Talk:University of Buckingham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of Universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Students 2 NPOV 3 University ratings 4 Location

[edit] Students

Does anyone have a figure for the proportion of UK students at Buckingham? I imagine it is extremely small, or those that are from the UK have special circumstances of some kind. — Trilobite 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Buckingham's website as of October, 2005 183 British students were enrolled. That amounts to just over 25 per cent of students at the university. They provide information on nationality, though I haven't seen information on other circumstances (which are probably restricted by the DPA). Nick Kerr 15:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added information on the number of UK students which can be found at [1]. Hope this is useful. Cheers, Nick Kerr 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Most UK students are either mature students taking a career break, or (like me) children of expatriates who would have had to pay overseas tuition fees at any other university. (I wish I'd gone to another university, but that's another story!) Many British citizens were also from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, whose governments paid up. Quiensabe 17:18 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Rather than just stating that is an independent or private insitution this article makes morally subjective claims about the educational independence as well as financial independence of this body. I believe this does not conform to a NPOV and should be amended. Davidkinnen

Instead of just saying this article is POV why don't you look at things you'd like to correct. I just corrected two things which were POV, but 'morally subjective claims about the educational independence' of the University is a large order to place on it. Could you elaborate, rather than just adding a banner?Nick Kerr 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Would be nice to clarify exactly what independence is available to Buckingham which is not available to state-funded UK universities.

As they have no RAE or teaching funding to lose, one might argue that they may feel more able to do things the government of the day might not like. That's a rather subjective freedom, as of course any university can have policies which are out of favour, or allow its staff to do unfavoured things. Is there any evidence of that being more the case at Buckingham? The VC does publish articles criticising government funding in science, and, indeed the role of science (rather than private technological R&D) in human progress, but that seems the extent of the academic freedom?

Presumably they are as highly regulated as other universities, but perhaps not? Do their courses have to meet government standards? (perhaps not, as they say they voluntarily submit to the standards body QAA). but given that they do this, what is it they can do which other universities cannot? The only thing I can think of is to set arbitrarily high fees.

So some statement like "independence, allowing them to {list capabilities available which are unavailable to other universities}" Tim bates 16:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa non brit coming in here (so presumably a more rounded view):

I can't see the following as an exceptable statement All universities in the UK are formally independent (in the sense that they are self-administered), but because they accept government money in exchange for a significant loss of autonomy, only Buckingham can be called truly independent. The trade-off for this increased autonomy comes in the form of fees, which are (for home and EU students) about 60% higher per year than at most state-funded institutions. 1) not encyclopaedia style writing 2) moral claim 3) no real evidence of claim that the government interferes in public universities 4) no acceptance that private universities independence may be limited by other factors or that there are other factors that secure independence for public universities other than finance. 5) state-funded is in all likeliness incorrect and should be financially supported by the state. 6) a discussion on public v private institutions (schools and universities) should not take place in the article for an individual institution but rather in articles dedicated to that purpose. I am editing the article to remove this statement (sorry left out the signature earlier - ----)

To answer some of these questions, in the UK universities are 'state-funded' as their primary source of income is from teaching and research grants. They maintain autonomy, but only in the sense that they are subject, for instance, to providing specific degree-programmes at certain costs. The Government provides a particular grant for a particular course, if this is below the amount the university can afford, it must cross-subsidise this with either postgraduate students (who pay higher fees) or non-EU students (who pay even higher fees). While it is nice to say it must be proven that universities are limited in some way by government, the reverse could be said. Why does the London School of Economics not accept government money for postgraduate courses? If there is no loss of autonomy/control, then the LSE would have no reason to do so. Similarly, while Buckingham may have been set up on ideological lines, it does maintain independence in very specific areas such as finance (it picks how much money it wants to raise in fees, how much it spends on particular activities, and it can do this independently), it is not subject to government demands for setting 'equality targets' (as it can't have its funding cut), and it does not have to change its course intact to meet fiscal shortfalls due to government policy (that is, it doesn't have to create a lot of cheap courses simply to pay for its more expensive courses). While it may be argued that there exists no 'direct difference' in university structure, it would have to be shown that financial control causes no difference in administration at other universities compared to Buckingham. While I agree that the aforementioned statement should be removed, it could also be changed to mentioned 'private' versus 'state-funded'. All universities in Britain may be 'independent', but technically all schools are 'independent' of central government. The difference is their funding status and its implications. Cheers, Roche-Kerr 11:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak as an expert, but I suspect that the LSE does not accept Govt money (although I must confess I didn't know this was the case) because they would then be unable to charge the enormous fees that they currently do (far higher than similar Oxbridge courses, for example). Some might say that being prevented from fleecing one's student body is no bad thing! Badgerpatrol 12:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That still does not address why an article on one institution should cover a very contentious debate. The article on Private Universities is lacking in substance at the U.K section. The essence of the claims that were made would be that Private Universities are better. An additional issue is that the term independent is being used here in an incredibly limited scope - see above comment. It should be quite obvious that an institution that is privately funded is less financially controlled by government (however something that is generally not appreciated by the argument is that governments can through a series of laws effectively exercise a fair degree of control in any event) than a state funded institution. Paul Hjul 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the issue of private university education should be left to a different section. Simply because Buckingham is the UK's only private university does not mean it should be considered the forum for debate. The issue is simply an NPOV basis, and I believe it is fair to call Buckingham 'private' and the remainder 'state-funded'. If you look at UK2005 (produced by the Office of National Statistics) you will find that it says, under Higher Education:Finance 'The private University of Buckingham is the only independent university in the United Kingdom and does not receive public funds'. Therefore, 'independent' and 'private' are accepted usage according to the ONS. Cheers, Roche-Kerr 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of non-British/Commonwealth readers, I believe it is important to stress the different meanings of the term "public university" as used in English-speaking countries and elsewhere in the world. Unlike their counterparts in continental Europe or Latin America, British or Canadian universities are only "public" to the extent that most (though not all) of their funding comes from the state in terms of teaching or research grants. Otherwise, they are privately-managed, independent institutions meaning that: (1) they elect their own officials/administration normally without state interference; (2) they hire their own faculty and staff (who, unlike in France or Germany, are not career civil servants/governmment employees); (3) they own property and other (short and long-term) assets; (4) they define their own standards/criteria for the admission of students, again normally without state interference; (5) they independently set out the curricula for the different courses of studies they offer and specify the requirements that have to be fulfilled for awarding different academic degrees; and, finally, (6) they are free to charge tuition and other ancillary fees from matriculated students, although, unlike in my previous examples, that may be subject to government regulation in certain jurisdictions (in England for example, tuition fee levels are limited by law for undergraduate domestic students, though not for international (non-EU) or graduate students, who make up a considerable percentage nowadays of the student body). Furthermore, the fact that a few UK universities like Cambridge or Oxford actually have sizeable private endowments of their own (at least, by European standards) also helps to reduce their dependence on central government grants. 200.177.29.51 01:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

I find it odd that the university is described as being "10 miles from Northamptonshire" - it is mostly odd because (a) you would normally describe somewhere as being x miles from a town/city - not from a county and (b) Northamptonshire is a different county to Buckinghamshire, whereas the major towns of Aylesbury and Milton Keynes are in the same county - I propose that it should be changed therefore to say that it is in North Buckinghamshire, 17 miles from Aylesbury and 15 miles from Milton Keynes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.108.145.12 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC).