Talk:List of universities in the United Kingdom by date of foundation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lampeter[edit]

University of Wales Lampeter should have a higher ranking, arguably dating from 1822, and the University of Wales still exists, albiet as an umbrella for independent institutions.Ncox (talk) 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, um, feel free to fix it. Mark J (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No: It should be from the date of having established royal charter and official university status. If we took the informal establishment date in every case, we'd have a million other universities claiming to have been established in the 1800s, particularly those new universities trying to milk their history as much as possible. --Tomsega (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red brick + civic[edit]

I switched the two section titles around, as well as adding a brief explanation of the term red brick, as the article seemed to have them back to front. The red brick universities are the half dozen unis formed around the first decade of the 20th century, and themselves form a part of the larger civic university movement. Nottingham, Leicester etc. are also civic unis, but aren't themselves red bricks. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these titles are really recognised "categories" of universities. The section heads ("Intermediate period", "Second wave of new universities") aren't referenced to a third-party source. In my view, they should all be removed as original research, and the list placed into a single table. — mholland (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concepts of red brick, plate glass and post-92 universities are very well known e.g. Peers' (who invented the term) 1943 book about the red brick unis, conveniently called Red Brick University, or this news article. Here's a reference to the plate glass unis of the 60s, and another. This page from the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg goes into the entire concept in some detail. I agree the article itself could probably do with rationalising a bit, but to argue that the concept of a red brick university for example is OR is I think slightly untenable. Its a very well known turn of phrase and quite well-defined. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those concepts are well-established, yes, but the thread linking them is not. And "Red-brick" is exceptionally poorly defined: any number of 20th century institutions would like to be considered red-brick, and the list at Red brick university is much longer than the list here (and equally unreferenced). Or, to put it another way, "Red-brick" isn't a time-delimited thing: Peers didn't define it or intend it to be used in this way.
To pick this section as an example; I'd say that "the period between 1910 and the end of the Second World War" is a wholly arbitrary period, and in any case, Reading was founded in 1892 - it just wasn't an autonomous university then. So this list by date of foundation is inaccurate; if I were associated with Reading University, I'd probably say it's biased to exclude Reading from the Red brick group. — mholland (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of re-arranging and added info to the intro paragraphs to explain what (appears to be) the principle behind it and that some civic universities (in particular) have ended up in different categories (plate glass or new) as this is primarily a list by date of foundation as a university and the categories are not definitive.Robminchin (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serious fault with this page[edit]

Some universities are listed from their date of gaining university charter, as they should, whereas others are placed from the date they were 'established', which, in the case of a lot of new universities that want to sound older than they actually are, is often merely based on someone having sneezed in about 1863. --Tomsega (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Reading from the '19th century' section, for if Reading is a '19th century' university, about fifty others are as well! Similarly, if Manchester 'began' in 1824, well.. Birmingham began in 1825, Bristol in 18-something-or-other, etc etc. ROYAL CHARTER/OFFICIAL STATUS ONLY!! --Tomsega (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I agree. The charter is the best thing we can use to standardise things. Mark J (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to the ordering of this page[edit]

Right then: Let's have the official royal charter date FIRST, and the 'supposed establishment' date listed in brackets, rather than the other way around. --Tomsega (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh universities[edit]

Does anyone have any thoughts on Aberystwyth, Bangor etc.? These appear to defy even the simple ruleset that arises from using solely Royal Charters, as they were granted charters in the late 19th century, but then became members of University of Wales which was one single university (much like London) until recently. In my view the independence dates of Aberystwyth, Bangor etc. should be 2007, but I'm loath to change these before hearing somebody else's opinion. Mark J (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Aberdeen? I mean, somebody just reverted me back without adding a comment or explanation. Any chance of a discussion about this? Mark J (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Foundation[edit]

This is getting seriously messy. For foundation dates, Durham seems to use the Act of Parliament, King's the Royal Charter (although it couldn't grant degrees at that point), UCL the foundation of the University of London. I would be very grateful if we could discuss this and come to some form of consensus. Personally I would suggest 'Degree Awarding Powers (original foundation)'. I have no axe to grind, and no relevant conflict of interest. ThomasL (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be at least 4 "interesting" dates: (i) date of foundation of the first component of the body; (ii) date of merger or demerger that formed the current body; (iii) date of grant of degree awarding powers; (iv) date of grant of University Status. Often all 4 are different. We know that (i) always occurs first, that (iv) generally occurred either after or at the same time as (iii), but (ii) can be before (iii), between (iii) and (iv), or after (iv). Are degree awarding powers terribly important? Perhaps not if the institution was supervising students in research for which Doctorates were awarded by an authenticating institution before it gained those powers. Is University Status teribly important? Pehaps not if the institution had degree awarding powers before it gained that status. Are merger dates important? Sometimes. I think it's difficult to come up with a rule that fits every case, but my inclination is to say that we should care about (iii) and (iv) more than about (ii), and that (i) is important historical informationso we should include it somewhere.Michealt (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody was following the 'Royal Charter' idea (probably a good thing, as putting Cambridge as older than Oxford is historically laughable), and most universities now don't have royal charters. I've re-worded to reflect the actual consensus of usage of the page in ordering by date of university status (i.e. foundation as a university). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robminchin (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why Mottoes?[edit]

Why are there any mottoes at all on this page? What do they have to do with the actual topic of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.60.164.42 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please give attention to "Date of Foundation"[edit]

As the heading suggests, this is a list of universities based on their foundation date. NOT on the date in which they received the Royal Charter. If you want to list universities based on Royal charter, then start a new page on that topic. Please don't deviate from the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.220.147.251 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC) — 101.220.147.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually the article is very clear that (with the exception of the Ancient Universities which predate such things) the date of the Royal Charter is the definitive date: from the lede "In many cases the supposed date of establishment is open to debate. The date in which an institution officially achieved royal charter is therefore provided first, with any unofficial date in parentheses." See also the extensive discussion in the sections above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the same view. You can create a new page titled " List of universities by date of royal charter " I hate to disagree with Jonathan, but Ancient universities are the ones whose dates cannot be accurately calculated. Any universities before the 20th century can have minor inaccuracies, But when research is done through historically verified records, there would not be any inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.183.200 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — 101.221.183.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are simply ignoring the discussion here. See the clear discussion of Lampeter above and the treatment of Heriot-Watt in the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The refererence you have tried to add [1] simply confirms the contents of other sources, that Strathclyde became a university in 1964. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See for example here: [2]. Some quotes: "Strathclyde University originated as Anderson's Institution in 1796. In 1828, the institution took on the title of Anderson's University, partially fulfilling Anderson's vision of two universities in the city of Glasgow. The name was changed in 1887, to reflect the fact that there was no legal authority for the use of the title of 'university'. As a result the Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College was formed, becoming the Royal Technical College in 1912, and the Royal College of Science and Technology in 1956.In 1964, the institution merged with the Scottish College of Commerce and received a royal charter, granting it university status under the name of the University of Strathclyde." and "Until 1964 the institution was primarily a technological institute concentrating on science and engineering teaching and research. Undergraduate students could qualify for degrees of the University of Glasgow or the equivalent Associate of the Royal College of Science and Technology (ARCST).". Clearly not a university until 1964. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That means kings College London should also be not on this list. As it was just a "College" not an "University" till 2007 according to this statement.

"In 2003, the College was granted degree-awarding powers in its own right, as opposed to through the University of London, by the Privy Council. This power remained unexercised until 2007, when the College announced that all students starting courses from September 2007 onwards would be awarded degrees conferred by King's itself, rather than by the University of London. The new certificates however still make reference to the fact that King's is a constituent college of the University of London." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.139.1.104 (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Lampeter was St David's "College" in 1822 ("The university was founded in 1822 as St David's College (Coleg Dewi Sant), becoming St David's University College (Coleg Prifysgol Dewi Sant) in 1971, when it became part of the federal University of Wales")("In 2010 it merged with Trinity University College (under its 1822 charter) to create the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David") anso it technicallly became an university in 2010!

Durham was granted Royal charter in 1837 and NOT 1832.

