Talk:Imperial College London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject London, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to London. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles.
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 removing a statement 2 Intro 3 Male:Female Ratio 4 League Tables 5 ICSM - Imperial College School of Medicine 6 Fleming 7 Secession from the University of London 8 clubs and societies 9 University ratings 10 Exchange programs 11 How? 12 "Officially" 13 History 14 Selectivity 15 'prestigious' 16 felix 17 bars 18 Webometric ranking 19 CHE Ranking 20 LSE article

[edit] removing a statement

This focus on technical and scientific subjects allows Imperial to compete with other, larger institutions such as Manchester, Sheffield and Bristol, all of which have to offer courses across the spectrum of academia thus diluting their overall impact on league tables.

I removed this text because I thought it was a bit unclear.... departments are ranked (a ranking upto 5*), not whole institutions... so does this make sense? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:23, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think this original statement is a bit of a misnoma as Imperial College is infact a large institution regarding undergraduate/postgraduate student numbers, and it is often incorrectly presumed to be a small specialist institution like the LSE. Also no institution is compelled to offer any courses they do not deem suitible, hence the comment of "have to offer" is incorrect. The main advantage is as a comparable sized institution with a lower number of key departments and subjects a greater emphasis can be placed on each, as typified by the seperate departments of Mechanical/Aeronautical/Electrical/Civil engineering that are often combined in other universities.

[edit] Intro

"as its name suggests" -> "as its previous name suggests" ?

Go for it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:29, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Male:Female Ratio

The Imperial College Factsheet gives the ratio as 63.2:36.8. Would a better approximation be 6½:3½, or 13:7? This is also the value the Daily Mail uses in its table, 64:36. M Blissett 12:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When quoting ratios it is always done with integers, so 13:7 (which is *way* better than the 13:1 of my day) --Vamp:Willow 14:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] League Tables

"Imperial is consistently ranked in the top four in the country for academic prowess by newspaper league tables, often above Oxford University." Imperial has 14 not 15 Nobel winners and 2 not 1 Field medalists

There are many edit changes being made to this line of text (usually from anonymous IP addresses). Is there something we can come up with that will make most people happy? I would suggest "sometimes above", but maybe we should remove the reference to Oxford completely?--Alexd 22:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

'frequently above'/'occasionally above' maybe? --Vamp:Willow

I say we remove the reference to Oxford altogether. It is not the role of Wikipedia to compare UK institutions of Higher Education. Especially as we(Imperial) are clearly so much better...

"Imperial's reputation for unchallenged research excellence in the life and physical sciences is second to none and is frequently ahead of Oxford and Cambridge Universities in this arena." This is hardly objective. It seems to me that the page is mostly being edited by Imperial students past or present, and that we seem to be in danger of disappearing up our collective arse. I almost suspect Sir Richard to have had a hand in this page.

Well he's a GSK buisness tycoon goon isn't he, I wouldn't be suprised.

• • UPDATE**

Hi guys, ive just finished updating all the league positions for the The Times and THES. I couldnt find sources for some of them, but ive only written in positions for ones im sure of. If anyone can fill in the citations then feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.40.194 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ICSM - Imperial College School of Medicine

I didn't realise Imperial's medical school had such an outstanding international reputation as suggested by the article. I'd say of the London University medical schools Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' (King's College) or St. Barts and the Royal London (Queen Mary and Westfield College) would be held in equally high regard to either Imperial's or UCL's medical schools. Perhaps even higher amongst those in the medical sphere. In any case, Imperial College didn't have a medical school prior to 1998, but acquired it through the merger of two existing and separate University of London medical schools: St. Mary's Hospital Medical School and the Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School. These were in themselves prestigious schools of medicine, but seem to have lost their identities in the merger unlike the other London medical schools, which retained their distinct identities in their newly merged institutions after the mass amalgamation of the London Medical Schools with the multifaculty colleges of the University of London took place in 1998.

Imperial, with no existing medical school, merged with the St. Mary's Hospital Medical School and the Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School

QMW, like Imperial had no existing medical school, acquired The Royal London Medical College and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Medical School

King’s College, which already had a medical school (King’s College Hospital Medical School), merged with the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospitals.

UCL, which already had a medical school (University College Hospital Medical School), merged with the Royal Free Hospital Medical School and the Middlesex Medical School.

The only original London University Medical School which remains unattached to a multifaculty College or University is the St. George’s Hospital School of Medicine.

