Talk:Victoria University of Manchester

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.

On March 5, 2003 it was announced that the University is to merge with UMIST in the autumn of 2004, to form the largest conventional university in Britain.

Largest? 18,000 from Manchester plus, what, about 6,500 from UMIST still doesn't come close to the 115,000 at London[1]. Or is London somehow not conventional? Marnanel 18:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

London's not conventional because it's a federal university made up of different institutions. The new University of Manchester will be one big institution (I guess - I didn't write that).

Yes that's the idea behind the claim anyway. Also the Open University does not count as conventional as most o the students study from home. Billlion 23:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've just checked the list of UK universities by number of students at the Higher Education Statistics Agency website here: [2] and it says that Leeds Metropolitan University is the biggest conventional university (using 'conventional' in the sense given above). It has 52,275 students as opposed to 39,985 for the merged Manchester University. However, some of the LMU students are FE rather than HE students. If Manchester are basing their claim to be biggest purely on the total number of HE students, then it may be true after all - The University of Manchester has the most HE students (39,985) ahead of Leeds University, which has 36,205 HE students. Interesting the jump in numbers, though. As Marnane pointed out, the combined size of the old UofM plus UMIST was about 24,500. How come it is 39,985 now? Presumably the basis of calculation has been changed significantly.[Dodo64] 24 March 2007

Quite right. Only HE students count when comparing universities. There is also perhaps an issue of counting students or full-time equivalent students. So yes the 40k He students does seem to be the basis of the claim, plus the OU is not conventional and the U of London is not one University (any more than the University of California is). As for the jump in numbers post merger I only know that the total first year intake in the merged School of Mathematics was much bigger than the sum of the previous first year intakes from the former institutions. Billlion 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Barkla

The article says "an early Physics graduate of the University College of the Victoria University" and the linked website says

Educated at Trinity and King's colleges, Cambridge, he joined the faculty of Liverpool University in 1902, moved to the University of London in 1909, and became professor of natural philosophy at the University of Edinburgh in 1913.

What is "the University College of the Victoria University" and has it got anything to do with Manchester? Billlion 23:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"the University College of the Victoria University" was University College Liverpool - one of the three constituent institutions (along with Owens College and Yorkshire College in Leeds) of the federal Victoria University. Charles Barkla attended what was once the Victoria University (in Liverpool), but not the Victoria University of Manchester; the original author has got his Victoria University institutions mixed up; I've removed his entry AnIco 08:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "top" university

from what i can remember - middle in league tables, to me that isn't a top position - considering usually umist got higher. For now until proof can be found i thought it best to speak the truth and remove the sentence. (This from 82.31.6.115 (talk • contribs).)

I have readded the sentence, and added a cite for the 'research' claim. I followed the links to the 2001 REA assessments site, and looking at 5* and 5 departmental assessments, only Oxford, Cambridge and UCL had more entries. I didn't find anything on teaching in particular. Generic league tables seem thin on the ground. User:Noisy | Talk 13:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ok sorted with the research - no mention of teaching and since you weren't sure i've removed it (This from 82.31.6.115 (talk • contribs).)

Look, 82.31 etc. what's your problem? Manchester was and is top in research as well as teaching. I used to look at the tables as an undergraduate, now that I can judge in more than one ways whether a University is good or not, I do not bother with reading these anymore. But I am sure that most Department, as far as I remember, got 22-24, at least at the Faculty of Arts. But the Faculty of Social Sciences is equally reputed. Medicine? the best after London. Just have a look at these. And how can you remember Manchester being in the middle of the scale? Manchester is among the best in the world, and I have been in a few. What exactly is your problem with Manchester, are you an Oxford graduate, or are you elsewhere? In either case, Manchester can stand comparisons. In this place, you just remove whatever you don't like, great! Panos.

No! I'm from manchester! check the IP address! (This from 82.31.6.115 (talk • contribs).)

[edit] Achievements?

I believe that the page should have a list of achievements perhaps seperated from the famous alumni.

For example, The early Manchester Computers, mostly the Manchester Baby in my eyes ([3]) were a tremendous achievement yet they don't seem to be recognised except for the small comments next to famous alumni e.g. Tom Kilburn.

I am sure there are many more.

What do you think?

What about all the Nobel Prize winners for example?

What about the world's first steerable radio telescope at Jodrell Bank?

etc etc.

Just an idea - tell me what you think.