Bangor received RC in 1885 and NOT 1884

London School of Economics: "The London School of Economics was founded in 1895 by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, initially funded by a bequest of £20,000[24][25] from the estate of Henry Hunt Hutchinson. Hutchinson, a lawyer[24] and member of the Fabian Society, left the money in trust, to be put "towards advancing its [The Fabian Society's] objects in any way they [the trustees] deem advisable". The five trustees were Sidney Webb, Edward Pease, Constance Hutchinson, William de Mattos and William Clark. The LSE records that the proposal to establish the school was conceived during a breakfast meeting on 4 August 1894, between the Webbs, Graham Wallas and George Bernard Shaw. The proposal was accepted by the trustees in February 1895 and LSE held its first classes in October of that year, in rooms at 9 John Street, Adelphi, in the City of Westminster." It was a "School" and not an University all this time till,

"The school joined the federal University of London in 1900, becoming the university's Faculty of Economics and awarding degrees of the University from 1902.[28] Expanding rapidly over the following years, the school moved initially to the nearby 10 Adelphi Terrace, then to Clare Market and Houghton Street. The foundation stone of the Old Building, on Houghton Street, was laid by King George V in 1920; the building was opened in 1922." therefore it cannot be classified as a separate university. and it never received its Royal Charter.

Royal Holoway "Royal Holloway, University of London (RHUL) is a constituent "college" of the University of London." Again, not an "University"

Aberystwyth University has NOT received Royal charter. "Founded in 1872 as University College Wales, Aberystwyth became a founder member of the University of Wales in 1894 and changed its name to the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. In the mid-1990s, the university again changed its name to the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. On 1 September 2007, the University of Wales ceased to be a federal university and Aberystwyth became independent again. However, students enrolled from the 2009/2010 academic year onwards, or whose first year of study was in the 2008/2009 academic year, can choose to receive their degree from the University of Wales or Aberystwyth University."

Queen Mary: this is the biggest issue. "In April 1929 the College Council decided it would take the steps towards applying to the Privy Council for a Royal Charter, but on the advice of the Drapers' Company first devised a scheme for development and expansion, which recommended amongst other things to reamalgamate the People's Palace and the College, with guaranteed provision of the Queen's Hall for recreational purposes, offering at least freedom of governance if not in space"

"Queen Mary and Westfield College was established by Act of Parliament and the granting of a Royal charter in 1989, following the merger of Queen Mary College (incorporated by charter in 1934) and Westfield College (incorporated in 1933).[1] The Charter has subsequently been revised three times: in 1995 (as a result of the merger of the College with the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry); in 2008 (as a result of the Privy Council awarding the College Degree Awarding Powers; and in July 2010 (following a governance review)."

So this received its royal charter in 1934/1989 and NOT 1885.

So clearly all the universities are listed on dates of foundation and NOT on royal charter. So if you need, please create a page separately as mentioned above for universities based on RC. 101.220.181.166 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that this article states very clearly in its second sentence that "The date in which an institution officially achieved royal charter is therefore provided first, with any unofficial date in parentheses" and all the discussion in sections above confirms this approach.n If you believe that you have identified errors in the treatment of other institutions then you should attempt to get those errors corrected, not compound them by adding additional errors of your own.
Many of the cases you discuss above are considerably more complex that you suggest, so I suggest you take them one at a time. Given that your edits frequently show poor grammar and typography and a poor grasp of the proper formatting and use of references I suggest you discuss your proposed edits here before making them. Given that you have already acquired a reputation for blindly reinserting contested edits without proper discussion I strongly suggest that you discuss your proposed edits here and gain consensus for them before making them. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is you sir, who should learn some manners. I have never commented on your abilities or skills and neither should you. My grammatical skills are perfect. The typographical and grammatical errors are due to the fact that I have to type very fast as I do not find enough time to spend on Wikipedia and unlike some people here, I actually have a life. So stop rating people.49.137.152.16 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the verifiable royal charter date as the basis for listing is the consensus position so far. If there's to be a change to a more nuanced approach, there needs to be a consensual position found as to a) it's that's acceptable, and be b) exactly what evidence is acceptable in determining which of various competing dates may or may not be the "correct" one. Per WP:BRD and pending a consensus to change, I've reverted back to the previous basis for listing. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick reminder as well, if it's needed, of the three-revert rule. - Chrism would like to hear from you 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of London[edit]

