tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8051327055040653172024-02-07T04:49:24.452-08:00RoblogAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-61009198931093112522016-11-18T17:47:00.002-08:002016-11-18T18:52:02.983-08:00The American Astronomical Society reaffirms its commitment to discrimination<div dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-b0a25960-7a3d-2915-5ef7-0346c7685bfa" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<p>The President of the American Astronomical Society (AAS), Christine Jones, released a letter today (18 November 2016) on behalf of the AAS Council, titled “<a href="http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1118606474481&ca=c2298562-5fa8-4731-b180-81b979b29038" style="text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Reaffirming Our Commitment to Inclusiveness</a>”. While purporting to support inclusiveness, this letter calls for bigotry to be tolerated and indulges in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming" style="text-decoration: none;">victim-blaming</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting" style="text-decoration: none;">gaslighting</a> of those who feel threatened by Trump's election.</p>
<p>The tone of the letter becomes obvious in the first paragraph, which states that “it is the responsibility of each of us to treat every member of our Society -- and every member of society more generally -- with respect and dignity, regardless of … political opinions.” As we have seen recently, the spectrum of political opinions in the US includes fervent opposition to inclusiveness in all of its forms. This is an unacceptable call to tolerate racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, and other oppressive behaviours.</p>
<p>Later in the same paragraph, the letter talks about “cruel incidents” – a euphemism, it would seem, for hate crimes and violence, and one which serves to minimise the impact of these acts. These are blamed on “a polarizing national election”, implying that there was blame on both sides. That was not the case – on one side, Trump and his supporters were actively provoking intolerance, while on the other side groups who have suffered historic and ongoing oppression were asking to be treated equally as human beings. This false equivalence boils down to saying that the victims of Trump's rhetoric are partly to blame for the violence aimed at them. This is an unacceptable act of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming" style="text-decoration: none;">victim-blaming</a>.</p>
<p>The second paragraph of the letter starts promisingly, with a call for everyone to “be committed to ensuring an astronomy community that is safe and welcoming for all people, especially those who are currently underrepresented in our science and/or marginalized by society at large.” But the idea of how to do this appears to be limited to a call to AAS members “to be mindful of how we treat each other and to support students and colleagues”. There is a complete lack of any commitment, or even notice of intent, from the AAS to actually stand up for its members who might be threatened by proposed actions of the Trump administration – everything is to be done by members being nice to one another (including, let us not forget, being nice to the bigots, misogynists, racists, homophobes, etc.). There appears to be a deliberate ignorance of the fact that the freedom of AAS members to practice astronomy is threatened not just be the violence of Trump supporters but by the campaign promises he himself made and the stated opinions of those he has nominated to serve in his administration.</p>
<p>The second paragraph goes on to talk about “those who may now feel threatened or frightened by recently reported acts” – minimising the violence as merely “reported”, a word that implies by its inclusion that the violence might not actually be happening, and insinuating that people are merely frightened of reports, thus dismissing the possibility that they could have actually been victims themselves. Indeed, nowhere in the letter does it actually acknowledge that any violent acts or hate crimes have actually taken place. This is classic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting" style="text-decoration: none;">gaslighting</a>.</p>
<p>There no mention in the letter of the fact that Trump and his supporters deliberately provoked the rise of hate and intolerance, let alone any condemnation of this. Nor is there any recognition that people in the targeted groups might be threatened or frightened by the President-elect and his spokespeople having encouraged intolerance of them and engendered an environment where violence, both physical and psychological, is seen as socially acceptable.</p>
<p>Overall, the message of this letter is that the AAS are willing to appease and tolerate oppression. My take home from this, as an immigrant myself, is that when they come for me, I shouldn't expect the AAS to speak. There is one light on the horizon, however – the AAS Council elections are coming up, and a number of the candidates are known as supporters of diversity who might move the society towards representing <em>all</em> of its members.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Text of the AAS letter:</p></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-b0a25960-7a3d-2915-5ef7-0346c7685bfa" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<p><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 21.3333px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 700; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Reaffirming Our Commitment to Inclusiveness</span></p></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-b0a25960-7a3d-2915-5ef7-0346c7685bfa" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;">
<p>As President of the American Astronomical Society, I wish to remind members and other stakeholders of the Society's resolute commitment to promote inclusiveness. In keeping with the AAS Council's recent adoption of a comprehensive <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ULvxvoPLmSi3bGv0pkCaOtML3V8WZEI5FqRBPEWYx2zwhImxWJfDzJs6Y0Pl_U54LoPVAhET7DEkNoYtcwZ-nyEphV61tgaTloCp-7WBWL5k0d_UPFlthZGV3FD6Atx6JsvxJ40JRoZCJdcTkbUgd4OyuclA5yT7XYLZFVSW2ds=&c=&ch=" style="text-decoration: none;">code of ethics</a>, it is the responsibility of each of us to treat every member of our Society -- and every member of society more generally -- with respect and dignity, regardless of race, ethnicity, skin color, national origin, age, disability, religion, faith, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or political opinions. I expressed similar sentiments in <a href="http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ULvxvoPLmSi3bGv0pkCaOtML3V8WZEI5FqRBPEWYx2zwhImxWJfDzK3jYOKoxmCdREoilXtKYqTy5TJuDgyhDjnBEIWQ0E566sxffYMIKQJgNJhruor0fEk2osIAFMEMa9PWJu0v98frT1vLnhIIeX96R3AW68QFDL3Ztlgn2qkXCE7J4_RajJQDlcdUBWVsYra1Rr-_0Y0Q2q7L59Pf0KjXm1MhEKo6y0s8kb_ViO-yC1RGzFh_AjFVJ00YfMYnC1NXaE2YUPUzm95LMF-pEKLC5JmRMjMm&c=&ch=" style="text-decoration: none;">my last President's Column</a>, but they bear repeating in the aftermath of a polarizing national election that has been followed by a growing number of cruel incidents.</p>
<p>We must all be committed to ensuring an astronomy community that is safe and welcoming for all people, especially those who are currently underrepresented in our science and/or marginalized by society at large. I urge all AAS members to be mindful of how we treat each other and to support students and colleagues, especially those who may now feel threatened or frightened by recently reported acts of harassment, intimidation, and violence against people of color, women of all backgrounds, immigrants of all statuses, Jews, Muslims, people with disabilities, LGBTQIA+ persons, and those at the intersections of these axes. I am especially troubled by hateful acts occurring on the campuses of educational institutions.</p>
<p>Finally, as our colleagues in the American Geophysical Union (AGU) frequently point out, science plays a central role in America's security, economy, and well-being. Let's do our part to ensure that science continues to make our country more secure, more prosperous, and more comfortable -- for <span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">everyone</span>.</p></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-b0a25960-7a3d-2915-5ef7-0346c7685bfa" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: right;">
<p><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14.6667px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">-- President Christine Jones for the AAS Council</span></p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-59274284999210123082016-08-14T09:43:00.000-07:002016-08-14T14:39:42.544-07:00Double Prime Meridian – why is the Greenwich Prime Meridian 102m west of the GPS zero meridian?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
If you visit the Royal Greenwich Observatory and stand across the Prime Meridian of the World, your GPS will tell you that you are are at 0.00147°W (or 0°0.09′W or 0°0′5.3″W, depending on how your system displays coordinates), the GPS zero meridian (properly called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Terrestrial_Reference_System">International Terrestrial Reference Frame</a> zero meridian) is 102m further east. A recent article on Space.com, <a href="http://www.space.com/33583-moving-the-prime-meridian-on-earth.html">Moving the Earth's Prime Meridian</a>, says that this is due to "improving technology" and "increased accuracy" in the measurements. This seemed unlikely, as the error sounds well above the level of accuracy achievable with the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/airy_george_01.shtml">Airy Transit Circle</a>, so I clicked through to the <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00190-015-0844-y">scientific article</a> by Malys et al. that they were reporting on, and found that Space.com had completely misunderstood it. The actual reason is completely different, and far more interesting.*<br />
<small>* Well, to me anyway</small><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="GPS on the Greenwich Prime Meridian, showing 0.00149W" height="400" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Greenwichmer1.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="300" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This GPS unit reads 0.00149°W on the Prime Meridian at Greenwich (Source: <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greenwichmer1.jpg" target="_blank">J. Cohen/Wikimedia Commons</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Airy defined the Prime Meridian using astronomical measurements of the stars. His instrument was surveyed carefully into position. He measured the horizontal with a bowl of mercury (don't do this at home, kids!), which was used to define the vertical. There was nothing wrong with his astronomical measurements – it was his measurement of the vertical that caused the position of the Prime Meridian to be 'wrong'.<br />
<br />
What could possibly be wrong with that though? When we think of vertical we think of 'straight down' – the direction in which things fall, which is what Airy measured. However, this is not what is used for vertical when defining the Earth's coordinate system nowadays. For the coordinate system, a vertical line is one joining where we are on the Earth's surface to the centre of mass of the Earth. Globally this works, but locally on the Earth's surface there are deflections caused by mountains, ocean trenches, and other lumps and bumps. The mass of a mountain pulls the local vertical towards it, while the missing mass of a trench means the local vertical is pulled away from it.<br />
<br />
Here at Arecibo Observatory we are just south of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Trench">Puerto Rico Trench</a> – the deepest spot in the Atlantic. This causes a significant 'deflection of the vertical', as it is termed. The <a href="http://www.naic.edu/science/generalinfo_set.htm">astronomical latitude</a> of the Observatory, based on the vertical defined by the local gravity, is 18°21′13.7″N, but the geodetic latitude, based on the vertical passing through the Earth's centre of mass, is 18°20′36.6″N. That's a shift of 37.1 arcseconds, corresponding to over a kilometre! This is caused by the 'missing mass' of the Puerto Rico Trench, meaning the local 'straight down' is pulled south by the mass of Puerto Rico, shifting 'straight up' northwards. The stars that pass directly overhead are 37.1 arcseconds further north than our geodetic coordinates would indicate – we have to use astronomical coordinates, based on our local vertical, in order to point our telescope correctly.<br />
<br />
The 102m shift at Greenwich is due to the deflection of the vertical in exactly the same way as the shift at Arecibo. Malys et al. used a model for the Earth's gravitational field to estimate the deflection of the vertical at Greenwich, and found that it was 5.5 seconds of longitude (and about 2.2 arcseconds in latitude, which isn't important here). This makes the astronomical longitude of the Greenwich Prime Meridian 0°00′00.19″ ± 0.47″. In other words, completely consistent with it being at zero longitude, as originally defined. This means that a line passing through the centre of mass of the Earth and the GPS zero meridian 102m east of Greenwich is parallel with a locally vertical line passing through the Greenwich Prime Meridian: they point to the same place in the sky. However, a locally vertical line on the GPS zero meridian would point about 5 seconds of longitude (3.3 arcseconds at that latitude) east on the sky, meaning a transit there would take place about 0.35 seconds earlier than predicted.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHHNUzXFFV60qU87shnWDbClfqyA9EEsZi8rKnEiOygdzRc8LrxyyWN4KWZq_5xLn9QGzSuNqmpJt4He0svO9jy1kgbU-VW9kyZC5lN1W1r4NGZH8CQyAnYoi4ttQg1IyphSYw_QqYuwc/s1600/BlogFigVer4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHHNUzXFFV60qU87shnWDbClfqyA9EEsZi8rKnEiOygdzRc8LrxyyWN4KWZq_5xLn9QGzSuNqmpJt4He0svO9jy1kgbU-VW9kyZC5lN1W1r4NGZH8CQyAnYoi4ttQg1IyphSYw_QqYuwc/s400/BlogFigVer4.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A line joining zero longitude on the celestial sphere to the centre of
mass of the Earth passes through the GPS zero meridian, but zero
longitude on the celestial sphere appears 'straight up' on the Greenwich
Prime Meridian (which is how zero longitude on the celestial sphere was originally defined). As the celestial sphere is effectively at an infinite distance, the line from the Earth's centre of mass to zero on the celestial sphere and the line from Greenwich to zero on the celestial sphere are essentially parallel in reality, but that would require an infinitely large figure to show!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, where does the "improving technology" come in? Satellite measurements force the vertical to be towards the Earth's centre of mass – which is what the satellites are orbiting. Furthermore, we now want a single system that will cover the entire globe – it is much easier to get a match between astronomical and geodetic coordinates when trying to only map a single continent. In North America, the ellipsoid (approximation to the shape of the Earth) worked out by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Ross_Clarke">Alexander Clarke</a> in 1866 is generally off from the true shape of the Earth (i.e. sea level) by less than 10m, while the ellipsoid used for the GPS coordinate system is always off by at least 15m and often more. But the North American ellipsoid, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Datum" target="_blank">1901/1927 North American Datum</a> coordinate system based on it, would fail dismally if extended over the entire world, while the GPS system works approximately equally badly everywhere.<sup><a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Nautical-Chart-Abbreviations/dp/0071376151/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1471187579&sr=1-2&keywords=how+to+read+a+nautical+chart">[1]</a></sup> This is why GPS heights are often significantly off from heights measured from sea level – the difference is about 60m in Arecibo.<br />
<br />
In summary: The Greenwich Prime Meridian is the line of zero longitude defined astronomically, with vertical defined by local gravity. The GPS zero meridian is the line of zero longitude defined geodetically, with vertical passing through the centre of mass of the Earth. If you calculate a point on the sky that will be overhead at zero longitude at a certain time, it will be overhead on the Greenwich Prime Meridian, not the GPS zero meridian. Airy wasn't wrong, he was simply using a different definition of 'vertical'.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-41120801425799646052016-01-31T05:56:00.001-08:002016-01-31T06:01:06.743-08:00Rhodes Should Fall<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Outside of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriel_College,_Oxford">Oriel College, Oxford</a>, in a second floor niche above a doorway stands a statue of the British colonialist and architect of apartheid, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes">Cecil Rhodes</a>. On a nearby building, also part of the College, there is a plaque erected “in recognition of the great services rendered by Cecil Rhodes to his country”.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The autumn of 2015 saw <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Must_Fall#Oxford_University">protests by students at Oxford</a> calling for removal of both of these. A petition was handed in to Oriel on 3 November, and <a href="http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/content/statement-oriel-college-about-issues-raised-rhodes-must-fall-oxford-petition">they responded on 17 December</a>. The College said they would be seeking consent to remove the plaque, adding: “This plaque was erected in 1906 by a private individual. Its wording is a political tribute, and the College believes its continuing display on Oriel property is inconsistent with our principles.” </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The issue of the statue was deemed to be more complex, which Oriel said “cannot be resolved quickly”, although they recognised that “In the absence of any context or explanation, it can be seen as an uncritical celebration of a controversial figure, and the colonialism and the oppression of black communities he represents”. But a way ahead was proposed: “the College has decided to launch a structured six-month listening exercise on the statue, running from early February 2016, seeking the views and ideas of students and staff of the College and the wider University, alumni, heritage bodies, Oxford City Council, residents of Oxford, and other members of the public, as we seek a positive way forward. This is a commitment to seek views in as inclusive a way as possible on how controversial associations and bequests, including that of Rhodes to Oriel, and the record of them in the built environment, can be dealt with appropriately.”</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Both of these commitments, on statue and plaque, would be broken.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
In late January, 2016, before the consultation on the statue's future had even begun, <a href="http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/content/oriel-college-statement-decision-about-rhodes-statue">the College announced that they were reneging on their promises</a>. The plaque would stay and the consultation on the statue would not be happening. The decision that could not be made quickly could, as it turned out, be made in a matter of weeks without any of the promised inclusive listening. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph">Daily Telegraph</a>, a right wing British paper that favoured keeping the statue, revealed how such a difficult decision could suddenly become so easy: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/12128151/Cecil-Rhodes-statue-to-remain-at-Oxford-University-after-alumni-threatens-to-withdraw-millions.html">the College faced losing donations from alumni</a> – presumably worried about what history would have to say about their legacies. Oriel’s principles, that six weeks earlier had said the plaque must go, were swiftly forgotten. They were, quite simply, bought.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Besides money, the intellectual arguments that have been made for keeping the statue are (i) that it is better to remember history than to forget it and (ii) that Rhodes was a man of his time.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
To the first, I would simply say that a statue, in our society, will always appear as celebration of a person. There is no getting around this: we put up statues of the “great and good”, not of those we would rather forget given the opportunity. The context of the statue, above the doorway looking down on everyone entering and leaving the College, is completely out of keeping with any idea that the statue will remind people of Rhodes’ evil. While for historians it might be possible to view the statue as history, for black students in Oxford today it is the present.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The second is more complex. Historical figures are never perfect; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce">William Wilberforce</a>, the famous anti-slavery campaigner, opposed granting equal rights to Catholics, for example. But an important point here is that we don't commemorate Wilberforce for his anti-Catholic position, we commentate him for his part in the campaign to end slavery. With Rhodes, the statue commemorates the money he left Oriel, which he had accumulated as a direct result of “the colonialism and the oppression of black communities he represents”.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, it is far from clear that Rhodes truly was a “man of his time”. In 1876, while Rhodes was an undergraduate at Oxford, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourah_Bay_College">Fourah Bay College</a> in Sierra Leone became affiliated to Durham University in England. The <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=JwoIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false">Durham University Journal</a> printed the following:</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
“In reflecting upon the origin and growth of the Fourah Bay College, it must be borne in mind that it was at the first purely experimental. There were many who considered that the children of Ham could not be taught, and that they were decidedly inferior to the average of Europeans. But the chill of heathendom and slavery had frozen them. In the genial warmth of Christianity their faculties expanded, and it was soon discovered, as the universal testimony of those who have taught them shows, that this low estimate of their capabilities was a delusion, and that the African under favourable circumstances can effectually receive the highest education.”</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Durham, which only a decade earlier had become the last university in Britain to open its degrees to non-Anglicans, was hardly a hotbed of liberalism. It was still strongly tied to the Anglican church: the head of the University was the Dean of Durham Cathedral, and the canons of the Cathedral formed its governing body. The affiliation of Fourah Bay to Durham helped maintain the colonial structure, putting an end to the campaign for it to become a locally-run independent university.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
However, it does demonstrate that in England, at the time Rhodes was himself being educated, people knew there was nothing inherently inferior about Africans. The first Durham BA at Fourah Bay was <a href="http://issuu.com/durhamfirst/docs/dug2379_durham_first_32_aw4_web/7">Nathaniel Davis in 1878</a>, with an external examiner from Oxford ensuring the degree was equal to the one Rhodes himself took in 1881. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Davis was the first but by no means the last. By the time Rhodes returned to Africa, it was clear that African students could compete alongside English students for English university degrees. The idea of African inferiority was exploded: “this low estimate of their capabilities was a delusion”. Rhodes revived the concept in South Africa and Rhodesia in order to justify his exploitation of the native people. He was, by the standards of his own time, a vicious racist.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Union">Oxford Union</a> (the posh debating society, not the Students’ Union, whose £248 membership fee ensures it’s anything but a bastion of radicalism) debated the issue and voted to take the statue down. Yet Oriel came to a different conclusion, choosing not only to keep the statue up without the promised consultation, but also to preserve the plaque, even after saying this went against their principles. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Oriel, and by extension Oxford University’s <a href="https://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/statutes/regulations/520-122i.shtml">Committee to Review Donations</a>, have allowed money to talk louder than addressing institutional racism. The statue of Rhodes, representing “colonialism and the oppression of black communities”, will continue to stand proud; Oriel and Oxford should hang their heads in shame.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-74403456341890990222015-09-15T14:46:00.001-07:002016-01-31T06:16:15.562-08:00What Makes a Top University?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Defining a Top University</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
There are three major national rankings of universities in the UK – the Complete, Guardian and Times University Guides. These have slightly different takes on what makes a good university, and there are points of massive disagreement, but by looking at where they do agree it is possible to get an overall idea of which are Britain's best universities for undergraduate study and put together a combined ranking.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The first element of agreement is on the top spot. The unanimous vote for Britain's best university is Cambridge. Second place is also unanimous, with Oxford hot on the heels of its ancient rival. After that discrepancies start to arise, but surprisingly although there is no agreement on the top ten, there is on the top thirteen. The same eleven universities fill third to thirteenth place in all three guides, although only six of these are ever-present in the top ten. This can be seen in Figure 1 showing the Guardian and Complete University Guide scores – this group of eleven is clearly separated from the rest (only those in the top 50 of one of the guides are shown here).</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/qgAMO58l67R6g8dAqI9Anf_-b1vD2VZKO1Wqo8725M7obf5pG9Un0a1ih4wO63zUKH1muVfKLO0R1lMFI6X5H1I5nRtkA-iVVVxA30_uIdCdobiwvTqgiE8xvC23EKvS3FFDmvM" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 1</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So which institutions are these? In order of their average position, and in descending order:</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
St Andrew's: Scotland's oldest university is its only representative in the group. It takes third place in two thirds of the guides, and third place overall. Will and Kate's Alma Mater is also the top-ranked non-Russell Group institution.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Imperial: London's specialist science and engineering school is fourth in two of the tables, giving it fourth on average position.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Durham: England's third oldest university has the smallest scatter in position of any but the top two, placing fifth or sixth in all of the guides. This helps it to fifth place on average position.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
LSE: A placing outside of the top ten from one guide drags it down to sixth on average position, although the LSE is above Durham in the other two.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Warwick: The Midlands p!ate-glass university places between sixth and eighth in the guides, unsurprisingly putting it in seventh on average position.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Surrey: The home counties' favourite, and another non-Russell Group university, makes the top ten in two guides, taking eighth place on average. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Exeter: The south-west is represented by the home of the Met Office, at ninth the lowest-ranked institution to make all three top-tens.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Bath: Another south-western university, and the third non-Russell Group institution, fills tenth spot, with two of the guides putting it in the top ten.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Lancaster: The north-west's top university makes the top ten in two guides, but slips to eleventh on average position.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
UCL: London's Global University does much better on international rankings, only making the top ten in one table and placing twelfth on average.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Loughborough: The famous sporting university isn't so bad academically either. It doesn't break the top ten in any guide, pushing it to thirteenth overall, but it does place above UCL in two of the guides.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
What is most striking about this list is the absence of many of the traditional 'top' universities. In particular among the 11 British universities in the Times Higher Education's World Reputation Rankings top 100*, King's College London, Edinburgh, Manchester and Bristol are missing from this top thirteen list, while UCL – fourth out of UK institutions by reputation – fails to make the top ten in two of the three league tables.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
*The London Business School also makes the reputation top 100, but as a specialist postgraduate institution is omitted from the rankings.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It's also striking how many institutes from outside the Russell Group, often thought of as "Britain's Ivy League", feature in this top group. It's notable that Exeter is the only Russell Group university in the group not to make the top 100 worldwide by reputation, while none of the non-Russell Group institutions are included. All of those included in the top 100 reputation rankings from outside the top 13 are also members of the Russell Group.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Very few of Britain's major cities are represented on the list. According to the 2011 census, the ten largest conurbations outside of London are Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Liverpool, Southampton, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Bristol. All of these have Russell Group institutions, but none make the top group here. (Southampton comes closest, ranking 14th in two of the three guides.)</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Influence of Research</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It would not be surprising if research had some influence on league table position. The universities with more research will, at least in general, have more income, and thus better facilities. Both the Times and Complete university guides explicitly include research as a measure in their league table, although the Guardian does not.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
In order to measure research meaningfully, it is necessary to account for the size of the university. For research power, I use the Research Fortnight analysis of the REF results (as given in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/ng-interactive/2014/dec/18/university-research-excellence-framework-2014-full-rankings">Guardian</a>), normalising this by the size of the undergraduate population to get a measure of research intensiveness, i.e. the balance between undergraduate teaching and research at the institute*. The correlations between research power and university size can be seen in Figure 2. From this and Figure 3, three groupings can be seen in the data: the "golden triangle" universities of Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Imperial and the LSE (KCL, although often listed as part of this group, is not included by this analysis) with a research intensiveness score of 0.8 - 0.9, the "research intensive" universities representing the bulk of the pre-1992 institutions with a score of -0.1 - 0.6, and the "teaching focused" universities made up primarily of post-1992 institutions below -0.1. (The lone data point near the top with 8.7% of all undergraduates is the Open University.) The 24 Russell Group universities are the 24 with the highest research power, all having 1.4% or more of the national share (log research power share > 0.14), but not the 24 with the highest research intensiveness.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
* Research Intensiveness score = log (research power share/undergraduate share); undergraduate share calculated from <a href="http://www.hesa.ac.uk/">HESA </a>figures for 2012-13.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/r7-i5fOFGcQdgEDPTjJEV1y2EIwUjoBHkHD2z_w162Ovl8z5btX5fmDpdGql-5yAAhgtnI7c81XtF-sTRg2_r9Bs6tP3u4iIuhfC6IptHIxa-l73sdj0V3kVQ2z3nRcFQxmwza-n" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 2</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/b4W5v0k75dcXS-FMlns5CsngtMUT5AU47k-69MCX7e1SI39IicMKJkOjM7DvlZ4FtDbvbSWBKKksvOKZCoCp2aJ0gmaxpwK7KHM5TeS_ANrKOORn3fICXWhSCQADt_uFVvRKe_Kp" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 3</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The orange points in Figure 2 (and subsequent figures) indicate the top two, Oxford and Cambridge, the red dots indicate the next eleven, while the blue dots indicate other universities. Figure 3 shows that there is a link between research intensiveness and high positions in the league tables: all of the 'golden triangle' institutions make the top group, and there are no representatives with a 'research intensiveness score' below 0.16 – they are all in the top 75% of the research intensive universities.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The three universities in the 0.5 - 0.6 bin are particularly notable for their absence from the top of the league tables: these are Edinburgh, KCL and Bristol. As noted before, these three universities (along with Manchester, which has a high volume of research diluted in this analysis by a large student population) have a high international reputation; it is likely this is linked to their research rather than their league table position.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
As Figure 4 shows, research intensiveness is clearly linked to league table position. But it is not the whole of the picture. What other factors go into making a top university?</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/KKWP6Z6HHvpJDLFs0KFROpZimPqBig7BBWULJfuySdaUzoaIDt_DeQL68tmRiNKQ8QX-EhUSA55m07MIt0dIRKK-gte6t8_F38QRxPlYxdNy8unqx020NOuS_od2ec475k9TGXMH" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 4</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>City Size</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
