Talk:University of Oxford/Archive 4

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)

Merge of Conference of Colleges
It is proposed that Conference of Colleges be merged here. It is a small stub with no references and there seems little scope to expand it. The material could easily be added to the section on Colleges where there is the only link to the stub. Please discuss the merge below.
 * Support merge as proposer. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral: no strong feelings, happy either way. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Qualified support – none of the current unreferenced content of Conference of Colleges is sufficiently notable to transfer to the main University of Oxford article, but I'd support deleting it under the pretext of a merge. I'd like to see a separate article on governance. This would reduce the space devoted to governance in the main article, and allow a more historical approach. The footnotes at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/councilsec/gov/gov_expl/#d.en.39276, for example, say that the Conference of Colleges was a Franks Commission proposal in 1965. - Pointillist (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree with Pointillist, although I would prefer to see a lot more historical material in the main article before effort is put into supplementary history focused articles. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 16:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed!Pendragon5 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Go to it. Deb (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge done. Feel free to modify it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:49, 6 March 2013 (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 [//www.google.com/search?q= "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)

Access edit war: "Institutional Racism"
I endorse the paragraph (edited down by myself) below:
 * Veiled accusations of racism regarding the 2009 intake were dismissed on the grounds that ethnic minority applicants apply disproportionately more to the most competitive courses, and that black candidates had lower A-level scores nationally. This led to analysis by The Guardian of entrance figures for 2010 and 2011, looking at the success rates of UK ethnic minority candidates (compared to UK white candidates). Whilst this analysis supported the suggestion subject choice had an impact on the figures and within Law no statistically significant difference was found, data for the competitive Medicine and Economics & Management courses did show lower success rates for equivalently performing ethnic minority candidates. For Medicine, white applicants who went on to score three A* grades at A level were almost twice as likely to gain admission as ethic minority applicants with similar grades. White applicants to the Economics & Management course who went on to score AAA were more likely to be given an offer than ethnic minority applicants who later scored A*A*A.

The reason for this is that it gives a balanced analysis of an issue which, whilst important, is only a small area of the issues relating to Access at Oxford. Therefore the issue does not deserve a three paragraph subsection in an article that has 900 years and a rather broad scope to cover. An additional issue with the current version (twice trimmed down and reinstated by User:Doogely) is that all three paragraphs primarily cite the Guardian - no other British sources, or sources not citing the Guardian, have been provided. The 3rd paragraph suggests it is adding something new to the 2nd, but in fact they reference effectively articles from the same source and the same date. This version also completely misses the fact that the statistics refer only to two courses - not mentioning the 3rd (Law) where no bias was found, and implying (through repeated use of "for instance") that the same has been found to be true across other courses. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 16:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a few points I would like to discuss:


 * Firstly, the original change made by Fluteflute was made by suggesting that the story lacked notability, since only one source was given. I took this on board and hence I gave sources from many different papers, from different parts of the world in which this story was reported and discussed. I also gave links to the prestigious journal Science that produced an editorial piece. Therefore the notability argument isn't I believe valid. Further this is an ongoing topic that has received wide publicity not just with the recent Guardian story but for a few years with Mr Lammy's investigation into social exclusion, which received even more press coverage.


 * Secondly, Fluteflute wants the information to be compressed to one paragraph. I think stylistically and for readibility sake it's best to separate it to three paragraphs.


 * Thirdly, Fluteflute wants this section to be part of Access. While this material is relevant to Access, i.e. efforts to widen participation, it is not access content. The information is about accusations and the possible existence of institutional bias, not about means to widen participation. It is of informative value. I believe it should be put in a 'Controversies' section. However I believe for readability and given the importance of the issue it should have it's own sub-section.

I believe the topic of institutional bias should warrant its own subsection, perhaps its own page- I may get around to making one. The content currently is only regarding admissions, however there have been considerable controversy and study at Oxford regarding disparities regarding promotions, hire, and staff and student welfare. I believe it is insensitive to say these issues are insignificant. They are important for many people. Also, the section isn't about a viewpoint but of relevant facts.
 * Fourthly, I respectfully disagree with Fluteflute's suggestion that this topic isn't of sufficient importance and shouldn't warrant much space or prominence in the article. I believe this is a significiant issue, one that affects a significant number of people, including a large proportion of applicants, and current students and faculty.

I would also like to point this is not an edit war, I undid one of his/her edits and modified the text to incorporate the raised concerns.

This is what I suggest:

Keep Fluteflute's text, but with paragraphs. Add a reference to the Oxford statistics page (which he removed), but place the content under a separate sub-section called Allegations of Institutional Racism under a section called 'Controversies' or keep it under 'Access'. I think that would be a fair compromise.Doogely (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that this clause is over-stating the claims is misleading and should be removed: "Whilst this analysis supported the suggestion subject choice had an impact on the figures,..."

The analysis didn't support the suggestion at all. The article said choice of subject could affect the difference, however any look at the data would show it is actually of minimal impact.

For instance success rate of a white applicant to the most competitive subject Economics and Management is 19%, while for all applicants it is 8.7%. The average success rate to all courses is 20%. The so called competitive subjects are competitive it seems only for non-white students and non-UK students. If the success rates were the same for all applicants to the competitive courses, the overall success rate wouldn't actually by much different, and nothing close to how they are currently. Also the Guardian people released data for Overall for each grade category, so the data isn't just for three subjects.Doogely (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In summary I propose this modified version of Fluteflute's text:

Institutional Race Discrimination Allegations
Veiled accusations of racism regarding the 2009 intake were dismissed on the grounds that ethnic minority applicants apply disproportionately more to the most competitive courses, and that black candidates had lower A-level scores nationally.