The treatment of the colleges of the University of London is very inconsistent, in part reflecting the huge complexity of the issue. My suggestions is as follows: (1) Delete all the colleges from "Eighteenth century colleges and nineteenth century universities" leaving only the University of London. (2) Add a separate section specifically discussing the University of London. (3) Imperial is a special case; it would be discussed under University of London but would also have its own 2007 entry. Thoughts? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


It would be much more easier to list the universities by their respective foundation dates than to take the above steps.49.137.152.16 (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to avoid editing via IP as much as possible as it makes discussion very problematic. Jonathan A Jones must be appreciated for his contributions towards this page, the page looks much better now. Let us make Wikipedia a much better place. I have tried to put an end to edit warring, by making certain edits. More citations and references for this page is much welcome.
Yours friendly contributor Abesam (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strathclyde[edit]

Universities on this page are categorized by the date on which they became a university, with the dates of notable precursor institutions being noted in the tables. Sadly there are regular attempts to include special treatment for Strathclyde, dating it from its first precursor, the Andersonian Institution. Such treatment would be completely anomalous: no attempt has been made to move, for example, Manchester, Newcastle, Aston, Surrey, Bath, Bradford, Heriot Watt, Salford, or Dundee back into the nineteenth century, although by the same argument they all "belong" there. What about Liverpool John Moores University which traces its origins back to 1823? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After careful historical analysis and consideration, it can be inferred that the university was founded in 1796. The date of royal charter is 1964. It is not wise to consider that an university would have the foundation date and royal charter date to be the same as it cannot be fundamentally possible. There has been various attempts to undermine the University's reputation and name in the past. The university was founded in 1796 and there is ample evidence in the university archives to support this fact. Defamation of our university in a public domain database is not what we would like to see often. Regards,130.159.158.192 (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do feel free to present your evidence that Strathclyde University, as opposed to the Andersonian Institution, was founded in 1796. Until that time can I suggest that quasi-legal threats would be more impressive if they didn't come from an IP editor apparently engaged in vandalism [3]. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No logical order[edit]

Is there a reason why there isn't just one list, with a sort by date established column? It's difficult to tell here which was the third English university to be 'established'. There are several lists by certain categories, but surely they are all 'universities'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.25.166 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem is that the date of foundation of many universities is a seriously vexed issue, and presenting raw dates without significant explanation of the intricacies would be badly misleading. To get some idea of how difficult your question really is try reading the article Third-oldest university in England debate. Fortunately the intricacies are often similar for groups of related universities, hence the breakdown into sub groups, which are in fact presented in an logical order (essentially from oldest to newest). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's[edit]

