Talk:University of Oxford/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Colleges

With respect to the constituent colleges, do they each have separate faculty? For example, could a student at Balliol College and a student at University College each be enrolled in the same class with the same professor? 76.182.116.210 14:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Teaching is based on expertise, across the University. This means if you take an option in a given subject, the chances are you will be sent for tuition with the expert in that area who may be resident at a different college. Faculties sort of transcend the colleges in this respect: tutors in a subject will be resident across a number of colleges; some colleges specialise in certain subject fields (for example New College is residence to the University's leading Greek historian, whilst Worcester College used to be resident to the University's leading Roman historian). Coldmachine^Talk 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The colleges are residences, not academic departments. Like the houses in Harry Potter. Acedemics is under the purview of the university as a whole. --194.98.58.121 (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's hugely oversimplified. Colleges in Oxford are far more than residences. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely oversimplified: Each college is a legal entity in its own right; most alumni identify more with their old college than with the university (at least that is true of my contemporaries and me); while it is true that the academic curriculum is set by the university faculty, the most important part of the teaching system, the tutorial, is provided by each college, with only lectures being faculty-level. There are many more nuances, but it would take a book to describe them, in fact it probably has... – ukexpat (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another most important point is that students are admitted by a College, not the university. The latter has to matriculate all students who are presented by a College at the University Matriculation Ceremony. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so how are the curricula organized? This issue is not clarified at all in this and related articles which focus too much on medieval and caste traditions. As in the United States, are departments organized by subject matter in each college or is that done on a university wide basis with colleges being as much residential and fraternal entities as they are academic units where people study? I became interested in this upon reading about the Claremont Colleges in the U.S. on Wikipedia wherein it was stated that they were modeled on Oxbridge. They are, however actually freestanding schools, unlike most sub-university colleges in America which are defined by subject matter eg College of Arts and Sciences, College of Engineering etc. Tom Cod 05:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Degree examinations are University affairs, as are the curricula for those examinations. The mecahnisms for drawing up these curricula, and lecturing in relevant areas are organised through faculties and (particularly in the sceiences) departments of the University. There reamins a pretence, more real in some subjects than others, that the purpose of a university education is deeper than examination hurdle-jumping, so the College teaching is not necessarily entirely examination-directed (although in some cases you might be hard put to it to see the difference). Dan Dean (talk) 08:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I shall explain by example... I studied Computer Science at University College (Univ), Oxford. This meant that I was affiliated to Univ for all my residential \ pastoral matters (college wide), and affiliated to the Comlab and Maths Institute (university wide). Most of my tutors were Maths or Comp.Sci. professors or postgrads holding fellowships at Univ. Most of my tutorials and classes were held in Univ. Sometimes, however, classes were organised for students of more than one college held at one of those colleges; this would generally occur on an ad-hoc basis. All my LECTURES were given by Comlab/MInstitute professors to everyone studying that subject in the University. All exams were set centrally by the Comlab/Minstitute. Not all colleges run all subjects. Some colleges are "better" than others for a subject, depending on how many they accept for that subject, and who they have teaching it. I hope this helps! 217.154.153.2 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How many colleges?

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

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

Double-first - mis-defined

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

Perhaps the definitions has changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.115.67 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be remembering the 1970s incorrectly. It was a first in Mods and a first in Finals in the 1950s and 1960s when I was there. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Relation to national government or crown?

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)

Like all British universities, Oxford is controlled by Acts of Parliament and is significantly funded by the government. It used to be linked in a sense to the C of E, as all members had to belong to the C of E, but that no longer holds. The Royal Family has a link to some Colleges as the Visitor. The whole issue of governance is very complicated and is not basis. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed very complicated. At one level all UK universities are private; at another level only Buckingham is; at a third level none are truly private institutions. Oxford and Cambridge are separately regulated by their own acts of parliament in addition to the main education and charity acts. The colleges are even more complicated, and let's not even think about the PPHs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in University of Oxford

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":

• From University of Warwick: "University ranking by institution". The Guardian. London. 2010-06-08. Retrieved 2010-06-08.
• From University of Bristol: "University ranking by institution". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 8 June 2010.

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 unexplained removal of well sourced material

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)