---

In response to the above, Imperial Medicine does have an outstanding international reputation. Have you talked to anyone in the 'medical sphere'? All London med schools are of a very high standard and very similar. Their strengths at the end of the day lie to a large extent with their hospitals. Imperial's, for that matter, are at the top of UK hospitals. UCL's also. You say Imperial didn't have a medical school and acquired it by the mergers. Your point?? How is that bad? The constituent schools have a history of excellence from the 19th century. Following a few years of sorting itself out after the merger, the new school has improved substantially. Mary's and CX were some of the finest med schools in the country and big rivals. CX merged with Westminster and the Royal Postgrad Med School and then with Mary's to form Imperial College School of Medicine. The hospitals and professors remained the same. Today, the course is of the most intense among UK med schools and this differentiates it from many other schools. You suggest that just because they are not in the name of the merged school, they lost their identity? That's irrelevant. They form the different campuses of the med school. The opposite is, in fact, true and could even be slightly negative. The campuses retain a lot of their original character; their strengths and teaching style and even the competition among them. The mergers between London unis and hospitals was an organized plan so that each uni got the hospitals roughly of its geographic area, if they weren't merged already. Imperial got northwest and it turned out they were damn good ones. Similarly the rest got theirs. The foundation schools also reflect that geographic arrangement.

To talk about the med schools, like any other school, you must consider both 1. their undergrad course and 2. their research. Imperial is at the top for both and many people believe the undergrad course at Imperial is one of the best (even UCL staff are known to admit it). But really schools are rather similar overall, it's more a matter of opinion on specific teaching methods. ex-ICSM student

---

Back in the day of separate medical schools, it was widely accepted that St Mary's and St Thomas' were the two most prestigous schools in London, with St Mary's being the most competitive (numbers wise). Now all but 1 of schools have merged with universities and/or other schools at some point, this doesn't dilute the prestige of the former schools at all. As for retaining separate identities, we will always have RUMS, Imperial students will always be the Mary's men, and King's medicals will always be GKT. Believe me it's not lost.

Central London (its not so much true as you move out) university hospitals, specifically the big 5, are clinically and academically the best institutions in the country, and each are specialists in different fields. I studied at UCH in the 90s and am now in ST resp medicine. So in my field, I can say that The Royal Brompton and National Heart and Lung at Imperial are world famous without a doubt.

Ignore published rankings, if you were to believe them then I suppose we should be mentioning Hull-York as being world famous too. Imperial and UCL are catagorically the best medical schools in London; I see F1 and F2 doctors from across the country coming to London and more often than not, you can hedge your bets with a London student over anyone else. I wouldn't rely on zealous students for any serious opinion that states otherwise. They're probably from Manchester or Peninsula and the like.

[edit] Fleming

Someone keeps removing references to Alexander Fleming. Fleming studied at St Mary's Medical School, which was not part of Imperial at the time that he studied but has since been merged with it. Thus he is an alumnus of Imperial. The medical building is named after him, for goodness sake!

On the contrary, if that is his only link with Imperial, then he is not an alumnus of Imperial. The fact that the SAF building is named after him is irrelevant.. Stalin wasn't born in Stalingrad. If you wanted to say "He is an alumnus of St Mary's which merged with Imperial in ..." that would be fair enough. Zargulon 10:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what do you have against the sentence The college's official title is Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, which it used in public relations up to 2002.? Zargulon 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we please sort this out here before you go on to edit the list of alumni page.. Zargulon 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it makes him an alumnus of Imperial. He went to St Mary's, St Mary's is part of Imperial. Where is the argument here? As for the statement about the full name, it is pointless and if it should be in the article for some minor interest then it certainly doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. I mean, who cares what the full name is? The opening paragraph should simply give an overview of the essential information.

I moved the statement about the name out of the introduction as per your request. I still disagree over the definition of an alumnus - I think it has to refer to the institution in its state when they attended it, regardless of what happened afterwards. For instance, if somone went to Hogwarts college, and afterwards Hogwarts college became defunct and completely ceased to exist, would that make them not an alumnus of anywhere? It is also certainly true that if you asked Fleming during his lifetime if he was an alumnus of Imperial (before the merger) he would have denied it, and said he was an alumnus of St Mary's.. surely the way that he defined himself should take precedence, rather than something that happened 33 years after he died. Zargulon 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, neither HG Wells nor TH Huxley would have been alumni, as they both studied at the Royal College of Science. In fact, I think HG Wells went when it was still called The Normal School of Science. So, you've left us with... Brian May. You also forget that St Mary's no longer exists as an entity, it is simply one campus of the Imperial College School of Medicine.

I didn't know about Wells and Huxley.. I confirm that, knowing this, I wouldn't describe them as alumni of Imperial College. I am implementing a solution, tell me if it's agreeable. St Mary's certainly still exists as an entity, but, I agree, not as an independent academic institution, I'm not sure where I suggested it did. Zargulon 12:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. These absorbed institutions are Imperial. The situation is rather unusual, but certainly not unprecedented. Manchester University, for example, was only created in 2004 on the merger of the Victoria University of Manchester and UMIST. Their page rightly lists all former alumni of these two institutions as alumni of the newly created Manchester Uni. This is as it should be. They studied at what is now called Manchester, what does it matter what it was called when they went? The same applies here. These former institutions still exist as Imperial. Essentially, it amounts to a name change. My point about St Mary's is that it is Imperial.