Was St.George's really an UNIVERSITY in 1733? 89.27.53.162 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually St George's isn't a university now, never mind in 1733, but if you read carefully you'll see that the article doesn't say it is/was. It was founded as a medical school in 1733 and became a constituent college of the University of London in 1836. Like the other London colleges it is important in the history of the development of UK universities and it is sometimes treated as a university for convenience, hence its inclusion here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Certain edits are continuously made to demean or degrade the reputation of certain universities by persons who have strong connections to competing/ rival universities. This should be noted and acted upon. Even though the royal charter and date of foundation has been separated clearly, some persons try to modify and create vandalous edits. 130.159.158.58 (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this allegation is being made about me? To be frank, the idea that I would consider the University of Strathclyde to be a "competing" or "rival" institution to the University of Oxford in any sense beyond the purely formal is utterly laughable. The reality here is that this is just aother attenpt at boosterism, which has been depressingly common in the case of Strathclyde. The facts here are completely clear: while the Andersonian Institute was founded in 1796, it wasn't a university and Strathclyde didn't become a University until 1964. Lots of universities can trace their origins back to predecessor institutions of comparable antiquity, but we don't include every dodgy claim here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation date and date of royal charter are different. Foundation date is the one on which the institution came into being which in this case is clearly 1796. And your own acceptance that you come from Oxford suggests what the last user had pointed out.130.159.223.65 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to point out that establishment and foundation based on royal charter are totally different things and if you still don't know that, then the fact that you are from oxford is laughable.130.159.223.65 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this article on wikipedia Date of establishment maybe now you can agree that the university chooses this date based on this line "If the university derived from a previously-established institution, either the reorganization or the establishment of the parent institution." and in this case the parent institution is Andersonian institution which was established in 1796. 130.159.223.65 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore according to the University's official page at http://www.strath.ac.uk/about/heritage/ which quotes clearly that "It's over 210 years since Professor John Anderson's legacy established what is now the University of Strathclyde." which does not mean that you university was founded in 1964 as you had said but in 1796. 130.159.223.65 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just check this strange theory of yours? You are saying that anybody who attended or who works at a university founded before 1964 has a conflict of interest with regard to edits concerning the University of Strathclyde, while you who are editing from an IP address within the University of Strathclyde have no such conflict? Good luck convincing anyone of that theory. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strathclyde (again)[edit]

Universities on this page are categorized by the date on which they became a university, with the dates of notable precursor institutions being noted in the tables. Sadly there are regular attempts to include special treatment for Strathclyde, dating it from its first precursor, the Andersonian Institution. Such treatment would be completely anomalous: no attempt has been made to move, for example, Manchester, Newcastle, Aston, Surrey, Bath, Bradford, Heriot Watt, Salford, or Dundee back into the nineteenth century, although by the same argument they all "belong" there. What about Liverpool John Moores University which traces its origins back to 1823? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess it is time that they are moved to their correct positions and you are much welcome to do so. 130.159.158.78 (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note with interest that you have provided no evidence that Strathclyde was a university before 1964. It is true that Anderson intended to found a university, but his institution of 1796 fell well short of his hopes, and the Andersonian is more commonly described as the first Technical College. While it assumed the name "Anderson's University" between 1828 and 1877 this was not recognised externally, and in 1877 its name was changed by Act of Parliamemt to "Anderson's College". The subsequent history is even more complex, with the college affiliating to the University of Glasgow, then spinning off in 1919 as a University College. Finally it became a full university in 1964.
As noted above, Strathclyde is hardly unusual in having predecessor institutions which were not universities, and notable predecessors are mentioned in the tables, but this does not alter the foiundation dates. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nothing fell short of nobody's hopes pal. Just digest the fact that there are several good universities. And stop your vandalism in favour of your alma mater. 130.159.158.34 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is denying that Starthclyde is a good university now, but the evidence is absolutely clear that it became a university in 1946. Please stop making wild accusations of vandalism, and concentrate on the facts at hand. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's *Strathclyde 130.159.216.122 (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which was founded in 1964. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you know why Scotland wanted independence.130.159.216.122 (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does that alter the fact that Strathclyde was founded in 1964? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strathclyde was founded in 1796. That is the fact. What you are speculating is NOT a fact but merely an attempt to change the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.216.122 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And your source for this claims is? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the links for the facts

http://peoplemakeglasgow.com/study/university-of-strathclyde/ http://www.strath.ac.uk/about/heritage/ http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usfeatures/universities/strathclyde.html http://www.theoverseasinvestor.com/university-strathclyde-glasgow/

Now if you again try to do your edits without talking here first, your vandalisms could only be confirmed. And these are NOT "allegations".

Also this page http://peoplemakeglasgow.com/study/university-of-strathclyde/ by the Glasgow City Marketing Bureau (GCMB) clearly states "Founded in 1796" Now you can Stop your unwanted edits. 130.159.216.122 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First please note that your allegations of "vandalisms" (I assume you mean vandalism) are entirely improprer and should be struck out. Secondly, these sources do not establish that the University of Strathclyde was established in 1796; they simply indicate (with various degrees of reliability) that precursor institutions that eventually led to the University of Strathclyde begin in 1796. But this has never been in doubt, and is stated clearly in the version which you keep on reverting.
The history of the University is well described at University of Strathclyde and especially at Royal College of Science and Technology, which make it crystal clear that the University was formed in 1964 by the merger of the Royal College of Science and Technology and the Scottish College of Commerce, and nothining you have presented to date changes that position in any way. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

here are some more links, which confirm the fact that it was founded in 1796.