Actually, the normal route is bold, revert, discuss: you added something, JAJ removed it with an edit summary, now it gets discussed. So I have undone your readdition of the material. For my part, I think JAJ was right to remove the addition. Even leaving aside the poor grammar of the edit, to talk about the "grotesque's dimensions" of the university's intolerance is a breach of NPOV. Mentioning the incident in this way gives the episode undue weight as well. Not everything that has ever happened at the university, even if it has its own article, can possibly be included in the main article about the university. Bencherlite^Talk 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fine, fix the grammar, remove so called POV, but it is not one time deal, it is not a single incident. The source clearly states: "Throughout the Middle Ages, and right through to the 1850's, the University of Oxford, required all members of the University to be Christian, and members of the established church. Thus unconverted Jews could never be members of the University." It is an important information of the history of the University, and should be added to the article in one way or another.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to material about the changes over time in the requirements for admission to the university with regards to religion - it's clearly an important topic, and the "history" section of the article doesn't cover it in much depth (or, indeed, cover anything in much depth!). It might be best addressed as a new sub-article, addressing the university reforms of the 19th century. In fact, though, to say all were required to be Christians (as the first sentence of your edit did) rather misses the important qualification you make above: until 19th-century reforms, not all Christians were admitted anyway (Dissenters were excluded, as were Catholics once the CofE became the order of the day). Making a two-sentence addition to the article, one of which is POV and ungrammatical and the other of which is only half-right and gives undue weight to the situation of one particular Jew, is not the way to do it, though. Bencherlite^Talk 20:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As by now you probably know English is not my first language. Maybe you'll be so kind to add the info to the article, and link to the new stub as an example? After all this episode with this particular Jew is described by Anthony Woods. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, but at present, writing a proper history section or article about the university is very low on my list of priorities. Fortunately, there is no deadline to include it, and someone else will at some point, I suspect. Bencherlite^Talk 20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I still believe that the link to the new article should be added to University of Oxford in one way or another. It is a notable example of the University's policy that was in effect thought few hundreds years of it history. The time you spent discussing it removal could have been used to add few sentences to the history section of the article, but instead you've chosen to complain few times about my "poor grammar" and POV instead of trying to WP:AGF and realize that so called POV could have been coming from English being my second language, all that while completely ignoring inappropriate edit summary by User:Jonathan A Jones. Oh well just another normal wikipedia sysop, I guess--Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, thanks for the nasty side-swipe at the end of your last post, that's really appreciated. Writing a properly sourced addition to the history section about the varying religious requirements for membership of the university over the years would take more than a few minutes, and more than a "few sentences". Incidentally, which reliable sources call this a notable example of the university's admission policy, out of interest? Calling that policy "grotesque" is POV in any language, and your English is good enough to see that, I would think; it's clearly good enough to be rude. This is a discussion about the content, not JAJ's edit summary, not the irrelevant fact that I'm an admin. Similarly, you could have spent some of the time copyediting the article in question; you'll notice that it's looking rather different now, and the edit history will tell you who's done what to it (hint, hint). You're still in time to nominate it at "Did You Know?", incidentally. Bencherlite^Talk 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I explained earlier the important university policy that was in effect for few hundred years should be mentioned in the University of Oxford article. Jacob Barnet affair is just a good example to what extend a person (Jacob Barnet) went (asked to be baptized) just to receive the equal rights and the privilege of continuing his work in the university, and to what extend the University officials went (arrested the man) to enforce the policy. When I said "add few sentences" I meant to add some info about this particular policy, using the sources from Jacob Barnet article. I hope you'd agree that it is not necessarily to write everything at once. Every section of an article could, and probably will be updated sometime.

I used the word "grotesque" not to call the policy, but to call Jacob Barnet's affair itself. In my culture and in my native language the word "grotesque" is absolutely the right word to describe somebody being arrested for changing the mind and refusing to get baptized. Besides it happened in 1612.

Now I know why you had nothing to say about JAJ's edit summary. You yourself wrote inappropriate edit summary. May I please ask to review the policy? It clearly states: "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved."?

May I please ask you to accept my apology, if in your opinion my response sounded rude? In my culture your own response and constant reminding about my bad grammar would have been considered rude.

Thanks for helping with copyediting the article. Next time I will know who should I ask for help :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is clearly lacking any historical information about the historic biases perpetuated by the University. One or two sentences about one incident of bias is the way to start. Requiring an entire comprehensive section before any information is added is both unreasonable and represents a lack of fundamental understanding how this volunteer-made encyclopedia functions. The tone and spelling by User: mbz1's addition clearly needed some work, but the wholesale revert and testy edit summaries are uncalled for. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Facts: Oxford college founded in 1005 before Oxford University founded in 1203

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)

The facts might be correct but the grammar does not work the phrase "and the first oldest English-speaking" just does not work. Codf1977 (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The early history of the university is rather complicated, and I'm having considerable difficulty understanding 75.128.15.231's summary. In particular I'm at a loss to understand which college he is referring to as "Oxford College", and what he thinks happened in 1203. But it's his idiosyncratic grammar, consistent misspelling, his rather odd choice of references, and his penchant for leaving threatening messages on people's talk pages that mostly worries me. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, what on earth is "the first English-speaking institution in the world" supposed to mean? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking it it more detail I am at a loss to see how these edits add to the article, when considering WP:LEADCITE and the dif's. The only change in the text is from "the oldest university in the English-speaking world" to " and the first English-speaking institution" and the addition of the following refs :

• Study English Today News by M. Boyanova 2007 "Oxford University is the 1st English speaking institution": [1]
• About Oxford Uni
• Linkin: "University of Oxford is an educational institution" [2]
• Businessweek; July 30, 2010 "University of Oxford is an educational institution - The institution is based in Oxford, United Kingdom"[3]
• Oxford University is an education institution[4]
• NNDB "Oxford University an education institution"[5]

So given that nothing has realy changed in the lead and nothing is contentions I think they should be reverted back to this version as it is cleaner. Codf1977 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's my view too, or possibly to the version after that incorporating the changes by 71.111.229.19. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake yes I ment this one. If you are happy then absent anyone else objecting then do it. Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:14, 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

Disagree but what facts or acedemic sources do you have to provide the college is not an institution? Are you saying it is not an institution? Are you saying it is not an English speaking institution?

Then what is Oxford University, a university or an institution? I mean shall I contact the Adminstration let them know that according to this discussion that school needs to clarify according to you that Oxford is not a institution? Let me see if I can get them to just go on their homepage and make some historical changes. I wonder if they will laugh?

Here is your simple 3rd grade history lession about Oxford University:

http://www.studyenglishtoday.net/oxford-cambridge-universities.html

Why do you think they say Harvard University is an educational institution and why they call it the first English speaking institutions in America? The founders came from Cambridge University England. You know the word university is in the orginal text of Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, etc etc etc.

Second, Oxford University was a college before it was university. Prehaps that means regular old junior college just like in the States. I mean almost 200 years before the university was founded as a university it was a college. Grammer or whatever, it is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is getting increasingly bizarre. What reliable sources do you have to show that (a) "Oxford college" (whatever you mean by that) was founded in 1005; (b) "Oxford University" was founded in 1203? What on earth does "first English-speaking institution" mean? I have reverted 75.128...'s changes, again, as there is clearly no consensus here for them. Nobody is saying that Oxford University is not an "institution", as the consensus wording is "one of the world's leading academic institutions", but the wording "first English-speaking institution" for which 75.128... is contending makes no real sense in this context. Like those commenting before, I see no problems with the consensus wording of "the third oldest surviving university and the oldest university in the English-speaking world and is regarded as one of the world's leading academic institutions". Bencherlite^Talk 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Please see - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:75.128.15.231 reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: ), should the editor edit again will ask for either semi-protection or pending reviews to be added. Codf1977 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Report on Codf1977 for article abuse[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

Before Oxford University was founded as a university in 1203, it was a college. There are buildings on campus that date from the 10th century and 11th century before the college was changed into a university. The town of Oxford is from the 8th century, you've got churches dating back in the 8th and 9th century there. Astonishing but it is Englands history. Yet because I have a MS degree from Oxford University I was reading books in my library on campus (as there is over 47 libraries on campus reading Latin and English books printed by Oxford Press from the 11th century. Tell me that about the college's history but to read books dated in 1080 in English besides Latin as the college in Oxford at the time before the university was founded in 1203 add some form of English instrustion but was mostly Latin.

There are hundrens of Oxford tour guides on campus as I went on several on them to get more facts on the university being the first English speaking - institution, many first off on the tour would say all the basic facts about Oxford and carrying down the list of things to know about the institution. I have 3 tour guide books from Oxford University and printed by Oxford University Press that state that Oxford University was the first english speaking college, university, instition there was, if you consider that England, the world or the planet. How many of you have been to Oxford University? School or visit, how many of you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I would think most educational institutions taught in Latin throughout the Middle Ages - why wouldn't they? All literature was in Latin, all books were in Latin. There wasn't even an English Bible until the 16th century, and even then the poor bloke got executed for translating it. Deb (talk) 18:09, 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)

This is from 1968, so there may have been more recent discoveries, but:

"We cannot here enter into the vexed question of when the studium of Oxford could first be termed a University, a term which first appears at Paris in 1219 and at Oxford in 1245. [...] Oxford University was in full bloom when Giraldus Cambrensis lectured on Ireland to the masters and scholars there in 1189, and there is evidence of a teacher there, Theobald Stampensis (of Etampes), eminent in canon law and rhetoric between 1119 and 1135, of a teacher eminent in canon law, Robert of Cricklade, teaching clerks at Oxford coming from divers places in England, c. 1135, of a teacher eminent in theology in the person of Robert Pullen (the chicken) from 1133 to 1138, and of one eminent in civil law in the person of Master Vacarius between 1145 and 1150."

From "The Schools of Medieval England" by A. F. Leach. Benjamin Blom: New York, 1968. Page: 130.

So from this information, Oxford University was already acting as a university by 1189, and probably earlier, but nobody used the word "university" until 1245. ThomasL (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the adminstration says 1203 founded but Oxford college was founded in 1005. The historians in Oxford will tell exactly the history on where to find the facts and etc. Also to say

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)

This is now getting very tiresome - and sorry to be blunt, but it is now tme to put up or shut up - you need to produce reliable sources that back up this claim; unless you can you are likely now to be ignored. Codf1977 (talk) 08:43, 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)

You have published books and then you have university books on campus. I assume they were publishing books for the university before publishing books to the public for sale. There are books on campus that I have seen in my college library dating back to 1080 in Latin and English. Books with wooden covers and handwritten that are published sit in the libaries everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 22:02, 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)

Motion to close this discussion

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)

Motion to ask more questions on those who refuse to answer

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)

Your questions have been answered at great length, both here and on your own talk page, but you seem to suffer from a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Favonian (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No I am asking questions that will referred to my answers. Nothing wrong with that but I think you are making an insult now instead of the questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Favonian. Your questions have been answered. The University of Oxford is not the oldest English speaking institution. There was no Oxford College in the 11th century. There is no consensus among established editors for the edits to the lede that have made. Just accept that and go and do something useful somewhere else. You are wasting your time and ours. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No that's not the case, I was not given the right answers (to you but not me) but some opinions articles to other articles, so I seek some specific answers. I have written to Oxford University I am waiting for some answers to some of the comments and that also takes some time as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.231 (talk • contribs)

Fair enough. We await your reply, but I very much doubt that it will lead to any support for your ideas. I will not longer waste time on you. You know so little about wikipedia, that not only do you not sign your comments, but you delete signatures that have been added. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Admissions

This section, like several on this page, is inadequate. It deals with three strands: procedure, access, and scholarships, and so I propose dividing the section into these three subsections. Currently the information is badly organised and not up to the standard it should be.

