Talk:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

Post merger
Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a message board for discussing the pros and cons of the merger. If you can find some proper source referring to a debate over the merger after the event (even just a student newspaer) then that might be relevant. Billlion 15:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A comparison between league table positions pre and post-merger is surely a valid comparison to make? It's certainly the case that the university strongly disapproves of mention of UMIST (stickers with University of Manchester logos placed over UMIST logos, name changes for internal organisations with 'UMIST' in the name or acronym, even the U of M graduation policy ([]) makes a rather patronising argument encouraging students not to get legacy certificates). It also cannot be denied that some class sizes have increased, a lot of (particularly ex-UMIST) lecturers left after the merger and that the league table positions for various subjects UMIST was particularly strong on (mechanical, aerospace, chemical engineering, textiles, computer science etc) have dropped since the merger. Recent building work at the site also shows significant bias towards for former Victoria University of Manchester campus.

Whilst it's not the place of an encyclopaedia article to get involved with the discussion, it must reflect the discussion that is going on. Certainly facts should be reported (league table changes, class size increases) and with evidence like [] and [] suggesting the picture painted by the university is not the entire story. Factgasm 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A comparison of league table positions to make you argument is valid if it's true across multiple departmental areas. Saying one department dropped 9 places means nothing. I'm sure I could find the reverse (I imagine that Theoretical Physics would be one area that improved). Even years ago the University degree of UMIST was awarded by Manchester Victoria. So England wants to be America (everyone has to go to Uni).....I'm sure that can get discussed somewhere else. Wikinista 05:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Any variation in league table positions between now and before the merger results in some current students who enrolled in UMIST or VUM having their degrees devalued. This isn't acknowledged by the university, who even goes so far as to strongly suggest everyone gets a University of Manchester degree certificate. A single-department comparison is valid - the old UMIST department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering has been merged with the larger Manchester School of Engineering, resulting in significant increases in class sizes, many ex-UMIST lecturers leaving and the devaluation of the degree that ex-UMIST students obtain. Whilst some of that is anecdotal, it represents a definate opinion in the ex-UMIST students within the department. High-lighting the (significant!) change in league table position in the article would at least show some of the problems the merger has caused.

Factgasm 13:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure it is fine to quote the league table positions as facts. However any analysis of them to determine the effect of merger would constitute original research WP:NOR. Of course this debate is going on privately within the University, but until something verifiable is published it we cannot refer to the debate here. If someone wants to analyse the effect of the merger, get the results published in a newspaper or other verifiable source. Then we can refer to it here. It seems at the moment we have a a couple of quotes in another univerity's student paper, and the University's official statements. Anyone find anything else more substantial?Billlion 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I found this story in the FT

Manchester aims high to join the educational elite. Billlion 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello?!?!? Degrees were devalued when they allegedly reduced academic standards, lowered entry requirements, added "refresher" years, and of course made it a pre-requisite for every job that one has a degree -NOT when UMIST and Manchester merged!

The simple fact is that you say your degree was from UMIST, which was, until recently, awarded by University of Manchester Victoria. Both are now part of the Manchester University which is one of the biggest, largest and most profitable universities in the world. It wants to rank alongside Harvard, Yale, Oxford and London. A degree is a degree, its worth as much as you put into it. Wikinista 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Billion that this talk page perhaps isn't the place to discuss the pros and cons of the merger. However, people do seem to want to discuss that, and I can't see where this is possible online. Therefore I have set up a message board for UMIST alumni, for this and other reasons. I have added a link from this article, on the assumption that this is of legitimate interest to anyone reading the article. Hope all agree. Dodo64 25 April 2007