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/into-university/az-uni-colleges/strathclyde-university-of-459082.html http://www.stfc.ac.uk/620.aspx http://www.moveonnet.eu/directory/institution?id=GBGLASGOW02 http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-strathclyde-s78 http://studyacrossthepond.com/universities/strathclyde-university http://www.scottish-places.info/features/featurefirst1110.html http://www.unofficial-guides.com/universities/view/title/Strathclyde_University http://www.fulbright.org.uk/fulbright-awards/exchanges-to-the-uk/undergraduates/scotland-dundee-and-strathclyde-universities http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/568308/University-of-Strathclyde http://www.universityfairs.com/directory/university-strathclyde-54 http://www.planitplus.net/learningzone/he/?AID=45 http://www.triposo.com/poi/T__5d169d1a288b

Hope you can stop your edit warring now. I dont know why admins are mute on this issue. Royal Charter and date of foundation are completely different 130.159.216.122 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, none of this is germane to the central question. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

time for you to work on your English. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vandalisms 130.159.216.122 (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting claim. But how does this alter the fact that Strathclyde only became a university in 1964? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

to quote an earlier post of yours "Actually St George's isn't a university now, never mind in 1733, but if you read carefully you'll see that the article doesn't say it is/was. It was founded as a medical school in 1733 and became a constituent college of the University of London in 1836. Like the other London colleges it is important in the history of the development of UK universities and it is sometimes treated as a university for convenience, hence its inclusion here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)" this shows that clearly you are partial and biased. 130.159.216.122 (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that that section of the page has an extensive discussion of the University of London, and makes clear that none of these institutions were in any sense universities before 1836, and that some of them strictly speaking aren't universities even now, though they are widely mistaken for universities. Do feel free to edit the text if you think this isn't clear. What this has to do with Strathclyde is a mystery to me, and your continued accusations of partiality and bias are becoming tedious as well as impolite. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so you are saying that my edits are impolite??? 130.159.216.122 (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These continual accusations of vandalism are certainly impolite; your accusations of partiality would also be discourteous if they weren't patently ridiculous. Please stick to the facts of the matter at hand, which concern the the origin of the University of Strathclyde. If you have any evidence that it was not formed in 1964 by the merger of the the Royal College of Science and Technology (which was at the time a technical college which trained some of its students for degrees awarded by the University of Glasgow) and the Scottish College of Commerce then we would all be pleased to see it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop blindly reverting changes and making unfounded accusations of vandalism. If you have any constructive comments or edits please feel free to make them, but your actions to date have been profoundly unconstructive. Thank you, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss your edits here rather than blindly reverting changes and making unfounded accusations of vandalism. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And once again the Strathclyde based IP is blindly reverting edits without discussion and accompanied by increasingly shrill accusations of vandalism. Note that the current revert cycle is removing large swathes of text which have nothing to do with Strathclyde, and no explanation whatsoever has been given for doing this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the "large swathes of text" without vandalising Strathclyde and everything should be fine. 130.159.216.122 (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that. You should self revert your deletion and then edit in precisely the changes you think are justified, explaining here why your edit is appropriate. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the University of Strathclyde[edit]

There seems to be some confusion about the history of the University of Strathclyde, presumably reflecting the slightly complex history of its precursor institutions. For the avoidance of doubt here is a time line of major events:

  • 1796 Foundation of the Andersonian Institute
  • 1828 The Institute adopts the title "Anderson's University"
  • 1887 Title of University is removed as it was used without legal authority; Institute is renamed as Anderson's College
  • 1887 Glasgow and West of Scotland Technical College formed through the amalgamation of Anderson's College, the College of Science and Arts, Allan Glen's Institution, the Young Chair of Technical Chemistry and Atkinson's Institution
  • 1921 College changes its name to the Royal Technical College
  • 1956 College changes its name to the Royal College of Science and Technology, which prepares some students for degrees awarded by the University of Glasgow
  • 1964 College merges with the Scottish College of Commerce to form the University of Strathclyde, which is granted a royal charter