I also feel that the mention of the 'English Class System' is anachronistic and out of place. Firstly, the capitalisation of 'English Class System' is slightly ridiculous, it makes it sound likes it's some government agency you can be referred to. So I think it should be removed. The quality of the three references to this section are also questionable. The first is just a BBC 'Talking Point' page which is just a collection of what random people think on the subject - hardly a quality reference. While it shows that Oxford admissions to raise controversy, it is not fact-based, rather headline-driven, and on top of that it is 7 years old and out of date. The second is a similar format (talking point) but is far more up to date (2006), and makes the first article redundant. The third also does not really make sense it relation to the subject matter; it is about academic tests, not the 'English Class System', and the mention of the word 'elitism' in the subheading is pretty much the only thing relevant. In addition, it is also a bit out of date (2004), talking in the future tense about admissions tests which are now standard and have been for almost two years.

Obviously there IS a degree of controversy surrounding Oxford admissions, and the university's Wikipedia article should mention this. I therefore think the Telegraph reference should certainly be saved, as it shows the existence of public debate on the subject. This page, however, is not the place for debates about social engineering, what Oxford should or should not be doing in its admissions policy - it should be about what actually happens. At present it is confusing and potentially discouraging for someone who might be interested in the university, only to be given the impression that the 'English Class System', whatever that is in this day and age, will act against them.

What do others think? Oudweg 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with this view. I would opt for keeping the Telegraph reference, in that case, and for including the others in support of a simple statement within the article along the lines of "Oxford University's admissions policy has caused public controversy in the past", for example. Surely there are HEFCE articles/reports which can be cited on this issue too, to illustrate current admissions levels (e.g. proportion of students of X minority or Y social background)? Coldmachine^Talk 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of the comments posted here, a set of statistics would be very useful in describing that candidates from higher class families traditionally had a greater chance of admission to the University. Statistics comparing the admissions of 1907 and 2007 would be very useful in this context and maybe even a graph illustrating the increase in uptake of candidates from lower class backgrounds over the period of the last 50 years or so. Of course such information would be hard to obtain, assuming a log even exists. I agree with the removal of any information that has been obtained from a poor source such as the BBC 'Talking Point' page. 84.9.55.184 22:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the colleges limited in accepting foreign students? As I understand it, oxford and cambridge have to accept a high percentage of British nationals, but I see now mention of this... Trying to clarify this point. 71.233.44.171 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

I have updated the numbers and references. The figures are now one if four against one in five, which I think are "broadly comparable". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

endowment

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)

Nothing subtle; the endowment figure was added some while ago (certainly before the end of the 2008/09 financial year) and is now out of date. Thanks for updating. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"The University of Oxford is a public university"

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 have made the link more specific (Public university#United Kingdom) - maybe that will deal with the apparent confusion. – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Out of interest, where was that discussion? And who is "we" in this context? And why should an article about a university in the UK be required to use American terminology? Bencherlite^Talk 15:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the notion that Oxford is a "public university" mysterious. In what sense is it "public", please, and when is it suggested that it became "public"? I certainly do not think that an institution can properly be called "public" because most of its fees are paid by the public sector. On that basis, if the Ritz in London were mostly used by the British Civil Service and the Royal Navy, it would be a "public hotel". Of course, British "public schools" are almost the opposite of what Americans call "public schools", so we should surely resist treating an American usage of the word as definitive. Moonraker2 (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of the labels 'public' and 'private' in respect of universities is not purely American terminology: [15], [16],[17] However the labels have traditionally been used far more in the U.S. because there is a far higher proportion of private universities in America and therefore a more frequent need to draw a distinction. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ukexpat for the attempt at compromise, but as Oxford is neither state owned or controlled the description "public" makes no sense. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that Public university#United Kingdom needs to be rewritten to the effect that despite funding grants from the government, UK universities are not "public universities" in the US sense. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It used to say pretty much that until Avaya1 changed it in this edit [18]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I edited it because (i) it was completely unsourced, (ii) it was POV, insofar as it was prescribing usage, (iii) the entry seems to be original research. Avaya1 (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

