This thread is closed

UCL/SOAS merger

Given the habit UCL have of swallowing up the smaller Schools (our compatriots at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies for example) and the rumours/plans which have been floating around for some time regarding a similiar take over of SOAS i was wondering how those of us going to SOAS would feel about such a take over. How important was being a part of the UoL as a whole to your application and would a merger with UCL bother you at all? Do you intend to take any course modules or even half of your degree (in certain subjects) at other UoL colleges? Personally i am not too bothered at the prospect and will probably take some floating courses at KCL(war studies),UCL (eastern history) and LSE (IR).

Reply 1

pggirl

Aint too borthered! I also think that SOAS will be around for some time, the school is becoming really popular amongst students internationally and nationally!!

Reply 2

nas7232

19

It wasn't that long ago when UCL were trying to taking over imperial.

Reply 3

vigo

1

nas7232

It wasn't that long ago when UCL were trying to taking over imperial.

Just to correct you,the merger was called off cause UCL people considered it to be a takeover by Imperial and not the other way around.It would have been a bit weird for UCL to take over imperial wouldnt it?

Reply 4

an Siarach

OP

15

vigo

Just to correct you,the merger was called off cause UCL people considered it to be a takeover by Imperial and not the other way around.It would have been a bit weird for UCL to take over imperial wouldnt it?

That doesnt sound right at all. From all the coverage i read at the time there was a campaign against the merger by imperial people because it was a takeover of their institution and quite how Imperial could take over the far larger UCL i dont know. I dont see whats wierd about UCL taking over Imperial - other than the fact Imperial is prestigious enough to easily stand alone.

Reply 5

shady lane

16

I think the merger would be a bad idea. Africa and Asia are increasingly becoming a focus of academic study, due to issues of terrorism, economic development, etc. The fact the UoL has a highly respected specialist institution focused only on those regions is very unique. I read a Times article saying applications to SOAS have increased every year for the past four years. Last year the Times ranked it 30; this year it's 18. All of this bodes well for SOAS's future as it's own institution within the University of London.

Reply 6

nas7232

19

vigo

Just to correct you,the merger was called off cause UCL people considered it to be a takeover by Imperial and not the other way around.It would have been a bit weird for UCL to take over imperial wouldnt it?

Well that's what it says int he times book 2005. "UCL's attempt to take over Imperial was rejected". I can't see how it is weird when Imperial is a specialised college and UCL is a multi-faculty college. It would look weird if a speciliased institution tries to take over a multi-faculty one. Like in this case now.. i dunno too much abut it but the the thread is about UCL [multi-faculty] taking over SOAS [specialised].

Reply 7

vigo

1

an Siarach

That doesnt sound right at all. From all the coverage i read at the time there was a campaign against the merger by imperial people because it was a takeover of their institution and quite how Imperial could take over the far larger UCL i dont know. I dont see whats wierd about UCL taking over Imperial - other than the fact Imperial is prestigious enough to easily stand alone.

What is weird is the fact that a weaker uni cannot take over a stronger one.
As for what you've read i think you are misinformed. You can read the following articles to be sure

http://www.artpolitic.org/infopedia/uc/UCL.html
"In October 2002, a plan to merge UCL with Imperial College, London was announced by the universities. One month later, the proposed merger was cancelled after protests by UCL staff that the merger was a de facto takeover of UCL by Imperial College"

http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/u/n/University_College,_London.html
"In October 2002, a plan to merge UCL with Imperial College London was announced by the universities. The merger was seen as a de facto takeover of UCL by Imperial College and was opposed by both staff and UCL Union, the students' union. One month later after a vigorous campaign the merger was called off. "

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitymergers/story/0,12544,842591,00.html

"Merger between the two institutions would, the two vice-chancellors argued, have created potentially the greatest university in the country, attracting more research funding than Oxbridge and competing with global giants like Harvard. But opponents argued the merger was a takeover by Imperial and raised fears of redundancies"

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/cy/im/imperial.html
Here it says that UCL people were responsible for calling off the merger

"In October 2002, Imperial College and University College London (UCL) announced their intention to merge, however after protests by UCL staff, the merger was called off in November 2002"

http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4549033-111077,00.html

"He said opponents had used deliberate scare tactics, such as suggesting all the physical sciences would be moved from UCL's Bloomsbury site to Imperial."