In the early nineteenth century, arguments raged about whether universities should be in small town like Oxford or Cambridge, where students could study with little distraction - or in the large cities, where students were plentiful. Despite Durham being founded according to the first of these ideas, it was the later that drove the founding of the civic 'redbrick' institutions. But now Durham is in the top group and all of the redbricks are missing. Could there be something in this idea after all?</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 5 certainly seems to show that smaller towns are more likely to host to universities. Looking at universities that make the top 50 in any of the league tables, of the 11 that are in towns or conurbations smaller than 120,000 at the 2011 census, only four are not in the top group. These are Bangor, Falmouth, Stirling and Kent. None of these rank in the top 40 by research intensiveness, with Stirling (1.12) coming closest to the levels of research seen in the to institutions.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/4YjPQW_wXhNs2YjtBI42_NVDj5GqTz64HaSY9N4h4KX-cWRGlPJ_AWaTYxjZtOC9m46ERLRRioamSavzM4fZavoVlXX6Z80Q8Klx4-ZMtzQMXuy0x3K34EQTDHKNQ_cmkxZNTyj-" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 5</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Of the six top institutions found in towns larger than 120,000, five are the 'golden triangle'. Only Warwick, which is actually in the middle of nowhere despite technically being on the outskirts of Coventry, breaks this pattern.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 6 shows that this relationship between high league position is not that tight, and only persists down to about 30th in the combined league table, below this come a lot of universities in smaller towns that don't do well enough in research intensiveness to aim for high league table positions. It also doesn’t cover London institutions (at the top of the plot), which are either ‘golden triangle’ or lower down the league tables. It is only in combination with research intensiveness that we really see an effect.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/HXgXEY0I1FdClpufeDFoF09y3VqSVh4Jb5sDL-D0167Y4Y7HnPSoIV7_wz4Fr8ZE00GbZ7c1Y90Pwd609fJF4byoBPowZ1b4J4fRaZhYaXdzO8NDK0D8R5AywhbI_ekNTE-ah0wI" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 6</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Using the correlation seen in Figure 4 between research intensiveness and league table position, I worked out the expected research intensiveness from the rank in the table and calculated the residuals. This is shown in Figure 7, plotted against the population of the host town. This shows that there is indeed a relationship between the residuals and the host town population for the top 30 institutions, albeit one with a large scatter. Below the top 30 it is hard to see any correlation.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/cVykFzZGeahF7F03JxYjbig_rWweh6C7BkRTZfMK_XPB2OQu1DtEo_XXH8he8GF-EgGAzP1pwZoVGeUwqYrDyDQsxDW7TKyM6paCy0bSyzKmzcDR8D0Kxu6OaJGctKAdGrusTpwv" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 7</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Using this correlation, I corrected the research intensiveness for the effect of population and used this new score to re-rank the 55 universities that feature in the top 50 of any of the three tables. The results for the top 30 are shown in Figure 8, along with the performance of the other ranking methods (all re-ranked to 1 - 55).</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rknx02wVKCOqwKth022pfepSsCsNJRHA3gwF0j0QFJhh_0grILnjVhz-GG4Se0XFj9EczVz90ISOu7lJav5ACsf4inh-QtH4-SvMmTKi3cfsAWif8EhoNDIllR78f6kj0vKeErK7" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 8</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It is clear from Figure 8 that research intensiveness + population size (blue) is not as good a predictor of average league table rank as any of the individual university guides. However, it is a better predictor than research intensiveness (cyan), which is, in turn, a better predictor than research power (purple) alone (which is almost uncorrelated with league position). The median absolute deviations (half of the institutions will be closer than this) for the top 30 and all 55 institutions considered are given in Table 1</div>
<table>
<caption>Table 1</caption>
<tr>
<th>
Median Absolute Deviation</th>
<th>
Research Power</th>
<th>
Research Intensiveness</th>
<th>
Predicted Rank</th>
<th>
Guardian</th>
<th>
Complete</th>
<th>
Times</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Top 30</td>
<td>
12</td>
<td>
8</td>
<td>
4.5</td>
<td>
2</td>
<td>
1</td>
<td>
1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
All 55</td>
<td>
9</td>
<td>
7</td>
<td>
5</td>
<td>
4</td>
<td>
1</td>
<td>
1.5</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Outliers from the predicted rank using research intensiveness + population includes Surrey and UEA, where the relatively small populations of the host towns only partly compensates for their low rank in research intensiveness; Birmingham and Leeds, where the relatively large populations of the host cities over-compensate for their research intensiveness; and Bristol, Reading and Edinburgh where the population makes virtually no difference to their outlier status based on research intensiveness. The use of population does, however, remove the discrepancy between research intensiveness and rank seen in KCL, Kent and Loughborough, and halves the discrepancy for UCL.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusions</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It is possible to use the league tables to compile a list of thirteen universities that all of the university guides agree on. These consist of two groups: the 'golden triangle' universities, defined as having a very high research power for their size, and universities that have a relatively high research power for their size and are located in towns of less than 120,000 people (ignoring Warwick).</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Overall research power bears little relationship to league table position. This is the determinant for Russell Group membership - with the 24 universities in the group being the 24 universities with the highest research power. It therefore appears that, for an undergraduate, choosing a Russell Group institution purely on the basis of its membership of the group is not a wise decision – some Russell Group institutes fare quote poorly on the league tables.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Controlling research power for undergraduate size to find which institutions are more research intensive gives a better estimate of league table position. This is fairly easy to understand (at least at a simplistic level) – the extra income from research means more income per student and helps to attract top staff. A university with high research power but a large student population spreads that more thinly than one with a smaller student population. This analysis also shows quantitatively the division of universities into golden triangle, research intensive, and teaching focussed.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The last element identified here is a bit surprising, however: it appears that smaller host town populations correlate with league table position, at least for the top 30 institutions. Taking this into account does a better job that research intensiveness alone in predicting position on the league table. The reasons for this are not obvious, but it could be that (as put forwards in the 19th century) students in small towns have fewer distractions and so are better able to concentrate on their university work. It could also be that the university is more important to the local economy, and thus more valued locally, or possibly that housing prices are lower giving students a better chance at getting decent housing and increasing their satisfaction. Possibly it’s something else entirely, or a combination of all of the above.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Vice-chancellors wishing to propel their institution up the league tables thus have among their possible options: </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
1) Growing the research power of the university – everyone's trying to do this, and it's hard. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
2) Reducing the student population to increase research intensiveness – this can have unfortunate consequences on tuition income.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
3) Reducing the population of your town – this can get you in trouble with the police!</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-45969956753902287382015-09-09T05:30:00.001-07:002015-09-09T07:20:47.676-07:00Universities under Elizabeth and Victoria<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
When Elizabeth II came to the throne in 1952, there were only 12 universities in England, and 18 in the whole of the UK. The dramatic changes in higher education of the last few decades have seen this increase to well over a hundred. By contrast, Victoria's reign saw a much more modest increase from four universities to six in England and from ten to thirteen across the UK. From this, it would possible to think that the changes in Elizabeth's time - the <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_Report">Robbins Report</a>, the creation of the <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_universities">post-1992 universities</a>, and the marketisation of higher education - far outweighed those in the Victorian era. But the numbers hide a number of revolutions in English university education in the 19th century that were every bit as dramatic as the more recent changes.</div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Structural Change</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Three of England’s universities - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford">Oxford</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge">Cambridge</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_University">Durham</a> - were residential, collegiate universities. But the fourth, yet to award any degrees when Victoria came to the throne, was different. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_London">University of London</a> had been established less than a year earlier, and was designed as a government-controlled, degree-awarding examining board. This enabled it to award degrees to many different colleges, not just in London but across the whole country. Initially, this was restricted to colleges on a list of government-approved institutions. But from just <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London">University College London</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%27s_College_London">King’s College London</a> at first, the list grew to include many colleges until it was abandoned completely in 1858.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
London University examinations allowed colleges to be established all over the country. Following the model of the colleges in London, university colleges were established in most major towns and cities, later going on to be the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_brick_university">‘red brick’ universities</a>. Other colleges established in the Victorian era evolved to become polytechnics and, from 1992, universities in their own right. The seeds of the explosion in the number of universities under Queen Elizabeth were sown in the reign of Queen Victoria.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The rise of the civic university colleges posed another challenge - how to fund them. It was recognised that, particularly in technical subjects, these institutions were doing essential work. But without the endowments of the three collegiate universities, they had to survive on the fees from their students alone - and these had to be kept low enough to be affordable. In the 1870s, the government started giving grants to some of the university colleges, and by the end of Victoria’s reign there were 13 participating institutions: UCL, KCL and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_College_%28London%29">Bedford College</a> in London; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Sheffield">Sheffield</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Nottingham">Nottingham</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Bristol">Bristol</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Reading">Reading</a> also preparing students for London University exams; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Liverpool">Liverpool</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Leeds">Leeds</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_University_of_Manchester">Owen’s College, Manchester</a> as part of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_University_%28United_Kingdom%29">Victoria University</a>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fenwick_Boyd#College_of_Physical_Science">Durham College of Science </a>in Newcastle as part of Durham University, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Dundee">University College Dundee</a> as part of St Andrews University, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Birmingham">Birmingham University</a>. There were also three colleges of the University of Wales (at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberystwyth_University">Aberystwyth</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_University">Cardiff </a>and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangor_University">Bangor</a>) funded by the government under a separate scheme.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
By the end of Victoria’s reign, government funding of university education was well established, and with the creation of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_Grants_Committee_%28UK%29">University Grants Committee</a> in 1919 it extended to cover all British universities. Elizabeth’s reign first saw the complete abolition of tuition fees in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Act_1962">1962</a> and then their reintroduction in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuition_fees_in_the_United_Kingdom">1998</a>, with <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8992136/Taxpayer-funding-of-universities-to-drop-to-100-year-low.html">predictions </a>that the fraction of universities’ income from the government will fall back to levels last seen in Queen Victoria’s time.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
A third major change, also linked to the rise of the university colleges, was in the idea of what a university should look like. UCL’s attempt to become a university had resulted, in 1836, in the foundation of the University of London. Owen’s College’s attempt had resulted (due to objections from regional rivals) in the formation of the federal Victoria University in 1880. These were joined in 1893 by a third federal institute, the University of Wales, taking in the three Welsh colleges. For most of Victoria’s reign, it appeared that the future was destined to be university colleges associated with regional federal universities. The University of London was reconstituted as a federal institute between 1898 and 1900, while Newcastle’s colleges were linked with Durham, Dundee with St Andrews, and Reading with Oxford. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
But in 1900, the last year of Victoria’s reign, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_Science_College">Mason University College</a> in Birmingham became England’s first unitary university. This started a landslide: within ten years, the Victoria University had broken up and its colleges, and most of the independent institutions, had become universities in their own right. Unitary universities, inspired by UCL and realised first with Birmingham, became the pattern for future British universities - before 1900, there were no unitary universities in England; since then only a few collegiate universities (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_York">York</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_University">Lancaster</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Kent">Kent</a> in the 1960s, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_the_Arts_London">University of the Arts London</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Roehampton">Roehampton</a> in 2004) have been established. Elizabeth’s reign has also seen the breakup of the University of Wales, and Newcastle and Dundee become independent. London is the only federal university to have survived, although it now has a more confederal structure with most of its larger colleges awarding their own degrees and being de facto independent universities.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The last structural revolution was in university accommodation. Durham had been founded in 1832 partly on the basis of providing university education on a cheaper basis than Oxford or Cambridge. When Durham opened, however, it followed the practice of the older universities’ colleges in letting rooms unfurnished, with students buying in their own food and paying their own servants. But when the second college, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_College,_Durham">Hatfield</a>, opened in 1846 it was decided to try something new. In order to reduce costs, all meals were provided, rooms were furnished, and servants were shared. After the near collapse of the university in the 1860s, this was adopted by the rest of the university. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keble_College,_Oxford">Keble College, Oxford</a> also took on the idea when it was established in 1870 and it eventually became the norm for residential universities.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
However, most of the Victorian civic universities were non-residential, drawing their students from their local populations. It was only with the establishment of new residential universities and the addition of residential blocks to the older universities in Queen Elizabeth’s time that halls of residence following the Hatfield scheme became common. This is now standard in university residences around the world, although many opt for self-catering accommodation.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Revolution in Access</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
In June 1837, just twelve days before Victoria came to the throne, the first students graduated from Durham. Although these were the first university degrees from a new institution in England for over 600 years, the graduates were - like those at Oxford and Cambridge - all Anglicans, and all men. (And, again like Oxford and Cambridge, mostly bound for the priesthood.) But this revolution - the tearing down of religious barriers to university education - was already happening: the new University of London would allow men of all religions and none to take its degrees,</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
But Victoria’s ascension brought a crisis to the London University. It had barely started operating, and was yet to buy a single book let alone graduate any students, when it was discovered that the royal charter had been accidentally written to expire on the death of William IV. A new charter was hastily issued by the new queen in late 1837. The first London degrees - the first degrees in England open to non-Anglicans - were then awarded, to students from UCL and KCL in 1839. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This was not universally popular - one of the major arguments against giving UCL a charter as a university had been that it wanted to remove religion from higher education, earning it the moniker “the Godless Institution of Gower Street”. <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman">John Henry Newman</a> spent the entire second discourse in his <a href="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/">Idea of University</a> arguing that an institution had to include theology (although not necessarily the doctrines of a particular church) in its teaching to be regarded as a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The idea of getting rid of religious tests (the requirement for students to assent to the doctrines of the Church of England) spread rapidly during Victoria’s reign. Most of the regional colleges followed UCL’s lead in being secular while one of the major exceptions, the Anglican <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_College,_Birmingham">Queen’s College, Birmingham</a>, collapsed and saw many of its departments shift to Mason College (although the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen%27s_Foundation">theology department</a> still survives, ironically as an ecumencial institute serving three Protestant denominations with its degrees validated by the Catholic <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_University,_Birmingham">Newman University</a>). Durham, too, came close to collapse in the 1860s, after which many of its religious restrictions were lifted. The religious tests were definitively abolished at Oxford, Cambridge and Durham by the University Tests Act in 1871, and were absent from the start at the Victoria University and the University of Wales.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The last revolution that took hold in Victorian times was that of higher education for women. This started with Church of England teacher training colleges for women - the first, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitelands_College">Whitelands College</a> in Chelsea, was founded in 1841 and is now part of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Roehampton">University of Roehampton</a>. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_College_%28London%29">Bedford College</a>, also in London, was founded as a women’s college in 1849 and was the first university college to teach women. It was soon followed by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girton_College,_Cambridge">Girton</a> (1869) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnham_College,_Cambridge">Newnham</a> (1871) at Cambridge and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Medicine_for_Women">London School of Medicine for Women</a> (1874) in London. UCL also started <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/about/women-ucl/">classes for women</a> in the 1860s and, in 1871, the first mixed classes offered at any university institute in Britain. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
When <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Power_Cobbe">Frances Power Cobbe</a> presented a paper in 1862 on “university degrees for women”, she became (in her own words) “<a href="http://herstoria.com/?p=535">the butt of universal ridicule</a>”. Yet it was only 16 years later, in 1878, that the University of London received a supplemental charter allowing women to degrees; the first four graduates had mainly studied privately but one had taken classes at UCL and another was a graduate of Newnham. Following this, UCL opened many of its classes (although not engineering or medicine) to women in 1878, and KCL established the “King's College, London Ladies' Department” in 1885 (later <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_College">Queen Elizabeth College</a>). Other women’s colleges also opened with Royal Holloway (1879) and Westfield (1882) in London, and Somerville (1879), Lady Margaret Hall (1879), St Hugh’s (1886) and St Hilda’s (1893) in Cambridge.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Outside of London, Oxford and Cambridge opened their examinations (although not their degrees) to women in the 1880s, while the Victoria University (1880) and the University of Wales (1893) were open to women from the start (although medical courses in the Victoria University colleges, as in London, were still restricted). Durham voted to open its degrees to women in the 1880s, but this stalled amid arguments over who would pay for a women’s college and the realisation that a supplemental charter would be needed. The supplemental charter was finally obtained in 1895 after Ella Bryant, a woman student in at the Durham College of Science in Newcastle, forced the issue by qualifying for her BSc in Physics in 1892.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
From 1895, Durham became the first university in England to open its medical courses (in Newcastle) to both men and women, and entered an agreement with the London School of Medicine for Women to allow their students to take Durham degrees. In Durham itself, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_St_Hild_and_St_Bede,_Durham">St Hild’s women’s teacher training college</a> became associated with the university from 1896, with the first students taking degrees in 1898, and the Women’s Hostel (later <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Mary%27s_College,_Durham">St Mary’s College</a>) finally opened in 1899.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
While the Victorian era saw the rise of women’s education, it took the First World War to open up the London medical schools and Oxford and Cambridge did not admit women to degrees until 1920 and 1948 respectively. Queen Elizabeth’s time has seen the effective ending of single-sex education at the university level. Bedford, Royal Holloway and Westfield colleges in London went mixed in the 1960s, while at the collegiate universities there is only one men-only college (St Benet’s, Oxford, which will admit women from 2016) and only only three women-only colleges (Newnham, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Edwards_College,_Cambridge">Murray Edwards</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Cavendish_College,_Cambridge">Lucy Cavendish</a>, all in Cambridge) remaining. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
There were great changes in higher education under Victoria, but where we now value university status, it was access to degrees that was important then - whether for colleges training their students for London examinations, or for the marginalised groups fighting to be allowed in. Yet just before the Victorian era and again towards its end, institutional status battles drove change.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Many of the battles on access that the Victorians fought are still being fought today. Women now make up the majority of the UK student population, but are underrepresented in many STEM fields. The recent <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/may/29/oxford-union-accused-of-racism-for-sale-of-colonial-comeback-cocktail">Colonial Comeback cocktail</a> scandal at Oxford has shown how far there is to go on racism. People from state schools are still <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11372281/Independent-school-pupils-twice-as-likely-to-attend-elite-universities.html">grossly underrepresented</a> in the top universities. </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-49097488833001765962015-06-21T22:20:00.001-07:002015-06-21T22:22:09.379-07:00The real #TimHunt witch hunt<p dir="ltr">'Unbelievably stupid', 'unacceptable, indefensible', 'inappropriate and stupid'. Just some of the criticism levelled at Tim Hunt after his "problem with girls" remarks earlier this month. Yet these remarks were all from those claiming the world – and social media in particular – had overreacted: Athene Donald, various Nobel laureates contacted by The Times, and Hunt's wife.</p>
<p dir="ltr">How much worse then must the social media reaction have been to bring forth comparisons to a 'witch hunt', a 'lynch mob' and '<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/11/katie-hopkins-dismayed-isis-style-public-shaming-sir-tim-hunt_n_7559252.html">ISIS in another guise</a>'? Athene Donald, in her <a href="http://occamstypewriter.org/athenedonald/2015/06/15/what-next-after-tim-hunt-just1action4wis/">blog</a> on the subject, tells us repeatedly to 'look at the evidence', so what does the evidence show?</p>
<p dir="ltr">The <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11664306/Nobel-chemist-Tim-Hunt-sexism-row-Female-scientists-are-distracting.html">Daily Telegraph</a> gives examples such as 'Maybe if less male scientists were such chauvanist [sic] pigs there would be more women in science and technology Tim Hunt?', 'Tim Hunt's comments are so ridiculously horrid they almost qualify as satire. Sadly they are only reflection of sexist reality in #science', 'Well done sexist Tim Hunt for overcoming crying, lovestruck women to win a Nobel. Sadly my career was blighted at an earlier stage.', 'Tim Hunt antiquated comments regarding women. People like him who hold back the process of making workplaces more equal', and 'What an idiot and how damaging for women in science. Glad he had the sense to issue an apology at least.'. The Telegraph also noted that 'Nobel prize winning scientist has resigned after saying women scientists 'cry' and 'fall in love' in laboratories. Now, they're sharing photos on social media, mocking his comments', in the article <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11667981/Tim-Hunt-Distractinglysexy-female-scientists-post-photos-on-Twitter.html">#DistractinglySexy: Female scientists mock Sir Tim Hunt on Twitter</a>.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">So the evidence from the Telegraph for what they term an 'online backlash' is comments that are certainly not significantly worse than those from his supporters, along with women having the temerity to mock the words of a knight of the realm.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">It's worth looking at the first responses to these tweets to see how people who spoke out were received: 'Whiner. You're a perfect example as to why women shouldn't be doing anything important.', 'Well, women are the smarter sex so they should have their own working spaces. You go girls!', 'just another man whose professional achievements do not match his humanity', 'I say let the women have their own working spaces so they can show the world they are smarter!'. The last tweet quoted can no longer be found on Twitter, but three of the other four were met with an immediate sexist response. Glancing down the threads it is also clear that more sexist replies came in later, and by searching it is easy to find that the deleted tweet also garnered numerous sexist responses.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">What about the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-hung-out-to-dry-interview-mary-collins">Guardian</a>? It says 'He was described on Twitter as “a clueless, sexist jerk”; “a misogynist dude scientist”; while one tweet demanded that the Royal Society “kick him out”.' Again, the responses are instructive: only one had an immediate sexist response, but it was the only one from a woman: 'just keep your head up your ass and exit the building. Thanks.'<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">There has been plenty of abuse online around #TimHunt – aimed at women who spoke out. But nowhere in the press coverage do we see this reflected. The stories are about how Tim Hunt was hounded out of office by 'Feminist Bullies' (Daily Mail, who I refuse to link to), and how hard done by he is. Despite UCL's clear <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0615/100615-tim-hunt">statement</a> that 'Media and online commentary played no part in UCL's decision to accept his resignation.', we still have the <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4475398.ece">Times</a> claiming his fall was caused by a Twitter 'lynch mob' and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/19/tim-hunt-the-victim-of-self-righteous-feeding-frenzy-says-richard-dawkins">Richard Dawkins</a> blaming a 'witch hunt' by 'academic thought police'.</p>
<p dir="ltr">There is a witch hunt out there, but it's not against Tim Hunt. It's against those women brave enough to speak out publicly against sexism. <br><br></p>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-17200754950901068422015-06-12T20:12:00.000-07:002015-06-16T15:11:51.978-07:00UCL's problematic #TimHunt press release<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Following the sexist comments made by Nobel prize winner <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt">Sir Tim Hunt</a>, UCL sent out a <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0615/100615-tim-hunt">press release </a>stating that he had resigned from his position as an Honorary Professor. If they had left it there it would have been great, but they didn’t. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
A second paragraph* went on to say “UCL was the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms to men”. This was, of course, picked up by many media sites, including the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33090022">BBC</a> and the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/11/nobel-laureate-sir-tim-hunt-resigns-trouble-with-girls-comments">Guardian</a>, and was included in their stories. A nice bit of free advertising for the university there, on the back of a scandal caused by someone they’d previously been keen to count among their <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/excellence/nobel">Nobel Laureates</a>! Maybe not the best time to be boasting about their history. But the problems don’t stop there.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
UCL’s statement references its <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl/">admission of women in 1878</a>. There is a strong implication that it was the first institution in England to do so, but this ignores the contribution of the earlier women’s colleges: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_College_%28London%29">Bedford </a>(1849) in London, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girton_College%2C_Cambridge">Girton </a>(1869) and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnham_College%2C_Cambridge">Newnham </a>(1871) in Cambridge, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_School_of_Medicine_for_Women">London School of Medicine for Women </a>(1874) all pre-date UCL’s admission of women. UCL would, it appears, like to airbrush out <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Garrett_Anderson">Elizabeth Garrett Anderson</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millicent_Fawcett">Millicent Fawcett</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Davies">Emily Davies</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jesser_Reid">Elizabeth Jesser Reid</a>.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It could be argued that UCL’s statement is technically correct in that the other colleges were women-only, making it the first to admit women on equal terms to men. But did UCL truly admit women on equal terms to men in 1878? According to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Mildred_Sidgwick">Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick</a>’s 1897 essay <a href="http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t4xg9hw0c;view=1up;seq=41">The Place of University Education in the Life of Women</a> “Women [at University College] are admitted to the faculties of Arts, Science and Laws, but excluded from engineering and medicine with the exception of hygiene and public health.” Medicine, let it not be forgotten, was the discipline in which Hunt won his Nobel prize. It wasn’t until 1917, under the pressure of World War I, that <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=LcAeBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q&f=false">UCL allowed women into medicine</a>, later than many provincial English universities and other London colleges.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
A final problem is the way that this has been inserted into the Hunt story. It’s not just the free advertising, it’s not just the historically dubious claims, it’s the echoes of #NotAllMen, the implication that UCL has a spotless history of trailblazing women’s rights on which Hunt is the only blemish. By perpetuating the idea that Hunt was a bad apple rather than part of a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/tim-hunt-resignation-science-sexism/395642/">systemic problem</a>, UCL do a disservice to the gender equality they claim to champion.<br /><br />
*Note: this second paragraph was the final paragraph of the press release when I wrote this blog. Others have since been added.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-51009678503802446072015-04-30T14:41:00.000-07:002015-04-30T14:41:36.354-07:00The Debate – Highlights and Analysis<div dir="ltr">
This is the third part of a series giving the General Election treatment to Wikipedia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-oldest_university_in_England_debate" target="_blank">Third Oldest University in England Debate</a>.