This led to analysis by The Guardian of entrance figures for 2010 and 2011, looking at the success rates of UK ethnic minority candidates (compared to UK white candidates) for admissions Overall and for three individual subjects. Significant disparities between the success rates for ethnic minority and white applicants was seen in the data for overall (all subjects taken together) for each grade combination. Also, whilst within Law no statistically significant difference was found, data for the competitive Medicine and Economics & Management courses did show lower success rates for equivalently performing ethnic minority candidates.

For Medicine, white applicants who went on to score three A* grades at A level were almost twice as likely to gain admission as ethic minority applicants with similar grades. White applicants to the Economics & Management course who went on to score AAA were more likely to be given an offer than ethnic minority applicants who later scored A*A*A (see University of Oxford undergraduate admissions statistics). Doogely (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically I agree with Fluteflute, except that I agree with Doogely that the title of this talk page section is inappropriate, and I would encourage Fluteflute to strikeout "edit war" from the section title. Ideally Doogely should have reverted text to the status quo ante (essentially the version at ) before starting the talk page discussion, but that is a minor point.


 * Fundamentally this is a matter of the material being undue: on the top level Oxford page this deserves two or three sentences at most, with any more extensive discussion placed on a suitable subpage, whether an existing page or a new one created for this purpose. That said, however, I can live with a slightly longer version if that is the price of consensus.


 * What I think is completely inappropriate, however, is haveing a separate subsection (grossly undue) or subsubsection (which is still undue, and also looks terrible, as it is the unique subsubsection in the article). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by 'undue', maybe you could explain what you mean. I suspect I disagree. I can think perhaps removing this subsubsection and creating a new subsection called Admissions Controversies, out of aesthetic considerations. Doogely (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Undue
I can't speak for Jonathan A Jones but I might be able to help anyway. As used in wikipedia, "UNDUE" is a technical term referring the possibility that an article, or part of one, doesn't fairly represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views."

I'm not by any means saying that there isn't a story here, but there are fundamental problems with the proportion/prominence of the material you submitted: Given these issues, I think Professor Jones's summary of your material was fair and proportionate.
 * You've only used a single source (The Guardian) in a narrow timeframe. Using that for more than a couple of sentences in an article about an 800-year-old institution is misleading.
 * According to your source reference it is David Lammy, not The Guardian who alleges that these figures 'suggest' "institutional bias". You haven't mentioned Lammy in your contribution, which means you're implying that the Guardian is reporting this as a matter of fact, not opinion. That's misleading.
 * You haven't mentioned the comments from Oxbridge spokepeople. Failure to mention any rebuttal implies that the allegation is uncontested. That's misleading, too.

If you will excuse a more personal note, apparently you are a new contributor to Wikipedia, and many of your recent contributions have been about the possibilty of ethnic or cultural bias in undergraduate university selection. You are heartily welcome but please be careful not to let your personal opinions affect your activity as an editor here. Wikipedia isn't a forum, or a soapbox. You must write entirely neutrally, so the proportion and prominence of the points in the article has no connection to where your personal sympathies may lie. In my experience an excellent way to get used to contributing here is to write about things you know nothing of and have no interest in. That way you have to do pure research to find your sources, you expand your knowledge in wildly unexpected ways, and nobody can question your motives. Happy editing - Pointillist (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The above seems like a reasonable summary of the main issues. My only substantive suggestion would be to add WP:CRIT, and especially WP:CSECTION to the reading list.  Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oxonion Hypocrisy
With all due respect Jonathan A Jones, Fluteflute (most likely anyway), and you my dear Pointillist are all Oxonians. Hence I suppose I cannot claim the supreme neutrality involved in rushing to defend one's Alma Mater, and insisting that this issue is given as little space as these learned men can justify. It isn't of much importance that it could be possible that these learned Oxonions were granted admission to the ancient seat of learning because more qualified ethnic minorities were denied admissions to make room for them, right? Or the fact that some of these very editors may well be involved in the admissions process that looks rather discriminatory from the facts? For, patently the motivations of these editors are unlikely to be questioned, and they are hardly interested in this article.

I thank you for your gracious and generous advice. Happy editing to you too! Doogely (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The irony is that we probably all agree that there's a real issue here. Of course it should be mentioned in the Oxford article, but it's really part of a much wider problem in the British (or at least, non-Scottish) education system. There's too much to say, and much of it isn't specific to Oxford. What we need is a separate article about elite UK university entrance. I'll think more about that and get back to you. - Pointillist (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally agree.Deb (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"it's really part of a much wider problem in the British (or at least, non-Scottish) education system". Not true. UCL is over 30% ethnic minority in the undergraduate level; Imperial is similar. The fact that high performing ethnic minorities are disproportionately likely to be rejected from Oxford even when they have significantly higher grades is almost uniquely an Oxonian problem. Trying to shift the blame to 'economic' and other inequalities lower down in the education system is sly, lazy and unsubstantiated. And the suggestion of it implies editorial bias.Doogely (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you still feel so angry about this. I really do think there's a wider problem, or problems. So far, I haven't seen anything that changes my belief that this issue deserves its own article, and I did start assembling material for it, but there's still lots to be done. Some of the relevant factors seem to be:


 * Watering-down of entrance examinations. Until the mid-1980s Oxbridge candidates had to sit special entrance examinations that included material that would not be taught in most A level courses, or at least demanded a particular way of thinking that went beyond A level exercises. These exams were a big deal: there were typically four 3-hour papers to be prepared for, so those schools that had the resources and experience to coach pupils had an unfair advantage. You can find more discussion of this here. The consensus was that it would be much fairer to use the existing A level system to assess candidates. Unfortunately, few candidates were sitting the A level Special papers or the Advanced Extension Awards that succeeded them, so A levels remained the only objective discriminator for applications. But there was great concern that changes to A levels had largely removed "the opportunity for the most able students to develop and demonstrate originality, creativity, insight, clarity of thought and analysis, extended arguments and problem-solving." and thus "the ability to differentiate the exceptional students from the good." (per Cambridge seeks harder A-levels, 2005). This was the reason that A+ and A++ grades were proposed by the Tomlinson report.
 * Difficulty of comparing data. Are you using statistics from before the A* grade was used for admissions? In 2008 25.8% of all A level subjects were given an A grade which of course meant that AAA could no longer be seen as exceptional. Also, you say that UCL has 30% ethnic minority intake but a possible confounding factor is that the range of entry qualifications at UCL is significantly wider than Oxford: UCL's range is A*A*A to ABB or at least 34 at IB, whereas Oxford asks for A*A*A to AAA or 38–40 at IB. KCL has a similarly wide range to UCL. I think Imperial is still very selective but of course their mix of subjects is very different from UCL or Oxford so the data wouldn't be directly comparable.
 * Use of predicted rather than actual grades. The BMC's 2008 study points out that "offers and rejections are made not on A levels attained, but on GCSEs attained, and teachers' estimates of A levels that are likely to be gained". There seems to be a suggestion (on page 21) that medical schools only wish to make offers those candidates they are sure will achieve their offered grades. I've no idea whether there's a similar effect for Oxbridge entrance. Everyone knows it would be fairer and simpler to move to post-qualification application, but this still seems to be some way off.
 * Candidates' performance in pre-tests/interviews. You seem to be saying that these rejections are happening after interview&mdash;have I got that right? That is a tricky one to validate between UCL and Oxford. I know some UCL departments use interviews or group exercises for selection, though I believe UCL's interviews are done by post-docs rather than tutors so I suppose they serve a slightly different purpose from Oxford's. Are you saying that "high performing" is measured only by exam grades? The test+interview process is claimed to be to identify those candidates would perform well under the tutorial system, which is rather different from other universities' teaching approach. Maybe some bias is inevitable here. I guess what the tutors are hoping for is articulate thinkers who can make reasoned arguments but listen to other points of view and be quick to abandon unproductive approaches. A level exams don't test that, which is why the TSA Oxford and LNAT are used as discriminators. Actually, that's another problem with this discussion: we don't know how many applicants are being filtered out via these pre-tests. An ostensibly high performing candidate who scores poorly on the TSA wouldn't necessarily be aware of it.
 * Variations in schools, in particular the elimination of state-funded selective education. The state-funded selective grammar school route (which brought e.g. Harold Wilson, Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey, Edward Heath and Peter Lampl to Oxford) was eliminated in the early 1970s. Many top grammar schools chose to become 100% fee-paying institutions rather than be taken over by their Local Authorities. The Assisted Places Scheme which started in 1981 was killed off in 1997. Selective school admissions separated the top ~10% of 11-year-olds from their peers and educated them in more demanding conditions. Whatever you think of this in terms of social justice, these conditions must have helped to prepare pupils and their teachers for elite University admissions through e.g. frequency of internal exams, competitive rankings in classes, development of debating skills and teachers' familiarity with entrance requirements etc. As Peter Lampl observed "At Reigate grammar, it was a big occasion if anyone got into Oxbridge. But at Pate's in Cheltenham, which was also a grammar, it was no big deal. It was almost expected of you if you did well. I learned from this that there are certain schools that link into Oxford and Cambridge. I got to Oxford, but I wouldn't have if I had stayed in Reigate." (per this interview, 2007).
 * I'd like to see the UCL intake data, if you could point me at them. What would be interesting is the raw numbers and ratios of applicants to offers categorized by background (subject area, type of school, ethnicity). 30% from ethnic minorities seems disproportionate to the overall mix of UCAS applicants (e.g. per ). - Pointillist (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One minor point to add is that at Oxford the published A-level requirements for courses when listed as simple grade lists bear little resemblance to reality for two reasons: firstly the published requirements are, in effect, absolute minima, and lie well below the actual achievements of most successful applicants, and secondly because these grade lists ignore the requirements for specific grades in specific subjects. For example the published requirements for Oxford physics are A*AA, but these must include a minimum of A in maths and A in physics, with an A* in one of these.  In fact successful candidates typically have A*A*A*, with very few having less than A*A*A, and a substantial fraction having A*A*A*A* or better.  Furthermore the majority of successful candidates have Further Maths as a third A level.  Realistically the typical Oxford physicist has A* maths, A* physics, and A or A* further maths, and frequently a fourth A or A* in a relevant subject, a description which is not well captured by the naive A*AA description. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to belabour this discussion further. The data released by the Guardian (for years 2010-2011) is quite conclusive in my opinion for any reasonably impartial person to believe that Oxford very likely has a race problem. I would think for most people this is an important issue/allegation and deserves a decent emphasis, one for which the University itself hasn't provided a satisfactory evidence based response. Few minor points:


 * Yes Oxford had entrance exams which were scrapped partly because it was felt state school students with high A level grades weren't as successful as privately educated students in them (there was no evidence for this btw). Bizarrely the objective written examination rather than subjective interview was scrapped.
 * TSA, LNAT, don't have as much predictive value as A levels (or As levels) according to Cambridge. There is no evidence that whites score better on these. Oxford is yet to release the data (one would think they would be keen to refute the allegations with hard data). Admissions tutors do have prior grades. It is reasonable to expect prior grades correlate well with eventual A level performance, and evidence shows that ethnic group performance at GCSE, AS and A level are consistent. (Whites don't outperform ethnic minorities in GCSEs and As and do worse in A levels). For example Chinese students outperform whites for GCSES, AS, and A levels, but are almost half as likely to be admitted to Oxford. As for predicted grades, evidence shows that they are quite often unreliable.
 * Ethnic minorities disproportionately attend Grammar and Independent schools
 * Unlike suggested by Jonathan A Jones, only a small proportion of Oxford applicants go on to score A*A*A* or higher. See guardian data. Overall it is less than 20%, though for medicine it is I think around 35%.
 * No evidence ethnic minority applicants take inappropriate subject choices.Actually there is evidence that ethnic minorities are more likely to take more traditional subjects such as maths, etc.
 * UCL data: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ras/statistics/current/T.pdf

Like I said I don't want to belabour this discussion. I believe the Guardian data is important and persuasive. Doogely (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate you pointing me to the UCL data: I calculate that, excluding "refused" and "not known", UCL currently has 5338 white (61%) and 3469 non-white (39%) home undergraduates. So that was an eye-opener for me. I've taken a fresh look at the Oxford admissions pages and I hadn't realised that nowadays almost every course uses a pre-interview test. There's the Biomedical Admissions Test, Classics Admissions Test, English Literature Admissions Test, History Aptitude Test, Law National Admissions Test, Mathematics Admissions Test, Modern Languages Admissions Tests, Physics Aptitude Test and the Thinking Skills Assessment. The Music and Theology courses don't use a pre-test, but they require samples of written work (as do Classics, English, History and Modern Languages). In the Physics Admission procedure the pre-test is the only criterion used to short-list for interview, and the contents of the UCAS application aren't considered until after the post-interview banding. That seems to be an extreme case (or at least, an unusually candid explanation), other courses make more general statements, e.g. "test results play a significant part in short-listing".
 * The Guardian numbers certainly indicate a problem. Differences in % achievement of A level grades for white vs aggregated non-white candidates aren't sufficient to explain the discrepancy in offers. I don't know whether the admission pre-tests are significantly different from A*-calibre questions, but anyway several of the tests (e.g. LNAT and BMAT) are also taken by UCL candidates. The most likely explanation is that the interview process is the key factor, because it is looking for qualities that aren't necessarily being assessed at A level. Here are some examples I've cut and pasted from the admissions pages (they aren't all the same subject):
 * "Reasoning ability: ability to analyse and solve problems using logical and critical approaches, ability to draw fine distinctions, ability to separate the relevant from the irrelevant, capacity for accurate and critical observation, capacity for sustained and cogent argument."
 * "Flexibility: the capacity to engage with alternative perspectives and/or new information."
 * "Communication: willingness and ability to express ideas clearly and effectively both in writing and orally; ability to listen and to give considered responses."
 * "Originality and creativity of thought, lateral thinking and hypothesis generation."
 * If the scores for interviews are measuring these qualities, it would be interesting to see how candidates from different educational/cultural backgrounds compare. Perhaps the Guardian would like to make another FOI request.... - Pointillist (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Notes: " Trying to shift the blame to 'economic' and other inequalities lower down in the education system is sly, lazy and unsubstantiated. And the suggestion of it implies editorial bias." was edited earlier to "Trying to shift the blame to 'economic' and other inequalities lower down in the education system is unfair and unsubstantiated."

I have reverted the edits to the original, so 'context' is maintained.

Some editors who commented before the edit believe that this edit somehow (and in my humble opinion rather strangely) made their comments out of context. I felt the change was a fair one, given it made the comment less vitriolic, perhaps more tactful, without changing the substance of my comments. I still stand by my original statement in substance.

The shifting of blame to the rest of the education system is sly, because it covertly suggests a justification for the disparities. I.e. it covertly defends Oxford against allegations of discrimination, by suggesting that the disparities are due to inequalities elsewhere. It is lazy because the claims made are unsubstantiated. The word I probably really should use to describe it is sophistry. It smacks of editorial bias, because it is an unsubstantiated claim, with no real basis in fact, which seems to defend an institution, which the editors happen to be closely involved with. Doogely (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

College names
To my eyes, this edit makes the page look ugly. But I looked up the university's list of colleges and they indeed refer to 'New College' in the same list as 'Brasenose', 'Hertford', etc. Should we also use "University College" and "The Queen's College"? But the latter's homepage uses simply "Queen's" twice on the homepage. The former uses "Univ" on its own a lot - that seems two informal for Wikipedia - but it does seem that "University" alone is never used. Any thoughts? -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 23:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As most of these names predate the Internet by many centuries, there's no particular reason to prefer the current usage to that of earlier periods. - Pointillist (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that different names can and should be used in different places. To directly answer Fluteflute, in modern Oxford usage New College is almost invariably referred to as "New College"; the one exception is in tables showing all the colleges, where referring to it as "New" is completely unambiguous, but even in that case the name would generally be read out as "New College".  University College is usually called "University College" to avoid confusion with "The University" (which these days usually means the Vice Chancellor and pro-VCs together with the administration in Wellington Square, distinct from "The Divisions" or "The Departments", and "The Collegiate University", which means the whole thing); this is frequently abbreviated to "Univ" but very rarely to "University".  Queen's is usually called "Queen's" except in formal contexts or by members of the college, when the name "The Queen's College" is used; use of "Queen's College" is rare.