Basically UCL people claimed that Imperial was trying to take over UCL,as being stronger in the courses they have in common,and sack most of the people who work in the sciences deps

Reply 8

THE UNDERDOG

2

if i could drift from the matter for a second, i just wanted to know a little bit about the whole UoL. How was it decided that some unis were apart of it and other london unis were not? LSE recently became a Uol? if so, how are unis initiated?

Reply 9

an Siarach

OP

15

THE UNDERDOG

if i could drift from the matter for a second, i just wanted to know a little bit about the whole UoL. How was it decided that some unis were apart of it and other london unis were not? LSE recently became a Uol? if so, how are unis initiated?

You misunderstand. The UoL did not develop later and suddenly absorb existing universities. The UoL was founded with UCL (the third university in England after Oxbridge) and all the other colleges were later founded as part of it (with the odd exception.) There was no 'decision' the other non-UoL universities in London are simply other universities. LSE did not recently become UoL its ALWAYS been part of the University of London.

Reply 10

eastend grad

UCL and KCL were the two founding UoL colleges, forming together to begin the universities federal existence in 1836. Prior to this date UCL was the original UoL (1826) but because it had no ties to religion or the monarchy King's college was set up - with the support of George IV – in 1829 to rectify this. As KCL also wanted UoL status, UCL was forced to become a college with KCL forming and sharing the UoL title. In time other colleges followed.

It must be said though that without the existence of the senate the unique specialists’ colleges of the university - School of Pharmacy, LSE, IC etc - would not exist with university status today. The whole mission of the UoL is to support a diversity of institutes, to pool together and assist smaller institutes, which have since grown in strength and probably able to exist without the senates support. Though I would find such an act hypocritical as the federal university is for a common good, to provide an enriched and dynamic academic world where the bigger colleges can assist the smaller ones and in turn have the provision of specialised research institutes to broaden and expand their research. Look at the many collaborative research projects between institutes and it is truly amazing.

Lastly, in the case of Imperial, without the UoL they would not exist, at the turn of the 20th century UoL approached three institutes - the Royal Schools of Mines, the royal College of Science, and the City and Guilds College - and suggested they pooled their strengths and became a specialised college for science and technology. This would not have been possible without the backing of the senate. How easily can children forget and lack appreciation for their parents!

Reply 11

vigo

1

eastend grad

Lastly, in the case of Imperial, without the UoL they would not exist, at the turn of the 20th century UoL approached three institutes - the Royal Schools of Mines, the royal College of Science, and the City and Guilds College - and suggested they pooled their strengths and became a specialised college for science and technology. This would not have been possible without the backing of the senate. How easily can children forget and lack appreciation for their parents!

Indeed but dont forget that the unis claim that UoL has nothing to offer them anymore, so i guess they know better.Therefore they cant stick to it just for the sake of the history.Imperial for instance has the second highest research income in the country after cambridge.So it doesnt need the support of UoL.UCL on the other hand claims that there is no reason paying 2m in subscription fees every year.So, if there was a benefit being in the UoL they wouldnt be discussing getting out.Anyway,i hope it doenst happen,cause i was always a supporter of UoL.If imperial goes ahead with its plan i think UCL is bound to be next.

Reply 12

Socrates

17

I'd like an Oxbridge style merger of the UoL. Otherwise maintain the status quo.

Personally i am not too bothered at the prospect and will probably take some floating courses at KCL(war studies),UCL (eastern history) and LSE (IR).

I didn't know that was possible. Thats great, I'm probably gonna look to do some IR modules at LSE too...(originally applied there for IR but was rejected :frown:

)

Reply 13

eastend grad

vigo

Indeed but dont forget that the unis claim that UoL has nothing to offer them anymore, so i guess they know better.Therefore they cant stick to it just for the sake of the history.Imperial for instance has the second highest research income in the country after cambridge.So it doesnt need the support of UoL.UCL on the other hand claims that there is no reason paying 2m in subscription fees every year.So, if there was a benefit being in the UoL they wouldnt be discussing getting out.Anyway,i hope it doenst happen,cause i was always a supporter of UoL.If imperial goes ahead with its plan i think UCL is bound to be next.

I understand what you are saying. The whole structure should be there to in part assist and maintain the survival of smaller institutes so as to broaden academia. In turn these smaller or more specialised schools/colleges offer pockets of unique research which can be called upon and collaborated with by the larger more financially powerful ones. It is a shame HE in the UK has become so money orientated, especially with RAE assessment and other targets which can deter/distract universities form what I believe they should be there for; to enrich society, not to be a business.

UCL/SOAS merger

Related discussions

Trending

Latest