I take your point. So is the current status of the pages acceptable, as a compromise? Zargulon 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No.

You guys really need to get IDs and sign your edits. Zargulon 21:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secession from the University of London

It was announced on October 5th, 2006, that the University of London had accepted Imperial's request to secede from the University and become a fully independent institution, see http://www.london.ac.uk/495.html, effective from July 2007, the College's centenary.

Surely this deserves a better mention in the article.

Formal departure is still something for the futre. Today we had to revert a major edit to University of London by someone who thought Imperial had already left. Let's not run ahead of events. --Duncan 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clubs and societies

There were way too many of these on the main page, so many have been deleted. A large list on the ICU wikipedia page would be more appropriate.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.156.220.38 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] University ratings

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

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exchange programs

I was just wondering... does anyone know anything about imperial's exchange or study abroad programs? I would like to learn more about them. If anyone has knowledge in this area, please tell me, thanks.

Try typing exchange into the search engine on its website. You'll find this summary. --Duncan 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How?

Do my edits get changed so fast?

[edit] "Officially"

Nothing particularly wrong with it I suppose, but it makes it sound like "Imperial Colelge London" is the unofficial name, rather than what is (as mentioned0 the day-to-day usage. "Formally" was probably better, in that it is only in formal contexts that the full name is used, but I'm not going ot get hung up on it. David Underdown 10:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either! My problem was that it implied that "Imperial College London" was merely shorthand. Technically, it is the unofficial name; the royal charter says the full, legal name. Kevin Judson 11:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So all that signage round campus is "unofficial" ;) David Underdown 11:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The college has put up a fairly detailed history on its centenary page http://www.ic.ac.uk/centenary/flash/timeline/timeline_flash.shtml and I was planning to use this to expand the history sections here and also for the individual colleges of science, mines etc. Will get started in the next few weeks if no one objects. Unusual Cheese 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selectivity

Unless I've misunderstood the way the numbers are calculated, this section is pointless. 20% is the ratio of applications to students who then start a course... i.e. not the ratio of admissions to offers. As any student applying through UCAS may make 5 choices (or maybe 6, don't remember) then most universities have a ratio of about 20%. The crucial point is that not every student with an offer will accept. Unusual Cheese 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'prestigious'

Who's the jealous person who keeps removing 'prestigious' from the opening sentence? I'm only going to keep adding it in!

It's not me, but the word makes it seem like the school is compensating for something. If you look at Harvard's page, for example, you find no mention of its international repute in the initial descriptor. Let the place stand on its own merits, not by using hollow words that don't tell the truth of the matter! OPen2737 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference with Harvard is that everyone knows its prestigious.

ps does anyone have a source for the 4th ranking as ive no idea how to add it, and also for the 'only one to have displaced oxbridge'?

That's my point. Being prestigious means that a broad sample of individuals have a high opinion of an institution. Everyone doesn't "know that Harvard is prestigious." Everyone does, however, know that it is very good. An institution may be very good, as I'm sure is the case with Imperial College, but if people don't know it then it is not prestigious. Still, if you want to revert the article, go ahead. I don't live in the UK, so it could be locally renowned without my knowledge.OPen2737 23:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Question really should be: "where's your source for calling it prestigious?". Unless someone independent of the University and reliable has called the University prestigious, then the word should be removed. Whether it is correct is unimportant if it cannot be verified. GDallimore (Talk) 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. I am with you Gdallimore- and I go to Imperial.

[edit] felix

I've heard that felix has more frequent releases than other student union papers in the uk and has a more professional touch. I'm not sure if it's true but if it is surely it warrants a mention! Anyone have supporting or counter claims? Rm uk 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has won national awards before... --ValerioC 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Felix looks more professional than any other student newspaper I've seen, but I haven't seen many (the typesetting and layout is as good as in The Times). It's published every Friday during term time.

There's also I, Science http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/media/iscience/ , the Union's science magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.151.120 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bars

something about the bars on campus (apparently ICU does something other than fund clubs and societies), including the late southside bar perhaps?

[edit] Webometric ranking

I don't think that this is significant enough to go in the lead section (and remember that the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article). Also the interpretation given, that the low ranking is down to the mix of imperial.ac.uk and ic.ac.uk sites doesn't seem to be specifically mentioned in the cited source, making it personal interpretation. David Underdown 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHE Ranking

Hi guys, I'd suggest including this ranking [1] in your reputation section. It is probably the soundest in view of methodology...and Imperial is top. BTW: CHE stands for Centre for Higher Education Development and is actually the Bertelsmann Foundation. 88.66.14.156 (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LSE article

Hi there, since LSE - as the other flagship specialist institution of London has a rather long and detailed article, does anyone else think, it might be worthwhile to extend the IC article to a similar extent? --90.194.165.60 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)