Billion, according to your latest amendments: "The estates plan published in 2007 [2] indicates an intention to sell a number of former UMIST buildings, especially 1960s building such as the Maths and Social Sciences Building that are regarded as not "fit for purpose."" I'm slightly gobsmacked and have two questions. (1) Were assurances given to UMIST before the merger that there would be no major sell-off of UMIST buildings? (2) Thanks for posting the link to the 2007 estates plan, but in fact the document you've linked doesn't mention any sell-offs of buildings. Buried in the uplifting PR-waffle the only concrete proposals (pardon my pun) are for new cycle lanes and extensive landscaping in the South Campus (ie the former U of M campus.) There seems to be no mention of UMIST at all apart from a para or two saying that the merger triggered a capital investment programme (ie the cycle lanes etc.). The document strengthens the impression that the Uni admin care not a jot for the old UMIST campus, but doesn't support any of the claims in your text (unless I'm missing something?). Do you have an alternative reference you could link to for those? Dodo64 22 June 07
 * Sorry for posting the wrong link. I read it in the paper edition of the latest Unilife magazine. I couldn't see the pdf on line (I was using kghostview not acroread and the file didn't work) but I assumed it was the same. I will have another look for the exact quote and try to post it here. From memory Faraday, MSS, Morton, Days Inn/Western, Chandros are all on the possible sell-off list (presumably if the price is right). However I wonder announcing plans in encyclopedic enough to mention?Billlion 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra info about that reference. I've replaced the link with one directly to the current Manulife, which has the story pretty much exactly as you remembered it, and I've also amended your text to list all the buildings scheduled for sale. I would have thought that if plans have been published in the official staff magazine then it is perfectly appropriate to mention in this article that these plans exist - especially as they amount to the disposal of a sizeable proportion of UMIST's former assets. It wouldn't on the other hand be encyclopedic of me to say that the 'merger' looks more and more like a takeover followed by wholesale asset stripping, nor to comment that it seems to me as if UMIST have been royally shafted. Therefore I won't say those things. Dodo64 22 June 07.
 * I agree on with you on what to put in and leave out. Unless there is anything in print about how people react to the merger, we will just state facts and leave them to make their own conclusions. But just a tuppence worth: a university is more its people and a continuity of tradition than a bunch of buildings, and also are people from both sides who have found the merger beneficial and both sides who have found it detrimental. For some it is too early to say. Will the mathematicians be happy together in the new building they helped design? Will the excellent Music department continue to thrive in its School of This That and the Other in the Faculty of What was Left Over? Will a Faculty of Life Sciences not divided in to Schools work? Will the University have made all those iconic appointments by 2012 and will that mean it goes "from good to great". But we will have to wait until someone writes a retrospective analysis of the merger and its impact before we have something to cite. Billlion 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Billion. I completely agree about the relative importances of people, traditions and buildings in a university. However, the three elements are connected. If you take away the buildings and scatter the people across a neighbouring, much larger, institution (losing quite a few on the way, as we've already seen) then the 'traditions' will disappear - if by traditions we mean distinctive ways of providing education, perfected over a long period of time. The people being versatile and intelligent, I'm sure they and their new colleagues will swiftly form a single and effective university. Perhaps it will be like a prettier, richer, version of Owens. But will it really be as great as the sum of the two universities that were there before? As you rightly say, only much more time and retrospective analysis will tell. And there we hit a snag. A philosopher once wrote that lives can only be understood backwards, but they must be lived forwards. We always have to choose our actions on the information presently available, without the advantage of 10 years hindsight. This goes for those ex-UMIST people who see current developments as destroying a unique educational institution. Dodo64 26 June

Trivia
I see the fascinating 'Trivia' section apparently has a tag now asking for it to be incorporated into the main text. I gather that 'trivia' is a no-no in Wikipedia. It occurs to me that all three items in this section relate to the UMIST campus, so I propose to rename the 'Trivia' section 'UMIST Campus' instead. The section could then perhaps be expanded with more information about the campus. Dodo64 21 June 2007

Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
I have (re-)nominated the Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology for deletion; please see my reasons, and leave comments, at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 6. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Mike for agreeing that this deletion be revisited. Mike originally formally proposed a couple of weeks ago that the UMIST category be deleted, which meant that a deletion discussion was started here:. After a week, Mike was the only person to have commented there, so his proposal was carried and the category was wiped. I noticed this a few hours later; I felt that the UMIST category was useful and that its deletion should have been discussed more - not many people seemed to have realised that it was up for deletion. I discussed this with Mike on my talk page and he then kindly supported me in a Deletion Review, in which it was agreed that the category be temporarily reinstated, and relisted for deletion, so that more people could comment. So please do comment there (at the page Mike has linked) on whether you think it is useful to have a UMIST category or not! My own view is that the category should be kept, and I'll try to give some reasons there soon. Dodo64 00:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, lost that one, and the UMIST category has now been deleted. In the new deletion discussion, Mike Peel (who had originally nominated the category for deletion) now abstained, saying that if and only if extra articles were created about UMIST buildings then he might support retaining the category. Three editors voted against keeping the category: two of them on the grounds that the articles I had promised to write hadn't materialised yet and might not do so. (The other didn't give a reason). I voted to keep the category, and then created four new articles about ex-UMIST buildings which I felt deserved Wikipedia entries. These are: MSS, Barnes Wallis, Renold Building and Faraday Building. Billion and Pit-yacker then improved those articles in interesting ways. I felt that this answered the objection raised; however, the admin closing the discussion decided that there was a consensus in favour of deletion. While disagreeing, I don't want to argue anymore - I think it was nice of Mike to facilitate the debate being reopened once, and I'm not going to presume on people's patience any further! However, I still think that the case for a separate UMIST category is very strong - presumably some future editor (not I) is still free reopen this debate in a few years time? Dodo64 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dalton vice president
I'm not sure of the source for Dalton being VP of the Mechanics Institute in 1840. He was VP of the British Association in 1840 according to. He died in 1844. I know it is repeated on the UoM web site but maybe they got it from here? Billlion (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect that Wikipedia is the source for the UoM website. This is becoming a big problem now. I went through this article last year and added cites for the people I could verify were involved. However, the only source I have to hand is Kargon. I regard the others as very dubious. I would support removing all the unreferenced stuff from here now. It's been a while since I tagged it.Cutler (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we would need to chck the general sources cited like Calderwell first. That probably where the list of founders comes from. citing sources says general refernces are ok as long as it is not especially contentious. Billlion (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done some digging. In fact I added this list see edit . And the Way back machine confirms that the UMIST web site had it first including the Dalton VP claim so that was not copied from us. I will reinstate that claim as we certinly didnot start the romour and it is WP:V, citing the archived page as the source.Billlion (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is actually in Cardwell's book, he was VP 1839-41 despite his health problems. see p 80. Billlion (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another source
I have just found James Jackson Walsh, Higher technological education in Britain: The case of the Manchester Municipal College of Technology

Journal	Minerva Publisher	Springer Netherlands ISSN	0026-4695 (Print) 1573-1871 (Online) Issue	Volume 34, Number 3 / September, 1996 Category	Articles DOI	10.1007/BF00120326 Pages	219-257

It gives the chronology of the names   Manchester Mechanics Institution 1824--83, Manchester Technical School and Mechanics Institution 1883-92, Manchester MunicipalTechnicalSchool 1892-1902, Manchester Munici- pal School of Technology 1902-18, Manchester Municipal College of Technology 1918-55, Manchester College of Science and Technology1955--66, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 1966-to date.Billlion (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See also page 231 on the concordat with Owen's.Billlion (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

UMIST Motto
"The UMIST motto was Scientia et Labore (Knowledge and Work)." I think this is a mistranslation. It should read "By Knowledge and Work" or "Through Knowledge and Work". "Labore" clearly is an ablative (while "Scientia" is ambiguous, hence probably the mistranslation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.173.177 (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Buildings' sell off
In the recent, official, estates strategy for 2010-2020 for the University of Manchester http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=8186 it is stated that essentially all of the former UMIST campus is to be sold off (referred to as the "area north of the Mancunian Way"). Only the MIB, which was built in 2006, is exempted, whilst the former UMIST Main Building's fate is left (deliberately?) vague. Urselius (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I read somewhere that there is a covenant on the Main Building restricting it to educational use only - which would make it tricky to sell. However, I can't remember where I read that and I could be wrong. This may be why they are keeping that point vague, though - perhaps the lawyers are still looking for a loophole! Dodo64 (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It makes defending the demise of UMIST as a genuine merger rather than a take-over followed by asset-stripping rather difficult. I suspect that disposing of the old Main Building will be problemmatic, they may go down the well worn road of dealing with listed buildings by allowing them to fall into such disrepair that any use then becomes attractive to the authorities - plus Manchester Council has an appalling record in the preservation of historic buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The estates strategy document which you linked is now the subject of a lively discussion thread in the UMIST Alumni group on Linkedin.com If you aren't already a member of LinkedIn, I recommend it. (Sorry - I do realize that this posting has nothing to do with the Wikipedia article on UMIST!) Dodo64 (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I've seen the discussion but haven't joined in as yet.Urselius (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