See, for example, this article [19] in the Telegraph, which states that "Oxford colleges, along with the institution itself, are already private charitable corporations that own their own land and assets. The university does, however, depend heavily on public funding grants for teaching and research." Note that although this article, in common with many others, uses the phrase "go private" it is quite explicit that any such decision would be made by the University and would not need the approval of government. Similarly the University's own web page [20] states that "Oxford is an independent and self-governing institution, consisting of the central University and the Colleges." and notes that "The University of Oxford is a civil corporation established under common law, which was formally incorporated by the Act for Incorporation of Both Universities 1571 under the name of 'The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford', but is more commonly referred to as the University of Oxford or Oxford University." [21] Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect I find it odd that you have cited an article titled 'Oxford college heads back call to go private' in support of your argument that Oxford is already private. I am equally confused as to the reason for this disussion. The info boxes of all UK universities bar Buckingham have long stated without qualification that they are 'public'. There is no great magic to this label except as meaning 'not private'. Universities in the UK are seldom described as 'public' in general discourse purely because virtually all of them are so and there is little need for any differentiation. I note that you have ignored the sources which I have cited above, most significantly the one from the existing Secretary of State where he does make the point explicitly. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You will find many articles with similar titles, but if you read the articles (rather than just the titles) you will find that all the articles are actually referring to the possibility of the universities ceasing to take government funding, something which they could in principle decide to do at any time because they are private institutions which are not under state control. Many such articles put "go private" in scare quotes to make clear that the phrase is being used in a traditional sense which is not literally true, and some (such at the article I quoted above) are absolutely clear on the fundamentals, with statements such as "Oxford colleges, along with the institution itself, are already private charitable corporations that own their own land and assets". I really don't see what statement you could hope to find which is clearer than that, or the equivalent statements made by Oxford itself, also cited above. In fact there are two reasons why UK universities are rarely described as public: (1) they are not publicly owned or controlled, and (2) the whole public/private distinction is essentially a US one and makes little or no sense in the UK. The argument from the misuse of the word "public" in the existing infobox is completely specious: this is an argument for correcting that error, not spreading it throughout the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan. Oxford receives public monies, but by every legal criteria it is a private organisation. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:14, 4 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

Agree with Bduke's unsigned comment above. People might wish to review Wikipedia:Systemic bias and WP:COMMONALITY. From WP:COMMONALITY we get "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms", which gives a strong preference for the widely used term "university" over the US-centric "public university", noting that "Terms that are uncommon in some varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings, may be glossed to prevent confusion. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all of the comments of Avaya1 above, except where he states that 'public' and 'private' are American terminology, which I strongly disagree with (and it is quite clear from the citations which I have posted above - and which keep being ignored - that this is false). It is true that the labels are used far more often in the U.S. however, but that is because the UK only has one university which is private, and that was only founded in the mid 1970s and only became a proper university in 1983, so there has been and remains few instances where it is necessary to draw the distinction domestically. This article has a worldwide audience however, and for their benefit it is important to draw the distinction in the UK university articles. This is why virtually all of them do so, and have done for years. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Rangoon11, I remain curious as to how you square your position with the statements I listed above, such as "The University of Oxford is a civil corporation established under common law". Are you seriously suggesting that the University of Oxford is unaware of its own legal status? And are you questioning the factual basis of the statement that "Oxford colleges, along with the institution itself, are already private charitable corporations that own their own land and assets"? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am entirely with Jonathan A Jones. I should wish to add add that Avaya1 and Rangoon11 may not be aware that the University of Oxford is relatively weak in most areas compared to its colleges. For instance, the colleges control admissions and discipline and have much greater endowments and assets than the University. Even if the University were "public" in any sense worth asserting, which I do not think it is, it seems clear to me (as it is to Jonathan A Jones) that the colleges are not "public". Moonraker2 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The colleges are separate legal entities from the university and are not covered by rules such as on the form of publication of accounts. The colleges each have separate Wikipedia articles and are not the subject of this discussion. The university itself is public in the key sense that well over half of its total income has for many decades come from the British taxpayer. The UK government also sets rules governing the number of students, and for which courses, assesses teaching and research, and sets a standardised format for accounts.

The issue of whether the taxpayer owns the assets of the university is in my view a wholly separate one from whether it is a public or private university, and is rather moot. However were the university to somehow attempt to 'privatise' itself in the sense that it sought to become a profit-making venture, I fully expect that the government of the day, of whatever party, would take whatever steps (if any) necessary to make this impossible. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As a post script I should add that, rather disappointingly, the citations which I have linked to above, as well as a number of the points which I have made, continue to be completely ignored by those keen to have Oxford described as 'private'. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

By "citations", Rangoon11, I think perhaps you mean the links to three web pages in your first post in this thread? One is a bbc news page quoting Vince Cable, another is a newspaper article, and the third is a page of the site universityworldnews.com which uses the phrase "go private" in quotation marks. Jonathan A Jones has already dealt with the significance of that. None of these web pages is terribly impressive, and none is a reliable source, but the third of them says rather helpfully "Public universities are not nationally run but state-run institutions..." That supports my view (see above) that an institution which receives public funding does not ipso facto become public.

In any event, my view is not that we should be describing the University of Oxford as "private" but that it is misleading to call it "public". Sensibly, the British do not have an awareness of the existence of a divide between "public" and "private" universities. If the meaning of "public" is "state-run" (as stated in a source you seek to rely on) then it is really not arguable that Oxford is "state-run". Moonraker2 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The British do have an awareness of the distinction between public and private universities, as is very clear from the comments of the Secretary of State in one of the citations, and the comments in another about the University of Buckingham being the only private university in the UK. The BBC News website and UK national newspaper articles are perfectly reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia policy.