 * As hinted at above, in practice this largely comes down to avoiding ambiguity. This is particularly clearly shown in street names: we have "Merton Street" and "Brasenose Lane", but notably still have "New College Lane" (not to be confused with "New Road").  In this context the use of "Queen's Lane" rather than any longer version is interesting.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I prefer the consistency of not having "College", "Hall", or "House" and listing the first part. (I'm not entirely chuffed to bits by there being "Halls" that are colleges and "Houses" that are residential halls, but these are, as stated above, considerably established than the Web or myself.) I concur with the sentiment that prudence should take precedence and that "College" should be appended to distinguish where confusion may arise. While I would readily accede that New College is almost always referred to as "New College", perhaps because it's so short, it is abundantly clear that "New" is in reference to colleges of Oxford. Here, "New College" look rather gauche and I believe it should be listed as merely "New".


 * By the by, I hope no one minds that I have spaced your comments, in the hope of improving readability when editing this page. Cheers. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * St Edmund Hall was a hall (presumably a PPH but I'm not sure) which converted to a college, but decided to retain its own name, unlike earlier conversions (such as Brasenose which moved from Brasenose Hall to The King's Hall and College of Brasenose, commonly known as Brasenose College) and later conversions such as Mansfield (which was a PPH in my day and usually just called Mansfield, but is now Mansfield College). I'm not sure about LMH.  Of course the nightmare case is Christ Church, which emphatically is not "Christ Church College", so the naive rule "add College to any hame which doesn't end in Hall" fails in this case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, as a present Oxonian "New College" is in fact almost invariably referred to as just "New" by pretty much all undergraduates including those that go there. This may be a recent development, however. Lord British (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update; very interesting. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, who could forget ChCh! Also, thank you duly for the update.


 * So, for the sake of avoiding this trouble, could the colleges or PPHs simply be listed by the variable part of their names (i.e., Magdalen)? Qwerty Binary (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made a change to that effect. Only exception I've left is Lady Margaret Hall and St Edmund Hall. Also left St Stephen's House since the House seems a bit unique (but I know nothing about it, so that's rather arbitrary). -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 10:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Alumni
This article implies Stephen Fry went to Oxford, when I believe he actually went to Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.238.145 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks - Pointillist (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead
I very much disagree with this edit. Having glanced over WP:LEAD then some parts of that edit I believe should definitely not be there: 1167 and Bologna. I'm more agreeable to leaving the Cambridge reference, as mentioning 'Oxbridge' is probably quite important. (Seeing as its in the same edit, I'll mention that I also disagree strongly with the "Currently, the" addition.)

I expect the whole lead could do with some more major work/expansion, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't improve smaller elements. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 17:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Broadly agree; I didn't think much of the edit but just fixed up the worst bit. The "Currently" should also have been removed, which I will do.  With regard to dates I think all one can really say is that the University has no date of foundation but came into being between 1096 and 1167. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should the word be removed? The number may change, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.176.234.103 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: A Complete Survey of Graduat...
107.192.153.56 posted this comment on 28 December 2013 (view all feedback).

"A Complete Survey of Graduate Schools would be appreciated. Business and Finance, MBAs, International Monetary Systems, etc. etc."

Any thoughts?

Gregrium (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If a "statement of fact" were to suggest information that would require a "complete survey" then the responsibility falls upon the individual posting.

Should that information not be confirmable then the regular editorial process would apply.

Ian Hislops Olden Days
On Ian Hislops Olden Days author of History of University College, Oxford, Robin Darwall-Smith explains Oxford's murky foundation myth evoking Alfred the Great in a land dispute, petitioning Richard II. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks for sharing. (For others interested, from 19:42 on iPlayer.) Probably not relevant to this page, but would be interesting to include on the University College, Oxford page. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 09:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Creation of an academic profile
I suggest to combine "Research & collection" with "Undergraduate study" to form a section of academic profile/academics. Most contents in the research & collection section aren't just about what the title suggests (like rankings/reputation and degrees which also contain undergraduate measurement). The scholarship mentioned in undergraduate section comprises that for postgraduates as well. If undergraduate studies are that important to be such lengthy, a subpage can be created with a brief summary left in the academic section of this page. Biomedicinal (contact)

There's definitely scope for expanding the information about graduate study and research. A subpage sounds like a good idea, but undergraduate teaching is what Oxford is famous for, and it's important this is still given due emphasis on this main page. I don't know how best to divide the page this into sections. But for an academic institution then trying to place everything under a single "academic profile" or "academics" section seems completely unnecessary. I suspect a "collections" section makes sense (museums/libraries/parks). I'm a bit wary of the rankings/reputation section, I don't think it should be as long as it is. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 01:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The guideline page stipulates the suggested flow and division of a university article. I think libraries & museums are about the academic environment provided by the institution to its students, so it can be placed in the academic section. In my opinion, the organisation of MIT page, where undergraduate and postgraduate studies briefly summarized are placed in the academic section together with rankings/reputation, libraries/museums, and research, can be a reference. Biomedicinal (contact)


 * The MIT approach looks possible, though not obviously better than the current form (guidelines are just guidelines, and are frequently US-centric). But PLEASE call it "Academic Profile" or similar, and not "Academics" which has an entirely different meaning in the UK, and would lead to endless edit wars. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Parks
A minor point, but the parks are in fact open free of charge. The Botanic Garden and the Arboretum, however, have an entrance charge for the general public. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Quodlibetica
A suggestion that with 6 volumes of the History of Oxford University available the historical section could well be written up as a separate, fuller Wikipedia entry.

