Talk:University of London External System
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Added in citations for the LSE controversy portion. The last citation about 'fact', regarding the changes that may occur due to the Universities dissolution or modification at large, does not seem controversial. Hence, the, "it is unclear..."
If it is unclear, it should not be written down.
[edit] The addition of the OU Link
Whoever this UOFLER (works for the university?) was, when she/he revamped the EP page, that person has the foresight to refer to the OU as well. As I mentioned in my revision, since both OU and London EP ARE DISTANCE LEARNING PROVIDERS, it is only logical to speak of them in the same breath. After all, there are the premier distance education providers in the world. Hence, I see no reasons why the OU link should be removed. Furthermore, one of the other previous users (203.218.143.182) did say that “wikipedia is encyclopedic (shouldn’t it be written as: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia?),” it ought to include as much relevant facts as possible.
OU Link update The OU link has been removed for the second time, possibly by the same person using different IP addresses. I just don’t understand why would someone be so narrow-minded and refuses to act rationally 24.89.227.217 04:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)24.89.227.217
[edit] Why an OU link?
We do we need an OU link? Is a link to distance learning not enough?--Duncan 10:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Respond to why an OU link
For one thing, it was not my intention to refer to the distance learning page when I restored the OU link. The OU link was restored for the purpose of serving as a benchmark comparison to the London EP only. Secondly, have you actually read the content of the distance learning page? It associates distance learning with diploma mills, accreditation problems to name a few. In addition, the distance learning page contains no list of reputable distance education providers. Hence, I believe that it does not do justice to the quality of the London EP by simply referring to the distance learning page while a more accurate comparison has been removed repeatedly by (I presume) the same person for no apparent (and valid) reasons. 24.222.164.251 04:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- So why not improve the distance learning page? (Just to clarify, I am not the same person as anyone else)--Duncan 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Improving the distance learning page is certainly a viable option. But the issue is muted unless someone else takes the time to do a comprehensive update on the distance learning page. When I look at the users’ comments on the distance learning page, my impression is that revamping that page would be just as futile as to convince the same user of this page not to remove the OU link on a continuous basis. In the meantime, I believe that restoring the OU link on the London EP page remains as a practical solution.(Note: yes, I’ve pretty much figured it out that you weren’t the user who made the same unilateral change on the OU link again and again. Thanks for coming out though.)24.222.164.251 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] King's College London, LSE, and University College London to withdrawl?
How do we know that King's College London, LSE, and University College London are considering withdrawing from the external programme? Where is the citation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.150.8 (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
- The article does not claim that they will withdraw from the EP. So there's no reference to it. However, it there clearly is an issue there, since they do plan to leave the University. --Duncan 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Indeed, all schools are considering withdrawl. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.133.203 (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- LSE wants its own degree granting powers, which, given its autonomy in the Universities' view and per its charter would make it a both de facto and de jure solo institution. It is also incorporated now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.133.203 (talk) 05:53, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
-
- Would be great to see a reference. Really? All the schools? Birkbeck, Goldsmiths, Royal Holloway and SOAS could be big winners if LSE or Imperial pulled out. --Duncan 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Impact of Imperial withdrawal
I just had this emai from them...
Thank you for your enquiry. As you may be aware Imperial College is to withdraw from the University of London on 8 July 2007. Negotiations are currently in hand regarding future arrangements for those programmes offered by the University's External System in association, until now, with Imperial's Distance Learning Programme (Wye Campus).
The anticipated result of these negotiations is that academic responsibility for programmes other than the MBA will transfer with associated staff to the School of Oriental & African Studies (SOAS), University of London with effect from 1 August 2007. Contact details for communications concerning the programmes are unchanged.
I hope this helps.
N.B Please be aware that I am only in the office Monday, Tuesday and Friday and I will reply to all my e-mails in date order ASAP.
Kind regards,
Sheena Androliakos
Information Officer
University of London
Senate House
Malet Street
London
WC1E 7HU
[edit] UofL "encourages" colleges to leave?!
"The University of London has also encouraged the LSE and University College London to apply successfully for their own degree-awarding powers."
That does not sound right. Why would University of London encourage them to leave. Unsigned comment.
- They have not been encouraged to leave; they have been encouraged to apply successfully for their own degree-awarding powers. That's not the same as leaving. For example, KCL has issued its own degree, the AKC for its entire life.--Duncan 07:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] recent edits
I added a couple of minor footnotes and links. --Gnyc 05:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] more recent edits
I completed a major overhaul of the entry not too long ago. I penned a new history of the External Programme, and fleshed out a long list of famous alumni, including three Nobel Prize winners. I documented every claim, providing links to at least one, sometimes two or three, articles or websites that back up each claim. --Gnyc 14:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Logo
With the recent change in name (from Prgramme to System), there is a new logo. I'm having trouble uploading it from work, can someone at least grab the version from the website www.londonexternal.ac.uk An armadillo 16:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why are alumni noted as External alumni?
The Exteneral program offers the same degrees as the traditional program via distance education. So why are alumni marked down as alumni from the external program as if they are different? Why aren't they just listed as grads from the U of L? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.165.183 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because the external programme is effectively, for want of a better term, the "college" for them. Given the nature of the University it's useful to list people by which route they took the degree. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Prisoner of war studies?
Could someone please help me here. I'm trying to find out more about these POW's studying but the link provided as a source on this page (Tatum Anderson, "History lessons at the people's university," Guardian Weekly, May 16, 2007) is dead. All I can find through searching the web on my own is the university of London itself and its brief mention. Would anyone happen to know of where I can find this article archived or perhaps something else on this subject?--Him and a dog 13:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