The meaning of the phrase 'public university' is well established - one which is predominantly funded by public means through a national or subnational government. The subject of this article has met that criteria for deacades. Beyond that it is also regulated by the state in areas such as student numbers (and in which courses) and accounts, and research and teaching assessments. Of course it is not directly run by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but that is not a requirement for it to be public. I fully agree that the technical legal ownership of the assets of the university is complex and unusual - as is the case with many other UK universities - but my firm view is that that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. An analogy might be drawn with Network Rail, the assets of which are technically not state-owned, and which has day to day management independece, but which receives a very large proportion of its funding from the taxpayer, is tightly regulated, and would never be allowed to become profit making without the consent of the government and recognition of the role of the tax payer in funding the development of assets which it did not, in a strict legal sense, 'own'. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We appear to be getting somewhere: unless I am hopelessly confused there seems to be consensus that the University of Oxford is not publicly owned or controlled, and thus is not a "public body" in the usual sense. The claim then seems to be that although Oxford is not a public body, it is nonetheless a public university. A number of arguments have been advanced in support of this claim:

1) That the UK government sets a standard form of accounts. By this argument charities and public limited companies would be public bodies, so this can be safely discarded.

2) That the UK government "sets rules governing the number of students, and for which courses". Actually with the possible exception of the Medicine course the UK government does no such thing.

3) That the UK government "assesses teaching and research". Actually that is done by arms length bodies, and is not imposed on Oxford, but rather is a condition of eligibility for certain funding streams such as HEFCE-R and HEFCE-T.

The true situation is well described by Farrington and Palfreyman in their article OXCHEPS 39, where they say "Note, however, that any university which does not want funding from HEFCE can, as a private corporation, charge whatever tuition fees it likes (exactly as does, say, the University of Buckingham or BPP University College). Under existing legislation and outside of the influence of the HEFCE-funding mechanism upon universities, Government can no more control university tuition fees than it can dictate the price of socks in Marks & Spencer. Universities are not part of the state and are not part of the public sector; Government has no reserve powers of intervention even in a failing institution." In other words the government only has any control over Oxford in so far as Oxford signs contracts with HEFCE.

Thus we are brought to the nub of the question, the peculiar claim that "The university itself is public in the key sense that well over half of its total income has for many decades come from the British taxpayer." It may well be the case that the general public believes that this makes the university a public body; it may even be the case that politicians (who are notoriously ill informed about law) believe that Oxford is a public body; but it does not make Oxford a public body any more than it would for the many charities and the small number of commercial companies whose primary clients are government bodies.

Even taken in its own terms the argument makes little sense. It cannot be intended to include research funding, as the great private universities in the USA all accept very substantial research grants from US government agencies: see for example California Institute of Technology#Research. This then, presumably, refers to teaching income? In that case the largest funder of teaching in Oxford is the university and collegiate endowments, with government fees playing a relatively minor role. Even this minor role will essentially disappear as from 2012, when government funding of all humanities courses will disappear entirely and funding for science courses (with the exception of clinical medicine) will be cut by 70%. Or is your claim that Oxford is a public university now but will cease to be so in 2012?

You raise the red herring of describing Oxford as "private"; nobody here is arguing for that (although the technically correct description would be that oxford is a private university in receipt of public funding). Rather we are arguing for avoiding the US-centric and highly misleading terms "public university" and "private university" and sticking with the straightforward term "university" which avoids all confusion. And I cannot for the life of me understand why you have a problem with that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A number of statements of fact have been made above - uncited - which are simply incorrect. However I am reluctant to expend time to perform a point by point rebuttal with citations since I am the only editor in this discussion who seems to be providing citations and they are repeatedly being either ignored completely or simply dismissed without justification. Numerous citations have been provided showing that the label 'public university' is used in respect of the UK, but these are simply ignored (here are a couple more: [22] [23] [24]. Numerous citations have been given that Buckingham is the only private university in the UK, but these are simply ignored too.

Let me be clear though that there is no consensus here that Oxford is not publicly controlled - in very key areas it is. The level of its tuition fees; the number of students (and for which courses); the form of accounts; research and teaching assessments are all government presecribed. And a very large proportion of funding is from public sources, and has been for decades.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Jonathan. Of the two references just added by Rangoon11, the first is a politician, doing exactly what Jonathan says they do - misunderstand what public means. The second, does not appear to me to have any bearing on the issue. To add either public or private to the lead is highly misleading. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction, the first quote is from BBC News quoting the Secretary of State who currently has responsibility for the higher education sector. The second is from Oxford university itself. Numerous sources have now been given showing that (i) the label 'public university' is used in the UK and is not simply an American label; and (ii) that Oxford itself is public in the common sense of the label. Sadly it seems that no sources will be good enough for some editors here.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Secretary of State is a politician. What is the correction? He does not say that Oxford is a public university. The headline does but that is a journalist. He says it could go private in the sense of fully private like Buckingham. That is why the British usage is different from the US usage. However, to me the most important point is that this is not something for the lede as the distinction between public and private is not really important in the UK. It also needs explanation in depth and this should be lower down in the article, not the lead. So take it from the lede and add it lower down giving more explanation. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bduke's suggestion sounds sensible; there is certainly room for a few sentences in either the Organisation of Finances section. In passing I note that Rangoon11 has been heavily editing Private_university#United_Kingdom over the last few weeks, very much following the lines he takes above, and so the entry there should be interpreted with caution. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

On that last point, there is no statutory definition of "public university" in the United Kingdom, because all relevant legislation applies in the same way to institutions of higher education, whether an American would consider them "public" or "private". So in the context of the UK, all definitions of what a "public university" is have to be either subjective inventions or else imported from overseas. Avaya1 uses the expression " 'public universities', as that term is internationally applied", but I do not know of any international application of the term, and if there were an internationally agreed definition it could only originate from a responsible international body, such as the United Nations, but I have no idea what the application of such a definition would be and it seems unlikely that the UN could agree one if it tried. As we are hearing nothing about such a thing existing, I suppose it doesn't.