The list of alumni seems unbalanced: Politics and Sport occupy too prominent a position, and medecine does not get a look-in (not even for Harvey and the circulation of the blood). The list of alumni by subject could follow approximately the order of precedence of the facultiesClive sweeting (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Clive Sweeting 18 September 2014

Oriel Noetics
Were the Oriel Noetics really prominent in Philosophy? Looks like more of a theological movement to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a Philosophy student, I've never heard of them. They're also not mentioned on the Philosophy faculty's history webpage. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 08:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I have cut them out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I denote a whiff of anachronism here together with a young man in a hurry. The Noetics were natural theology men. Natural theology was an intrinsic part of philosophy from the Stoics right up to their time. It is not so today. Disciplines have shifted over the centuries. (I believe a pharmaceutical store in Edinburgh about their time specialised in purveying 'philosophical instruments'!) The Noetics used Whateley's Logic and were generally taken to be philosophers. The faculty they evolved into was Lit.Hum. and not theology.

The end of Mander's article cited above is interesting. A clear agenda is stated: ...'gradual freeing of itself from clerical and classical roots'.Would the majority of philosophy teachers in the university endorse?15:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Clive Sweeting,23 September 2014

"Criticisms" section
A "criticisms" section was added in this edit, but in reality the section is purely about fossil fuel investments. The section seems to me to be contrary to WP:COATRACK, WP:CHERRY, and WP:RECENTISM, but it's not so bad that it should obviously just be removed, and I would value other opinions on this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it's not appropriate in its current form. I'd suggest reducing it to a sentence (or manybe two) under the Finance section. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 12:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds sensible; now done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thresholds for selecting "notable" alumni & media featuring Oxford
I'm not sure if it's appropriate to add so many names and photos of Oxonian there as we do have a main page for this section. Besides, the list (without any citation) in the "Oxford in literature and other media" part seems a bit redundant. I'd like to know the thresholds for selecting those "notable examples" to be added here. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 06:15, 6 May 2015‎
 * I agree that this is a problem, but it's difficult to give a formal threshold beyond "I'll know it when I see it". The number of pictures introduced in the edit by PonyMaster  was ridiculous, but the subsequent edit by Kiki 233  reduced things to a level which I though was just about acceptable, though still on the high side.  The "Oxford in literature and other media" part has just got ridiculous, and at least half of these should go.  I'll have a go at trimming that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bearing in mind that the article on the university existed long before the separate list was created, would it not be acceptable simply to cross-refer?  It's inconceivable that anyone will ever appear on the list in this article without also being in the other article Deb (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, consistency is crucial, so are conciseness and preciseness. Some university articles (like that of Cambridge) have (redundantly) exhaustive details and photos added everywhere which, in my opinion, are messy. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 12:10, 8 May 2015‎
 * I have cut Oxford in literature and other media/Other notable examples from 42 entries right down to 9. I think that's a big improvement, and now about the right length, but I wouldn't be strongly opposed to complete deletion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that looks better now. I hope this GA can persist with its conciseness and preciseness with well-sourced, clear and readable content. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 12:10, 8 May 2015‎

I'd be in favour of removing completely the literature and other media section. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Having thought more about this, I would be happy to have the section cut down to just the opening paragraph and the cross reference, i.e. removing the list entirely, but I wouldn't favour deleting the section entirely. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * More thought would be quite justified, e.g. Bradley's Mr. Verdant Green was long considered an Oxford Classic; The History Boys is about getting into Oxford not about being there. The nineteenth century is particularly rich; the twenty-first distinctly less.In any case a more pluralistic approach (in this) and other matters is needed Clive Sweeting 14September2015

New photograph gallery
I see that PonyMaster is back adding photographs again. The gallery format is better than just scattering them all over the article, but do these pictures really add anything here? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No! Most are of colleges and they could be on the specific college articles, if they are not already. Some are not very good photographs. I suggest the gallery be deleted. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oxford has so many alumni that such photos can be limitless. I think it looks quite messy as they're added here and there. Maybe, we can just retain those who have higher popularity or are more recognizable (relatively not absolutely) so as to attract more attention. If the readers are so interested in their faces, the corresponding main pages or Wiki Commons will be a good place. But here photos are just additional elements to boost the zest. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 07:28, 16 May 2015‎ (UTC)
 * I had a bit of a think about this, and came to the conclusion that we should either delete all the alumni pictures, or possibly only include pictures that are clearly set in Oxford (which I think is none of the current ones, so these two options come to much the same thing in practice). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with that. Pictures help to make the page look more attractive. I just disagree with gallerias. However it would be great to have some that are clearly set in Oxford and these should replace existing ones. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on University of Oxford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130804172404/http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk:80/councilsec/gov/gov_expl/ to http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/councilsec/gov/gov_expl/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091001013817/http://www.ucas.com:80/students/applying/faqs/eligibility/faq1 to http://www.ucas.com/students/applying/faqs/eligibility/faq1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130709220145/http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/33TheacademicexperienceofstudentsinEnglishuniversities2007.pdf to http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/33TheacademicexperienceofstudentsinEnglishuniversities2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140128010440/http://rankings.ft.com:80/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2014 to http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2014