The first part covers the <a href="http://robminchin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-debate-build-up.html" target="_blank">Build-up</a> to the debate, the second part
shows the <a href="http://robminchin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-debate.html" target="_blank">Debate</a> itself, while this third part covers the Highlights and
Analysis<i><b>.</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Chair: </b>So we've heard the Third Oldest University in England debate between the four contenders. I'm joined now by Jessica and John to analyse what we have heard and maybe even draw some conclusions. Firstly I'd like to ask you both what you thought of the debate?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Jessica: </b>It was very much what we expected from four Wikipedians. Rhetoric took second place to references, and we certainly had enough of those. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>John: </b>I agree. It was very different to a debate between politicians, although there were similarities: facts were disputed and definitions questioned. But there was much more of a feel from all the contenders that there was a correct answer waiting to be found if we could only agree on the facts. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>Okay, lets look.at some of the highlights from tonights debate and see if we can settle some of those disputed facts. Jessica, why don't you kick off. What did you think about the battle between the two colleges?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Jessica: </b>I think Universitatis landed a knockout blow on Regis when they revealed that King's advertises itself as the fourth oldest university. There was no real way back from that, and it simply put King's out of contention in my book. After that it was clear that if one of them had a claim to the title it was UCL.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>Okay, lets take a look at that clip.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Universitatis:</b> </i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>Of these two universities, one founded in 1826 but not incorporated until 1836, the other both founded and incorporated in 1829, the question is – which is the older? Which is the third oldest in England, and which the fourth? The answer can be found on the <a href="http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/facts/index.aspx">King's College website</a>: "King's is … the fourth oldest university in England".</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Regis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>Not everything on websites is accurate, for example UCL's claim that "In 1878, it became the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms with men." This despite continuing to bar women from courses in engineering and medicine! Sad to say, webpage writers don't always check their facts very well.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Universitatis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>This must be the first example in history, then, of under-claiming rather than over-claiming! Can anyone really believe that they wouldn't put "third oldest university" on their website instead of 'fourth" if they thought they had even the faintest claim? </i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>But it's not just the website. In the 2016 prospectus, Professor Edward Byrne, President and Principal of King's, says "Since it was established in 1829, England's fourth oldest university has established a world-class reputation." This cannot be read as anything other than an endorsement of the claim of the only university established before 1829: UCL.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>Yes, that is hard to come back from. John, do you think Regis managed it?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
John: They had a good effort when they appealed to Newman's definition of a university. I'm not sure what I make of the idea that it should be considered a working definition because they're right that a number of educated people believed it at the time – but a lot of educated people knew that it was wrong, and we now know they were right. I don't think they quite pulled it off, but let's see the clip.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Regis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>It is also worth looking further at Johnson's definition of a university as "a school, where all the arts and faculties are taught and studied". As Universitatis notes, this was taken as true by many others, including Newman. While we now recognise that this comes from a false etymology, at the time it was believed to be correct by educated people – and thus is deserving of attention.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>It is ironic that Universitatis raised this, for Newman spends the entirety of his second discourse in "The Idea of a University" explaining why UCL's lack of theology teaching disqualifies it from being a university. Indeed, the first institution to teach "all the arts and faculties" was King's, which included teaching in theology from the start. By this definition, which was believed correct by many educated people at the time, King's is the third oldest university.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Indeed, a good point, but, as you say, not entirely persuasive. But while Universitas and Regis were renewing the rivalry between UCL and King's, Dunelmensis and Londiniensis were also slugging it out. What did you think of that John?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>John: </b>There was a lot of verbiage in this contest, but Dunelmensis landed some palpable hits while parrying virtually everything Londiniensis threw at them. I think one of my favourite hits was when Dunelmensis questioned whether London even qualified as the fourth oldest university using the criteria they had quoted earlier from Mr Justice Vaisey:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Dunelmensis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>It really isn't hard to tell which of these is the third oldest university. A more debatable question is which was the fourth – for the federal Victoria University, now the University of Manchester following mergers with Owen's College in 1903 and with UMIST in 2004, had teaching through the colleges of the federation twenty years before London became anything other than an examining board. It may sound foolish to claim Manchester predates London, but in truth Manchester has a better claim to be the fourth university in England than London has to be the third, for Manchester's claim to fourth would rest on meeting all of the qualities of a university while London's claim to third relies on meeting certain cherry-picked qualities while failing on others.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair:</b> That was an interesting point. Was Dunelmensis just being facetious Jessica?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Jessica: </b>I think so. They were demonstrating the absurdity of using various <i>de facto </i>criteria to determine if a <i>de jure </i>university was a 'real' university, which was, of course, what Londiniensis was trying to do with their emphasis on degree awarding powers. Dunelmensis answered that one very well by pointing out the logical inconsistency in Londoniensis's position:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Dunelmensis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>It follows logically that if degree awarding powers are essential to being a university then Durham gained them in 1832 when it was made a university, before London. The only way that Durham could have not been granted degree awarding powers in 1832 is if they were not essential to being a university – in which case Durham's foundation as a university in 1832 is still earlier than London's. </i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Jessica: </b>For me, that was decisive. Londiniensis had no counter to the logic here. They just couldn't get around the hard fact that Durham had an earlier foundation as a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>So the other vital question was whether the two colleges could claim to be universities. What did you make of that Jessica?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Jessica:</b> That was a two-on-two debate, with UCL and King's both arguing that they could and Durham and London, founded later but with definite university status, arguing that they couldn't. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
The crucial point was what defined a university: if it was just teaching, then the colleges' claim would succeed, but if being a university required something more, degree awarding powers for instance, the claim would fail.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Londiniensis led the attack, with a demonstration that a number of authorities, including at least some of UCL's own councillors and professors believed a charter and degree awarding powers necessary:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Londoniensis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>[I]f I may make so bold as to quote one of UCL's own professors, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Malden">Henry Malden</a>, in his <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=9N5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false">Origin of Universities and Academical Degrees</a>, "In later times, the name university came to have a technical meaning when applied to a place of education. It was given to those bodies only which had the power of conferring degrees. This power was held to be an essential element of a university."</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>…</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>[H]ere are the words of William Tooke – Lawyer, MP, member of UCL's senate, and sometime chair of their executive committee – in his <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=wfUDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA705&focus=viewport&output=html">Statement of Facts</a> on their charter. Tooke says that the charter has the effect of "reducing [UCL's] style to that of College, and thereby precluding it granting degrees", and later calls it "a barren collegiate Charter, not worth the parchment on which it should be engrossed" and "a Charter which could have been had as a matter of course, like that of King's College, at any time since 1826".</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>…</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>It is clear that, in the 19th century, UCL and its backers knew full well that it had failed in its bid to become a university; that it should now claim to be the third oldest is nothing short of a rewriting of history.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Jessica: </b>I think Londoniensis is right here. UCL was named 'the London University' in the hope of gaining recognition as a university and the powers that went with it, but it failed in this at the time.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>John:</b> I think this is borne out by a point both Londiniensis and Dunelmensis made about the lists of universities in mid 19th century encyclopedias: UCL and King's don't feature. They were considered colleges by the writers of the time, even when the works were written by those closely associated with UCL such as the Penny Cyclopedia:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Londiniensis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>And in the 1853 edition of the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=muwBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA861#v=onepage&q&f=false">Standard Library Cyclopedia</a> "The universities of Great Britain are Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, London, St. Andrew's, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Dublin." – no mention of either UCL or King's. Similarly other lists of universities from that time omit the two colleges.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Dunelmensis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>A little later we find that the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=allBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA491&output=html">Encyclopedia Britannica</a> from 1842, referenced by Regis, lists four universities in England. The <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=bS-H_-NYM4IC&pg=PA21&focus=viewport&output=html">Penny Cyclopaedia</a> from the following year lists the same four universities. These were Oxford and Cambridge, founded in antiquity; Durham, which was founded in 1831, a university from 1832, opened in 1833, and awarded its first degrees in 1837; and London, founded 1836 or 37</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>So did you think the colleges managed to refute any of this?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>John: </b>Not convincingly. They put forward possible definitions that didn't require degree awarding powers, but the only one that had any real.traction was Regis's suggestion, which we've already heard, that a university is a school that teaches all the arts and faculties. This has the advantage of intellectual support from the likes of Newman, but Universitatis could hardly support it – UCL didn't teach theology.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Jessica: </b>But that still doesn't address the problem that none of the contemporary reference books recognise them as anything other than colleges. It really is a very hard sell, to say the least. I don't think they succeeded.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>What about the idea that there was no legal prohibition against anyone granting degrees?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>John: </b>It's a red herring. While it might be strictly speaking true, such degrees would be worthless. If that hadn't been the case, UCL would have awarded degrees from the start.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>Could you explain why the University of Edinburgh came up so much?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Jessica: </b>Edinburgh has an interesting history. The royal charter that established it wasn't a charter of incorporation given to the university, like we are used to, instead it was a charter to the town corporation giving them permission to establish a university. As a result, it was not incorporated until 1858. It also awarded degrees without any explicit powers being granted to do so.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
This situation of permission being given to a corporation to found a university that was neither incorporated nor explicitly granted degree awarding powers is closely paralleled by Durham, making this an important precedent for Dunelmensis:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Dunelmensis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>[L]et us look at Edinburgh. There, as with Durham, permission was given to an existing corporation – the town in Edinburgh's case, the cathedral in Durham's – to found a university. Again like Durham, Edinburgh was founded by royal permission – via a royal charter to the town for Edinburgh, by act of parliament for Durham. Still like Durham, Edinburgh received no powers explicitly in its charter. But Edinburgh went ahead, without any explicit grant of degree awarding powers. Just as Durham had its powers confirmed by royal charter, Edinburgh was confirmed by an act of the Scottish parliament: but in Edinburgh's case this didn't happen until 1621, over 30 years after it started conferring degrees – solid evidence that this confirmation was just that and not a ratification.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>…</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>The University of Edinburgh was founded, just like Durham, by a corporation – the town in Edinburgh's case, the cathedral in Durham's. Again like Durham, Edinburgh was founded by royal permission – via a royal charter to the town for Edinburgh, by act of parliament for Durham. Still like Durham, Edinburgh received no powers explicitly in its charter. But Edinburgh went ahead, without any explicit grant of degree awarding powers.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>John: </b>That it operated unincorporated was also picked up on by Universitatis, leading to the dispute between them and Regis about the importance of the royal foundation:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Universitatis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>Nobody thought Edinburgh was any less a university for its not being incorporated, demonstrating conclusively that incorporation is not necessary to be considered a university and that to establish priority we must look either the date of foundation, or the date on which an institution began operating as a university by teaching students. By either of these measures, UCL predates King's by three years and should thus be considered the third oldest university in England.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Regis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>While the University of Edinburgh was not itself incorporated, it was established by the auspices of the town corporation, which had received royal permission for its foundation. Clearly if the monarch – King James VI of Scotland, later James I of England, in this instance – gives a corporation the right to set up a university as a trust that is very different from a group of private citizens forming an unincorporated association and calling it a university! </i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Universitatis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>If UCL had been simply an ad hoc association of teachers, Regis might have a point. But that was not the case. UCL was founded with legally recognised deeds of association, in a manner authorised under acts of parliament. That it was unincorporated was a peculiarity of the semi-developed corporate law in that period of history; by <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Stock_Companies_Act_1844">1844</a> the law had changed and UCL's form of association would have been legally incorporated. As it stands, UCL was at least as incorporated as Edinburgh or Durham.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Regis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>UCL's association lacked the royal approval that is necessary for the founding of a university. In the cases of both Durham and Edinburgh, royal.approval is explicit in the formation of the university. That is quite distinct from incorporation, and distinct again from a privately-established joint stock company.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>Thank you. Our viewers will, of course, be makimg up their own minds. To help them with that, lets close by hearing the final statements from all the contenders once more:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Universitatis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>University College London is the oldest institute here. That is not disputed. It was founded as a England's third university under the name of London University. That is an historical fact. We have to prove nothing – The burden of proof lies with our opponents to show that there is a flaw in our claim.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>You have heard a number of claims from Dunelmensis and Londiniensis saying that degree-granting powers are necessary to be a university. This was certainly what some people thought, but I submit that they have failed to prove that this was a universally accepted definition and that there is evidence that alternative views were held by some. </i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>There is also some evidence, from the Privy Council no less, that there was no actual legal limitation on degree awarding powers at the time, only a kind of moral control. Legal recognition of degrees came not through the power to grant them but through separate acts of parliament, such as the Attornies and Solicitors Act in 1837. </i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>If, then, there was no such thing as degree awarding powers, this can clearly not be part of what defines a university.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>You have also heard it claimed that a university must be incorporated, but the precedent of the University of Edinburgh proves that false. The only thing that truly defines a university is teaching, making UCL the third oldest university.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Dunelmensis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>There are two key points I want to emphasise.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>Firstly: there were only four recognised universities in England in the mid 19th century – the two ancient universities, Durham and London. UCL and King's were simply not regarded as universities.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>Secondly, London's claim to be older is a logical impossibility. If being a university requires degree-awarding powers, then when King and Parliament establish a university these powers must obviously be included, otherwise they aren't actually establishing a university. In this scenario, Durham had its powers in 1832, before London, and is therefore the older.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>Alternatively, degree awarding powers are not necessary to be a university and it is possible, therefore, that Durham did not possess them at its foundation and London may have had them first. But then these powers don't matter in terms of defining a university, and Durham is still the older. </i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>It is not logically possible for degree awarding powers to be both necessary and not implicit in Durham's establishment. King and Parliament made Durham a university in 1832, the third one established in England. It was the third university to teach degree courses and the third to award degrees.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>The conclusion is inescapable: Durham is the third oldest university in England.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Regis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>King's college mirrors UCL in many respects, yet is the younger institution both in terms of foundation and teaching. How, then, can we make a claim to be older as a university?</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>You have heard that the example of Edinburgh demonstrates that incorporation is not required – this is true, but incomplete. Edinburgh dates its foundation as a university to its establishment – as a college – by royal permission. </i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>That is what UCL lacks – official recognition. King's had that from 1829, Durham from 1832, but UCL not until 1836. King's was established as a college by royal permission in 1829. With the example of the University of Edinburgh before us, we claim our establishment as a university from that date, making us the third oldest university in England. </i></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Londoniensis:</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>In the final analysis, there were only two universities founded in the first half of the 19th century in England: London and Durham. UCL and King's were simply not recognised as being universities, even by the UCL-linked Penny Cyclopaedia.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i>The question then is which was founded first: Durham or London. This is complicated by Durham's foundation taking place over many years. In 1832, Parliament gave Durham Cathedral's chapter permission to found a university. This was not the founding, this was permission to carry out that founding. As I have shown, it was give more years before they completed their task by obtaining a royal charter to incorporate the university, grant them degree awarding powers along with the other rights and privileges of a university, and confirm what they had done.</i> <i><br />By the time they had this royal charter, in June 1837, London had already been chartered as a university for over six months. That is the truth if the matter, and it leads to the conclusion that London is England's third oldest university.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-51959687616150263912015-04-30T14:40:00.001-07:002015-04-30T14:41:06.325-07:00The Debate<div dir="ltr">
This is the second part of a series giving the General Election treatment to Wikipedia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-oldest_university_in_England_debate" target="_blank">Third Oldest University in England Debate</a>. The first part covers the <a href="http://robminchin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-debate-build-up.html" target="_blank">Build-up</a> to the debate, this second part shows the Debate itself, while the third part covers the <a href="http://robminchin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-debate-highlights-and-analysis.html" target="_blank">Highlights and Analysis</a><i><b>.</b></i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<i><b>Chair:</b> Good evening, and welcome to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-oldest_university_in_England_debate">Third Oldest University in England Debate</a>. Our contenders, in alphabetical order, are Dunelmensis, representing Durham University, Londiniensis representing the University of London, Regis, representing King's College London, and Universitatis representing University College London. We'll start with opening statements, where I am asking each of the contenders to give a brief history of their institution and its claim to be the third oldest university. Dunelmensis, if you don't mind…</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Dunelmensis: </b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Thank you. There has been a connection between Durham and education since the founding of the cathedral over a thousand years ago. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede">Venerable Bede</a>, known as "<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bede_st.shtml#">the greatest of all the Anglo-Saxon scholars</a>" and "<a href="http://www.britannia.com/bios/bede.html">the father of English history</a>", is buried in the cathedral. Two of Oxford's oldest colleges, University and Balliol, were founded from Durham, and a third college – known as <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_College,_Oxford">Durham College</a> – was founded by the <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_Cathedral_Priory">Priory of Durham Cathedral</a>. At the Reformation the endowments of this college were passed to the Chapter of Durham Cathedral (which was the successor of the priory), with the plan of founding a university at Durham. This came to nothing, but was revived during the Commonwealth when Oliver Cromwell issued a charter to found a <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham_College_(17th_century)">college at Durham</a> in 1657. The plan to raise this to university status was derailed by Cromwell's death in 1658 and a petition to Richard Cromwell for degree granting powers was successfully opposed by Oxford and Cambridge. The Restoration the following year meant the end of that project.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
So, third time lucky: Durham University was finally founded successfully by the Dean and Chapter of Durham Cathedral via an Act of Chapter on 28th September 1831. It was granted university status by an <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PA389&id=FtAQAAAAIAAJ&output=html">Act of Parliament</a> that received royal assent on 4th July 1832 after passing both houses of parliament with cross-party support. The university opened on 28th October 1833, taking in the first BA students to study anywhere in England other than Oxford or Cambridge. On 20th July 1835, the Dean and Chapter passed a <a href="http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89094395191;view=1up;seq=470;skin=mobile">fundamental statute</a> that stated degrees could be conferred "in the various faculties", predating any statute or regulation elsewhere that allowed degrees to be granted. On 1st June 1837 a <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/governance/charter/">royal charter</a> was granted incorporating the university and confirming its constitution as being in keeping with the powers granted by the 1832 act. A week later, on the 8th of June, it conferred the first degrees granted by any university in England other than Oxford or Cambridge.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
In short, Durham was the first of the contenders to be granted university status, the first to teach students on a degree course, the first to have the power of conferring degrees, and the first to actually use that power to grant degrees. It is clearly the third oldest university in England!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Thank you Dunelmensis. Londiniensis?</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Thank you. Compared to the complex history presented by Dunelmensis, the case for London is simple: we were the first institute here chartered as a university, The idea for the University of London grew out of the attempts of UCL to gain a charter as a university. These attempts, made in 1830 to 31 and in 1834 to 35 failed, and when UCL did receive its charter it was as a college – not a university. King's, in contrast, never sought recognition as a university and so possessed a charter – again as a college, not a university – from an earlier date. Durham's charter, and thank you for admitting this, was not issued until 1837. London's charter was issued on 28th November 1836, six months before Durham's, and included the specific right to confer degrees, granted by royal charter not by a cathedral chapter, making London the third oldest university in England!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair:</b> Yes. Thank you for that. Regis?</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Thank you. King's College London was founded at a public meeting on the 21st June 1828 by a number of eminent figures, led by the Duke of Wellington, then Prime Minister. We were received our charter on the 14th August 1829 and opened on 8 October 1831. Our charter is older than any other English university's except Oxford and Cambridge, thus King's is the third oldest university in England.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Quite. Universitatis?</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Thank you. UCL was founded to meet a great need, not just for a third university but for a university that did not discriminate on the basis of religion. Oxford and Cambridge were closed to non-Anglican: Oxford not letting any but Anglicans sign up as students, Cambridge barring them from graduating and insisting on their attendance at Church of England services while students. Non-Anglican Protestants could go to Scottish universities for their education, or attend "dissenting academies", but there was nowhere they could get a university education in England.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
There was also the scandal that London was (besides Istanbul) the only European capital without a university. While Scotland had five universities, England had but two – and those were expensive seminaries who put most of their graduates into the Church! <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Campbell_(poet)">Thomas Campbell</a> was a man who saw this had to change. On the 9th February, 1825, he wrote an <a href="https://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=e_4tAAAAYAAJ&output=html">open letter</a>, published in The Times, to <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Brougham,_1st_Baron_Brougham_and_Vaux">Henry Brougham</a>, the liberal MP for Winchelsea, suggesting the foundation of "a great London university". To put this on its historical context, that was the same year Cambridge stopped <a href="http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/cambs/vol3/pp235-265">giving away degrees to sons of lords</a> just for turning up!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Brougham got together with his friends, including the lawyer <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tooke_(1777%E2%80%931863)">William Tooke</a>, and they set about founding London University, for that was the name under which UCL was established. It was formally founded on 11 February 1826 and, after raising money by public subscription, the foundation stone was laid by HRH the Duke of Sussex on 30th April 1827. London University opened on 1 October 1828. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
For its temerity in trying to do away with discrimination, it was denied a charter until after the establishment's response, King's College, had been granted one, but that is of little consequence. If we look around the university scene of the time, we see that Edinburgh had no charter of incorporation – only a charter granting the town permission to found a college, while the University of Marischal College in Aberdeen, later merged with the University of King's College to form the University of Aberdeen but an independent university at that time, had no royal charter at all. Indeed, if we start dating by age of charter rather than when teaching started, we find that Cambridge is older than Oxford in defiance of all histories that say Cambridge was founded by scholars fleeing Oxford.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Clearly we should date the third university in the same manner as the first and second – from the start of teaching. Having admitted its first students while King's was but an idea, and Durham and London not even twinkles in their founders' eyes, UCL is obviously the third oldest university in England!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Thank you. Well, we've heard the opening statements, we're now going to move on to the debate proper. Each representative will give two speeches in turn, with other contenders allowed to interrupt with points and questions. For the first round of speeches we will start with Londiniensis.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The basic marks of a university is its power to grant degrees. This was not so at time Universitatis refers to, the time of the foundation of Oxford and Cambridge, for the concept of degrees was then yet to take shape. But, if I may make so bold as to quote one of UCL's own professors, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Malden">Henry Malden</a>, in his <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=9N5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false">Origin of Universities and Academical Degrees</a>, "In later times, the name university came to have a technical meaning when applied to a place of education. It was given to those bodies only which had the power of conferring degrees. This power was held to be an essential element of a university."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
This is backed up by the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=uDkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA548#v=onepage&q&f=false">Standard Library Encyclopedia</a>, which stated in 1848 that "According to modern usage, the term university is properly applied to corporate bodies which confer degrees; and this is the title by which the University of London, which is empowered to confer degrees in arts, law, and medicine, is incorporated. It is convenient at present to distinguish colleges as places of learning which do not confer degrees, from universities which do." It is clear from this that neither University College nor Kings College were considered at that time to be universities. Indeed, we read on the same page that "Neither University College nor King's College confers degrees; but the students of both colleges may take degrees in the University of London, subject to certain regulations." And in the 1853 edition of the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=muwBAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA861#v=onepage&q&f=false">Standard Library Cyclopedia</a> "The universities of Great Britain are Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, London, St. Andrew's, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Dublin." – no mention of either UCL or King's. Similarly other lists of universities from that time omit the two colleges.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The argument that teaching is what defines a university was simply not true in the early 19th century, the period under discussion, nor had it been true for hundreds of years. The claims of UCL and King's must therefore fall. But just in case there is any doubt, here are the words of William Tooke – Lawyer, MP, member of UCL's senate, and sometime chair of their executive committee – in his <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=wfUDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA705&focus=viewport&output=html">Statement of Facts</a> on their charter. Tooke says that the charter has the effect of "reducing [UCL's] style to that of College, and thereby precluding it granting degrees", and later calls it "a barren collegiate Charter, not worth the parchment on which it should be engrossed" and "a Charter which could have been had as a matter of course, like that of King's College, at any time since 1826".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Then in the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=D2uCAx3nv7UC&pg=PA602#v=onepage&q&f=false">London Medical Gazette</a> in 1828, on the opening of UCL as 'the London University', says: "A few words about the name of this institution. Why will [the founders], some of the best judges of good taste in writing and designation in the kingdom, permit it to be called an University? Taking 'established custom' for our guide about the meaning of the word, it implies a royal charter, and the power of conferring degrees, neither of which is possessed by the London University."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Again, from the London Review in 1859, another supporter of UCL <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=0gkaAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA328&focus=viewport&output=html">writes</a>: "About five-and-twenty years ago a sharp controversy arose, when the splendid educational establishment in Gower Street" – that is, UCL – "assumed the title of 'the London University,' and petitioned for a Charter by which it should be empowered to grant degrees in arts, laws, and medicine. It had long been understood that the privilege of conferring such honours was the distinguishing feature of a University; and the question so keenly discussed was, what kind of institution was entitled to bear the name and become invested with the prerogative." </div>
<div dir="ltr">
But,as we know, neither the name nor the prerogative went to UCL, but were granted instead to the University of London. Whether UCL was wronged by this is not what we are debating here – it is a historical fact that the decision was so made. It is clear that, in the 19th century, UCL and its backers knew full well that it had failed in its bid to become a university; that it should now claim to be the third oldest is nothing short of a rewriting of history.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
If I may be permitted to make an instant response, Londoniensis is quoting selectively the definitions that back up what he wants to prove and ignoring others. Johnson's famous <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=1fMxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA983&focus=viewport&output=html">dictionary</a>, for example, defines a university as "a school, where all the arts and faculties are taught and studied", a definition also used by other writers including Newman. This, of course, comes from the exploded etymology of university being derived from a place of universal teaching, but bears witness to the idea that it is teaching that is fundamental to the popular conception of a university, not some abstract legal power.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
If we are to take teaching as the defining point of a university, how do we measure it? Some teaching hospitals in London date their classes back to before the foundation of Cambridge, are they then to claim the title not of third but of second oldest university? And what of those other universities and London colleges that predate UCL? Birkbeck, Heythrop, Leeds Beckett, Liverpool John Moores and Manchester all had formalised teaching before UCL.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
If degree granting powers are taken as the defining factor of a university, it is clear that neither UCL nor King's, who gained their powers in 2005 and 2006 respectively, can be the third oldest university in England. But what of Durham's claim to have possessed them before London?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
During the <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1832/may/22/university-of-durham#column_1215">debate</a> on the 1832 act that led to Durham's foundation, Bishop Van Mildert, the sponsor of the bill and founder of the university, made a critical statement. He said "nor ought the privilege of conferring degrees, if hereafter committed to the University by charter, to be thrown open indiscriminately to non-conformists of every description, in common with members of the Established Church." Leaving aside his attitude to non-conformists, which is not the subject of debate here, he states quite clearly that the bill – his bill – did not grant the privilege of granting degrees.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Similarly Durham's lawyer Mr Walters <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml#qxj-8744">wrote</a> after the passing of the bill that there was "nothing they want from the Crown by a Charter except the power to grant degrees". Again, it is clear that the charter was believed necessary for degree-granting powers – in this case by the lawyer who had drawn up the bill! Durham, therefore, also fails the test of this "essential element" until the granting of its charter in 1837. I do not believe that the statutes passed by the cathedral chapter in 1835 could have granted the power – that is simply absurd, power to grant degrees comes from the crown not from Cathedral chapters! The power simply cannot have existed prior to the ratification of those statutes by the royal charter.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
London, on the other hand, was granted its charter in 1836, which stated "the said Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Fellows shall have power, after examination, to confer the several Degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, Doctor of Laws, Bachelor of Medicine, Doctor of Medicine". That is, in black and white, a grant of the power to confer degrees. None of the others can produce an earlier grant and therefore, the conferring of degrees being essential to a university, none of the others was a university before London.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
There seems to be some confusion about the basis on which Durham gained the right to grant degrees. I most certainly do not claim that the cathedral chapter simply granted the right to the university – as Londoniensis says, that would be absurd. The right to make such statutes was, however, granted to the chapter by the 1832 Act of Parliament, and it is explicit in the royal charter that it is not ratifying the statutes but acknowledging and confirming that they were made under the powers granted by the act.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It certainly appears that both Van Mildert and Walters, the lawyer advising him, thought in 1832 that a royal charter would be necessary for awarding degrees. But Van Mildert was a bishop and Walters a provincial lawyer, neither was an expert on the law of universities, and their opinion was to prove mistaken. The first notice of this was given by William Tooke, who as already mentioned by Universitatis was one if UCL's founders. He was a member of their senate and sometime chair of their executive committee, as well as a noted lawyer and MP for Truro from 1832 to 1837, when he spent much of his time pushing UCL's cause.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Tooke said, in a <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/04/london-university-charter">debate in the House of Commons</a> in 1833 on the petition to grant UCL a charter under the name of the University of London: "It is not generally known, that no university whatever is entitled to confer degrees, by grant of any Charter whatever, the claim so to do being considered as incident to the name and title of University, and, therefore, King's College, although it has a Charter, can at present claim no such right; the name is consequently the sole matter in dispute, the University of London praying to be incorporated as such."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Indeed, this was not generally known, for it had escaped Van Mildert and Walters. But now it was, and the theme was taken up again when UCL's application for a charter as a university was debated in the Privy Council in 1834, this time by those opposed to the charter. To quote the account in the Penny Cyclopaedia: "All the opposing parties" – that is, Oxford, Cambridge and the medical schools of the London hospitals – "All the opposing parties agreed in one objection to the granting of this charter. It was considered that the conferring on the new institution the title of University would invest it with the privilege of granting degrees, as incidental to that title, and against its possessing this privilege they all protested, but the grounds on which their opposition was based differed."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Oxford's counsel, the former Attorney General <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Wetherell">Sir Charles Wetherell</a>, published his arguments before the Privy Council. He cited the opinion of a previous Attorney General, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Yorke,_1st_Earl_of_Hardwicke">Philip Yorke</a>, from 1723, saying: "In this proposition of Mr. Yorke, two principles are laid down. The first is, that the 'granting degrees flows from the Crown;' and the second is, that if 'a University be erected, the power of granting degrees is incidental to the grant.' … The subject-matter granted, is the power of conferring degrees; an emanation, as Mr. Yorke expresses it, from the Crown. It is the concession of this power that constitutes the direct purpose and the essential character of a University."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Here then we have some of the most eminent lawyers in the land, including two attorney generals from different eras, representing between them the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, UCL, and the medical schools, all agreeing that a grant of university title includes the award of the power to confer degrees. Based on these opinions, Durham's <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/governance/charter/">royal charter</a> contains no grant of degree awarding powers. It did not need to, for the act of 1832 that established the university also, by the fact that it made it a university, granted the power to award degrees.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Indeed, we see notice in the press in 1834 that Durham was believed then to have this power. <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eneas_Mackenzie">Eneas Mackenzie</a> and Marvin Ross's "<a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=hzlNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA412&focus=viewport&output=html">An Historical, Topographical, and Descriptive View of the County Palatine of Durham</a>", published in 1834, reports that "Nine Terms, or 3 years of residence, are necessary to the B. A. degree, which will only be conferred after examination by the Officers or Fellows, in presence of the Dean and Chapter, at the usual Academical period Twelve Terms, or 4 years, must precede the examination which closes the Academical Course. The degree of M. A. will be conferred at the usual Academical standing."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