'U' Turn?
There seems to have been something of a 'U' turn on the attitude of the university to the former UMIST campus. Of course there have been no official notices given out concerning this. At present the Maths Tower and former Optometry buildings are empty and the Mill will be emptied when the new Chem Eng building is completed (next to the Materials Science building). However, the George Begg has had an extensive face-lift and Paper Sciences is being repainted, and virtually all the paving and road surface throughout the former UMIST campus is being replaced. This conspicuous investment would appear to show that the university has realised that its plans to relocate all the engineering departments to new buildings on the site of the Grosvenor Hall complex are too financially ambitious for the short to medium term future.Urselius (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The casual name of The Victoria University of Manchester
... was given in the article at the University of Manchester. Perhaps that name was used by some, but Wikipedia policy is that such a claim may not be included in the article without a reliable source, which is why I've removed it.

My memory tells me that people generally called it Manchester University - but I can't find a reliable source for that either, so I'm not trying to make the assertion in the article.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Source provided. Urselius (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The book in question states: [the Victoria University of Manchester] was almost universally known by the same name as its successor, the new University of Manchester.


 * - which isn't what my memory says at all, but I suppose it counts as a reliable source. I mean, why would anyone bother saying 'The University of Manchester' when you can get the same message across easier with 'Manchester University'. Oh well.


 * Michael F 1967 (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the usage was, "The Victoria University of Manchester" on things like degree certificates, but on prospectuses and book titles it was "The University of Manchester", while everyday use was often "Manchester University". The acronym VUM only came in during the merger as a concise way of differentiating 'Owens' from UMIST. Urselius (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm - seems reasonable. It's been a long time since I was a student.


 * Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just come across some documentary evidence which casts doubt on the reliability of the source used to justify 'The University of Manchester' as the erstwhile common name of Owens - namely a box of eleven 5.25 inch floppy discs unearthed at home. Each disc has a label with the Manchester University crest and the words 'Manchester University' at the top (subtitled 'Department of' with 'Supplied by physics stores' and 'HD 1.6 meg' at the bottom - all printed in all caps).


 * That's how I recall common usage when I was a student in Manchester (latter half of the 80s to early 90s).One of the floppy discs has hand-written date in 1991.


 * But since this is something like a primary source uncovered by my research, I don't suppose it's good enough to justify changing the article. But still, I'm reasonably sure the article and cited source are wrong about The Victoria University of Manchester commonly being called The University of Manchester. My memory and a documentary source in my possession both suggest Manchester University was the common form.


 * Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, the two books readily available about the more recent, pre-merger, history of 'Owens' are titled: "A History of the University of Manchester, 1951-73", Brian Pullan, ‎Michele Abendstern and "A History of the University of Manchester, 1973–90", Brian Pullan. I think that this is definitive proof of the use of the wording "University of Manchester" for VUM; are you concerned about the exact nuances of the phrase "commonly called"? Looking at old Rag Mags, the epitome of common usage, it can be seen that the 1933 edition uses "Manchester University", while a year later, the 1934 edition uses "University of Manchester" on its front page. Personally, I think I have provided more than enough cited evidence for the wording in the article to stand, whereas you would really have to provide cited proof that the wording is inaccurate, not merely that another descriptor co-existed with it, for it to be removed.


 * I in no way dispute that the phrase "Manchester University" was in widespread usage, yes it was. But the whole point of the inclusion of the "University of Manchester" as a common-use way of referring to VUM in the lead of the article is to highlight that the pre- and post-merger name and identity of VUM as the "University of Manchester" did not change in any meaningful way, while UMIST ceased to exist as a name and as an identity. Urselius (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Map

 * Interestingly, the Main Building (AKA Sackville Building) is not outlined like the rest, presumably a mistake. Urselius (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The date of the map is 2011 but it might not be completely up-to-date then. There is a difference in colour between the Sackville Street Building and the other ones; however it all looks very fuzzy when seen here. It is not the kind of map where the listed building status would make a difference.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @There is a similar difference in geograph map. The reason is not obvious.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)