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Admissions graph
In a recent edit  added a graph showing the fraction of students admitted from state schools. No source was given for the data. Does this constitute original research? Or am I worrying too much? The same graph was also added at University of Cambridge and at Oxbridge. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The references were in the graph (if you clicked on "more details") but I have added them to the articles as well to avoid confusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I did check the graph, but mysteriously failed to see them, but anyway they definitely belong in the main article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Logo
A while ago I removed the logo from the article, pointing out that the SVG image shows the Latin inscription as DOMINUS ILLVMINATIO MEA, including inconsistent use of U and V, while the official logo uses V consistently (DOMINVS ILLVMINATIO MEA), so the SVG image unfairly makes the university look sloppy. Somebody (editing from an IP) has restored it without giving a reason or addressing these concerns. I stand by this specific concern, but it turns out that, worse than that, there is no evidence that the multi-colour logo is actually officially used by the university at all. The purported source, even under "colour" (page 8), allows only for a plain white shield on "university blue" background. The contains a valid observation from user "Governor Jerjerrod", that the SVG version is just an artist's impression, although it is wrong to state that the version with blue on white (i.e. reversed colours) is official, indeed it is given as an example in page 19 of the source of an incorrect version ("Do not change the colour, tint/fade or create outline versions of the logo.") This being the case, the logo as presented is unsourced and incorrect, and there are no correct versions in the file history to go back to. So I will again remove the logo from the article. Sorry to deprive the artist of an outlet for his/her artistic impression, but this is not the place for it. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. page numbers of the PDF file mentioned above are per the written labels rather than the page numbers in the PDF.

Actually I would go further and say, I don't see the benefit in creating an SVG at all (assuming that an official PNG file of reasonable resolution can be found). Either it is legally permissible to use the official logo, taking into account copyright and trademark law, or it isn't. If it is, then it should just be uploaded. Or if it isn't legal, then I can't see how merely changing the file format (even to a format which requires skill to create rather than just an automated conversion) would somehow make these legal issues go away. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The university shield is not copyrighted or otherwise legally controlled and exists in many forms that vary in details. The belted crest is a more recent creation and is copyrighted. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.


 * I think the primary question needs to be what is the factually correct up-to-date logo of the university. What seems clear from the university's official website is that the current official logo is the belted crest, and one that is strict as regards colour scheme, namely a simple two-colour white on blue. Also the wording has "V" in both "DOMINVS" and "ILLVMINATIO", as seen in the document on branding, which shows the logo large enough to see this. Neither of the users who restored the multi-colour version of the crest have offered any source to support it having official status. What you say about the shield is interesting, particularly if it exists in many forms, but if the belted crest is more recent then I think all the more reason to need a source that establishes that the shield retains co-official status and has not simply been superseded. (If there has been some rebranding, then previous logos could be discussed in the article if the topic of the rebranding is worthy of a mention.)


 * A subsidiary question exists as to whether the factually correct logo is legally usable. Maybe it is usable under some fair dealings provision despite its copyright status, but I am not a lawyer. I see that currently the article already contains a version of this, and for now I will move it to the top of the article to replace the multi-colour crest. Personally I would not take responsibility for uploading it, but that rests with whoever did so. If it turns out that it needs to be removed for copyright reasons but that any replacement would be factually inaccurate, then the correct response is not to include any at all, given that the purpose of the article is to provide encyclopaedic information rather than to look pretty.

Regards, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction - I not going to move the existing logo (the "University of Oxford.svg" file, which includes the name of the university as well as the crest) as the "logo" tag is set up to put it in a particular place, separate from the "image" tag. But this is still not a justification for putting a factually incorrect version of the logo under "image". If people want the belted crest in the position where the current multi-colour one is, then it should be the one which currently forms part of the "University of Oxford.svg" file, and it would be a relatively simple matter with an SVG editor to extract it into a separate file. However, I personally do not wish to take legal responsibility for doing so, so somebody else can do this if they want it and are prepared to do so. -- Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The shield is the coat of arms of the University of Oxford and like any coat of arms there is no such thing as an official version: the blazon can be interpreted in any way which is heraldically correct. The belted crest is the former logo of the university and has over time existed in a range of forms.  The current logo of the university is the simple blue and white logo incorporating a version of the belted crest, and is used under the same fair use criteria as the logo of any other organisation (such use on organisation pages is very common). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thank you. On that basis, putting the shield there makes good sense, which I see that you have now already done. I would still be unhappy with the multicolour version of the belted crest for reasons discussed (the inconsistent "U" and "V" issue, and that the reasoning for there being no official version presumably does not extend to the belted crest - correct?) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's right. The unversity gets very upset if you try to modify the blue and white logo in any way, but has no control over depictions of the shield.  The multi coloured belted crest is a bit of a half way house, but both the shield and the logo are better alternatives for different purposes so there's really no reason to use it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Fake, Fraudulent, "£10 Mail Order" MA degrees from Oxford
The University of Oxford offers undergraduate degrees of three years duration, in which the student is examined for parts one and two of the Tripos. On successful completion they are awarded a BA degree. Quite often courses offer an optional part three course Tripos which takes a further year.

Following the BA, students may then enrole to take a masters degree eg M.Phil, M.Litt, M.Sc etc, as at other Universities, or indeed a doctorate D.Phil for example. However no MA degree is offered.

The MA at Oxford is awarded after paying a small admin charge (is £10), 21 terms after matriculation (age 25), with no extra work, study or research. This status allows certain rights, for example walking across the grass in the quad and wearing a fancy gown.

Officially it is not a degree and yet graduates in receipt of this "MA" place it on their CV and or buisness card. The letters MA stand for Master of Arts.

Many people consider this to be a medieval nonsense and worse, fake and fraudulent. Fake, since it pretends to be something that it is not. Fraudulent, since it misrepresents the achedemic achievement of the holder. The MP Chris Leslie has tried to make this practice illegal, via a ten min. rule bill in the commons, without success.

