records in Kew London has information on this dating more than 1000 years back but Oxford has even older records are in the university libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 ( talk) 07:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I say again, if you have sources please cite them. I think you are mistaken. The University of Oxford website, with a history of the University written by university officials, seems to think you are mistaken [8] (no mention of "Oxford College", and nothing happening in 1005 or 1203 - indeed "By 1201, the University was headed by a magister scolarum Oxonie" who became the Chancellor in 1214). Oxford University Press's website seems to think you are mistaken [9], and obviously there cannot have been an "Oxford University Press" until the printing press had been invented (all previous books would have been written by hand). This site from another university suggests there were no (manuscript) books written in English between 1066 and 1205 [10], so that it would be impossible for you to read books printed or written in English in 1080 or even 1180 (loose manuscripts, perhaps), and these would have required training to read. The oldest building in Oxford is a tower, now part of a church, from 1040 [11], and the oldest educational building was Convocation House built in 1320, possibly the oldest university building in the world, [12] so there are no buildings from "Oxford College" in the 10th or mid-11th century and before. Finally, I have no doubt that the Oxford libraries have manuscripts dating from before the foundation of the university, but rather obviously this doesn't prove that "Oxford College" existed at the time that they were written, they could have been purchased or donated at a later date. My own library contains lots of nineteenth century books, but I am not a hundred and fifty years old. Given that most of your claims are contradicted by academic sources, and that the sources you do cite don't support your arguments, and are not academic sources (indeed, your initial source cites Wikipedia as its own main source for the descriptions of Oxford and Cambridge Universities) I do not think your arguments pass the verifiability test. I would certainly be willing to reconsider your arguments if you produced sources to support them, but this would depend on the quality of the sources. ThomasL ( talk) 12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking in more detail at the "Oxford University Press" website, the first official recognition of a University Press took place in 1586, although books had been printed in Oxford (sometimes with University support) since 1478. There was certainly no "Oxford University Press" in the 1300s. ThomasL ( talk) 13:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There was no "Oxford Press" before the printing press. Handwritten books were not produced by a Press. But in any case, what makes you think that the books you were looking at (whether in English or Latin, from 1080 or 1180, handwritten or printed) were produced by "Oxford College" rather than purchased by the University of Oxford at a later date? The Bodleian website says the University's central library was "denuded of its books" in 1550, and the collections had to be built up again. [13] I am not sure whether the same happened to the College libraries, if these existed at the time (and there were no Colleges to have libraries in 1080 or 1180), but the vast majority of Oxford's ancient books did not belong to the University when they were first written or printed.
Anyway, this seems beside the point. You claim that there was an institution named "Oxford College" founded in 1005, and that the "University of Oxford" was founded from this institution in 1203. You asked for academic sources to refute your claims. Usefully, Amazon's "Look Inside" feature allows you to look inside "The History of the University of Oxford: Volume One: The Early Oxford Schools" [14]. You can read a substantial portion of the text, which does not support your claims, and you can search for "1005" (which does not appear in the book) and "1203" (which produces two references, neither anything to do with the founding of the University). You could of course support your arguments by showing us another authoritative source that supports your claims. Otherwise, I don't think this discussion is worth continuing. ThomasL ( talk) 08:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
From R.W. Southern's chapter in the aforementioned book: "The first sign of scholastic activity in Oxford was the appearance of a schoolmaster who taught in the town from about 1095 to 1125". So no "Oxford College", and no 1005. ThomasL ( talk) 09:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It is clear to me that this discussion is not going any ware 75.128.15.231 has been asked to provide sources, s/he has not - so time I think to draw a line under it and close this discussion - any objections? Codf1977 ( talk) 11:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It is clear to me that this dicussion is clearly not getting answered when the Adminstrator asked to use Talkpages and questions are being ignored about Oxford University as the first English speaking university or instition. For example user Codf1977 has not provided a single source of fact but objects and comments disagreement only. What is this? Use the talkpages qand get ignored. This discussion remains a question of matter on the facts of Oxford University being the first English speaking institution vs. the oldest speaking university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 ( talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
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)
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.
Does anyone think that a brief note on the old entrance examination system would be helpful? I can't supply it myself because I never took the exams and I never studied at O or C, due to a regrettable talent / energy problem. Regards to all. Notreallydavid ( talk) 02:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the phrase "comparable" in "Students who apply from state schools and colleges have a comparable acceptance rate to those from independent schools (25% and 32% of applicants accepted respectively, 2006)" should be deleted, and it be noted that success rates vary significantly by school (a one in three chance and a one in four chance are radically different, calling them comparable is misleading). Perhaps comparable should be replaced by "a consistently lower"? The statistics supporting this also need updating, though the substantive - revised - point would remain accurate. 128.122.79.88 ( talk) 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
the cite for endowment (#2) says: In the 2008/9 fiscal year, the University's endowment stood at £585 million, with combined college endowments reaching £2.4 billion. i dont understand how the infobox arrived at its numbers 207.238.152.3 ( talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop reverting this introductory sentence, which we have agreed upon, by consensus, for every other British university (excluding the University of Buckingham). I understand that the terminology is American. But according to this American usage, British universities are public universities - actually less independent than some of the major American public universities. Avaya1 ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
(i) The public/private distinction we're using, as applied to universities, is an American usage. By American criteria, British universities are public universities. Those opposing the introductory sentence (that, again, we've agreed by consensus to use for every other British university except Buckingham) are going against the standard use of the distinction, as applied to universities. Many American public universities are more "private" than British universities in their funding.