This debate is really quite arid, and I wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan A Jones and Bduke that the sensible solution is to remove any reference to either "public" or "private" in the lead. As we here cannot even agree what the term "public university" means, can anyone make a case for its being needed in the article? Moonraker2 (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The 'public' label is more than adequately cited. What puzzles me is why this discussion is taking place at all, when 'public' has been in the info box of the article for a number of years, and in the articles of virtually every other UK university.

It is important to remember in all of this that Wikipedia is aimed at a global, not just UK audience. Although the article should, of course, be in British English, it should also not assume knowledge of the fact that all but one UK universities are public. It is very helpful for non-UK readers to see that these are public not private universities, in the general sense of the term. The terms "public" and "private" universities are used in the UK, as is clear from the citations. Why should this article diverge not just from the articles of other UK universities, but from university articles on Wikipedia generally? Particularly when the "public" label is more than adequately cited.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, Rangoon11, that does not make a case for "public university" being needed in this article. It really would not matter if the same expression were included (rightly or wrongly) on thousands of similar pages, the arguments we have gone through here with regard to this one remain the same. Please allow me to say again that what you call "the citations" are far from convincing ones. In particular, there is no reason to treat newspaper or BBC journalists as speaking with authority, and their work is "peer reviewed" only by their editor, so they are not what are academically called "reliable sources". But we have been over this ground, I was looking for something new as to why it seems you do not accept the majority view here. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

BBC News is used to cite tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles and more than satisfies policy for sources. The other source is from the University of Oxford itself. And I'm sure that you know that Wikipedia works by consensus, not simple tallies.

I would be grateful if you could re-read my posting above and actually respond to the points in it, as you have completely ignored them in your subsequent posting.

The removal of properly cited and appropriate content strikes me as nothing less than censorship and I am not willing drop this discussion in the absence of exceptionally convincing reasons why (i) those citations should be ignored; and (ii) Oxford should be treated differently from other universities.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is a pretty good source for arbitrating on usage, and this is a discussion about usage. British universities are "public universities" as far as that term is commonly applied internationally (and, it seems, by the BBC). Nobody is arguing that "public universities" are completely state owned and controlled. The point is that they are "public universities", as that term will be understood by the majority wikipedia readers. Avaya1 (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental problems remains that the terms "public university" and "private university" do not have well defined meanings outside the context of United States universities, or universities in systems directly based on the US, and this attempt to foist US terminology on a UK institution is profoundly inappropriate. The difficulty is obvious in the article public university where an attempt at a universal definition is made: "A public university is a university that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or subnational government". Unfortunately by this definition many of the US private universities would count as public, because of their reliance on research grant income from governmental bodies, so clearly this definition cannot be right. Presumably it is meant to refer to income for teaching, and possible infrastructure support (the latter being terribly ill-defined, as infrastructure income is often based directly on research grant income, and so, arguably, should be excluded). On that definition it is not at all clear the Oxford is "public", as direct tuition income covers only about 30% of Oxford's teaching budget, and from 2012 will make up a tiny proportion. The terms simply don't work and should not be used out of their appropriate context. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of your posting, and therefore the whole premise of your argument, is proved to be wholly counter-factual by the numerous citations which I have given in this discussion, as well as the two which are used in the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:10, 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)

The sources show that both labels are used in the UK. A huge number of concepts which are not single words do not appear in dictionaries but have entire WP articles devoted to them e.g. Fifth generation jet fighter or Academic health science centre. The scope of WP is far greater than that of the OED. Inclusion in the OED is not a necessity for a topic/concept to have a WP article, let alone for a concept to be used within articles. Out of interest - I don't think that it matters either way to this discussion - are "public university" and "private university" found in U.S. dictionaries?Rangoon11 (talk) 15:09, 3 April 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)

I'm not quite clear who you feel should "back down", 94.173.5.224. If your suggestion "just say oxford university and get over yourselves" means you support saying nothing about "public" and "private", then I think most of us here (including me) would absolutely agree with you. Moonraker2 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me taking the liberty of changing it to merely "publicly funded" university. Whilst private contributions are considerable, I don't think you can deny that it does receive funding from the state. Peace. King me i (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The previous wording is more than adequately cited, although some editors here clearly don't like it.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

King me i's suggestion was a constructive one, and may provide a sensible way forward. Certainly worth discussing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The previous wording is cited to one party politician, clearly scoring a political point, and some other unidentified individuals publishing web pages. Nothing suggests to me that any of them has the kind of expertise that would make us say "here is an authority on how to categorize universities". Like Jonathan A Jones, I don't object to "publicly funded", I think there is a consensus on that. I suppose the term could be tweaked to avoid any hint of "completely publicly funded". Moonraker2 (talk) 22:01, 17 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)