That it was still believed later in the century that university title included the right to award degrees is borne witness by John Robson, the Secretary of UCL, in giving <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PA462&id=y3sxAQAAMAAJ&output=html">evidence</a> to a royal commission on behalf of UCL in 1871: "the original title of University was unauthorised; it was a title which the founders of the institution had assumed, and did not confer the privileges of a University, that is to say, the Power of granting degrees". This actually demonstrates two things: firstly that the title of university, properly authorised, conferred the power of granting degrees, as already shown above; and secondly, that UCL acknowledged at that time that it was not a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
But this is not just abstract legal opinion; there are concrete examples besides Durham to show this is the case. First in historical order are the medieval studium generale. Here we have the evidence of the noted historian <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/HastingsRashdall.jpg/200px-HastingsRashdall.jpg">Hastings Rashdall</a> in his <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=V-41AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA11&focus=viewport&output=html">Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages</a>. He tells us that "gradually the special privilege of the jus ubique docendi" – that is the right to teach everywhere, the precursor of the modern degree – "came to be regarded as the principal object of Papal or Imperial creation. It was usually, but not quite invariably, conferred in express terms by the original foundation-bulls; and was apparently understood to be involved in the mere act of erection even in the rare cases where it is not expressly conceded." Let me just reiterate that last: for studium generale the right to grant degrees was "understood to be involved in the mere act of erection". The concept that creating a university grants it degree awarding powers predates even the general use of the term university!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Next let us look at Edinburgh. There, as with Durham, permission was given to an existing corporation – the town in Edinburgh's case, the cathedral in Durham's – to found a university. Again like Durham, Edinburgh was founded by royal permission – via a royal charter to the town for Edinburgh, by act of parliament for Durham. Still like Durham, Edinburgh received no powers explicitly in its charter. But Edinburgh went ahead, without any explicit grant of degree awarding powers. Just as Durham had its powers confirmed by royal charter, Edinburgh was confirmed by an act of the Scottish parliament: but in Edinburgh's case this didn't happen until 1621, over 30 years after it started conferring degrees – solid evidence that this confirmation was just that and not a ratification.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The last example is London University itself. It was reformed in 1900 under powers given to a commission by an 1898 act of parliament. As part of this reformation we find that "[a]ll the provisions of the Charter … except the provisions whereby the University of London was incorporated … [were] repealed". This, of course, means that the only provision in its charter that has allowed the University of London to confer degrees became its creation as a university – if Durham did not have the right to grant degrees from 1832, then London's right was abolished in 1900!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The statutes framed under the 1898 act include the explicit right to grant degrees.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
As do the statutes framed for Durham under the 1832 act.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The 1900 statutes had explicit approval, which Durham's did not receive until 1837.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That London's statutes needed approval before going into force was specified in the 1898 act, no such need for approval was included in the 1832 act, the power was simply devolved to the cathedral chapter – as confirmed by the charter. Indeed the chapter continued to make and revise statutes for Durham without any need for approval until the 1908 Durham University act, which removed the governance of the university from them.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The final point is that of logic, which underpins the historical precedents and the legal opinions. Londiniensis argues that degree awarding powers are an essential element of a university – and I agree with them. But founding a university, or anything else, must include endowing it with all its essential elements, otherwise you're not actually doing what you say. If you say you're building a house, but leave off the roof, you haven't built a house – so it is here. When the king and parliament gave permission to found a university, it is only logical that they gave permission to do everything necessary to a university – including granting degrees. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
It follows logically that if degree awarding powers are essential to being a university then Durham gained them in 1832 when it was made a university, before London. The only way that Durham could have not been granted degree awarding powers in 1832 is if they were not essential to being a university – in which case Durham's foundation as a university in 1832 is still earlier than London's. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Thank you. I think we had better move on. Regis?</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The word "university" comes from the Latin "universitas" meaning "corporation", its use for an academical institute is as a contraction of "universitas magistrorum", meaning "corporation of teachers". If we look at the deeds of incorporation for the universities, we see teaching and education as being their defining feature. Oxford and Cambridge in the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Eliz1/13/29">1571 Act</a> that incorporated them are described as being "for the better increase of learning and the further suppressing of vice", <a href="https://www.tcd.ie/Secretary/corporate/legal-faq/">Dublin</a> is "for the education, training and instruction of youths and students in arts and faculties", and <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/governance/charter/">Durham</a> is "for the advancement of Religion and Learning". </div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is clear from these that the fundamental mark of a university is not granting degrees, it is education. Yet it is easy to see why Londiniensis should make this mistake – London was founded as a government-run examining board and given the title of university, but was not truly a university – it had no teaching role – until it was reconstituted as a federal body in 1900. That is why it was described by <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Arnold">Matthew Arnold</a> as."a mere collegium, or board, of examiners" and more bluntly by <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wace_(priest)">Henry Wace</a> as "not a University". <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pearson">Karl Pearson</a> went on at greater length: "To term the body which examines at Burlington House a University is a perversion of language, to which no charter or Act of Parliament can give a real sanction".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Yet even if degree granting powers were to be taken as the sole marker of university status, London would not be the third oldest university in England. That honour would fall to the Archbishops of Canterbury, who gained their <a href="http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/pages/archbishops-awards-and-examinations.html">degree awarding powers</a> in 1533. Now I'm not seriously suggesting the Archbishop is a contender for that title, but this is the route down which Londiniensis's argument must lead us, and thus demonstrates its falseness. Universities are defined by their teaching, not their degree awarding powers. <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=fJkHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA24&output=html">King's College</a> was incorporated for a similar purpose to the other universities: "for the general education of youth … in which College the various branches of literature and science are to be taught". It was the third institution in England to be incorporated for such a purpose, making it the third oldest university in the country.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Regis misses that many institutions, not just universities,have similar statements in their charters. From Durham's charter, as cited above, we find that the cathedral there has as one of its objectives "ut bonorum morum disciplina observetur, juventus in literis liberalibus instituatur", which means pretty much the same as the charge to Oxford and Cambridge. Clearly incorporation for the purpose of education is not the defining factor – it is the actual educating that counts.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
I do not miss that at all. Both the incorporation and the teaching are necessary. Durham Cathedral could be seen as belatedly fulfilling its charge when it opened the university in 1833. That university opened without being incorporated itself, but under a body whose was incorporated for, among other things, instructing the youth in liberal arts. That is quite different from the situation with UCL, which was unincorporated, and thus lacked legal existence, until 1836</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Regis also appears to miss that the Archbishop was never granted university title, so – just like UCL and King's – was not considered a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That UCL and King's are both regarded as universities seems to indicate that university title is separate from being recognised as a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That may be the position now, but it says nothing about whether UCL and King's were recognised at the time.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
As I showed, the situation at the time was that universities were defined by teaching, once they had legal existence.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is also worth looking further at Johnson's definition of a university as "a school, where all the arts and faculties are taught and studied". As Universitatis notes, this was taken as true by many others, including Newman. While we now recognise that this comes from a false etymology, at the time it was believed to be correct by educated people – and thus is deserving of attention.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is ironic that Universitatis raised this, for Newman spends the entirety of his second discourse in "The Idea of a University" explaining why UCL's lack of theology teaching disqualifies it from being a university. Indeed, the first institution to teach "all the arts and faculties" was King's, which included teaching in theology from the start. By this definition, which was believed correct by many educated people at the time, King's is the third oldest university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
It would be wrong to base our definition of a university upon something known to be wrong.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
We now know it to be wrong, but at the time people such as Newman and Johnson clearly thought it correct.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Thank you. If we could move on to Universitatis's speech…</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Universitatis: </b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Regis points out correctly that a university is defined by its teaching rather than any degree awarding powers, but is mistaken when it comes to incorporation, as can be easily seen from a look at the documents they cite. The 1571 act that incorporated Oxford and Cambridge clearly did not create the universities, it merely formed legal corporations of their members. Similarly Durham's 1837 charter explicitly incorporates the members of a university that already exists – formed by the act of 1832. We see something similar in the charters of both Trinity College, Dublin and King's College, London: in both cases the charters explicitly found a college – "the college of the Holy and undivided Trinity near Dublin founded by the most serene queen Elizabeth" and "King's College, London" respectively – and set up corporations of the members of those colleges – "the Provost, Fellows and Scholars of the College of the Holy and undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin" and "The Governors and Proprietors of King's College, London". While in these two cases the same charter establishes and incorporates the universities, the two actions are explicitly separate and it is thus quite possible, as with Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and indeed UCL, for establishment and incorporation to be separate actions at separate times.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
But, you will ask, was it possible at the time in question for an institution to have a true existence as a university without it being incorporated? Oxford and Cambridge did, but that was in the middle ages, and does not show conclusively that it was still possible in the first half of the 19th century. Durham's status has been questioned, so it cannot be used as a definitive example. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
But we have before us the example of the University of Edinburgh. This was founded by royal charter, but not a charter of incorporation: it was granted to the town of Edinburgh, and gave permission to found a college. This college was duly founded, and became known – and recognized in the acts of union – as the University of Edinburgh. But that was the 16th century, you will say. Not so! For the University of Edinburgh was not incorporated until 1858, almost three hundred years after its founding and after the time when all four contenders here were established and themselves incorporated. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
Nobody thought Edinburgh was any less a university for its not being incorporated, demonstrating conclusively that incorporation is not necessary to be considered a university and that to establish priority we must look either the date of foundation, or the date on which an institution began operating as a university by teaching students. By either of these measures, UCL predates King's by three years and should thus be considered the third oldest university in England.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
While the University of Edinburgh was not itself incorporated, it was established by the auspices of the town corporation, which had received royal permission for its foundation. Clearly if the monarch – King James VI of Scotland, later James I of England, in this instance – gives a corporation the right to set up a university as a trust that is very different from a group of private citizens forming an unincorporated association and calling it a university! </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
If UCL had been simply an ad hoc association of teachers, Regis might have a point. But that was not the case. UCL was founded with legally recognised deeds of association, in a manner authorised under acts of parliament. That it was unincorporated was a peculiarity of the semi-developed corporate law in that period of history; by <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Stock_Companies_Act_1844">1844</a> the law had changed and UCL's form of association would have been legally incorporated. As it stands, UCL was at least as incorporated as Edinburgh or Durham.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
UCL's association lacked the royal approval that is necessary for the founding of a university. In the cases of both Durham and Edinburgh, royal.approval is explicit in the formation of the university. That is quite distinct from incorporation, and distinct again from a privately-established joint stock company.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
I contend that it is the establishment of university teaching that is the vital factor, not royal approval, or royal grants of powers, or anything else that depended on the undemocratic system of government that we had in Britain at that time. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
As I asked before, if teaching is to be your measure, how do you define university teaching? There are at least three universities and two London colleges – not counting the medical schools – that predate UCL by this measure.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Their teaching at the time was not of the same level, or covering as broad a range of subjects, as UCL's. Rashdal, in the book already cited by Dunelmensis, identifies three characteristics of a studium generale:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
"(i) That the School attracted or at least invited students from all parts, not merely those of a particular country or district, (ii) That it was a place of higher education; that is to say, that one at least of the higher Faculties—Theology, Law, Medicine—was taught there, (iii) That such subjects were taught by a considerable number—at least by a plurality—of Masters"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
I think it is clear that most of the earlier institutions did not meet these criteria. In fact, it is also clear that the University of London also did not meet them, until its reformation as a federal university in 1900.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Even if the Working Men's Institutes in Leeds, Liverpool, London and Manchester are denied on the grounds of not teaching the higher faculties, the Jesuits at Stonyhurst – now <a href="http://www.heythrop.ac.uk/about-us/heythrops-history">Heythrop College</a> – had education in both arts, as demonstrated by the BAs gained alongside UCL students from the University of London, and the higher faculty of theology. If you define a university by teaching rather than by degree granting powers, surely this at least meets Rashdall's criteria, and from an earlier date than UCL!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Heythrop does indeed appear to have the characteristics of a university, but it is clear from their <a href="http://www.heythrop.ac.uk/about-us/heythrops-history">website</a> that there was a period of at least 70 years when the institution split into two – the theology college not even being in England. It is hard to regard the college as a single institution prior to 1926.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Thank you. Let's move on to Dunelmensis.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Dunelmensis: </b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
There are, historically speaking, two ways of being recognized as a university in England, besides being one of the two ancient universities, who could be said to have been grandfathered into the system. Clearly none of the contenders here are of ancient origin, so I'll skip over that.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The first way is by being granted the title of university explicitly by the crown. There are a few ways this can be done. These days university title can be granted by the Privy Council or by Companies House, historically it has been granted by either royal charter or act of parliament. In 1908 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bryce,_1st_Viscount_Bryce">James Bryce</a>, the British Ambassador to the United States, confirmed this in a <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=8owlAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA155&output=html">speech</a>, saying "it is now understood that nothing less than some public authority, such as either a royal grant or a statute, can create a university. It is thus that the eight new universities recently established … in England, viz., London, Durham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield, and Bristol, have been constituted."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
According to HEFCE's <a href="http://www.hefce.ac.uk/TheRegister/Overview">Register of HE Providers</a>, there are 103 universities in England. This includes Durham and London, but not UCL or King's, neither of whom have ever attained the official status of a university, either today or a hundred years ago on the list of 'modern English universities' provided by the Ambassador.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
So, when did Durham and London receive this status? For Durham the answer is simple – it was made a university by the 1832 act of parliament. This is implicit in Bryce's statement – all the other universities were created by royal charter, so the reference to creation by statute must be to Durham. This is also borne out by the text of the royal charter, which refers to "the said University of Durham, so established under our Royal sanction, and the authority of our Parliament".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
In the case of London, however, the date of creation is less clear cut. That London was created by royal charter is not doubted, but was it the charter of 1836 or that of 1837? </div>
<div dir="ltr">
The question arises because the charter of 1836 was written in such a way as to expire with the death of King William IV, putting a question mark over whether it was ever valid. As the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PA28&id=JhrnAAAAMAAJ&output=html">Penny Cyclopaedia</a> puts it: "The original charter creating a University of London … was made during 'Royal Will and Pleasure;' and, in consequence, if at all legal (which is very doubtful), it would by law have expired six months after the demise of King William the Fourth". This was admitted even by London's supporters: in his <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=yhJcAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA5&focus=viewport&output=html">argument for parliamentary representation for the University of London</a> in 1851, Charles Foster, professor of jurisprudence at UCL, describes the university as having been created by a charter "dated the 5th day of December, 1837, granted by her present Majesty".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
In the Victorian era, it seems 1837 was widely accepted as the true date of London's foundation. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Girling_Fitch">Joshua Fitch</a>, writing in 1900, titled his history of London University "<a href="http://books.google.com.pr/books/about/The_University_of_London.html?id=yGR2NQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y">The University of London: A Sketch of Its Work and History from Its Foundation in 1837 to the Present Time</a>". <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens,_Jr.">Charles Dickens, Jr.</a> (son of the famous author) referred to it as "Originally incorporated by Royal Charter in the first year of the reign of her present Majesty" in “<a href="http://www.victorianlondon.org/dickens/dickens-u.htm">Dickens' Dictionary of London</a>”. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cunningham_(writer)">Peter Cunningham</a> called it "A government institution, established 1837, for conferring degrees" in his 1850 “<a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=ERAHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA191#v=onepage&q&f=false">Modern London</a>”. Even the university’s own charters use this date, with the charters of 1858 and 1863 tracing the university's creation back only to the charter of 1837.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Here, then, is the clear legal position. Durham was the third university to be recognised in England, created by act of parliament in 1832 and further recognised under statute law in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Corporations_Act_1835">Municipal Corporations Act 1835</a>, in an <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=C_zCZ5VfLlsC&pg=PA477&lpg=PA478&ots=H8oHAW0opU&focus=viewport&output=html">Act for amending the several Acts for the Regulation of Attornies and Solicitors</a> in 1837, and many subsequent acts.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
London was next, either, as noted above, in 1836 or 1837…</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
How can there be a doubt over London University's recognition in 1836 when it too is mentioned in the Attornies & Solicitors Act, which was passed in July 1837, almost five months prior to London's second charter?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
At the time the act was passed, the problems with London's original charter had not yet come to light. The act was passed on the mistaken premise that the first charter was valid, in ignorance of the true situation. The same most certainly cannot be said of the recognition afforded Durham either in 1832, 1835, or 1837. There were no problems waiting to be revealed that might have made the legislature think twice had they been in full possession of the facts.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
As I was saying, London was next, either in 1836 or 1837. It matters little, for it is the fourth oldest by either measure. UCL and King's do not figure at all – not actually being recognised as universities.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But King's and UCL are both popularly recognised as universities, are they not?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Yes, indeed they are – now. And that brings me to the second method of being recognised as a university – being "what an educated person, someone who knew what a university was or who had received their education at a university, would call a university". This was the test used by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Vaisey">Mr Justice Vaisey</a> in 1951 in the case of <a href="http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/STDAVI_1%20DOC.pdf">St David's College, Lampeter versus the Ministry of Education</a>. His judgement in this case formed a legal definition of what constitutes a de jure university that has since been used as a precedent in a number of countries.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Vaisey defined six essential characteristics of a university. It "must be incorporated by the highest authority, i.e. by the sovereign power”, "must be open to receive students from any part of the world”, "must [have] a plurality of masters”, “must be an institution in which at least one of the higher faculties is taught” (i.e. theology; law or medicine), "cannot be a university without residents either in its own buildings or near at hand” and "must have the power to grant its own degrees”. This last – the power to grant degrees – Vaisey called "the most obvious and most essential quality of a university".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
You will note that this definition essentially takes all the elements that have been argued to be necessary and folds them together, saying all are necessary. This should be unsurprising: Rashdall says essentially the same thing, less explicitly, in presenting the three criteria cited by Universitatis and the necessity of the jus ubique docendi as the marks of a studium generale. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
From Universitatis and Regis's disputation, we have heard that the precedent of the University of Edinburgh weighs against the idea that incorporation in the strictest legal sense is necessary, but incorporation was often used in a more liberal sense that this, meaning something along the lines of 'given legal existence'. A relevant example is that William Hamilton, writing in the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&id=qmQJAAAAQAAJ&output=html">Edinburgh Review</a> in 1834, refers to Durham University as having been "incorporated under that title" to refer to it being set up as a trust "by the highest authority" under the 1832 act.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Would you then consider UCL to have been incorporated from 1826?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
I would, although I don't believe it could claim "incorporation by the highest authority" under its deeds of settlement. However, given the other criteria this is not particularly important.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The next three qualities are taken from Rashdall and, along with the fourth, essentially refer to teaching. Not a problem for UCL, King's or Durham, but, as Universitatis noted, something London did not do until 1900. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
The final – and most important – quality is that the institution must have degree awarding powers. As noted by Londoniensis, this is a problem for UCL and King's who did not receive such powers until the early 21st century. Let me quote you the views on this of Malcolm Grant, Provost of UCL, in a discussion paper on <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/images/Uni-Lon.pdf">the future of the University of London</a>, written in March 2005, a few months before UCL gained its degree awarding powers: "Degrees awarded by the Colleges are formally degrees of the University of London, though this is also now changing: Imperial College has been awarded its own degree-awarding powers, and LSE, UCL and other Colleges are currently going through the approvals process. The last formal constitutional barrier to their being recognised as full universities in their own right will then have been cleared."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is clear that Grant is referring to formal recognition as a university – which under current regulations requires the prior award of degree awarding powers – rather than the popular perception of whether UCL is a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That is one possible interpretation. It is certainly an acknowledgement from its own provost that UCL was not a "full university" prior to the grant of degree awarding powers.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
I will admit that the situation with respect to degree awarding powers for the London colleges is confused by the way responsibility for the award of London degrees was transferred to the colleges in the 1990s, making it hard to tell exactly when UCL and King's gained what might generally be considered degree awarding powers. However, it is clear that, even under a generous interpretation, it was in the late 20ty century, well after the period under discussion, and it is certain that neither was recognised as an independent university while actually legally incorporated into the University of London: between 1907 and 1976 for UCL and between 1910 and 1980 for King's.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
So the one remaining question is whether both degree awarding powers and teaching were considered necessary in the 1820s and 30s. Historical sources make it clear that the answer is yes. As Londiniensis's quotes show, an institute that taught but did not confer degrees was considered a college, while Regis's quotes show that an institute that conferred degrees but did not teach was considered an examining board – or an Archbishop.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
As a couple of examples of how a university was defined at the time, the definition from <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PA541&id=hSRTAAAAcAAJ&output=html">Chambers's Dictionary</a> in 1867 is "a corporation of teachers or assemblage of colleges for teaching the higher branches of learning, and having power to confer degrees", while that of the Encyclopedia Britannica was <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PA163&id=iwo44dayoYAC&output=html">quoted in 1826</a> as "the name of a Corporation, formed for the education of youth in the liberal arts and sciences, and authorized to admit such as have studied in it to certain degrees in different faculties" – the same words, copyright not being then what it is now, appear in a number of other encyclopedias from the early 19th century. Here, as shown earlier, "corporation" should be interpreted as an associated body of people rather than in its strictest legal sense, but there is no reason to suppose "teaching the higher branches of learning" or "the education of youth in the liberal arts and sciences" means anything other than that a university must teach, nor is there any reason to believe "power to confer degrees" or "authorized to admit such as have studied in it to certain degrees in different faculties" can possibly mean anything other than that a university must have degree awarding powers.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Let us also look at other works from the period. The <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=09o5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA6&focus=viewport&output=html">North British Review</a> wrote in 1861 that "A university is not, on the one hand, a merely educating body … nor is it, on the other hand, a mere board of examiners for degrees". In 1867, <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=6h4AAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA417&focus=viewport&output=html">Macmillan's Magazine</a> published an editorial saying of London: "In this great city, if in any city or capital in the world, there ought surely to be a fully-equipped university". There was none, for although there were institutions providing university level teaching, they did not award degrees; and though London University awarded degrees it did not teach.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
In the <a href="https://archive.org/details/grevillememoirs02reevgoog">debate before the Privy Council in 1834</a> regarding UCL's charter, Lord Brougham asked "Pray, Mr. <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Bickersteth,_1st_Baron_Langdale">Bickersteth</a>, what is to prevent the London University granting degrees now?" he received the reply: "The universal scorn and contempt of mankind." But no legal objection was made. It seems there was no bar on anyone granting degrees, right up to the late 20th century. How then can there exist a special right of granting degrees, if anyone could actually do so? Does this not mean that this whole 'right' is actually a red herring?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Not at all. Let me illustrate this with a quote from another meeting of the Privy Council, <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?output=html&id=1zoIAAAAQAAJ&jtp=156">discussing the Scottish universities</a> in 1861. <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rolt">John Rolt</a>, later attorney general, appearing as counsel for the Senatus Academicus of the University of Edinburgh, explained: "In a mere voluntary Association there would, for its own purposes, be a necessity of having degrees there, but that would be of no value outside the institution itself; but if the Communitas or Universitas be established by competent authority, then the consequence will be that the status or degree will have a sanction outside the University."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
This official sanction of the power to grant degrees distinguishes an academic degree such as a BA from privately awarded qualifications, even well respected ones such as the AKC. It gives them the quality of being universally recognised as a university degree.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
But Bickersteth was, of course, not speaking purely theoretically: UCL had attempted to introduce the "<a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=7cZLAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA188&output=html&redir_esc=y">Diploma of Master of Medicine and Surgery in the University of London</a>", which abbreviated to the unwieldy M. Med. et Chir. U. L., a few years earlier. This was met by "universal scorn and contempt" from at least the medical establishment if not "all mankind", with the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PA27&id=VrU1AQAAMAAJ&output=html">Lancet</a> calling it "empty, unauthorized, and presuming" and a letter to the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=QwgGunvjMnMC&pg=PA500#v=onepage&q&f=false">London Medical Gazette</a> described it as "savour[ing] strongly of quackery". Even if it called itself a diploma, the attempt to pass itself off as a master's degree was too obvious. The experiment was not repeated.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
So as we see, no single element can define a university, unless that element is the recognition of the state. By official recognition, there can be no dispute that Durham is the third oldest university in England. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
By the combination of the qualities that have been taken historically to define a university, Durham is again the third oldest university. Even if all the arguments put forward by the other contenders are true, which I by no means accept, but even assuming they are, Durham possessed all the qualities of a university by 1837. London University did not teach until 1900, the London colleges not before, at the earliest, the late 20th century. Durham is clearly the third oldest university in England.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Thank you all for that. For the next round we start with Regis.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Dunelmensis has quoted us the Encyclopedia Britannica from the early 19th century, I would like to respond with a quote from the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=allBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA482&focus=viewport&output=html">1842 edition</a>: "University, in its proper and original meaning, denotes the whole members of an incorporated body of persons, teaching and learning one or more departments of knowledge." In this proper meaning of the word, there is no mention of degrees, only of incorporation and of teaching. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
Let us also look at what <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_William_Hamilton,_9th_Baronet">William Hamilton</a>, writing in the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&id=qmQJAAAAQAAJ&output=html">Edinburgh Review</a>, said in 1834. He makes some important points, based on an examination of the charters of universities from across Europe. The first is that "University, in its proper and original meaning, denotes simply the whole members of a body (generally, incorporated body) of persons teaching and learning one or more departments of knowledge; and not an institution privileged to teach a determinate circle of sciences, and to grant certificates of proficiency (degrees) in certain fixed departments of that circle (faculties)." This supports the Encyclopedia Britannica's definition, and makes explicit that the granting of degrees is not a requirement.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Hamilton also found that "there is not to be found, throughout Europe, one example of a University erected without the grant of determinate privileges—far less of a University, thus erected, enjoying, through this omission, privileges of any—least of all, of every other. In particular, the right of granting degrees, and that in how many faculties, must (in either way we have mentioned) be expressly conferred."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Based on this, we see, yet again, that there is no necessity for a university to have degree granting powers. We also see that a university is erected by a "grant of determinate privileges" – which sometimes expressly include degrees, but the lack of degree awarding powers does not preclude an institution from being a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
This strongly supports King's claim – founded on having been established with a grant of privileges from King George IV, even if these did not include degree awarding powers.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Firstly, the Encyclopedia Britannica is explicitly talking about the original, that is to say mediæval, meaning of "university". Whether that is indeed proper is highly debatable, as words change their meaning in English, but that they felt the need to emphasise this only demonstrates that the meaning had already shifted to its modern sense, even if they regard that as 'improper'. It is also notable that there are marked similarities in wording between the encyclopedia definition and Hamilton's: I would suggest that these are not independent works.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The second point relies entirely on the accuracy of Hamilton's assertions. We don't need to step very far from where his piece was published to judge that accuracy:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The University of Edinburgh was founded, just like Durham, by a corporation – the town in Edinburgh's case, the cathedral in Durham's. Again like Durham, Edinburgh was founded by royal permission – via a royal charter to the town for Edinburgh, by act of parliament for Durham. Still like Durham, Edinburgh received no powers explicitly in its charter. But Edinburgh went ahead, without any explicit grant of degree awarding powers. As, indeed, did Durham, a few years after Hamilton's article appeared.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
And not only these, for another Scottish university, Marischal College in Aberdeen, was granted the power in its charter to award degrees only in arts. Yet despite this it awarded degrees in divinity, laws and medicine, and won a case before the Law Lords confirming this right. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
And we have the evidence, quoted earlier, of the historian Rashdall, who tells us the exact opposite of the philosopher Hamilton – that the right to grant degrees "was apparently understood to be involved in the mere act of erection even in the rare cases where it is not expressly conceded". </div>
<div dir="ltr">
It can be clearly seen that Hamilton's claims simply do not match the historical facts.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Both Edinburgh and Marischal College were granted the privileges of other colleges in the kingdom by acts of parliament. As <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=9N5BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA168&output=html">Malden</a> points out, "In 1621 an act of parliament was passed, ratifying the royal endowments and the erection of the college as a college for the profession of theology, philosophy, and humanity, and granting 'in favour of the burgh of Edinburgh, patron of the said college, and of the regents and students in the same, all liberties and privileges pertaining to any college within the realm.' It is probably on this authority that it confers degrees." That somewhat demolishes the claim that degrees are so intrinsic that the mere erection of a university grants the right to confer them. Edinburgh's right comes from an act of the Scottish parliament.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Similarly for Marischal College: "The founder, William Earl Marischal, directed the principal to confer the degree of master of arts upon students who deserved it; and as the deed of foundation has been confirmed by more than one act of parliament, the college is an authorised university. It now confers degrees in all the faculties—by what authority is not stated: probably the clause in the first act of confirmation, which grants to it all liberties which are known to pertain to any college within the realm, was supposed to warrant this practice."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