(ii)We have guidelines against WP:OTHERSTUFF, however, in this instance the use of "is a public university" in the introductory sentence for all the other British university articles seems to be a format-consensus among editors. It is open to argument whether we should remove it - however, if we do remove it, we have to agree to do so for all the other British university articles. Moreover, to me, it seems to be an informative sentence, that is technically correct if "public university" is understood in its American sense, which is no doubt how the majority of the readers of Wikipedia will understand it. Avaya1 ( talk) 02:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the assumption that the majority of the readers of Wikipedia will understand it in its American sense. The point is that the link to the article is not helpful for British universities. I think the "public university" bit should just be omitted from the lede for all UK universities, even Buckingham. A mention that Buckingham does not directly receive government funds can go further down its article
Everyone is aware that British universities aren't completely state owned and controlled. But the term "public university" doesn't imply that a university is entirely state-owned or controlled. Many public universities in America are a lot more "private" than Oxford. But Oxford (and all British universities, apart from Buckingham) are "public universities", as that term is internationally applied. The disagreement seems to come from an eccentrically literal interpretation of the word "public". Avaya1 ( talk) 01:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary has no definition of "public university" or "private university". It does include, under the word prevent, a quotation from Sir William Blackstone, writing in 1758, "to collect all the common lawyers into the one public university", by which he is referring to the Inns of Court when they were first founded. That usage seems to be similar to that in "public school" as the expression is now used in England and is clearly very different from the U. S. meaning. The fact that the OED does not find it necessary to define the terms underlines their inappropriateness in a British context. There is no internationally agreed meaning of either, and we can only interpret what they mean outside the United States by referring to usage. It is hardly surprising that there is very little usage in the UK to refer to, but what there is is not consistent. It surely follows that to use such terms in articles on British universities is unhelpful. Moonraker2 ( talk) 09:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
dear lord. i can't believe you lot are arguing about this. just say oxford university and get over yourselves. seriously. if you had the brains to go you would have read bruno latour had a cup of tea and realised that it makes no difference. i know it would be embarrassing to back down at this stage, but just grow up. it doesn't matter. whatever you call it is questionable, the modernist notion of an encyclopedia is an absurdity anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.5.224 ( talk) 13:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It is quite clear that there is no consensus on this issue and that includes consensus on the sources. I thought we were close to getting consensus that any mention of public or private was not appropriate in the lede and that the issue should be discussed in a more nuanced way further down the article. That could say something like "Oxford University is a public university in the sense that it receives a large amount of public money from the government, but it is a private university in the sense that it is entirely self-governing and could chose to become entirely private by rejecting public funds". Can we see whether consensus can build on something like this? The argument is silly, and it is failing to actually tell readers what the situation actually is by the false choice between "public" and "private". Oxford is really neither one nor the other. but a bit of both. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Also we aren't only debating it for this one article. It's surely a decision we have to make, one way or the other, for all the university articles - otherwise singling out Oxford (as the only non-public British research university) might create some confusion. My view is that, while it might not be perfect, the phrase does easily communicate some basic points about the financing and control of the universities (on the former point, e.g. why Oxford has a similar endowment to somewhere like Brown University, but an income many times higher). Avaya1 ( talk) 02:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research told me over dinner last week that it isn't a public university. It belongs to the dons, who are private individuals, not to the government. It is true that the University's research depends heavily on public funding, but that does not change the fact that the University is private. I draw an analogy with General Motors, which is indisputably a private company, which is nevertheless unable to subsist without public money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.119.240 ( talk) 12:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Can we ensure that the 'private' reference is now deleted by overwhelming consensus. Arguments for the public nature (sometimes in a historical sense)have been cited in abundance. They include also with various degrees of strength the Royal Proclamation preceding the 39 Articles, privileged publication rights,the requirement to submit certain kinds of change for approval by the Privy Council.----Clive sweeting
I'm not sure which reference you are referring to? It took a long time to find a form of words on which there is anything resembling consensus, and I really see no reason to change this. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The words 'If any Publick Reader in either of our Universities' (Proclamation above) surely settle the issue. In British usage 'public' is scarcely synonymous with 'belonging to the government' or 'funded by the government'. The Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research's remark is scarcely apposite here----Clive sweeting.
As an old-fashioned writer who prefers -z- to -s- in words ending in -ize, I should just like to note that Oxford English also prefers the -z-. Does anyone mind if the Oxford spellings are used throughout this article? Moonraker2 ( talk) 04:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"Academic dress is still commonly seen at Oxford; until the 1960s students wore it at all times". This not correct. I went up in 1957 as a science student. I only wore a gown for formal hall on a regular basis. Arts students wore gowns for lectures, but still not "at all times". I think that situation went back at least to after the war. We need better references on this. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The History section starts with a "Teaching at Oxford existed in some form in 1096,....". I'm sure that in most other towns and cities with an ancient universities, teaching in some form took place well before the university was founded. What sort of encyclopedic information is that? In my opinion it should be removed. -- Dia^ ( talk) 17:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Please answer for me. May I ask any question to you. Which languages are teaching in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.175.36 ( talk) 03:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I have just read this page through and this to me looks like it could easily be a Featured Article. I haven't checked the requirements in depth but I think it is close. Rafmarham ( talk) 21:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Since this question has implicitly come up again I thought it might be helpful to summarise the position. Oxford is the second oldest university in continuous operation, beaten only by the University of Bologna, but it appears third in the List of oldest universities in continuous operation. The reason for this is that the list page anomalously includes the University of Paris, although Paris does not meet the criteria for inclusion, as (1) it had an extensive break from 1793-1896, which is undeniably long enough to break continuity, and (2) it no longer actually exists, having been broken up into a number of successor institiutions.
Paris survives on the list apparently because of its centrality in the history of early universities, but there are regular discussions about removing it so that the list actually follows its stated criteria. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 19:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
An update: I removed Paris from the list a while back and my edit seems to have stuck, so the discussion above is currently a bit moot. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 18:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)