Ageed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. After a long discussion we clearly do have consensus here to say nothing about "public" or "private university" in the lead. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and don't see a clear consensus for the deletion of what is properly cited content - the above discussion splits 3 v 2, with an additional editor proposing wording of "publicly funded". There is the additional weight of a large number of other connected articles in which the wording appears. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the University of Oxford is a public university. There is a consensus that it is a university. Hence the current wording. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear about my view, properly cited and appropriate content which mirrors that in a large number of similar articles has been removed with no clear consensus for such deletion. Period. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the consensus was to remove it from the lede and add a longer more nuanced discussion further down the article. The first has been done, but not, I think, the second. Perhaps you could do that, or at least start it. I would do it myself, but it has to be done very carefully and I do not have the time. As for the similar articles, the same change should be made to all UK universities because the term public university is not really used in the UK. They are all just universities approved by Parliament, with rather complex arrangements regarding funding from the public purse and how they are governed. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bduke, who speaks for the consensus here. My own view is that there is no need to mention any "public"/"private" distinction (as Bduke says, "the term public university is not really used in the UK"), but in the hope that it will help to settle this discussion, I have added a new paragraph under "Central governance" much as Bduke suggested above. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 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)

Yes, indeed, Bduke made the same point above: "As for the similar articles, the same change should be made to all UK universities because the term public university is not really used in the UK." Moonraker2 (talk) 06:37, 8 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.

You seem to be arguing that Oxford is public in the same sense that public schools, public houses and public limited companies are public. I'm not sure how that helps clarify the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oxford English

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)

This was discussed earlier - see item 21 in the TOC and here. The view was expressed there that the use of -z- was going out in Oxford and that it had moved to standard British -s-, so I do mind. Please leave it as it is. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps it depends on what is meant by "Oxford". For instance, the OED still puts the -z- spellings first, the OUP generally prefers them, and they are used in the University Statutes. Most undergraduates probably arrive now using the -s- spellings, but is there any evidence that the University itself is moving away from the z ? Moonraker (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was what item 21 above shows - evidence that Oxford is using "organisation" much more than "organization". What other kind of evidence would you like? --Bduke (Discussion) 04:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Even the university's branding style guide recommends against ~ize:

Use ‘s’ spellings rather than ‘z’ spellings, e.g.: organisation, recognise, specialise

The OUP may have a formal relationship with the university but editorially the two are independent when it comes to the level of style recommendations. If even the university is recommending against the z form there is no reason to use it here. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic dress

"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)

In 1979-1982 we only wore subfusc for university exams, didn't even have "formal hall".  – ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No formal hall? May one be so bold as to ask which cockpit of revolution this was? Moonraker2 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wadham. – ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough said. 109.151.191.37 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Teaching in some form

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)

Ancient universities were just guilds of teachers. So I do think that it is significant to mention the early dates for teaching, especially since the foundation date of the university is unclear. You can think of it as background to the foundation of the university. Bluap (talk) 23:26, 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)

Featured Article?

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)

The FA criteria are here. At present the article is nowhere near comprehensive enough, particularly from the historical perspective – what are "responsions" and "collections"? when were Jurisprudence, Natural Science and Medicine first taught? what were the admissions processes before UCAS existed? – parts of the current material are out of date (e.g. some subjects now have University examinations at the end of each year) and there are structural weaknesses that would immediately fail criterion 1a: that the prose is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". - Pointillist (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite a lot in the article has changed since June 2012; and if it's not yet FA, lets do what we need to take it there! -- Fluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 19:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but most of the current featured articles are much narrower in scope than this article could ever be, because the featured article criteria require that the article is both comprehensive (neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context) and comprehensively researched (a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature). That's a big ask when writing about something that has been adapting to changes in politics, culture and science for over 800 years. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it would be very demanding to attempt FA in a short cycle of edits. It would be easier, and probably more fun for all concerned, to break the task into more manageable pieces. Editors who are current members of the University could help ensure that everything about current practices is up to date and properly cited. Other editors, not necessarily alumni, could help flesh out the historical perspective in an interesting way. Undergraduate admissions might be a good starting place: selection is one angle (entrance exams v. aptitude tests, competence in written Latin, responsions – all sorts of interesting sources come up if you google "oxford responsions", etc). Another angle is the story of how the University's scope expanded from divinity & classics to the modern divisions – was Oxford feeling the heat from rival institutions? There's also a need for the big picture of what the University does nowadays – something about the balance between taught degrees, pure research and innovation. Those would all be very valuable additions to the article, regardless of the FA process. What do you think? - Pointillist (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The way to hand articles with a very large scope is to use Summary Style 01:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be great to work together to improve parts of the article. And yes, I wrote a large part of the "Student Life" section, which most certainly needs a lot more references. Admissions would be a very interesting area to start with. -- Fluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't actually offering to assist. At the moment I have vast swathes of challenging material to assimilate in real life and I don't have the mental bandwidth to do proper research for this article. If that changes, I'll let you know. Had we been collaborating, I would have suggested we divide the subject into digestible chunks rather like a weekly essay/tutorial, without having FA as motivation. I don't know your personal circumstances but if you're currently an undergraduate with time to spare it might be fun to examine student life as it was reported in the 1970s, 50s, 30s and earlier. Your college librarian or archivist could help with sources and you might find kindred spirits at the next Oxford Wikipedia meet-up on May 5th. If on the other hand you are a sixth-former holding a conditional offer it might be better to spend the next couple of months focusing very tightly on whatever is necessary to achieve your exam results! Good luck either way - Pointillist (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Second oldest university in continuous operation

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)