Talk:Public university

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbrush4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

United Kingdom section

At @ElKevbo's suggestion, I am starting a discussion. I came to the article because it was flagged for copy editing during a Guild of Copy Editor's blitz. As mentioned in two discussions above, one of the problems areas is the U.K. section which had dense and overlong sentences, as well as and a lack of general information needed for a Wikipedia audience who is unfamiliar with the U.K. system. While copy editing, I made the decision do delete text that was overly complex and lacked sources. I also found some needed sources and added general information. For example, I felt that these two introductory sentences helped provide context for the text that follows: "In the United Kingdom, the government does not own universities. However, universities are considered public if they receive funding for teaching or research from one of the funding councils."

Unfortunately, my efforts tcrossed @Robminchin, a former editor of this section who decided to restore text and revert some of my edits. Realizing that another editor valued content I had deleted, I attempted to add sources and clarity to the sections in question. I also moved some details to explanatory notes (efn), so that the content would remain, but the text would be cleaner and easier to understand. I acknowledge that my edits were not perfect, partly because the text is written at an expert level and I was trying to bring it down to a general level (often without sources to refer to) but also because because of the language difference between American and British English. However, my last edit was reverted in its entirety.

I have put enough time into this copy edit project and know the article is improved overall. However, I encourage future editors to look at my last edit of the U.K. section for ideas and sources. Also, consider the need for balance, especially when compared to the rest of the article. The U.K. is not unique in having a complex system. However, most country sections provide a reasonably short and easy to understand summary. Much of the detail in the U.K. section would be better suited for the articles on U.K. universities or specific legislation. Rublamb (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts in copy editing this article. However, the UK section was large at least in part to address points raised in the earlier discussions on this page that you mention, so removing that information was unhelpful. Your edits also introduced numerous factual errors in their attempts to simplify the topic, and your last edit drew on an non-reliable source based on Wikipedia pages. It also massively expanded the UK section, completely opposite to your argument about balance with the rest of the article, with details that were indeed better suited to articles on UK universities. By your own argument, it needed to be cut down. Removing the excessive detail, factual errors, and poorly sourced material basically meant removing the entire edit. The two introductory sentences you suggested are good and I would not object to them being reinserted. Robminchin (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You just solidified my original decision to cut complex and unsourced content (that you restored), because making this content understandable by general readers does, in fact, make the text longer. For example in the instance you are referring to, there an unsourced and overly dense paragraph-long sentence that includes a lists of universities in an abbreviated form, without links. Just inserting the full name of the university, so that readers know what is being talked about, more than doubles the length of the sentence. Dividing the overlong sentence into several sentences, makes the text even longer. So, you can leave it as unsourced and difficult to understand, make it longer and understandable, or cut it. To me, the former goes against Wikipedia guidelines, but that is the choice you made. In addition, you indicated that I introduced errors; actually, I introduced sources and corrected the text accordingly. If you felt this information I found was incorrect, you should have found different sources and corrected the text.

Some of the sources that I added and you deleted include:

• "Grant of Arms, 1838". University of London, the Historical Record: (1836–1912) Being a Supplement to the Calendar, Completed to September 1912. (1): 25. 1912 – via Google Books.
• "Durham University, Founded 1832". Durham World Heritage.
• Trehub, Elaine D. "Women at the University of Durham: Archival resources relating to the higher education of women in England". Victorian Web.
• "University of Oxford". Britannica.
• "University of Cambridge". Britannica. December 5, 2022.
• Glavin, Chris (2017-02-14). "Legal Status of Universities in the United Kingdom". K12 Academics.com

I am guessing you are referring to the latter as unreliable. According to its about section, "We are a national U.K. education resource website... The site serves as a terrific tool for teachers, students, district officials and parents involved in the K-12 education system with thousands of informative pages. We have a terrific team of columnists..." This site has been up since 2004. I randomly searched for several sentences within the article was not lead to Wikipedia or any other online source, so it appeared credible. If there is a discussion about this source, please direct me to it for future reference. It is not on the list of unreliable sources, but that list is incomplete. Rublamb (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Re the K12 Academics.com page, compare their Legal Status of Universities in the United Kingdom with Universities in the United Kingdom#Legal status. The K12 site is clearly derived from the section of the Wikipedia page, having the same layout and with many sentences being identical. Looking back at the Wikipedia page in question in late 2016, shortly before the article was published on K12, the wording is identical. Robminchin (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Your assertion that the paragraph was unsourced is untrue. As is your assertion that you were 'making this content understandable by general readers'. You inserted random pieces of off-topic information such as the names of the acts that established the institutions in question and which graduates are members of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, mostly referenced to an unreliable source, and not only lost some of the relevant information but deleted the original, reliable source for the information – the impact assessment for the Higher Education and Research Bill produced by the responsible government department. You changed something that was reliably sourced and concise, even if it could have been better written, into something that was not reliably sourced, overly-long, and buried under a morass of off-topic information.