In the same vein, Durham's royal charter grants it "all the property, rights, and privileges which are assured by the said Act to the University therein contemplated and authorised; or are incident to a University established by our Royal Charter".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is also notable that the two Scottish universities are thus considered on the grounds of their creation as colleges. This adds yet more to the claim of King's to be considered the third oldest university in England.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Edinburgh granted degrees from its earliest days, with the first class <a href="http://ourhistory.is.ed.ac.uk/index.php/First_Laureation_%26_Degrees_Album">graduating</a> in 1587 – 34 years before the act was passed, so the act cannot be the source of its degree awarding powers. Marischal College may well have gained its powers from the act, but as this was its first government recognition – its charter being, as noted, a private one from the Earl – this would not be surprising.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
As for Durham's charter, the idea that it conferred degree awarding powers admits there is no "grant of determinate privileges" – indeed that the privilege of granting degrees is supposed to be incident upon a university's foundation, or at least on the royal recognition of that foundation.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is nothing of the sort, it is making a grant of determinate privileges by referring to the earlier grants given to the other universities and colleges. In all of these cases, the privileges are determined to be the same as those of earlier bodies. As Hamilton says: "every liberty conferred was conferred not as an incident through implication, but by explicit and articulate concession; and this in two ways,—either by a grant of certain enumerated rights, or by bestowing in the slump the known privileges enjoyed by certain other pattern Universities." For Edinburgh and Marischal, the pattern was the other Scottish colleges; for Durham, the other universities founded by royal charter. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But the only university in England "founded by royal charter" prior to the issue of Durham's own charter was London, and its privileges did not extend to granting degrees in theology or to the granting of honorary or ad eundem degrees. Durham did all of these things, and that it would grant degrees in theology was implicit in the royal charter, which states that "the Convocation shall in future consist, besides the original Members, of all persons regularly admitted to the Degrees of Doctor of Divinity, Doctor of Civil Law, Doctor of Medicine, and Master of Arts in the University of Durham". </div>
<div dir="ltr">
Now Doctor of Divinity is a degree London could not grant by any determinate privilege and thus, by your argument, Durham could also not grant. Yet the royal charter refers to Durham admitting people to that degree!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Furthermore, the charter talks about privileges being "incident to a University established by our Royal Charter". This is explicitly not granting any determinate rights, only confirming that Durham "shall have and enjoy" any rights that are incidental to being a university. If this clause granted degree awarding powers, it would be stating that these powers were incident upon being a university – and thus were implicit in Durham's foundation as a university by the act of parliament.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is also notable that the "property, rights and privileges" from the act of parliament are mentioned in the same clause, despite that these were obviously granted by the act. Clearly this clause is confirming what is already the case.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
As with the act confirming Edinburgh's powers after more than three decades of use, where Malden is demonstrably wrong, Durham's charter confirmed rights that already existed rather than granting new rights. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
One thing Malden does get right, however, in talking of Marischal College, is that "It is likely that college was taken at that time as synonymous with university". This was certainly the historical usage in Scotland, and spread from there to America, but it has never been the usage in England. Thus attempting to use this to justify either King's or UCL being a university is mistaken.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
It seems that you are drawing a distinction between England and Scotland that you are happy to ignore at other times. You can call upon Edinburgh as an example to support the idea that degrees do not depend on incorporation, but I can't use Scotland to argue colleges were considered the same as universities?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Those are entirely different. One demonstrates a principle, the other a difference of language. In Edinburgh's foundation documents "college" meant university, while this was not the case with King's. That Edinburgh was accepted as having degree awarding powers based on its status while King's was not serves to illustrate this difference.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
You are begging the question, assuming that Edinburgh must be a university because it had degree awarding powers while trying to show that a university must have degree awarding powers! </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Not at all. Edinburgh was recognized explicitly as a university by the Acts of Union, but it was only ever given the status of a college in its foundational documents. Yet that status of being a college appears to have been enough, in late 16th century Scotland, for it to award degrees and be recognised as a university by the English parliament. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
Had the same applied in early 19th century England, we can be sure that UCL at least would have tried to award its own degrees, rather than railing against its "barren collegiate charter". That it did not is strong evidence that "college" in England in the 19th century meant the same as it did when Cromwell founded the college at Durham in the 17th, the same as it did in the charters of the Oxbridge colleges, and the same as it did in the charters of the public schools: an educational institute without degree awarding powers, quite distinct from a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That Edinburgh is recognised as a university from its foundation as a college seems to me good evidence that being established a college by royal consent, with the purpose of education in the liberal arts and the higher faculties, and putting that purpose into practice, is sufficient for an institution to be recognised as a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair:</b> Thank you. Lets move on.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Something missing from Regis's analysis is that Hamilton said a university was "generally incorporated". Thus incorporation was common, but not universal – and not necessary. What forms a university is the coming together of the different teachers to teach as a group, not a piece of paper – or even parchment – incorporating that group. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Not at all! Edinburgh makes that clear, but was made a university by royal foundation.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis: </b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
UCL may not have been the first place in England outside of Oxford and Cambridge where professors gathered to teach, and in so doing formed a university, but it is the oldest to have survived in continuous operation.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is hard to justify "continuous operation" when UCL – and King's – were subsumed into the University of London for many years. The dissenting academies were once independent colleges preparing students for London degrees, just like UCL. Now three are converted into colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. Were they to become independent, would you then consider them to have been universities from their original establishment? Nobody would credit such an argument. Yet that is what you ask for UCL! </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Oxford and Cambridge colleges are bound far more tightly to the university than those of London ever were; particularly since the resumption of centralised professorial teaching in the ancient universities in the mid 19th century. There is simply no comparison between an Oxbridge college and a London one; that is why the London colleges are generally regarded as universities in their own right.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That may be the case now, with the central university vastly weakened, but that was hardly the vision when the acts subsuming UCL and King's into London were passed in.1905 and 1908 respectively. If I may quote you part of the preamble if the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=vyPiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA114&output=html">UCL Act</a>:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
"Whereas the Council of University College London with the consent of the members of the College have agreed with the University of London that the College … shall be transferred to the University with the intent that the College may be continued under the direct control of the University"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Similarly the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=vyPiAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127&output=html">King's Act</a> makes provision for the "direct control of the university" over everything other than the department of theology. This placing of UCL and King's under the direct control of the university bound them far more closely than any Oxbridge college. UCL and King's were integral parts of London, not independent bodies.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that both UCL and King's retained sufficient independence to emerge from this incorporation, take control of their own degrees, and gain their own degree awarding powers, something no Oxbridge college has ever done. The evidence shows that the bonds were looser, no matter what form of words was used that might imply otherwise.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Of these two universities, one founded in 1826 but not incorporated until 1836, the other both founded and incorporated in 1829, the question is – which is the older? Which is the third oldest in England, and which the fourth? The answer can be found on the <a href="http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/facts/index.aspx">King's College website</a>: "King's is … the fourth oldest university in England".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Not everything on websites is accurate, for example UCL's claim that "In 1878, it became the first university in England to admit women students on equal terms with men." This despite continuing to bar women from courses in engineering and medicine! Sad to say, webpage writers don't always check their facts very well.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
This must be the first example in history, then, of under-claiming rather than over-claiming! Can anyone really believe that they wouldn't put "third oldest university" on their website instead of 'fourth" if they thought they had even the faintest claim? </div>
<div dir="ltr">
But it's not just the website. In the 2016 prospectus, Professor Edward Byrne, President and Principal of King's, says "Since it was established in 1829, England's fourth oldest university has established a world-class reputation." This cannot be read as anything other than an endorsement of the claim of the only university established before 1829: UCL.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Dunelmensis?</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
In my first speech, I examined the definition of a university. Here I will look in more detail at the specific claims of the other contenders. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
To.assess the claims of the London colleges, it is worth looking at other colleges that have gone on to achieve university status. There are quite a few – most of England's civic universities started out as college preparing students for London University examinations. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
There were 9 institutions in England funded by the <a href="http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=MvcbAQAAIAAJ&pg=PR1&focus=viewport&output=html">grants to university colleges in 1896</a>, besides UCL and King's. Three of these were part of the Victoria University, one was part of Durham, and the others prepared students for London exams. Let us look at how these other institutions advertise their history:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Mason College, Birmingham, now <a href="http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/university/about/history/index.aspx">Birmingham University</a>: "The University of Birmingham was established by Queen Victoria by Royal Charter in 1900 and was the UK’s first civic or 'redbrick' university".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
University College, Bristol, now <a href="http://www.bristol.ac.uk/university/">Bristol University</a>: "The University has had a reputation for innovation since its founding in 1909".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Yorkshire College, Leeds, now <a href="http://www.leeds.ac.uk/info/20014/about/21/heritage">Leeds University</a>: "The University of Leeds was founded in 1904".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
University College, Liverpool, now <a href="https://www.liv.ac.uk/facilities-management/history-of-estate/">Liverpool University</a>: "In 1903, following a Royal Charter and Act of Parliament, University College Liverpool became an independent university with the right to confer its own degrees and became known as the University of Liverpool."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Bedford College, London, now merged into <a href="https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/aboutus/ourhistory/home.aspx">Royal Holloway, University of London</a>: "the first college in Great Britain for the higher education of women"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Owens College, Manchester, now <a href="http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/history-heritage/history/victoria/">Manchester University</a>: "In 1880 Owens College became the first constituent part of the federal Victoria University, England’s first civic university … and in 1903 Owens College was reconstituted as the Victoria University of Manchester"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Durham Science College, Newcastle upon Tyne, now <a href="http://www.ncl.ac.uk/about/history/">Newcastle University</a>: "In 1963, when the federal University was dissolved, King's College became the University of Newcastle upon Tyne".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
University College, Nottingham, now <a href="http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/about/history/abriefhistoryoftheuniversity.aspx">Nottingham University</a> "In 1948, the college was awarded the Royal Charter and became The University of Nottingham, now able to award degrees in its own name."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Firth College, Sheffield, now <a href="https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/about/history">Sheffield University</a>: "At the time of the University's foundation in 1905…"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It's pretty clear – all of the university colleges that have gone on to become universities, even those who possessed all the qualities of a university except degree awarding powers, even Newcastle, which examined and awarded Durham degrees rather than submitting to a federal examining board – all date their status as a university from when they actually acquired the title and their own degree awarding powers. Similarly, Royal Holloway claims to be a university these days – and has its own degree awarding powers – but , makes no claim to have been a university from its foundation.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Only UCL and King's try to make the case, against all precedent, that they should be regarded as universities from their dates of foundation. Yes, both are effectively universities now. But they were never universities in the 19th century. The name of the grant is accurate – all of the institutions receiving grants in 1896 were university colleges. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
What of the colleges of the University of Wales, which were also in receipt of the grant. I see on their websites "Founded in 1883, <a href="http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/about/home">Cardiff</a> is established as one of Britain's leading universities", "Founded in 1884, <a href="http://www.bangor.ac.uk/about/profile.php.en">Bangor University</a> has a long tradition of excellence", "<a href="http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/university/vc-man-group/">Aberystwyth University</a> has a proud history dating back to 1872 – when it was established by the people of Wales as the first Welsh University". That looks to like they are staking their claim to be universities!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
There is obviously a desire on the part of members and former members of federal universities not to appear younger than the "post-1992" universities. This affects how they present themselves, but their history pages give a full description. To take these in the same order as Regis presented them:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
"In December 2004 the Privy Council approved a new Supplemental Charter granting us university status. Our legal name changed to <a href="http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/about/our-profile/history">Cardiff University</a>."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
"The University was founded as the University College of North Wales." "The institution’s new title, ‘<a href="http://www.bangor.ac.uk/corporate/informationfor/university_history.php.en">Bangor University</a>’, was formally approved by the Privy Council in 1997."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
"In 2007, all the colleges of the University of Wales entered a new phase of existence as independent universities … Newly independent, <a href="http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/university/history/">Aberystwyth University</a> reflects with pride on the heritage of its past, and faces the future with the confidence."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
I think it is clear that all three acknowledge that they were not universities from their foundation.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
All of those institutions were founded as colleges, as was King's College, but UCL was founded in 1826 as London University to be a university, not a college. That is a major difference, so major as to make your comparison meaningless in the case of UCL.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Let us look, then, at how UCL's claim to be a university was received. We have already heard the opinion of their own secretary that this was a title assumed without authorization and which did not confer the powers or status of a university, but what did people think at the time of UCL calling itself "London University'</div>
<div dir="ltr">
A "high sounding but, nevertheless, delusive appellation" according to <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=q7I1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA600#v=onepage&q&f=false">the Lancet</a>. To <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=kP_Hp0339HIC&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q&f=false">the Quarterly Review</a> it was "as egregiously improper as it is presumptuous". For <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=XLofAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA838#v=onepage&q&f=false">the London Medical Gazette</a> it was "a name that was marked by deception in its very origin". The claim to be a university was clearly far from being accepted generally, indeed it was seen as false advertising.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
What of the 1831 prospectus advertising the University of Durham, well before the passage of the act of parliament gave any sanction to that name? Was that not also "false advertising" by your lights?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
No, the prospectus advertised that a university would be opening, and a university did open. There is nothing false in setting out an intention, it was in actually operating under the name of "London University" when the institution was nothing more than a private college that drew opprobrium on UCL.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
A little later we find that the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=allBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA491&output=html">Encyclopedia Britannica</a> from 1842, referenced by Regis, lists four universities in England. The <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=bS-H_-NYM4IC&pg=PA21&focus=viewport&output=html">Penny Cyclopaedia</a> from the following year lists the same four universities. These were Oxford and Cambridge, founded in antiquity; Durham, which was founded in 1831, a university from 1832, opened in 1833, and awarded its first degrees in 1837; and London, founded 1836 or 37, an examining board that carried out its first exams in 1838 and awarded its first degrees in 1839. By the end of the century, the Victoria University, a federal university established in Manchester in 1880, which awarded its first degrees in 1882, had been added. It really isn't hard to tell which of these is the third oldest university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
A more debatable question is which was the fourth – for the federal Victoria University, now the University of Manchester following mergers with Owen's College in 1903 and with UMIST in 2004, had teaching through the colleges of the federation twenty years before London became anything other than an examining board. It may sound foolish to claim Manchester predates London, but in truth Manchester has a better claim to be the fourth university in England than London has to be the third, for Manchester's claim to fourth would rest on meeting all of the qualities of a university while London's claim to third relies on meeting certain cherry-picked qualities while failing on others.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
And even then, even after selecting the qualities to make their strongest case, London can still not prove that they had degree awarding powers before Durham or that they were incorporated before Durham, and still has problems with the logical contradiction of saying they are an essential part when defining a university but optional when establishing one!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=allBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA507&focus=viewport&output=html">1842 Encyclopedia Britannica</a> article that you reference gives Durham's foundation as 1837 and London's as 1836, placing Durham's degree awarding powers firmly from the date of the charter.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
I have already noted the similarity between this article and Hamilton's article in the Edinburgh Review, which was demonstrated to be factually wrong. When we take into account that Hamilton is listed among the encyclopedia's <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=EFhBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP8&focus=viewport&output=html">principal writers</a>, it is not surprising to find the same errors repeated. However, the text of the article actually states that Durham was incorporated in 1837, not that it was founded then. It is only the side heading that refers to this as its "foundation".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The article goes on to admit that parliament "empowered [the dean and chapter] to establish a university" in 1832 and that "the university opened in October 1833". Nowhere does it explain how this opening of a university that had been established as such by permission of crown and parliament could have happened if the university was yet to be founded!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Fortunately the situation has been clarified in the <a href="http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/174279/University-of-Durham">current online version</a>, which dates the creation of the university unambiguously to 1832.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The explanation is obvious: it was not a university because it had no permission to grant degrees.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But there was no such permission in the 1837 charter either.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
As the encyclopedia says, the royal charter "authorizes the body corporate to have perpetual succession, and a common seal, and to enjoy all the rights and privileges which 'are incident to a university established by royal charter.' It consequently possesses and exercises the right of granting degrees in all the faculties."</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
We have already discussed this. If degree granting powers are incident, they were granted with the permission to establish a university given in 1832.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The plain reading appears to be that they are incident only on a university established by royal charter, not one established by permission of parliament.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
That idea, that a royal charter – a form of secondary legislation – can bestow more rights than an act of parliament, which is primary legislation, is somewhat bizarre. It has always been held that acts of parliament have more power than royal charters, as illustrated by this quote from the 1848 <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=pwtHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA496&lpg=PA496&ots=z60IUJy8ny&focus=viewport&output=html">Standard Library Cyclopedia</a>:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
"The crown has ever exercised, and still retains, the prerogative of incorporating universities, colleges, companies, and other public bodies, and of granting them, by charter, powers and privileges not inconsistent with the law of the land. But as the most considerable bodies ordinarily require powers which no authority but that of parliament is able to confer, such corporations as the East India Company and the Bank of England, which were originally established by royal charter, have long since derived their extraordinary privileges from acts of parliament"</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Indeed, the reason for Durham being established by act of parliament was the desire to transfer property owned by the Cathedral to form its initial endowment. As stated in the preamble to the act "the same cannot be effected without the authority of parliament". It was the need for this authority of parliament that meant Durham was established by act of parliament rather than by the less powerful instrument of a royal charter.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
If an act of parliament is so powerful, why the need for a royal charter at all?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
As the <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml">Thorp correspondence</a> shows, it was by no means certain that there was such a need. The effect of the charter was to incorporate the university, but as has been demonstrated by the example of Edinburgh this did not, at the time, affect its character or powers as a university. As there was no need for an act, a royal charter was used.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It also had the secondary function of confirming that the 1835 statutes – which, it will be remembered, included the power to confer degrees "in the various faculties" – were made under the authority of the 1832 act, something that had apparently been questionable before but was obviously not debatable once the royal charter clarified that the act had indeed given the cathedral chapter the necessary authority.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
You will forgive me if I am sceptical. It seems you are claiming that that clause is meaningless. Why would it be included in that case?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
A good question indeed. But then, why would it be included anyway? If the royal charter was establishing Durham as a university, then it would obviously possess all the rights and privileges "incident to university established by royal charter" without this needing to be stated explicitly.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The best explanation seems to be that it is a mirror of the language used in mediæval bulls, such as that given to the <a href="http://www.inrebus.com/cambridgebull.php">University of Cambridge</a> in 1318, saying "that they enjoy all rights which any lawfully instituted university might and should enjoy".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Cambridge graduates had already been granted the right to teach anywhere by an earlier bull in 1233, and it had also been previously named a studium generale, so clearly this clause is merely confirming rights rather than conferring them. Like Cambridge's bull, Durham's charter confirms its status but does not confer it. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
Given the way in which Durham's constitution followed the ancient universities, it should not be surprising to find, despite the centuries in between, echoes of their bulls in Durham's charter.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Thank you. We had better move on to our final speech.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
When they created the University of London they changed the rules. They created a university that did not teach. There was no precedent. But that didn't stop London being a university whose degrees were respected across the world. That didn't stop the London model being copied by <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=entlN4EEPUYC&pg=PA200&focus=viewport&output=html_text">the universities of India</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_University_of_Ireland">Royal University of Ireland</a>, not to mention the federal Victoria University in northern England and the University of Wales! As Masters says in his Manual on Universities in 1862, "the distinctive character of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge is, that they are corporations of Teachers in Arts, having the power to grant Degrees. This is Huber’s idea; and it would appear to be his opinion that this is the essential character of a University : but … of the three elements here commingled, only two are common to all Universities of modern date." He is talking, of course, of the change in the definition of a university forced by London.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The university was also recognised by numerous acts of parliament, and even granted its own MP. To suggest that despite this wide recognition as a university it should be regarded otherwise due to not meeting an earlier idea of a university is as ludicrous as the suggestion, made by some at the time, that a university has to be formed out of individually chartered colleges to be a true university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
But how revolutionary really was London? At the time it was formed, neither Oxford nor Cambridge were in any real sense teaching universities – until the reforms of the 1850s the teaching was confined, as in London, to the colleges. The ancient universities, as much as London, were essentially examining boards. The two functions of teaching and examination were kept sensibly separate, preventing corruption. Now we are to be told this makes London – and presumably also Oxford and Cambridge – not a true university?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
London was a true university from its foundation in 1836, the third institute in England to hold the right of examining and awarding its own degrees and thus the county's third university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Firstly, let me point out that in Oxford and Cambridge the colleges are intimately linked with the universities. They form the university, and the examiners were drawn from the college tutors. The Victoria University and the University of Wales were less strongly linked, but the colleges were still definitely colleges of the universities with a say in their governance. This was a federal structure, in contrast to the examining board with no link to the teaching colleges that was the University of London.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Secondly, in 1900 London was rearranged as a federal university similar to the Victoria University – just as that institution broke up! UCL, King's, and other institutions become colleges and schools of the university rather than separate institutes that happened to prepare students for London exams. Over the next couple of decades the Indian universities also took on teaching roles, while the Royal University of Ireland was dissolved in 1909. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
The 'new idea' of a university as an examining board failed to convince people of its validity; by the time the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_National_Academic_Awards">Council for National Academic Awards</a> was formed in the 1960s there was no pretense that it was a university despite its marked similarity to the 19th century University of London. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
The idea failed because everyone knew that however high the standard of London degrees, it wasn't a true university. We have already heard quotes from contemporary writers, let me give you some modern ones from the writers of London's own histories:</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Negley Harte, in <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=LmqvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24">The University of London: An Illustrated History</a>: "Having been 'that august negation of the very idea of a university', as <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Bennett">Arnold Bennett</a> called it, the University of London after 1900 became a new body".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
F.M.G. Wilson, in <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=NOd3N6291CQC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA8&focus=viewport&output=html_text">The University of London 1858-1900</a>: "it had the trappings of a university, but not its most obvious function – it did not teach".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
F.M.L. Thompson, in <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=UKjkgdHh8tsC&pg=PA7&output=html_text">The University of London and the World of Learning</a>: "until 1901 it retained the status of what would today be called a quango".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Thirdly, I agree that London, as discussed before, was recognized in acts of parliament and other official documents from 1837 onwards, and I am quite happy to recognise London as a university from that time. But by this measure, Durham's recognition on the same basis from 1832 makes it, not London, the third oldest university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
I fully admit that people had trouble accepting that the definition of a university had changed. But that does not invalidate the change. With London, a new sort of university was created, and it reached its finished state in 1836. With Durham the university as created in 1832 was unfinished, and it did not fully achieve its status until 1837. With London, there was no intent on the part of the creators to include teaching; with Durham the intent always existed to gain incorporation and degree powers via a royal charter. For that reason, London predates Durham as the third oldest university in England.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But that simply means that what the creators intended to create was never a true university! </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londiniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is quite clear that it was made a university by royal charter in.1836, and is therefore a university from that date. It is for the crown to determine the exact form that is needed to be a university, as demonstrated in recent years with the various changes in requirements for <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-the-process-and-criteria-for-assessing-student-numbers-and-good-governance-for-non-hefce-funded-organisations-wishing-to-apply-for-the-title-of-university-and-university-college">university title</a>.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
But, again, by that measure Durham was a university from the passage of the 1832 act!</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
The act gave permission to found a university, yes, but the process of that foundation was not completed until the grant of the royal charter in 1837.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
As already pointed out, the charter is one of incorporation, not of establishment, indeed it explicitly states that the university had already been "established under our Royal sanction, and the authority of our Parliament". </div>
<div dir="ltr">
I have already quoted legal opinions making it quite clear that establishment as a university was regarded by Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and the London medical schools as granting degree awarding powers. A statute had been passed in 1835 giving the university the clear authority to confer degrees. The charter confirmed this statute was made under the powers granted by the 1832 act, placing it beyond any doubt that Durham could confer degrees at the absolute latest from the passing of the statute and that it had the authority to make that statute any time from 1832 onwards. In other words, permission from the crown to confer degrees was granted by the 1832 act.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is also clear from the example of Edinburgh that incorporation was not necessary to be a university. There is therefore nothing granted by the royal charter that was necessary for Durham to be a full university. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the charter itself confirms that the powers were already in place.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Reference works of the time bear witness to London's precedence. For example, Charles Dodd's "<a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=R7YTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA72&focus=viewport&output=html">Manual of Dignities, Privilege, and Precedence</a>" puts London, founded 1836, before Durham, founded 1837.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is notable that Dodd, in his description of <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=R7YTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA398&output=html">Durham's founding</a>, makes no mention of the act of parliament. That he appears to believe Durham to have been founded in 1832 entirely on the authority of the dean and chapter explains why he dates its foundation from 1837 – if this were true, he would be correct. But it is not true, and so he is mistaken.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
That he was indeed mistaken is confirmed by the proceedings at the <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?pg=PR8&id=g6xAAQAAMAAJ&output=html">quatercentenary of the University of Aberdeen</a>. This lists the British universities explicitly in order of seniority – placing Durham before London. Other similar celebrations list universities alphabetically or haphazardly, or did not have representatives from both London and Durham present; although it is notable that Aberdeen and <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=tfnmAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA6&focus=viewport&output=html">Edinburgh</a> both list UCL and King's separately from universities, placing them with "Colleges and Learned Societies" and "Other Learned Bodies".</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair: </b>Thank you all. To finish, we will hear summary statements from the contenders. </i></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Universitatis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
University College London is the oldest institute here. That is not disputed. It was founded as a England's third university under the name of London University. That is an historical fact. We have to prove nothing – The burden of proof lies with our opponents to show that there is a flaw in our claim.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
You have heard a number of claims from Dunelmensis and Londiniensis saying that degree-granting powers are necessary to be a university. This was certainly what some people thought, but I submit that they have failed to prove that this was a universally accepted definition and that there is evidence that alternative views were held by some. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
There is also some evidence, from the Privy Council no less, that there was no actual legal limitation on degree awarding powers at the time, only a kind of moral control. Legal recognition of degrees came not through the power to grant them but through separate acts of parliament, such as the Attornies and Solicitors Act in 1837. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
If, then, there was no such thing as degree awarding powers, this can clearly not be part of what defines a university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
You have also heard it claimed that a university must be incorporated, but the precedent of the University of Edinburgh proves that false. The only thing that truly defines a university is teaching, making UCL the third oldest university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Dunelmensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
There are two key points I want to emphasise.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Firstly: there were only four recognised universities in England in the mid 19th century – the two ancient universities, Durham and London. UCL and King's were simply not regarded as universities.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Secondly, London's claim to be older is a logical impossibility. If being a university requires degree-awarding powers, then when King and Parliament establish a university these powers must obviously be included, otherwise they aren't actually establishing a university. In this scenario, Durham had its powers in 1832, before London, and is therefore the older.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
Alternatively, degree awarding powers are not necessary to be a university and it is possible, therefore, that Durham did not possess them at its foundation and London may have had them first. But then these powers don't matter in terms of defining a university, and Durham is still the older. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
It is not logically possible for degree awarding powers to be both necessary and not implicit in Durham's establishment. King and Parliament made Durham a university in 1832, the third one established in England. It was the third university to teach degree courses and the third to award degrees.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The conclusion is inescapable: Durham is the third oldest university in England.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Regis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
King's college mirrors UCL in many respects, yet is the younger institution both in terms of foundation and teaching. How, then, can we make a claim to be older as a university?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
You have heard that the example of Edinburgh demonstrates that incorporation is not required – this is true, but incomplete. Edinburgh dates its foundation as a university to its establishment – as a college – by royal permission. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
That is what UCL lacks – official recognition. King's had that from 1829, Durham from 1832, but UCL not until 1836. King's was established as a college by royal permission in 1829. With the example of the University of Edinburgh before us, we claim our establishment as a university from that date, making us the third oldest university in England. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<b>Londoniensis:</b></div>
<div dir="ltr">
In the final analysis, there were only two universities founded in the first half of the 19th century in England: London and Durham. UCL and King's were simply not recognised as being universities, even by the UCL-linked Penny Cyclopaedia.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
The question then is which was founded first: Durham or London. This is complicated by Durham's foundation taking place over many years. In 1832, Parliament gave Durham Cathedral's chapter permission to found a university. This was not the founding, this was permission to carry out that founding. As I have shown, it was give more years before they completed their task by obtaining a royal charter to incorporate the university, grant them degree awarding powers along with the other rights and privileges of a university, and confirm what they had done.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
By the time they had this royal charter, in June 1837, London had already been chartered as a university for over six months. That is the truth if the matter, and it leads to the conclusion that London is England's third oldest university.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<i><b>Chair:</b> Thank you to all of our contenders.</i></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-17318283543512902692015-04-30T14:40:00.000-07:002015-04-30T14:40:18.315-07:00The Debate – Build-up<div dir="ltr">
This is the first part of a series giving the General Election treatment to Wikipedia's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-oldest_university_in_England_debate" target="_blank">Third Oldest University in England Debate</a>.