Philip C Robinson M.Sc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.252.35 (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no real objection to you leaving this here, but it is nonsense. The MA degree has historically been a key factor in the way the university is governed by its graduates. It is not an extra degree. When you get your MA, you remove the BA from your business card. The Scottish universities used to offer only a MA and not a BA. It is quite clear what it represents. It is not fake and fraudulent. It does not pretend to be something that it is not. It may be medieval but it is not nonsense. If you are an Oxford man, you should try to understand your university. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For those interested in this question we have a whole article on the subject: Master of Arts (Oxbridge and Dublin). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The rant does not help improve the article, and we should not encourage such rantings on talk pages, so per "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject", this section should be deleted. BabelStone (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges
''Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges
''Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of Oxford. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813161207/http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/about/applying-for-the-rhodes-scholarship to http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/about/applying-for-the-rhodes-scholarship
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DF8jMXkW?url=http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/the_faculty/history_of_philosophy to http://www.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/the_faculty/history_of_philosophy

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of well sourced WP:RS
User ElKebo has deleted the following perfectly sourced text:

«In June 2017, Oxford announced that starting the following academic year, women and men at Oxford will be able to sit some exams at home, to help women achieve the same first levels as men at Oxford.» Using as pretext: "edit warring to insert your preferred language". Edit warring after 1 edit? Oh boy! XavierItzm (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On how many Talk pages are you going to post about this? I noted my mistake, reverted my edit, and apologized.  Move on. ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Economics
I am surprised there is no Wikipedia article for Oxford Economics. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not. Only you're surprised because you expected that, after the news frenzy over that stupid overrated hijabi ho getting into "oxford economics", there'd be a corresponding page for your indentured muzzies to say 'HOOO MUHS LIMM VAY MAKE BIG VAVES WITH MALALA IN SAKOOL'.
 * please go die.. (unsigned, 20 August 2017)


 * I don't know what you're talking about. I just read this paper.  Roberttherambler (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is no significant ongoing connection between Oxford Economics and the University: while it was founded by academics at (the now merged) Templeton College there is no current link. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Roberttherambler (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Law - Ben Emmerson QC
The article lists Ben Emmerson as a notable Oxford law graduate, but the page for Ben Emmerson indicates he studied at Bristol and doesn't mention Oxford; it relies upon a bio published in The Telegraph as a source. It felt like an unlikely mistake to make, so just wanted to discuss on talk page first before editing the article to remove Mr Emmerson's name? --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

helping to knew live the university
the users have the facility to know better the university live which means they can totally observe the university (the present condition). so they can get the present information about geographicallly,socially,and culturaly. kindly accept my request by which the students observe which leads to a better world.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A1A0:988B:F179:CE77:8963:2A52 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So what was the first?
This article describes Oxford University as "the world's second oldest university in continuous operation". It might help this article if it informed readers which university is the first. Vorbee (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * They can click on the wikilink to find out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Oxford. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724043847/http://www.campaign.ox.ac.uk/campaign/the_campaign/index.html to http://www.campaign.ox.ac.uk/campaign/the_campaign/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Map layout
I wonder whether the map in the article ought to be in a box, collapsed by default, as it is rather large (though I think it needs to be). Also, there's an issue in the labels being hard to read against the background of lines on the map, which I'm not quite sure how to resolve. Has anyone got any thoughts? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the map could be smaller and still readable. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made the map default-collapsed, made the text size 150%, and made all text bold. The map wouldn't really work smaller, I tried it when I originally made it (my initial intention was as a location map in the infobox). I plan to bump the pog size, and try a text background. &#x2230;Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  22:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, that works, although I tried a somewhat smaller map and thought that worked too. However the red, blue, green and purple indicators at the bottom are grossly too large and should be reduced in size by a factor of 10 or more, with all 4 together in a line with no break. I found a smaller on and something like:-

- University Department


 * seems better to me. If you found similar for the others all 4 could go in one line. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we make the crests significantly bigger? I didn't notice them at all on first glance. Also, the mouseover text should be the name of the college. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was going to make them bigger myself. Alas, working from my iPad, so find+replace doesn't exist. One lining the key seems reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellezzasolo (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made the crests bigger, I've also adjusted the order so the crests fall under the text (it became an issue)! Finally, I've moved it to Template:University of Oxford Map so that it's not cluttering rhe main page, and also to allow it to be transcluded into college pages (I may make it a bit more template-ey at some point). &#x2230;Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  02:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:FAC?
It's been over 10 years since the page went to WP:GA and was denied WP:FA status. The article has improved greatly since then, and I think it might be up to standard. I'm wondering if it's time to submit it. &#x2230;Bellezzasolo &#x2721; Discuss  14:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Title line
Can we do something to reduce the title line: "The University of Oxford (formally The Chancellor Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford; informally Oxford University or simply Oxford)". On my screen this takes nearly two lines of text. I'd previously removed the 'informally' part, which has since been re added, I'm not sure what the reasoning is. I'm sure the full title is useful information but can it go in the infobox or a footnote? Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see the case for the full formal title; I can't see any reason to include the "; informally Oxford University or simply Oxford" bit. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Prestigious sentence in lead
and I have been reverting over whether the following should be included in the lead of the article:
 * The history and influence of the University of Oxford has made it one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

recently removed a similar statement from the lead in this edit, citing "peacock language" (see WP:PEACOCK). The sentence seems to have been copied from one at University of Cambridge, but this is the "other stuff exists" fallacy. I can't see where the source in question contains the stated information, though Lastnightawake asserts that it "states so explicitly in the methodology" (could I please have a quote or direct link?). If it doesn't not say this, the statement should be removed. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "peacock" = exaggeration. It's not "peacock" when it's well sourced to Times higher education. that has it on its widely reported annual list in this case its list "World's 10 most prestigious universities 2016". That's reality of the sort Wikipedia should be reporting, not false facts or wild exaggeration. Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the sources are quite clear that Oxford is one of the most prestigious universities in the world.-- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Linacre College Oxford Coat Of Arms.svg