I would suggest the following revision for the paragraph in question:

The governing documents of publicly-funded universities can only be modified with permission from the Privy Council or the Office for Students. For almost all institutions that were in the university sector before 1992, this Privy Council oversight would continue to apply if they were to cease to be publicly-funded due to their constitutional form as civil corporations, statutory corporations, or as chartered corporations.

This inserts the link between public funding and approval that is absent in the current text, making it clear why this is relevant, and it moves the names of individual institutions into footnotes. Robminchin (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That certainly is more concise and to the point. I thought (and perhaps still think) that the main point was the constitutional form and how its functions as that is what determines if a university meets the definition of government owned or operated. Without checking what percentage of its budget comes from a block grant, I am still not convinced that some of these universities and college operate as a public university.

Can you recheck the note 34 that relates to quango and the University of London? I believe this info is being used out of context as the source says "until 1901 it retained the status of what today would be called a quango." So it was a quango in the past, but that no longer applies? Rublamb (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

Re the University of London – yes, the quango description applied to the university in the period 1836–1900 referred to in the previous sentence.

The point about block grant funding is that receiving it place a university under different registration conditions and makes that university a public body in law, regardless of what percentage of the university's income it makes up. I'm trying to check what actually happened with the 2017 act – it looks to me like the Office for Students regulations may have ended up applying the restrictions on governing governing documents to all higher education providers rather than just public ones so I'm trying to find a source that discusses what actually got implemented as my reading may be some seems, even if I'm right, this would absolutely be OR. The point about different degrees of government control of governing documents (charters and statutes) based on constitutional form certainly still stands, and is why when both the LSE and UCL received permission to become universities at the same time this spring, the LSE was able to implement this in its articles of association back at the start of summer and UCL only received privy council permission for its supplemental charter this week. Robminchin (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

We really were going down different paths here, but both in good faith. I find the operating structure of the individual colleges and universities more interesting and, in the case of Great Britain, pretty much unique. Thus, my example of graduates becoming members who are responsible for oversight of the institution, rather than the government. I have not been able to access the source you referred to because Microsoft's security says unwanted content (some sort of malware) is coming with that upload. However, I trust your interpretation of its content. I did not realize that the reference cited at for the last sentence of the paragraph also applied to the first sentence of the paragraph. Do you want me to make the changes you have suggested or do you have time to take care of these edits yourself? Thanks, Rublamb (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the operating structures are incredibly interesting and very varied. Over the weekend I think I've worked out what's going on with the privy council oversight:

• The statement from the government impact assessment that 'Any publicly funded HEP must seek approval from the Privy Council for any changes to its governing documents, no matter how minor. This applies to all HEPs that receive direct public funding, including HECs, but not private providers.' is correct, but does not come from any single law. It instead relies on various different statutes covering the different constitutional forms.
• These include the ones mentioned as still requiring privy council approval for changes, along with higher education corporations and 'designated institutions'. This last was used to designate institutions that were constituted in some other form (mostly companies limited by guarantee) as eligible to receive public funding.
• Higher Education Corporations and 'designated institutions' were both placed under privy council supervision of their governing documents by the Education Reform Act 1988.
• The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 limited the 'designated institution' definition to Wales and removed the privy council supervision for HECs in England (leaving it in place for those in Wales).
• Since the OfS took over in 2019, there are now two categories of higher education provider in England: 'registered' and 'registered (fee cap)' (either of which may have a variety of constitutional forms), termed 'private' and 'public' in every-day language. The conditions of registration for both include a requirement for their governing documents to uphold public-interest principles. There are a few extra principles for public providers, but the level of oversight is the same for both public and private.
• The statement from the government impact assessment that 'Responsibility for the public interest in the governing documents of publicly funded HEPs will transfer from the Privy Council to the OfS. The OfS will consult on, publish and maintain a list of ‘public interest principles’ against which it will in future monitor the governing documents of publicly funded HEPs. The OfS may also use aspects of this list in setting governance conditions for other HEPs, however this is out of scope for this IA.' is also correct, but as the OfS ended up applying almost the same governance conditions to private higher education providers it is a bit misleading. Of the twelve public interest governance principles, the only two that are linked to public funding are 'Independent members of the governing body' and 'Regularity, propriety and value for money'
• As a result, my words above 'The governing documents of publicly-funded universities can only be modified with permission from the Privy Council or the Office for Students.' are also technically correct but misleading, as the governing documents of private higher education providers (in England) are now also monitored by the OfS.

I'm still thinking about how best to express this concisely. Any suggestions welcome! Robminchin (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

How about:

Until 2019, the governing documents of publicly-funded universities could only be modified with permission from the Privy Council. For the majority of publicly-funded universities in England, the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 replaced Privy Council oversight with public interest governance regulations from the Office for Students. However, Privy Council oversight continues for almost all English institutions that were in the university sector before 1992, and would continue even if they were to cease to be publicly-funded, due to their constitutional form as civil corporations, statutory corporations, or as chartered corporations.

Notes

References

Robminchin (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)