This first part covers the Build-up to the debate, the second part
shows the <a href="http://robminchin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-debate.html" target="_blank">Debate</a> itself, while the third part covers the <a href="http://robminchin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-debate-highlights-and-analysis.html" target="_blank">Highlights and Analysis</a><i><b>.</b></i><br />
<i><b> </b></i> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>Welcome to our coverage of the Third Oldest University in England Debate. The contenders are, of course, University College London, King's College London, Durham University, and the University of London. Tensions are high here in the run up to the start as the representatives from the four contenders check their references and make sure they have all their notes in order.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
I'm joined now by Henry and Harriet who will be talking about the issues we're likely to hear discussed tonight. Henry, what will you be watching for?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Henry: </b>One really key issue is the definition of a university. Each of the contenders has a favourite definition that will make them the third oldest university. Remember we're not talking about modern definitions, this is about the 1820s and 1830s, so expect to see a lot of historical references flying.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Harriet: </b>What counts as founding is also likely to be discussed. UCL predates King's, but King's got its royal charter first. Similarly Durham predates London, but London has the older charter.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>Thank you. Harriet, why is this title so important?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Harriet: </b>A few years back, being old was the in thing, and universities were keen to demonstrate their historical credentials. Now, being modern is back in and none of the contenders are pushing a claim to be third oldest in their undergraduate prospectus.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>So it really doesn't matter?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Henry: </b>Oh yes, don't think that just because it's unimportant it doesn't matter. It's a well known truism that the lower the stakes, the higher the passions. There is a long-standing rivalry between UCL and King's, and last year London ended Durham's ten year run of victories at the British Universities Regatta. This is an extension of those rivalries.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>I see. So what points are the contenders going to try to drive home tonight?</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Harriet: </b>UCL will be emphasising teaching. They started teaching there before any of the other contenders, but expect to see the others raising that there were other institutions, not generally regarded as contenders, that have been teaching for longer.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Henry: </b>King's will emphasise that it has the oldest royal charter of any of the contenders. While UCL is older, King's got its charter first, bringing legal incorporation and royal recognition. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Harriet: </b>But not, crucially, the title of university. And that's where Durham's emphasis will lie – it was made a university by an act of parliament and was the first of the contenders to formally receive that title from the crown.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Henry: </b>Expect to see London emphasise degree awarding powers – it was the first to be explicitly granted the authority to award degrees.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<b>Chair: </b>Thank you. I see the contenders coming out, so it is time for The Debate to start!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-7881716167090814852015-04-11T19:05:00.000-07:002016-01-31T06:05:45.260-08:00Quick Q&A for Americans who might be confused about the Boat Race:<i>So this is like the final of rowing for British universities, right?</i><br /><br />Nope, the BUCS (British equivalent of NCAA) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_rowing_(UK)#BUCS_Regatta">regatta </a>is at the start of May.<br /><i><br />Oh. But Oxford and Cambridge win that as well surely?</i><br /><br />No again. The current champions are London, before that Durham won it for ten years in a row. <br /><br /><i>So Oxford and Cambridge aren't the top two for rowing?</i><br /><br />They came in 9th and 12th at last year's regatta.<br /><br /><i>Okay, I'm confused. Why is all the fuss in the media about this race and not the national championship?</i><br /><br />Because it has been going on a long time, and it's between Oxford and Cambridge. If we still ran America, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Madness">March Madness </a>would be ignored and all the coverage would be on a single game between Harvard and Yale.<br /><br /><i>Is that the only reason people watch it?</i><br />No, the main reason is that everyone hopes one of the boats will sink.<br /><br /><i>Is that likely?</i><br /><br />There's a whole subsection on the Wikipedia page on '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boat_Race#Sinkings">sinkings</a>'. The best was 1912, when both crews managed to sink. Last week, the Oxford women's crew <a href="http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/rowing/32162143">had to be rescued by a lifeboat </a>when they started sinking while training, unfortunately they didn't manage to repeat the performance during the race.<br /><br /><i>That sounds exciting!</i><br />Exactly. And there's always the chance of a mutiny, or protesters.<br /><br /><i>Hang on. A mutiny? With hangings from the yardarms and the like?</i><br /><br />Not quite. But there is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Blue_(1996_film)">film </a>(from 1996) about one of the mutinies. It's not Mutiny on the Bounty though.<br /><br /><i>I see why people are excited now!</i><br /><br />Good. Happy to help.<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-28664244046434890652014-12-21T19:22:00.001-08:002016-01-31T06:05:43.461-08:00A Degree of Confusion<h3 dir="ltr">
<b>When and how did Durham University gain the right to award degrees?</b></h3>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This sounds like it should be a simple question – and Wikipedia, as always, has an answer [1]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"The University of Durham was … granted its Royal Charter with explicit degree awarding powers by King William IV on 1 June 1837."</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately there is a problem with this answer: it is, quite simply, wrong. The Royal Charter [2] does <i>not</i> contain 'explicit degree awarding powers' (although it was granted by William IV on 1 June 1837).</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It's easy to see how the confusion arose. It is often stated [3] that Durham gained its degree awarding powers in 1837 from the charter. Also, the first degree students graduated a week later on 8 June 1837, at the same convocation that formally received and accepted the charter. It is also the case that virtually all British universities founded by Royal Charter have a clause in their charter explicitly mentioning degree awarding powers. (The only other exception I've found to this is Edinburgh, whose 1582 charter merely grants the town the right to found a college – not a university [4]; they seem to have then started granting degrees without any authority whatsoever!)</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So, if not from the Royal Charter, how (and when) was Durham granted degree awarding powers? The official Durham University website is quite clear that the when was 1832, but not so clear on the how [5]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"Durham became one of the England's leading centres of medieval scholarship, along with Oxford and Cambridge. Indeed, three Colleges - now part of Oxford University - were founded from Durham (University College and Balliol College, and in 1286 Durham College was run from Durham to train scholars for Durham for 300 years until it became incorporated into the University of Oxford as Trinity College). Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell's attempts to formally establish a University for the North in Durham were subsumed by politics and North-South rivalries, and it was not until 1832, as the Prince-Bishopric declined [and] lost his powers, was Durham finally endowed with the Castle and lands and granted degree awarding powers by the king as England's third University. Durham University is the inheritor of a continuous line of learning and scholarship dating from Bede and Cuthbert to the present day."</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Clearly the implication of this is that the Durham University Act of 4 July 1832 granted the degree awarding powers. Indeed, the act and the charter were the only constitutional documents to come from the government prior to the first degrees being awarded, so the degree awarding power must, if it came at all, come from one of these.</div>
<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Possible Implications of University Title</b></h3>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
But if these power were explicit in the act, then why the confusion? Why did William Van Mildert (Bishop of Durham) refer in the House of Lords debate on the act (22 May 1832) to the "privilege of conferring degrees, if hereafter committed to the University by charter" [6]? Why did a Mr Walters (a lawyer advising the University, as far as I can make out) write to Charles Thorp (Archdeacon of Durham and the first Warden of the University) on 6 June 1832, saying that (once the bill passed) he saw 'nothing they want from the Crown by a Charter except the power to grant degrees, and surely it is premature to ask for this' [7]?</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Lord Althorp (John Spencer, then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the senior member of the Government in the House of Commons) did say in the Commons debate on the bill on 27 June 1832 that "the Dean and Chapter would reserve to itself the right of bestowing Degrees on those persons only who were members of the Established Church" [8], with no mention of the necessity for a charter, but it would be a stretch to go from this to him thinking no charter was needed. It also appears that Van Mildert was aware that there may be implications in the use of the title 'university': he had written to Thorpe on 5 Jan 1832 that 'there is an issue over calling the body a university' and on the following day sent another letter where he enclosed 'extracts of <i>The Standard </i>newspaper on the distinction between a university and a college being based on the power to grant degrees and faculties from a discussion at Trinity College Dublin' [9]</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Overall, however, it appears that, at the time of the passage of the act, it was widely (if not universally) believed that a separate charter with explicit degree awarding powers would be needed – so it seems certain there was nothing explicit in the act. The first real hint that this might not be the case came from an unlikely source – Mr William Tooke, MP, one of the founder members of the council of the 'University of London'.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This 'University of London', later to become UCL, was a joint stock company founded on 11 February 1826 – technically a 'for profit' enterprise, although it never paid a dividend [10]. It had opened on 1 October 1828, and had been trying since 1830 to obtain a royal charter that would enable it to award degrees. Tooke spoke in the House of Commons on 4 July 1833 (coincidentally the first anniversary of the Durham University Act) to propose a motion in favour of the granting of a charter with degree awarding powers to the 'University of London' [11]. While most of his speech is not relevant to this discussion, one part is:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"It is not generally known, that no university whatever is entitled to confer degrees, by grant of any Charter whatever, the claim so to do being considered as incident to the name and title of University, and, therefore, King's College, although it has a Charter, can at present claim no such right; the name is consequently the sole matter in dispute, the University of London praying to be incorporated as such"</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This same point – that the title of University, legally bestowed, includes the right to award degrees – was then turned on the 'University of London' in the Privy Council on 9 April 1834 by Sir Charles Wetherell (a former Attorney-General, then representing the University of Oxford), in a speech which he later published [12]. He argued that [13]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"It will be necessary to examine this subject a little more minutely, and particularly with reference to the power of conferring degrees, and the nature of a University. The only place where I can find any legal discussion on matters so little brought under consideration as these, is the argument of Mr. Attorney General Yorke, in Dr. Bentley's case, which is reported in 2nd Lord Raymond, 1345. … In this proposition of Mr. Yorke, two principles are laid down. The first is, that the "granting degrees flows from the Crown;" and the second is, that if "a University be erected, the power of granting degrees is incidental to the grant." I much question whether either of these principles has been adverted to by the parties applying for this grant: but here they must be closely examined, in several points of view. There can be no difficulty here upon the doctrine of foundership. The subject-matter granted, is the power of conferring degrees; an emanation, as Mr. Yorke expresses it, from the Crown. It is the concession of this power that constitutes the direct purpose and the essential character of a University."</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Incidentally, Wetherell also confirms that Durham "is a University constituted under a particular Act of Parliament, with its own particular government provided for it by the Act" [14].</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
In the case Wetherell refers to, Yorke appeared for the University of Cambridge [15]. It thus appears that lawyers acting for both ancient universities , and at least one major figure in the campaign for the 'University of London', thought that the grant of the title of University implicitly included the right to award degrees.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
On 9 September 1835, the Municipal Corporations Act was passed. This act contained the provision (in clause <span style="font-size: x-small;">CXXXVIII</span>) that "nothing herein contained shall affect or interfere with the rights and privileges granted by charter or Act of Parliament to the University of Durham." [16], with the previous clause making similar provision for Oxford and Cambridge. It is notable that the status of Durham as a university was recognised in statute law then, almost two years prior to the grant of the royal charter.</div>
<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Events in Durham</b></h3>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Meanwhile, back in Durham, the University had already opened (on 28 October 1833), and the first students matriculated into the (at the time 4 year) BA course. The 'first calendar' (from autumn 1833) stated that the university was "Founded by Act of Chapter with the Consent of the Bishop of Durham 28 September 1831. Constituted a University by Act of Parliament 2nd and 3rd William IV., Sess. 1831-2." [17], the same document laid out the basic requirements for the degrees of BA, MA and BD. Thorp noted in a letter to Van Mildert on 5 December 1833 that the 'Dean and Chapter [were] anxious to ascertain place and value of degrees and how regarded by the Bishops.' [18]. From the replies Van Mildert received, almost all of the bishops (including both archbishops) were quite happy to value Durham degrees alongside (or even above, in the case of the Bishop of Norwich) Oxford and Cambridge degrees, with Hereford, Exeter, and Rochester being the only Bishops refusing [19].</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
On 9 May 1835, the Chapter of Durham sought the advice of Mr Walters [20]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"Agreed, that the sketch of statutes be submitted to Mr. Walters, and his attention be directed to the provisions of ihe Act of Parliament, it being the intention of the dean and chapter to act strictly in conformity with the Act, but without unnecessary interference in the concerns of the university ; and that Mr. Walters be requested to give his opinion whether the University may proceed under such a constitution to act and confer degrees."</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It appears that the idea that a charter may be unnecessary had taken root. Just a couple of months later, on 20 July, the chapter resolved [21]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"The recommendation of the weekly chapter of the 13th June last to this chapter "to declare the intention of conferring degrees in pursuance of the powers of the university under the Act of 1st & 2d William the 4th from and after the Easter term of 1836; and that, in order to carry this intention into effect, this chapter do give a fundamental statute constituting a senate and convocation in the university, with the ordinary functions of such bodies," having been considered, it is ordered that the statute drawn by Mr. Walters, with the alterations now made, be sealed, and that this chapter be adjourned until Saturday next the 25th instant for the purpose of sealing the same, and that the recommendation of the weekly chapter as to the conferring of degrees be, and the same is hereby confirmed."</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Although they still hedged their bets, adding [22]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"Ordered, that the warden be directed to consult with the Lord Bishop of Durham on the best mode of applying to the Crown for the charter to the University of Durham."</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The fundamental statute sealed by the Dean and Chapter, and by the Bishop of Durham, contained the following regulation [23]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"(10.) Degrees in the several Faculties shall be conferred by the Warden in Convocation, but the grace for a degree shall be allowed by the Dean and Chapter, before it shall be allowed in Convocation."</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Durham now had a fundamental statute that allowed it to grant degrees – but it was from the Dean and Chapter, not from the Crown. What was the legal status of this?</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
On 24 January 1836, Thorp received a legal opinion from Wetherall, stating that [24]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
'The Durham University is founded as such, and is so termed in the Act. It is to a great extent endowed, and has every pretension to be placed as nearly as may be on a footing with the two ancient universities, or in other words to be made a substantive individual university. Their claim to have a charter enabling them as a distinct body to grant degrees should now be urged.'</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This seems to back up the idea that a charter was needed. Thorp goes on to write on 13 February that 'When the period of degrees draws near they will petition the Crown for a Charter enabling the University to grant them' [25], but by 27 February he is telling Lord Melbourne (the Prime Minister) that 'The right of degrees is perhaps inherent in a university, but to prevent doubts a charter from the Crown or a declaration by the Crown lawyers that a charter is unnecessary, is desirable' [26]. Finally, another opinion from Wetherell (via a letter from William Palmer, Senior Tutor of the University of Durham) advises [27]:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
'that it was thought prudent to omit mention of degrees in any petition for a charter, retaining only the incorporation of the individuals as a university. The petition would apparently aim at nothing but the right of holding property and having a common seal, while the word university would carry the degrees.'</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It appears that this course was finally decided on. It took a while for the charter to wend its way through Whitehall, but when it appeared, it was quite different from other university's charters. </div>
<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>The Durham Difference</b></h3>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
One significant difference is that Durham's charter refers to the University as having been "established under our Royal sanction, and the authority of our Parliament" – this is explicitly not a foundation charter and recognises that Durham was already a university prior to the granting of the charter.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
More importantly, while other university charters contain a large number of clauses laying out their statutes, in addition to the incorporation (London's, granted 28 November 1836, contains around 15 clauses [28]), Durham's has none. In particular, these statutes are normally where the rules on granting degrees are to be found. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Instead, Durham's charter recognises the fundamental statute of 20 July 1835 as having been passed "by virtue, and in pursuance of the trusts and powers in the said Act of Parliament [the Durham University Act 1832], and of every other power enabling them in that behalf."</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This statute, as noted above, included a clause stating that Durham could award degrees "in the various faculties". By confirming that this was within the powers granted to the Dean and Chapter by the act, the charter tells us that the 1832 act which named Durham a university also, by virtue of granting that title, gave it degree awarding powers. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
On 8 June 1837, one week after the charter had confirmed Durham's degree awarding powers, Durham became the third university in England to grant degrees when the first BAs graduated.</div>
<h3 dir="ltr">
<b>References</b></h3>
<div dir="ltr">
[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Durham_University">History of Durham University</a>, retrieved 21 December 2014</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[2] <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/governance/charter/">Durham University – Royal Charter</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
[3] e.g. <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=KzCcAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA156">Shaw's Academical Dress of Britain and Ireland</a>, Nicholas Groves, 2012, p. 156: "The University of Durham was founded by the Dean and Chapter of Durham in 1832, and gained the right to award degrees in 1837." </div>
<div dir="ltr">
[4] <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=zmNCAAAAIAAJ">The Story of the University of Edinburgh</a>, vol. I, Sir Alexander Grant</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[5] <a href="https://www.dur.ac.uk/about/shaped/">Our History and Values</a>, retrieved 21 December 2014</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[6] <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1832/may/22/university-of-durham">Hansard</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
[7] <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml">Calendar of the Charles Thorp Correspondence</a>, THO/649. Note that this and all other quotes from the Thorp Correspondence are from the summaries available online, rather than from the letters themselves.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[8] <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1832/jun/27/durham-university">Hansard</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
[9] <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/cat/dclvml.xml">Durham Cathedral Library Van </a><a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/cat/dclvml.xml">Mildert</a><a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/cat/dclvml.xml"> Letters</a>, VML 211-213 and 214-217. As with the Thorp Correspondence, quotes are from the summaries available online, rather than from the letters themselves.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[10] <a href="https://books.google.com.pr/books?id=y3sxAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA462">Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction and the Advancement of Science – First, supplementary, and second reports, with minutes of evidence and appendices</a>, evidence of John Robson, secretary of UCL, question 7132</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[11] <a href="http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1833/jul/04/london-university-charter">Hansard</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
[12] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oikBAAAAYAAJ">Substance of the Speech of Sir Charles </a><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oikBAAAAYAAJ">Wetherell</a><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oikBAAAAYAAJ">: Before the Lords of the Privy Council, on the Subject of Incorporating the London University</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
[13] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oikBAAAAYAAJ">Ibid.</a>, pp. 77 - 80</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[14] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oikBAAAAYAAJ">Ibid.</a>, p. 41</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[15] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=G20DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1334">Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas in the Reigns of the Late King William, Queen Anne, King George the First, and King George the Second</a>, Vol. II, pp. 1334-48</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[16] <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=LoADAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PR30">A Compendious Abstract of the Public General Acts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 4 & 5 William </a><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=LoADAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PR30">IV</a><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=LoADAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PR30">. – 1834</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
[17] <a href="https://archive.org/details/durhamuniversit00fowlgoog">Durham University; earlier foundations and present colleges</a>, J. T. Fowler, 1904, Appendix IV, p. 239</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[18] <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml">Calendar of the Charles Thorp Correspondence</a>, THO/137</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[19] <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml">Ibid.</a>, THO/139,141-145, 148-150,152-155, 157-164, 166a,168a</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[20] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA122&id=JCZcAAAAQAAJ">Minutes of Evidence taken before the Durham University Commissioners</a>, Appendix 5, p. 122</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[21] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA122&id=JCZcAAAAQAAJ">Ibid.</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
[22] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA122&id=JCZcAAAAQAAJ">Ibid.</a></div>
<div dir="ltr">
[23] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA142&id=JCZcAAAAQAAJ">Ibid.</a>, Appendix 16, p. 142</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[24] <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml">Calendar of the Charles Thorp Correspondence</a>, THO/198</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[25] <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml">Ibid.</a>, THO/201a</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[26] <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml">Ibid.</a>, THO/214</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[27] <a href="http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/adm/cthorp.xml">Ibid.</a>, THO/226</div>
<div dir="ltr">
[28] <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=vyPiAAAAMAAJ">University of London, the Historical Record (1836-1912)</a></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-90813450384039129692014-11-19T09:52:00.001-08:002014-11-19T09:52:47.662-08:00Thoughts on #ShirtStorm – Standing Beside Women in Science<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Last week a man, Dr Matt Taylor of ESA, made a mistake. The mistake was pointed out to him by other scientists, both men and women. He apologised. We moved on.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Except, we weren’t allowed to move on. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The act of pointing out the mistake made brought down waves of opprobrium on the women (and, curiouslynotcuriously, almost entirely on the women) who did so, from all over the internet. A sickening display of male condemnation from the likes of the Daily Mail, Boris Johnson and others in the Telegraph, and Prof. Richard Dawkins on Twitter helped rouse the sexist rabble. Specious arguments were made, and are still being made, as to why wearing That Shirt wasn’t wrong and Taylor shouldn’t have ‘been forced’ to apologise.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
I’m going to address many of the points here. Let me be clear that this is not a personal attack on Taylor, he has already accepted responsibility for his action and apologised. This is about sexism more generally, and the trolling on #ShirtStorm in particular.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Let's take this from the top.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Taylor made a mistake. This is easy enough to do; he was, like almost all people, raised in a society where casual sexism - microaggressions - are accepted as part of the culture. I don’t know Taylor, but from the accounts of people who do, he’s not a sexist. I have no reason to believe his apology wasn’t sincere, as is implied by those claiming he was forced to make it, and thus his breaking down in tears was caused not by being forced to make this apology against his will but by the realisation that he had let himself down, let ESA down, and let science down. Those who are ‘defending’ Taylor, claiming his right to wear the shirt and damn the consequences, are effectively calling him a liar.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>What about the right to free speech?</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Free speech means you have the right, as a private citizen, to say anything (within certain restrictions, normally including incitement to hatred/violence/criminal acts) without the government punishing you for that speech. A common misunderstanding is that this means nobody can censure you. This has been shown time and again to be untrue - if you say something that embarrasses your employer, they are quite free to take disciplinary action or fire you. This normally applies when speaking as an employee - either in the workplace or as a spokesperson, but for well-known figures (including community figures such as teachers or policemen, for example) it could apply to speech made anywhere. (As an aside, this was one of the reasons for academic tenure - it meant academics cannot be sacked for taking unpopular stances.)</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Free speech most obviously does not apply in the workplace, where rules on harassment place limits on what can be said. This includes not just overtly sexist actions, but “creating … an offensive environment” (quote from Acas guidance). Wearing the shirt was creating an offensive environment. Intent is unimportant, it’s the effect that’s important (this is a legal principle, not just something I’m saying). Had it been part of a pattern of behaviour, wearing that shirt would have constituted harassment (to be clear, I’ve not heard any claims that it was part of a pattern of behaviour).</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Furthermore, Taylor was not simply at work, or even just representing his employer. He was on the world stage, representing astronomy. In this situation, free speech is not relevant - there is an expectation that someone in such a position will give an accurate account of what’s happening, behave in an audience-appropriate manner, and avoid giving offence, particularly to marginalised groups. It is amazing that nobody from ESA told him his shirt was inappropriate before he went in front of the cameras - ESA should be accepting some of the blame for this, but we have yet to hear an apology from them.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Was the shirt really that bad?</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Yes, it was. We have a problem in astronomy (as in many other sciences) with women being underrepresented. This shirt presented an objectified, sexual view of women. The message it sent was ‘I value women for their bodies’. Unfortunately ours is a society where brainy women are considered unsexy, and sexy women brainless, so while a man may be considered both intelligent and sexy, the implication of ‘I value women for their bodies’ is ‘and not for their brains’. As a message sent out to millions across the world in the name of science, that really is not acceptable. This was summed up wonderfully on Twitter by science journalist Rose Eveleth: “No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt”. For an in-depth discussion of this, see <a href="http://www.stemwomen.net/astronomy-sexism-rosetta-shirtstorm/">this article by Dr Zuleyka Zevallos</a><b>.</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b> </b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Isn’t this distracting from the amazing achievement?</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This may be surprising for the trolls, but most scientists are capable of holding two thoughts in their minds simultaneously (sometimes even more). We were all absolutely thrilled by the achievement of landing on a comet for the first time. I was in an important meeting with the NSF last Wednesday so couldn’t watch the live feed, but still found time to check the web periodically to see how things were going. I know that Dr Katie Mack - one of the woman scientists singled out by the Telegraph as having criticised Taylor - has appeared on the media multiple times talking about Rosetta and Philae (I also note that while Taylor was ‘Dr Taylor’ in the Telegraph, Mack was stripped of her title - another subtle microaggression and a clear breach of their own Style Book). I know that when I was answering questions at an event at Arecibo Observatory last weekend attended by over 1300 people, I got lots of questions about the landing and none about the shirt. There is simply no evidence that the shirt has distracted either astronomers or the public from celebrating the Rosetta team’s accomplishment. It seems the only ones who have been distracted are the trolls, who are so put out of joint by the idea of women having opinions that they can’t move on and insist on continuing to ‘discuss’ this.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>So why are you writing this? Shouldn’t you be working?</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Firstly, it’s a holiday in Puerto Rico today, so I’m not at work. Secondly, trolls have been harassing my professional colleagues for speaking out over an important issue. Thirdly, there’s this:</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<img height="229" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/D2ENyE3dX_NpdZyJH-Hkt-jb8jrFynP_stSmEAKMrREjPkYcFjmtwKRQroXBiz35QgWpRCdc4P_LWw_piji8YuGo5pSNOt6c6Wyt_UWCcEjGw4Oh-qHdMGxgWuJnxcmV4w" width="320" /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Why aren’t you writing about what Philae has discovered instead? Haven’t you more important things to do?</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So important I could watch my colleagues being attacked and threatened and not do or say anything about it? I think not. Besides, I’m not a planetary scientist so have no scientific insights to add to the Philae story: anything I could say would merely be culled from the news reports.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Aren’t you just a Social Justice Warrior?</b></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Yes. And proud of it.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
I believe in ‘chwarae teg’ (‘fair play’ to those who don’t know Welsh). When I was growing up, this was considered a basic value of civilisation. But for some people, selfishness (as exemplified by Johnson and his chums from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club">Bullingdon Club</a>) seems to have replaced it as a virtue. As Augustine of Hippo put it in <i>De Civitate Dei</i> way back in the 5th century: “<i>Remota itaque iustitia quid sunt regna nisi magna latrocinia?</i>” (“Without justice, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?”). Those who oppose social justice are the robbers who benefit from its absence.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-63385889836653963742014-09-09T20:49:00.000-07:002014-09-09T21:28:32.558-07:00Whistling in the Dark<div align="left">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Thursday, 10:30 am, was when the power failed. Lights went out, fans stopped moving, the fridge's hum fell silent.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This was nothing unusual; a quick glance at the website for the Autoridad de Energia Electrica (<a href="http://www.aeepr.com/">www.aeepr.com</a>) on an average day will show many areas with power problems and we had had a 17 hour outage ourselves a couple of weeks earlier. So it wasn't until that afternoon that my wife phoned me in work to let me know there was a problem and I reported it on the AEE website (twice, as they claimed on Twitter not to have received the first report).