Note that while Anderson's Institute (under various names) is the oldest precursor institution, at least 5 other bodies contributed to the eventual university formed in 1964. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andersonian institute IS Strathclyde University. It NEVER stopped functioning and is Strathclyde today.130.159.216.122 (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ornaverum.org/images/u-of-strathclyde-large.jpg have a look.130.159.216.122 (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom part of that image says quite clearly "University of Strathclyde Glasgow 1964-present". In other words the University of Strathclyde was formed in 1964. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with former universities[edit]

There seem to be two ways of dealing with these. The Victoria University and the Victoria University of Manchester are shown in the main table, but in italics, but others have been removed from the table and are only listed in the Former Universities section. My preference would be, for those universities that have successor institutes still operating in the UK (i.e. not Northampton, Fraserburgh, Queen's University of Ireland, or the Royal University of Ireland), listing them in the table in italics with the successor institute specified in the notes. Any opinions? Robminchin (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. And thanks for all the great work you have been doing here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College of Art[edit]

I editing this page to remove the RCA on the grounds that it is not a university, this was reverted by Ebonelm. I here set out my reasons for doing so in greater length than was possible in the edit summary.

The Royal College of Art is included here, but on the definitive HEFCE list of providers it is not said to be a university. If it were considered a university, then the first entry under the heading 'This provider:' would be 'is a university' (see, e.g., Durham or Anglia Ruskin). Other ways to access the register include by property, which allows only those institutions that are universities or university colleges to be displayed (it is necessary to click to select - no direct link is available), or by downloading the data as a CSV. Both of these confirm that the RCA is not a university according to HEFCE.

Further to the HEFCE data, the royal charter of the RCA refers to it throughout as a college and nowhere as a university.

The standard that has been applied on this page in the past is that it lists institutions that are legally universities rather than the colloquial use of educational institutions with degree awarding powers. It does not appear that the RCA is legally a university, so it should be removed from this page. Robminchin (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many organisations are listed on the HEFCE as 'designation institutions' rather than as universities but are widely recognised as being universities including highly prestigious universities such as LSE, SOAS, and UCL. If we're not going to include RCA then we must remove these other organisations too - which is a change that I believe there would be strong resistance to. Ebonelm (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are listed here under the University of London as colleges of that university, rather than as universities. They are not included in the main list. Robminchin (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the RCA states that it has a Royal Charter granting University status from 1967. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to be using this in the colloquial sense of degree-granting institution, given the HEFCE listing and that the charter doesn't contain the word "University". Cranfield similarly claim that they were granted university status in 1969.
I suggest the addition of a new section (after the model of the University of London) for those institutions with degree awarding powers but which are not legally universities. This is what has been done at the List of universities in the United Kingdom article. Robminchin (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Institute Degree awarding powers Notes
Royal College of Art 1967 By royal charter
Royal Conservatoire of Scotland 1993
Royal Northern College of Music 2007
Ashridge Executive Education 2008
Guildhall School of Music and Drama 2014
British School of Osteopathy 2015
Anglo-European College of Chiropractic 2016
NCG 2016
Rose Bruford College of Theatre & Performance 2017
Royal College of Music 1882
Also possibly should be included: Royal College of Nursing and Archbishop of Canterbury, both of which have degrees awarding powers although neither are primarily educational institutions. Robminchin (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of UK universities by date of foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of London Act 2018[edit]

The University of London Act 2018 changes the constitution of the University of London to allow colleges to become universities in their own right without leaving the federation. Twelve of the colleges have days they intend to apply for university status, so we can expect a slew of new universities to add to the list in 2019, which should also stay on the list of members of the University of London. To rationalise this a bit, I propose moving the UoL subsection down to join "former members of federal universities" and making a section on federal universities more generally. Robminchin (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_date_of_foundation&oldid=1208478074"