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin">@robminchin</a> where? CC9<br />
— AEE (@AEEONLINE) <a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE/status/505070074076860416">August 28, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
[I gave my address]
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE">@AEEONLINE</a> I've now reported it again.<br />
— Robert Minchin (@robminchin) <a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin/status/505074357073641472">August 28, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
That evening, as the sun went down and the lights came on, it became apparent that ours was the only house without power. I checked the fuse box – everything was normal. I also checked the main breaker – I couldn't move it. Whether this was because it was tripped or because it had simply stuck in position I couldn't tell, and there were no markings visible in the twilight to say if it was on or not (we later found it had 'ON' and 'OFF' marked in black-on-black, really useful in a power cut). We phoned AEE – having to use the long-distance 'metro' number as the 'isla' number was permanently engaged – and heard our sector on the (long) list of sectors with problems, so assumed my report had entered the system.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
Later that night we went around to a friend's house and charged up our mobile phone, while also using their internet connection to submit an amended report on the AEE website to say it was only our house that was affected.</div>
</div>
<div align="left">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
After a night spent by gaslight, with a battery-powered fan to keep us cool (thanks, Coleman), I headed off to work on Friday morning. I checked to see if our sector was on the list of sectors with problems on the website – it wasn't, so I reported it again. As we had now been without power for 24 hours I gave it the reference '24h sin luz' and again tweeted the fact that I had reported it.<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin">@robminchin</a> where? CC9<br />
— AEE (@AEEONLINE) <a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE/status/505359224768307201">August 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
[I gave them my address again, noting that it hadn't changed since yesterday]
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE">@AEEONLINE</a> It has been reported there three times.<br />
— Robert Minchin (@robminchin) <a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin/status/505361929171640321">August 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
[Sondy chipped in with a description of where the house was]
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/sondy">@sondy</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin">@robminchin</a> no está reportado en <a href="http://t.co/UKtlfYepzr">http://t.co/UKtlfYepzr</a> Envíe nombre,dirección,<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tel?src=hash">#tel</a> y <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/cta?src=hash">#cta</a>. CC9<br />
— AEE (@AEEONLINE) <a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE/status/505360882730561536">August 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
[Translation: It has not been reported on the webpage. Send your name, address, telephone number, and account number]
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin">@robminchin</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/sondy">@sondy</a> please send us the confirmation number. Thanks! CC9<br />
— AEE (@AEEONLINE) <a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE/status/505362009429651458">August 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
[The web system didn't give a confirmation number, but I hoped they might be referring to the reference you were required to give when submitting a report]
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin">@robminchin</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/sondy">@sondy</a> we not use DM, send your name, address, phone and account number to <a href="http://t.co/CVnh3TWWiJ">http://t.co/CVnh3TWWiJ</a> CC9<br />
— AEE (@AEEONLINE) <a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE/status/505363577235324929">August 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
I then reported it again, in case I'd missed something on the final page, with the reference 'Still no power'. All the final page said was 'Su sector ha sido notificado' (your sector has been notified), so I told them this as well.</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE">@AEEONLINE</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/sondy">@sondy</a> Just entered again with ref. 'Still no power'. The webpage says 'Su Sector ha sido notificado'. Do you have it?<br />
— Robert Minchin (@robminchin) <a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin/status/505367562994343936">August 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
No such luck!
</div>
<div align="left">
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin">@robminchin</a> If you not indicated the request number, I cant verify the status. CC9<br />
— AEE (@AEEONLINE) <a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE/status/505376230406111232">August 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Eventually they surrendered, and gave me an email address – for the press office! I emailed my details to the press office, who were able to put my complaint into the system. Finally, after 25h without power and over 20 hours after my first report, I had a case number. Soon the problem would be fixed. As if...</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
By six that evening, nothing had happened, so I tried phoning AEE again at about twenty-past. After ten minutes spent listening to the list of sectors with reported problems (which we didn't feature on this time) and ten minutes on hold listening to a message saying I could check their website at ww-prensa-com (two 'w's, and 'dash' instead of 'dot'), I finally got through to a human.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
I had told the system earlier that I wanted to communicate in English, and the repeated messages about the website had been in English, but I still wasn't surprised to find the system had routed me to an operator who didn't speak English. This is perfectly normal here. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
I also wasn't surprised when her response to my telling her I had had no power for 32 hours was to hang up on me. Puerto Ricans are some of the most helpful people around – except for the ones whose job is to actually help customers, who will generally give up at the first hurdle. Hanging up is a common (I might almost say standard) response to getting a call from a customer who doesn't speak perfect Spanish. While there are English-speaking operators, the systems never have any way of routing calls to them or transferring calls once you've actually got through. If it's really important, you can keep trying until you get lucky...</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
That evening we went to our local internet cafe (Burger King) and sent a complaint over Twitter to the mayor's office about AEE's lack of response. We managed to avoid getting ketchup on the tablet.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The next morning I drove around to the local garage to get milk and two bags of ice to fill our cool box. Luckily ice is readily available around here, and it turned out to be useful later.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
Shortly after this, we were contacted by a friend who's brother in law is an electrician. We arranged that he (the brother in law) would stop by later and see if he could do anything.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
About 12:30 our mobile phone beeped to let us know we had an answerphone message. We thought that was a bit odd, as it hadn't rung beforehand. The message turned out to be from an AEE engineer, giving us a direct number to call if we still had power problems. It also turned out to have been left at 6:30 the previous night, while I had been on the phone to AEE! It had taken Claro (our mobile phone provider) 18 hours to let us know there was a message waiting for us, although they had managed to pass on two adverts for premium text-message subscription services during that period.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
We couldn't make out the whole of the phone number – in rapid-fire Spanish – ourselves, so we asked our neighbour if she could help. She not only deciphered the number, but phoned them up and gave directions to the house (as noted before, Puerto Ricans are incredibly helpful when not being employed to help people).</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
About one o'clock, Kanky, the electrician, arrived. He did something to the main breaker and turned it back on. We had power! He said the AEE engineers should check the input voltages when they came, refused any payment, and went.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
A few minutes later, just as we'd finished sorting through what had survived in the freezer, the power at the front of the house went off again – we had lost a phase.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
For those who aren't familiar with electrical phases, I should explain that power is normally delivered along three-phase lines (<a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_electric_power</a>). According to Wikipedia, most domestic lines are a single phase, split off from the three-phase line. Here, however, we have two phases coming into the house. One of these had gone out, cutting power to the front of the house.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
However, we still had power at the back, and so our internet connection was up. I found I had a reply from the mayor's office, asking for my address so they could report it to AEE, so I sent this on and resumed waiting for the AEE engineers.</div>
</div>
<div align="left">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
They finally showed up at about 2:30, looked at our system, sprayed it with WD40 (or something similar), went up on the roof, and told us that the J-pipe the cables entered by had rusted through and fallen over so water was getting into the main breaker area. This was causing corrosion, which was why we were having problems. We'd have to get an electrician in ourselves to fix it. They did manage to restore the second phase briefly, but it had died again before they managed to pack up and leave.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg70KQAeO4BBRJ4_iqUHXSDoc5ZHASPC1aPtyyzVUNRahgDxd10YRl9XkVvp6UmzLGZ1LE4H1RpMXBhbohEh8L6aqy_JOeUzgZqgq4mAkBTa9VM2s3wJlmalUEdx3FI7M1W_lkGAj4bQZ0/s1600/CameraZOOM-20140830143555290.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg70KQAeO4BBRJ4_iqUHXSDoc5ZHASPC1aPtyyzVUNRahgDxd10YRl9XkVvp6UmzLGZ1LE4H1RpMXBhbohEh8L6aqy_JOeUzgZqgq4mAkBTa9VM2s3wJlmalUEdx3FI7M1W_lkGAj4bQZ0/s1600/CameraZOOM-20140830143555290.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div align="left">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There was still time for one last hurrah from the @AEEONLINE twitter team. At about 3pm, just as the engineers were leaving, they responded to the conversation with the mayor to say for the final time that there were no reported problems in our sector!
</div>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/robminchin">@robminchin</a> sector no reportado, favor enviar a prensa@aeepr.com cuenta, telefono, direccion y persona contacto. CC7<br />
— AEE (@AEEONLINE) <a href="https://twitter.com/AEEONLINE/status/505791628343513088">August 30, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script> </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
More phone calls, to see if Kanky would be able to come back and do the repairs, and to our landlady to get permission (again via our neighbour as the landlady speaks no English and my Spanish isn't up to that kind of negotiation). It turned out that Kanky could come on Monday (the Labor Day holiday), so we set about running cables around the house to power what we could:</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
"I've re-routed power from living quarters to cryogenic system" – the fridge was plugged-in in the bedroom via an extension cable.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
The main computer was re-located from the (powerless) front room to another bedroom, which we renamed the Battle Bridge for the duration.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
The telly, somewhat bizarrely, did have power, even though the lights and other sockets in the living room were out. Another extension cable was deployed from the telly's expansion board to a standard lamp, giving us light in that room.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
Sunday passed without further drama, except for me taking the Ice Bucket Challenge. We had the cool-box we'd been keeping the milk and cool drinks in while the fridge was out of action, and it still contained a mix of ice and meltwater. Now, it got poured over my head! </div>
</div>
<div align="left">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/rQKjbFb2O0s?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
Monday morning Kanky came at around 9 am and got working on the system. He had to arrange for AEE to come and disconnect the power so he could work on it. At the same time they removed the meter, and managed to drop the glass cover which shattered on the steps below.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
By 6pm Kanky was finished – we had new components replacing the water-damaged ones and a new J-pipe on the roof to stop any more water coming in. At 7:15 AEE reconnected the power and re-installed the meter, and we were back on the grid!</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
Only one problem remained: the meter had no cover and was exposed to the elements. According to the AEE engineers, this was the responsibility of another division, so they couldn't do anything about it. Someone would come along the next day to deal with it.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div dir="ltr">
They didn't. As I write, rain is lashing against the house and threatening to soak the meter. We're water-tight on the roof, but AEE have left a gaping hole in our side.</div>
</div>
<div align="left">
<div dir="ltr">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-13827716978781018652014-08-24T11:46:00.001-07:002014-08-24T11:47:42.024-07:00SOS – The Plane's on Fire – No More News<div align="left"><p dir="ltr">Is Google getting sloppy? A short while back the question would have been unthinkable, but now it seems the answer might be yes. And the failures are coming from Google's core competency of search.</p></div><p dir="ltr"><b>SOS</b></p><p dir="ltr"><b>I</b>n order to listen to music without filling up the drives of my work laptop or my tablet, I have a lot of songs uploaded to Google Play Music. Google doesn't upload everything, they search what is already on their servers and match it to the music being uploaded. This saves space on the servers, and time for the uploader.</p><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">One of the songs I have uploaded is ABBA's SOS (which Wikipedia informs me "is the only Hot 100 single (or #1 single in Australia) in which both the title and the credited act are palindromes"). But a strange thing happened when I tried to listen to it in Google Play Music: it had changed language!</p></div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">ABBA's version of the song is in English, but ABBA singer Agnetha Fältskog also released a Swedish version under her own name. It is (presumably) this version of the song that Google is serving, despite it not being the version I own. Unfortunately, Google are so (falsely) confident in their algorithms that there is no way of telling the system 'you got it wrong – this is not the right song'. </p></div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">Another part of Google's system is that you can re-download the music you have (allegedly) uploaded. This means I can now download Fältskog's version of SOS, courtesy of Google, without having to pay for it. While I have little interest in owning this particular song, there are bound to be other mis-matches in the system and Google could find it has accidently given away large quantities of music for free.</p></div><p dir="ltr"><b>The Plane's on Fire</b></p><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">On the evening of Saturday 9th August, JetBlue flight B6 704 from San Juan to New York JFK suffered an engine fire whilst taxiing prior to take-off (apparently due to 'bird ingestion in the number one engine'). This led to the evacuation of the passengers via the emergency slides and the temporary closure of the main runway at San Juan. In other words, it was a pretty major event – and was picked up by many news outlets.</p></div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">Google, however, completely missed it. It wasn't that Google search didn't find any news about it – it did. But Google search on mobile has recently introduced 'cards' that (claim to) give you the status of a flight you search for. You can simply say "OK Google JetBlue 704" and it not only gives you search results but tells you the current flight status.</p></div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">But there's a problem – it's talking nonsense. While the plane was sat on the tarmac in San Juan surrounded by firefighters and news crews, Google was claiming it was in the air and would be arriving on time at JFK. Every other search result knew what had happened, but Google did not. It would appear that the flight status cards are simply linked to the schedules and do not reflect the actual status of the flights.</p></div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr"><b>No More News</b></p></div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">A couple of weeks back we had a press release on an enormous gas stream found with Arecibo. As usual, I used Google to monitor the coverage. However, I hit a problem – clicking on 'all N news sources' on the mobile search (both in the app and on the website) went to the mobile news front page, rather than the 'full coverage' page. Fortunately it was still working on the desktop version so I was able to request the desktop version of the website and search on that. (Oddly, the link for full coverage is called 'explore in depth' on desktop search.)</p></div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">This problem has now been fixed, but it took over a week from the time I spotted it, and it had probably been present prior to that. For an absolutely core element of Google's business, this was an amazingly long failure and lead to me trying Bing as an alternative. </p></div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr">Bing geolocated that I was in Puerto Rico and refused to give me any results in English, even though I have English set as my language in my Microsoft account. No matter how badly Google fails, Microsoft is still able to make them look good!<br>
</p>
</div><div align="left"><p dir="ltr"><br>
</p>
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-77664293131637457392014-07-06T14:13:00.001-07:002014-07-06T14:14:00.948-07:00Why Hobby Lobby is bad for religious freedom<div dir="ltr">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last week's Hobby Lobby decision at the Supreme Court has been widely promoted both by its supporters on the right and its detractors on the left as a victory for religious freedom (<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/06/30/supreme-court-holds-congress-to-its-word-in-hobby-lobby-decision/">[1]</a>; <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/30/3454501/hobby-lobby-bait-and-switch/">[2]</a>). It is nothing of the sort – it is a victory for employer freedom.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Many people, including many Americans, don't realise that constitutional rights only apply to interactions with the government. As workers, the only rights Americans have vis-a-vis their employers are those granted by ordinary law, not by the constitution, and are thus secondary to any rights the employer has under the constitution. For religious freedom, as with many other freedoms, these rights are granted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But there are exceptions to the rights granted by the Civil Rights Act. In order not to trample on employers' First Amendment rights Title VII, which deals with religious freedom, has a specific exemption for 'religious corporations' (<a href="http://www.ecfa.org/Content/TopicReligiousDiscrim">[3]</a>).</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Supreme Court has now ruled that Hobby Lobby and other similar companies are, in plain English, religious corporations. They have First Amendment rights, and would therefore appear to be exempt from the religious discrimination clauses of the Civil Rights Act.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How bad could this be? For minority beliefs, the answer is 'very'. A recent study by researchers at the University of Connecticut showed significant discrimination in hiring in the southern states of the US against Muslims, atheists, pagans and Catholics, even though this is illegal (<a href="http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2014/06/great-resume-too-bad-about-your-religion/">[4]</a>). The indications from politics are also not encouraging, with corporations ordering their workers to attend political rallies without pay as a condition of employment (<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/ohio-miners-required-attend-romney-rally">[5]</a>; <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/26/can-company-fire-you-for-way-you-vote">[6]</a>). </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The argument is sometimes made, particularly by those on the right who wish to avoid legislation, that corporations who mistreat their workers will be shunned by the market. This has not been shown to be particularly effective outside of a few fairly narrow sectors: Hobby Lobby don't appear to be suffering, nor do the mining companies who forced their workers to campaign for Romney, while the well-documented abuses of Walmart and Amazon go similarly unpunished. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Using the model of what has been allowed on the political sphere, this exemption from Title VII would mean employers such as Hobby Lobby could enforce membership of a particular 'corporate church' religion (presumably including tithing their salary if the corporate church so demands) and – without pay – attendance at corporate church events. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For-profit employers also gain the right to punish workers for failing to live their corporate religious values – which, as the Court only requires that they be sincerely held, could be virtually anything. Given the number of Catholic colleges opposing their workers' right to unionise, it also doesn't appear to matter if the claimed exemption is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the church they are affiliated to (<a href="http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/labor-board-adjunct-professors-catholic-university-can-form-union">[7]</a>)! From allowing religious discrimination it's also not a great stretch to covert racial discrimination – 'No Catholics', for instance, could easily be code for 'No Hispanics' in Arizona.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In short, the ruling that companies can have religious characters and rights is a victory for corporate might – and a disaster for religious freedom.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-76836729180414576162014-06-22T14:20:00.001-07:002014-06-22T14:28:18.925-07:00Why the Summer Solstice isn't the start of summer<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This weekend was (in the northern hemisphere) the summer solstice – the "official start of summer", also known as the "start of astronomical summer", "the first day of summer", and "midsummer's day". Only the last of these makes any sense.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This idea seems to have grown out of a human desire to have major transitions well marked. It reminds me of something I once saw that divided the day into four parts: morning, afternoon, evening, and night. The transitions were dawn, noon, sunset, and midnight. That's right – this system had the 'night' starting at midnight.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
There are at least two reasons why claiming the start of summer occurs at the summer solstice is wrong. The first is common sense, the second is science.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
From a common sense perspective, we know when summer is – it's when the evenings are long and the days are hot. Similarly, winter is marked by cold days and early evenings. Yet 'astronomers' tell people shovelling snow off their driveways in mid-December that winter doesn't start for another week, tell sunbathers in early June that it isn't summer yet, and claim it is still summer as the equinoctial gales roll in. The message this sends out is that astronomers don't know much about the real world. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The meteorological summer covers June, July, and August and pretty much matches our perception of what is 'summer'. This corresponds to the Memorial Day to Labor Day definition of summer in the US, for instance. Similarly the first of March – the start of meteorological spring – is when the daffodils are supposed to bloom for St David's day. Meteorologists clearly know about the real world.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So what about science? Saying the summer solstice is the start of astronomical summer implies there is something scientific going on. Is there a good reason why the astronomical seasons lag the meteorological and cultural seasons?</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. The Sun is responsible for the seasons, but the Earth takes time to warm (or cool), so the meteorological seasons actually lag behind their astronomical driver. The opposite of what we tell people.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This lagging is the reason why midsummer's day does not fall in the middle of the meteorological summer, but precedes it by about three weeks. The astronomical seasons should (if we insist on four seasons) start on the cross-quarter days. Now widely neglected, but well known in the past, these fall midway between the solstices and the equinoxes and are marked by traditional festivals. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The exact dates of the astronomical cross-quarter days for 2014 (from archaeoastronomy.com) are 3rd February, 5th May, 7th August, and 7th November. These correspond (approximately) to the traditional cross-quarter days of Candlemass (a.k.a Groundhog Day), May Day, Lammas, and All Hallows in the Christian tradition; or Imbolc, Beltane, Lughnasadh, and Samhain in pre-Christian Celtic tradition. </div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
These dates tie in to genuine science about how the Earth is heated by the Sun. That they fall a bit before the meteorological seasons is explained by the lag in the Earth's response to this heating – effect lags behind cause. When people say in late August that it is still summer, we can answer that the Sun has already moved into autumn, but the Earth's captive heat means we still experience summer weather. The disconnect from people's experience can now be explained with real physics.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So, I hope you had a good midsummer's day, but don't go calling it the start of summer. Astronomically and meteorologically, summer has already been going for quite a while.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-49296940883274449242014-03-18T19:38:00.001-07:002014-03-19T08:44:29.989-07:00A Dark Galaxy in the Virgo Cluster?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
While updating my work <a href="http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin">website</a> recently, I came across an old page on a dark galaxy candidate, <a href="http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin/virgohi21">VIRGOHI</a><a href="http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin/virgohi21"> 21</a>, that I had worked on back in 2004 - 2007. The page had not been updated since then, despite things having changed in the meantime. While updating it, I decided to write this blog post, giving some personal recollections and an explanation of my current thinking on the subject.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
In 2005, I was first author on a paper about VIRGOHI 21 called “<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/bibcode=2005ApJ...622L..21M">A Dark Hydrogen Cloud in the Virgo Cluster</a>”. We had found the 'dark cloud' in a neutral hydrogen survey of the Virgo Cluster carried out a few years earlier with the Lovell Telescope at Jodrell Bank, and had already published initial results in an paper by Jon Davies the year before, “<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/bibcode=2004MNRAS.349..922D">A </a><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/bibcode=2004MNRAS.349..922D">multibeam</a><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/bibcode=2004MNRAS.349..922D"> HI survey of the Virgo cluster - two isolated HI clouds?</a>”. The second cloud, VIRGOHI 27, was observed with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMRT">Giant </a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMRT">Metrewave</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMRT"> Radio Telescope</a> in India and found to be a very faint galaxy, but deep optical images of the area of VIRGOHI 21 from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton_Telescope">Isaac Newton Telescope</a> in the Canary Islands did not show anything. Another oddity was that VIRGOHI 21 looked As if it was, like most galaxies, rotating - in observations with Arecibo we could see that the velocity changed from north to south. This made it look like a galaxy without any stars - a dark galaxy!<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40855000/jpg/_40855587_astronomy300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40855000/jpg/_40855587_astronomy300.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: white;">Isaac Newton Telescope image from our press release, the ellipse shows the extent of VIRGOHI 21 based on observations with Arecibo</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
We considered whether VIRGOHI 21 could be tidal debris. At that time, it was generally thought that the only way to form long streams was through slow, tidal interactions. We were able to rule this out as there was no large galaxy in the right position to have pulled VIRGOHI 21 into the shape we saw.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.sdss.org/iotw/VIRGOHI21.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.sdss.org/iotw/VIRGOHI21.jpeg" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: black;"><a href="http://www.sdss.org/" style="background-attachment: inherit; background-clip: inherit; background-image: inherit; background-origin: inherit; background-size: inherit; font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify; text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: orange;">Sloan Digital Sky Survey</span></a><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify;"> <span style="color: white;">image of VIRGOHI 21 from their Image of the Week gallery. The orginal caption reads: Radio telescopes at Arecibo and Jodrell Bank Observatory detect a large cloud of hydrogen gas at the center of the region of the sky covered by this image, but no corresponding objects can be seen in it. The rotation of this cloud indicates the presence of a significant mass of dark matter (matter that we cannot currently detect directly) as well.</span></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The discovery led to headlines such as "<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7056#.UyZjVzFZT0w">Astronomers claim first 'dark galaxy' find</a>" (New Scientist), "<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/4288633.stm">Astronomers find star-less galaxy</a>" (BBC) and "<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article1932645.ece">Not even a twinkle out of galaxy with no stars</a>" (The Times). VIRGOHI 21 even got its own entry in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIRGOHI21">Wikipedia</a>. But the story was far from over...</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
At the time the first paper was published, we were already planning high-resolution observations with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerbork_Synthesis_Radio_Telescope">Westerbork</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westerbork_Synthesis_Radio_Telescope"> Synthesis Radio Telescope</a> in the Netherlands. We hadn't been able to detect VIRGOHI 21 with the Indian telescope earlier, but this time we saw it. These observations showed that VIRGOHI 21 was linked to a nearby galaxy, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_4254">NGC 4254</a> by a bridge of hydrogen. This galaxy has an unusual, lopsided structure, with one very large spiral arm, and we had already discussed internally whether this could be linked to VIRGOHI 21 and dismissed the idea as something we did not have enough evidence to speculate on. Now we had the evidence. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
We also had even deeper optical imaging from the <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope">Hubble Space Telescope</a> that still failed to reveal any visible galaxy. The Hubble observations also answered <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.363L..21B">an alternative scenario</a> that some simulations suggested - a fast encounter that would rip gas out of NGC 4254 but would also, necessarily, pluck stars out of that galaxy and leave them floating freely in space in the same area as the gas. Had they been there, these stars would have been visible to Hubble - but we saw no evidence of them.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin/colour.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin/colour.jpg" height="266" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: black; color: white;"><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify;">A three-colour (</span><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;">i</span><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify;">, </span><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;">r</span><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify;">, and </span><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; font-style: italic; text-align: justify;">B</span><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify;"> bands) image of VIRGOHI 21 from the </span><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify;">Isaac Newton Telescope overlaid with contours of neutral hydrogen density (green) from observations with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope. The extent of the galaxy is remarkably similar to the ellipse from the Arecibo data (above).</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
We published our Westerbork and Hubble results in a paper called “<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670.1056M">21-cm synthesis observations of </a><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670.1056M">VIRGOHI</a><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670.1056M"> 21 - a possible dark galaxy in the Virgo Cluster</a>”. At about the same time, the <a href="http://egg.astro.cornell.edu/index.php/">ALFALFA</a> team published <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665L..19H">their map of </a><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665L..19H">VIRGOHI</a><a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...665L..19H"> 21</a>, which showed that the neutral hydrogen stream extended further to the north. This wasn't particularly shocking - seeing a 'leading arm' in front of an interacting galaxy is not uncommon.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin/slow_rot.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin/slow_rot.gif" height="160" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: black;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify;">Animation of the neutral hydrogen data cube from Westerbork. Up indicates increasing recessional velocity. VIRGOHI 21 is the structure in the centre, connected by a bridge to NGC 4254 (near the top of the image). T</span><span style="font-family: serif; font-size: 13.600000381469727px; text-align: justify;">he ring-like structure near the bottom of the image is NGC 4262.</span></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Both the ALFALFA data and our Westerbork data were then used by a team in France who were modelling the system as a 'hyperbolic' interaction, a kind of cosmic 'hit and run' where another galaxy shot past NGC 4254 very quickly and then left the area before it could be identified. It may seem surprising that we gave our data freely to someone who were trying to prove us wrong - but that's the way science works!</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The French team <a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673..787D">found</a> that: “High-speed collisions, although current in clusters of galaxies, have long been neglected, as they are believed to cause little damages to galaxies except when they are repeated, a process called ‘harassment.’ In fact, they are able to produce faint but extended gaseous tails.” In other words, it <i>was</i> possible to explain VIRGOHI 21 as part of a tidal tail, formed from a high-speed galaxy encounter rather than the low-speed encounters we had considered. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
While this did not absolutely rule out the hypothesis that VIRGOHI 21 was a dark galaxy, it presented a less exotic alternative - and as a general rule (known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor">Occam's Razor</a>, after the medieval monk William of Ockham), the least exotic idea is considered the most likely explanation. But the simulations were far from being a great match to the observations, and further observations (unpublished) of the northern end of the stream showed it continuing at the same velocity as VIRGOHI 21 - more consistent with it being a leading arm than with the simulations. Could these simulations really explain VIRGOHI 21?</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
You're probably wondering why we didn't publish the new observations of the northern end of the stream, and point out the other inconsistencies between the simulations and the data. There are two reasons for this. The first is that while the simulations may not have been a great match to the data, they established the principle that it was possible to get long streams of neutral hydrogen via fast interactions. Once the stream was drawn out, there were many different forces acting within the cluster environment that could have altered its shape in myriad ways, so no simulation could be expected to provide an exact match.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The second reason is more complex, and is (to my mind) the most conclusive evidence against VIRGOHI 21. To understand this, it is necessary to go back to earlier in the story and look at predictions we made around the time the Arecibo surveys were starting up.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
When we announced the Westerbork results, Jon Davies said in our press release that “We’re going to be searching for more Dark Galaxies with the new ALFA instrument at Arecibo Observatory. We hope to find many more over the next few years – this is a very exciting time!” </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This wasn't just idle speculation - a year earlier we had published a paper, "<a href="http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/bibcode=2006MNRAS.368.1479D">The existence and detection of optically dark galaxies by 21-cm surveys</a>", where we had argued that if VIRGOHI were a dark galaxy it implied the existence of many more dark galaxies. If these existed, they should be discovered by the next generation of neutral hydrogen surveys then getting started at Arecibo - and in large numbers. These dark galaxies would make up almost a quarter of the sources found in the deep <a href="http://www.naic.edu/~ages">AGES</a> survey, while over a thousand would be seen by the shallower but much larger ALFALFA survey.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This meant that the final test of whether or not VIRGOHI 21 was likely to be a dark galaxy was whether other dark galaxies could be found. If there turned out to be a large population of dark galaxies then VIRGOHI 21 would be vindicated, but if no other examples were found it would imply that VIRGOHI 21 was nothing more than tidal debris.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So, what happened? To date, AGES has found very few confirmed HI sources without optical counterparts, and none like VIRGOHI 21. ALFALFA has found around 50 candidates - far fewer than required, and these are (as I understand it) potential mini-halos in the Local Group rather than objects similar to VIRGOHI 21. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the predicted population of dark galaxies doesn't exist - which means, whatever the evidence for it individually might be, VIRGOHI 21 is highly unlikely to truly be a dark galaxy.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So - VIRGOHI 21 is almost certainly not a dark galaxy. Less exotic explanations have been given for its existence, and more recent surveys have failed to discover any similar dark galaxies. Does this mean we were wrong to publish what we did? No - the less exotic explanation was only discovered in response to our papers, and the surveys that should have uncovered more dark galaxies happened after our discovery. By publishing, we advanced science, even if those advances ended up showing that we were wrong!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-76265563253171303372014-02-10T18:48:00.001-08:002014-02-10T18:48:30.760-08:00Kayaking Lago Dos Bocas<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
I had intended last weekend to blog about the work I presented at the AAS meeting, but then I went kayaking instead - so I'm now going to blog about kayaking on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dos_Bocas_Lake">Lago Dos Bocas</a>.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Lago Dos Bocas (Lake Two Mouths) is a reservoir in the mountains near Arecibo. It was built in 1942 as part of a hydroelectric scheme (also involving Lago Caonillas, another reservoir upstream of Dos Bocas, built in 1948). Since then, the reservoir <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5053/">has lost over half of its original capacity to silting</a>, but it still produces electricity and, since 1996, water from the reservoir has also fed the 'Superacueducto' that supplies the San Juan metropolitan area. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The 'two mouths' of the name refers to the two rivers that meet just above the Dos Bocas dam: the Rio Grande de Arecibo and the Rio Caonillas. These form the two arms of the lake. A third river, the Rio Limón, joins the Rio Caonillas branch about 2 km above the dam.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcpQCpZ653aCKPKeL45GvJ6az11WhzAyX5o70DqEMi5_17H6rhWIqTpTj0aUn9cDvC3FhPdGGSNP-gO91ET620h9q_22WOqRriyY4lJKU1y-2I3BbFbEcst6JXYLHGW7CGFzlc5gJ4Uyc/s1600/Dos+Bocas+Map+Blog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcpQCpZ653aCKPKeL45GvJ6az11WhzAyX5o70DqEMi5_17H6rhWIqTpTj0aUn9cDvC3FhPdGGSNP-gO91ET620h9q_22WOqRriyY4lJKU1y-2I3BbFbEcst6JXYLHGW7CGFzlc5gJ4Uyc/s1600/Dos+Bocas+Map+Blog.jpg" height="320" width="232" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chart of Dos Bocas from <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3217/">Soler-López 2012, USGS Scientific Investigations Map 3217</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
A short way south of the dam, on the western shore where it is easily accessible from Route 10, there is a ferry terminal, or 'embarcadero', run by the department of transport. This has car parking and a free passenger ferry that serves lake-side houses and restaurants, and a jetty that is used by the restaurants' own boats. Most importantly, for our purposes, it has a slipway from which we can launch our kayak.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe7MTa4UJ2sRT1Wj0IuQ0sTpXjkAGz9vfDXKCNgnaUEU8hn0wHakpuERirYsfc7GG4J5wU4MA161dmuJsk2cP_VjCSRKTbmG3pkWM4lhgUOGYkaMQomP6igx1ntBzi4MDWP5IGteQtSuw/s1600/DSCF0703.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe7MTa4UJ2sRT1Wj0IuQ0sTpXjkAGz9vfDXKCNgnaUEU8hn0wHakpuERirYsfc7GG4J5wU4MA161dmuJsk2cP_VjCSRKTbmG3pkWM4lhgUOGYkaMQomP6igx1ntBzi4MDWP5IGteQtSuw/s1600/DSCF0703.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">El Embarcadero</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
On previous occasions, we have headed up the Rio Grande arm and into that river and have explored quite a way up the Rio Limón. This time, we planned on heading up the Rio Caonillas arm. Our kayak is a 4.4m Feelfree Tri-yak, a sit-on-top tandem kayak. Due to its length, it tracks well (keeps going where it is pointed, rather than spinning off in a random direction) and has a third central seat that we use as storage space.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It took us about 30 minutes from arriving at the embarcadero to get the kayak off the car, carry it down the slipway, clip on the seats, get our equipment together, put on our buoyancy aids, and get out onto the water. We set out across the Rio Grande branch then headed on east, up the Rio Caonillas branch, passing an abandoned restaurant on the point where the two arms meet. A bit under a kilometre up, the lake turns south, but before we reached the corner a rain shower swept down from the mountains.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZaf5_OX7SrcNO29NcbxM2AMyG2cm4AXRkOD1S3cA5zXYvpXx5CvRIhA_PqUIfxmknx5yIbOIk2fqoBC9cjv5XsS6t-s8u8Egixbo4AmeHoQmpSttH9yHDUfstzy566r6leYulakXfUm8/s1600/DSCF0731.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZaf5_OX7SrcNO29NcbxM2AMyG2cm4AXRkOD1S3cA5zXYvpXx5CvRIhA_PqUIfxmknx5yIbOIk2fqoBC9cjv5XsS6t-s8u8Egixbo4AmeHoQmpSttH9yHDUfstzy566r6leYulakXfUm8/s1600/DSCF0731.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Abandoned restaurant on the point</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
We quickly pulled our ponchos out of the kit bag and scrambled into them. Visibility dropped, and the wind whipped around us as we ploughed on. Fortunately, winter showers don't tend to be thunderous, and rain is seldom cold in Puerto Rico! As soon as the rain stopped, we started to feel hot again. The ferries and restaurant boats zoomed past us, throwing up low wakes that seemed quite large enough from a kayak. We waved to the tourists as they went by in their ferries - quite a few even waved back!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
We passed the mouth of the Rio Limón after about 30 minutes paddling, entering waters we had not kayaked before. Another shower came through, then our objective came into view. We had been to our favourite Dos Bocas restaurant, the <a href="http://ranchomarina.com/">Rancho Marina</a>, many times by ferry, but this was our first visit by kayak. </div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW5mqY6AYC7WIUcWdB3xMXxeS8WKgR2YMzqPKgyprdSIuZm7TWbz6Cl3xzzV8NNtpdbXI5nVYg8gvcOgtajFbkgCl53GuMOLhtRuNftVajHcMuH7qIzPhiYg3MdzQ4cVJq3hnfkzzgy7k/s1600/DSCF1363.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhW5mqY6AYC7WIUcWdB3xMXxeS8WKgR2YMzqPKgyprdSIuZm7TWbz6Cl3xzzV8NNtpdbXI5nVYg8gvcOgtajFbkgCl53GuMOLhtRuNftVajHcMuH7qIzPhiYg3MdzQ4cVJq3hnfkzzgy7k/s1600/DSCF1363.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Rancho Marina</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqW2rQ6RdViTRO8LDU1LYACJd58hnnr2JAx43xmDoo6PiuXnkaVQPtg8gJro3NDL2AzQ9_X80rAdNVCpJDnOxRY5lnLo8AByh1iVpE__NrkR2KuoLn3qLftL7hagBTahpmOshwnS81Ois/s1600/DSCF1357.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqW2rQ6RdViTRO8LDU1LYACJd58hnnr2JAx43xmDoo6PiuXnkaVQPtg8gJro3NDL2AzQ9_X80rAdNVCpJDnOxRY5lnLo8AByh1iVpE__NrkR2KuoLn3qLftL7hagBTahpmOshwnS81Ois/s1600/DSCF1357.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Kayak on the beach at the Rancho Marina</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
We watched a ferry disgorging passengers onto the jetty, then ran the kayak onto the beach and ran a mooring rope around a handy post. We did not have time for a full meal - we had to get back to the embarcadero before dark - so we skipped straight to desert. Kayaking and Key Lime Cheesecake - what could be better!</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhR_C8PSDmXXpgBvUHuOqM9zEZgWDyN9uCoZ96ZAgDcHnip4EVeUaEBf9sbJ1BGBAHbbeL5-eUNs7qU6qWr4o3vtNT1NYVnkwSuYfWMzBjzRmaG_yHPPa9adMpJMZ2E6GXDZS2IaFLmaQ/s1600/DSCF1352.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhR_C8PSDmXXpgBvUHuOqM9zEZgWDyN9uCoZ96ZAgDcHnip4EVeUaEBf9sbJ1BGBAHbbeL5-eUNs7qU6qWr4o3vtNT1NYVnkwSuYfWMzBjzRmaG_yHPPa9adMpJMZ2E6GXDZS2IaFLmaQ/s1600/DSCF1352.JPG" height="320" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Key Lime Cheesecake!</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-11320877615078042842014-01-16T10:25:00.000-08:002014-02-04T06:07:25.670-08:00Creating the Radio Sky Planisphere<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; line-height: 1.15; text-align: justify; white-space: pre-wrap;">Meetings of the American Astronomical Society have, for the last couple of years, included a ‘schools outreach’ event. Arecibo Observatory participated in this for the first time at the Long Beach meeting in January 2013. For that meetings we had stellar-evolution bookmarks (with graphics by <a class="g-profile" href="https://plus.google.com/103860147871348309151" target="_blank">+Rhys Taylor</a>), which the students finished by putting coloured beads on a ribbon, each colour corresponding to an evolutionary stage. Unfortunately the age-range attending turned out to be somewhat older than the target range for the activity, so we didn’t want to repeat it this year. We also wanted to do something more radio-astronomy oriented (we are a radio observatory after all) and that still left the students with something they could bring home afterwards. And we wanted (if possible) to out-do the model pulsars made by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_Gamma-ray_Space_Telescope">Fermi gamma-ray telescope</a>!</span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thus the Radio Sky Planisphere was born.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The idea came from my wife, who has worked in outreach, and the folks at the Visitors Center were enthusiastic, so I set about working out how to make it a reality. There were two major problems to be overcome: firstly, I needed to find out how to calculate the window shape for a planisphere; secondly I needed to get an all-sky radio map in the correct projection for a planisphere. This is the azimuthal equidistant projection, and is fairly simple to work in using polar coordinates: hour angle (or right ascension) is the angle and 90 - dec (or 90 + dec for a projection centred on the south pole) is the radius.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To make the window, I first looked about on the internet, but couldn’t find anything existing so I coded it myself in IDL. This involved solving the spherical trigonometry equations to find the declination and hour angle of the horizon. Fortunately, at the horizon many of the angles are 0 or 90 degrees, so sin and cos reduce to 0 or 1. The equations I ended up with were:</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">sin(Dec) = cos(Lat)*cos(Az)</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">cos(HA) = tan(Lat)*tan(Dec)</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">By sweeping around 360 degrees in Az(imuth) and inputting the Lat(itude), this meant I could solve for Dec(lination) and then for H(our) A(ngle). There were a few other complications, such as making sure I got the negative hour angle solution out as well as the positive, but this was essentially solved. I could make windows, and I could make them for any arbitrary latitude. The IDL code to do this is at </span><a href="http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin/idl/planisphere.pro" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www.naic.edu/~rminchin/idl/planisphere.pro</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. I also set this up so multiple windows could be printed on a single planisphere, leaving the selection of the exact latitude to the person cutting it out.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The next challenge was getting the actual map. I decided to use the 408-MHz Bonn all-sky survey (Haslam, Salter, Stoffel and Wilson, 1982) which is available via the Max Planck Institute for Radioastronomy’s surveys page at </span><a href="http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/survey.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/survey.html</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. As an added bonus, Chris Salter - the second author on the survey - works down the corridor from me at Arecibo.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This proved a bit trickier. It turned out that the ‘arc’ projection (which should be what I wanted) was actually returning a straight pixel map, but with the coordinates for the azimuthal equidistant projection! Once I realised this, I was able to download the straight pixel map and then wrote a simple IDL code to convert this into a set of radius, angle coordinate pairs for the polar projection, with a corresponding set of flux values for each coordinate. I could then use IDL’s built-in polar_contour function to plot these, using filled contours and an appropriate colour map to get the radio sky-wheel to put inside my planisphere. In order to get a good spread of colours, I used the built-in hist_equal function to get a histogram-equalized distribution of the flux values. Overall, this ends up looking very similar (except for the projection) to the colour map in Haslam et al.’s paper.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The last step was to plot on some optical sources so people could orientate themselves, and see how these correspond to the radio sky. I chose asterisms/constellations I can actually recognize, so apologies if your favourite one is missing. The ones I went with were the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dipper" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Plough</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (a.k.a. the Big Dipper) and the nearby stars of </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcturus" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Arcturus</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Polaris</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">; </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiopeia_(constellation)" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cassiopeia</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">; </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_(constellation)" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Cygnus</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and the two other nearby stars from the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Triangle" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">summer triangle </span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Altair</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Vega</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">); </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpius" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Scorpius</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">; the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Southern Cross </span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and Pointers (</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">alpha</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Centauri" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">beta Centauri</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">); </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Orion</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> along with </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sirius</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiades" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Pleiades</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> star cluster; and the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Magellanic_Cloud" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Large</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Magellanic_Cloud" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Small Magellanic Clouds </span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">along with the bright southern star of </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopus" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Canopus</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. The stars are shown as filled circles, while the ‘fuzzy’ extended objects (Pleiades and the Magellanic Clouds) are shown as open circles. For both stars and extended objects, the diameter is proportional to 5 - magnitude (as brighter stars have lower magnitudes, this means that brighter objects are larger; a magnitude of 5 is about the limit of what is visible with the naked eye).</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-7acbeedb-9c2d-f4b3-c4c3-c58b40e3b64d"><span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">All that was left was to prettify what was currently rather clinical looking IDL output. I did this in Adobe Illustrator (for the planisphere body) and Photoshop (for the sky wheel). This also involved reducing the size of the sky wheel from around 50 MB for the IDL postscript output to around 500 kB for the Photoshop PDF output - it’s quite unusual for rasterizing a vector image to reduce the size, but that was certainly the case here!</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Radio Sky Planisphere was a great hit at the AAS meeting. We got far fewer schools at the actual outreach event than hoped, as the Maryland public schools were closed due to the freezing weather, but we gave out planispheres to teachers, outreach professionals, and astronomers over the remaining couple of days of the meeting and ended up getting rid of all 250 that we had brought. I also had enquiries about a southern hemisphere version, which I have now also produced. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: white;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></span></b></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are now three versions available for download from </span><a href="https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6CDiFHfKq0IM0RMN0luUWMtR1E&usp=sharing" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Google Drive</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, along with a ‘<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XzPoTp2LbezqrUyXqfraNhsSni8gajEJ6hSKKtgTSfs/edit?usp=sharing">Guide to the Celestial Features on the Radio Sky Planisphere</a>’: the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6CDiFHfKq0INjBPaE9rYlYyV2c/edit?usp=sharing">AAS meeting version</a> (which can be cut to latitudes between 20 and 60 degrees north), the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6CDiFHfKq0INGl4QWpaa3hxSTA/edit?usp=sharing">northern hemisphere version</a> (5 to 65 degrees north), and the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6CDiFHfKq0IcXB5SmpEV1NHTnc/edit?usp=sharing">southern hemisphere version</a> (5 to 55 degrees south). Note that all of these are sized for US Letter paper with fairly narrow margins, to match the printer we have at the observatory. If you print these yourself, you should scale them to fit your page - as the planisphere body and the sky wheel are in the same document, they should scale by the same amount so everything should still fit.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: white; font-family: Arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The AAS meeting version was designed to cover (to within 5 degrees) the US from Puerto Rico (or Hawaii) up to Anchorage in Alaska, therefore also taking in large swathes of the rest of the world along the way, but missing out on places closer to the equator and (of course) the whole southern hemisphere. The northern and southern hemisphere versions between them can be cut to match (to within 5 degrees) every town with a population over 10,000 on the Earth. If anyone wants one for the Antarctic, then please contact me!</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-27742106765933318802013-12-19T05:22:00.000-08:002013-12-19T05:29:25.203-08:00Controlling the world's largest telescope with a Nexus 7<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
it's 5:30 in the morning, and I'm playing with my tablet. But this isn't a Candy Crush all-nighter, or even a Minecraft marathon. This is work - I'm using the tablet to observe. Via a combination of free apps from the Google Play store, I've taken control of the biggest telescope in the world, the Arecibo 305-m.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Remote observing allows observers to connect to the telescope from anywhere in the world (if they have an internet connection). People use Linux boxes, Macs, Windows PCs and, nowadays, tablets. I'm using a <a class="g-profile" href="http://plus.google.com/112773496741623034196" target="_blank">+Nexus</a> 7, its high-resolution screen making it ideal for this sort of task.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
To connect to the telescope, I'm using two pieces of software - an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Shell">SSH</a> client and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vnc">VNC</a> viewer. The first of these isn't, strictly speaking, necessary. I use it only to log in to the Arecibo Linux network and start up a VNC server, something I could do from a different computer at an earlier time. However, computers crash and there's no absolute guarantee that a VNC session started earlier will still be running, so I like to have the SSH client to hand. I use <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sonelli.juicessh">JuiceSSH</a>, which is simple and does everything I need it to do.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The second app, the VNC client, is absolutely essential. By connecting to a VNC session running on the Arecibo system, it transforms the tablet into a remote terminal that can do (almost) anything I could do from the control room. I use the <a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iiordanov.freebVNC">bVNC</a> app, which supports SSH <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_protocol">tunnelling</a> in its free version, allowing me to connect through the gateway machine to a computer in the control room.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Once I'm in, the operator turns over control of the telescope to me, and I'm away. I can tap a source on the graphical display and bring up its information, then hit another button to send the telescope to point at that source. I can tweak the settings for the observations, or even change to a completely different observing mode. I can call up monitoring software and watch the data flow in, or even run a quick data reduction script to see if I've found anything.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLUBx3p24r9RnTreWsPcZAb1J7SCHp37tb9BxW13x4vHl3QxmhQleSzsGUbkgn-5ng7qYjNSkRBQCpXEBoqmNGyk3zK67qkg6yC5U0qF_mAUODl7-F73QfYsfe6Bh7zqNUJYPk5y8s5fE/s1600/Screenshot_2013-12-18-05-35-56.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLUBx3p24r9RnTreWsPcZAb1J7SCHp37tb9BxW13x4vHl3QxmhQleSzsGUbkgn-5ng7qYjNSkRBQCpXEBoqmNGyk3zK67qkg6yC5U0qF_mAUODl7-F73QfYsfe6Bh7zqNUJYPk5y8s5fE/s320/Screenshot_2013-12-18-05-35-56.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This is all great fun, right up to the point where the operator says "time's up" and I have to hand the telescope over to the next user. And to think - I can do all this from the comfort of my armchair, with a computer I can hold in the palm of my hand!</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-53064621511462470282013-12-09T19:20:00.001-08:002013-12-09T19:29:26.606-08:00When the network became a notwork<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
"When sorrows come, they come not single spies but in batallions" has certainly felt true over the last week. Firstly there were problems with the car, next with the wireless router, and finally with the wifi on the PC.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
On Wednesday evening the car suddenly started making a metallic grinding noise. This was tracked down to the vicinity of the front driver's-side wheel. Being not much of a mechanic myself, I diagnosed this as needing to be taken to someone who was. Ideas included a problem with the brakes and a problem with the wheel bearing (all too common with Puerto Rican roads, alas).</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So on Thursday morning I drove rather gingerly down the road to our local garage and dropped the car off. The mechanic didn't know whether he'd get a chance to look at it that day or not, but as I wasn't about to drive the car anywhere until it was fixed I left it there and walked home (about 5 minutes up the road).</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
I was able to get lifts in and out of work on Thursday and Friday, although this meant that I got home about 3:30 on Friday, intending to do more work at home. Unfortunately, we had (apparently) no internet connection. This isn't that uncommon an occurance, so I phoned up my ISP to find out what was happening. They told me there were no problems at their end, and that they could see my router. This was a bit unusual, so I tried plugging the PC straight into the modem. We had internet - but the router couldn't see it!</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
At this point I switched tasks, as 5pm was approaching, and walked back down to the garage to check on the status of our car. This turned out to be 'mysterious' - the noise had been there on Thursday when they had moved the car around, but had vanished by Friday when they had had time to look at it. They had checked the brakes, wheel bearing, gearbox, etc. and all were fine, so they said to bring the car back if it started making the noise again. They also said - and this is one of the bonuses of being in Puerto Rico - that they hadn't fixed anything, so there was no charge for the time spent looking for the problem!</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
So, back home and back to working on the router. Following instructions on Belkin's website, I tried resetting the router and running the setup utility, and (when that failed to improve matters) gave them a call. It turned out that the router was still under warranty, if it was a hardware problem, but that my free over-the-phone support had expired so if it was software I would have to re-instate this, at a cost. It did, of course, turn out to be software, so I gritted my teeth and gave them my credit card number. That's when things turned surreal...</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The support lady came back to me to say that they couldn't process a card with a Puerto Rican address, as it wasn't in their system. They could take cards from the US or Canada, but not US territories, so she couldn't tell me how to fix the router! She even checked with her supervisor, but 'the system' was king, and there was no way for me to give them my money, so I said goodbye and decided to do some poking myself.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
I started by plugging the PC back into the modem. Nothing - the internet had gone down at the ISPs end while I had been on the phone. Fortunately it came back rather quickly, which enabled me to discover that the hive-mind of the internet has very little useful to say on how to fix faulty routers. With a bit of poking around in the settings, I was able to get the router to pass on the connection wirelessly using 'Access Point' mode (which didn't require an IP address for the router). The downside of this was that none of the router functions were available, so I only had the single IP provided by the ISP and (for some reason) I could only access this from the PC, not from the tablet. At this point I gave up and went to bed for the night.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The next morning, the wifi on the PC had stopped working. There was a wifi signal coming from the router, but the PC could no longer see it (the tablet could, but it couldn't get an IP address from the ISP). Time for a trip to Office Max! There we found a USB wifi aerial, and also spotted a wireless router that actually cost less than Belkin's telephone support. It was only single-band, while the older router was dual-band, but we had only ever used the s-band wifi as the c-band signal doesn't pass through our walls, so no real loss there.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Back home, the new router and the USB aerial were easy to install (although the PC is now perilously short of USB ports), and we finally had a network instead of a notwork!</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Codicil: I celebrated having the internet back by tweeting "Back online with a new router. Won't be buying @belkin again, at least not until they can give customer service to Puerto Rico!" This led to a reply from @BelkinCares: "Hi Robert, allow us to assist you. What is your #Belkin product?" I've been trying a few things with them - so far the only thing they got me to do that I hadn't already tried was running the setup from the CD (which I had forgotten I had). Unfortunately this turned out to be identical to the setup I had run from the PC before, so I haven't yet got two working wireless routers...</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-16951364417598799842013-12-01T20:33:00.001-08:002013-12-01T20:50:30.051-08:00Exercise - why bother?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0z0f3Ki0zbTsi0Xw4oKr-qvPgou-TE30G3q6qHMxrC6OvmRw0SgEzw3RDzVvHdwNyRzNV7r1nfGoUCtCCPQNyhMdiaohLLdu_nfnKEr1yNz-geuSz9pD8bbIxrzOVPEN4NkW0OVretCM/s1600/turkeython.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0z0f3Ki0zbTsi0Xw4oKr-qvPgou-TE30G3q6qHMxrC6OvmRw0SgEzw3RDzVvHdwNyRzNV7r1nfGoUCtCCPQNyhMdiaohLLdu_nfnKEr1yNz-geuSz9pD8bbIxrzOVPEN4NkW0OVretCM/s320/turkeython.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It seems that the HR department up at USRA would like us to take more exercise. At least, that's what they keep telling us. They even have events to encourage people to exercise, such as walking competitions and the 'New York minute'. However, I haven't felt inspired to take part in any of these. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Leaving aside the somewhat dubious science behind some of the 'healthy living' advice in the 'New York minute', and the off-putting name (can anything associated with New York be good for you?), there was the chance to win an iPad mini - surely motivation enough? Alas, no. You had to reach a certain number of 'points' to go into the draw. Like the earlier walking competition, this meant that if you weren't already exercising a lot and following their (pseudo-scientific) idea of a healthy lifestyle, there wasn't much chance of winning anything. Rather than encouraging exercise, the competitions reward the already-fit and discourage those who are ostensibly being targetted.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Yet last week I took part in the Observatory's Thanksgiving 'Turkeython'. This event had no significant prizes - not an iPad in sight - but it was fun and social. This was exercise and team-building done right. I had a good time even though, like last time I entered, I ended up limping.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Maybe fun is a better motivator than iPads and competition! </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
(Photo by Tony Acevedo) </div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-11697801765831332162013-11-24T13:02:00.001-08:002013-12-01T20:50:49.203-08:00Why men should advocate gender equity - the case against the business case<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
A few weeks back, an article appeared on the Women in Astronomy blog by Ed Bertschinger on '<a href="http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-men-should-advocate-gender-equity.html">why men should advocate gender equity</a>'. The main reason put forward was that this would ultimately benefit their departments. This argument, or variants on it, is often heard and was something I had been thinking on prior to the post appearing. I commented on Ed's post that this utilitarian argument missed the point - men should support equity because it is right, not because of some expected benefit in the future; Ed responded that his argument was indeed utilitarian, but that, while he was motivated by social justice, he was also a pragmatist.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
My feeling is that utilitarian arguments, while they may have their place in making business cases (as I said in my original response), do a great disservice to the social justice movement when advanced more generally as a reason for people to support causes. They do not encourage people to act out of a desire for social justice, but for selfish reasons; they do not challenge anyone to 'check their privilege', but merely to reach some pragmatic goal of 'equity'; and they actively discourage anyone from speaking out against inequitable treatment that benefits them personally.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Yet these utilitarian arguments remain pervasive. Another example that everyone will probably have heard is that we need to build diverse groups because that leads to better decision making. But, an objector might ask, how often do we take group decisions in science? The PI system, where there is one team leader and a group of junior researchers, does not fit this model. Maybe team cohesion - which is negatively affected by diversity - is more important? </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
This leads to another question I touched on in my response to Ed: whether these utilitarian arguments are truly pragmatic. In academia, the employment situation is (in general) what economists refer to as 'Pareto-optimal' - any improvement in the prospects of getting a job for one person will reduce the prospects for another. This means that it makes no sense from a utilitarian prospective for a job-seeking member of a privileged group to promote the prospects of an under-privileged group. </div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It appears, therefore, that the utilitarian 'good of the department' argument can only be used pragmatically when dealing with those whose performance is measured by how well the department (or institute) as a whole performs - the heads of departments and the administrators. It has no pragmatic appeal to those already in permanent positions at the top of the promotion ladder, it only appeals to those seeking promotion (or tenure, where the tenure-track system is used) inasmuch as it has already been identified as a departmental priority (and even then visible support of the priority is more important than effective action), and it actually has negative appeal for post-docs, other junior researchers, and non-permanent (non-tenure track) faculty.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Fortunately, there are many people who are inspired by pro-social ideals, and these people should be encouraged. It is important (but difficult) to distinguish between those seeking affirmation for doing something they believe in, and those who are after 'cookies' or 'liberal brownie points'. The need for affirmation is human and should not be disparaged, or people may get discouraged and give up on the good they are trying to do. Those working for social justice may do so from a religious perspective, or may be secular humanists; they may have a well-developed philosophy or may be acting out of an instinctive sense of fairness; they may even believe that they are acting pragmatically 'for the good of the department' - but fundamentally they will be doing good because it is right, not because they expect to benefit from doing so.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The utilitarian argument leads to the conclusion that we should only act for a definite benefit, and only then if the cost of acting is less than the expected gain. The social justice principle, in contrast, says that we should always act, even if no benefit can be identified and even at personal cost. It is nice when doing the right thing brings a benefit, but if we are only doing it for that reason and not because it is right, we are acting selfishly, not justly.<br />
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-805132705504065317.post-14956680829303721642013-11-19T09:30:00.001-08:002013-12-01T20:51:20.972-08:00Exploding the myth of e-reader battery life<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
It would have been interesting to have been in the room when the marketing folks revealed how they were going to spin the battery life of e-readers. Was the headline 'battery lasts for weeks, not hours' greeted with a standing ovation? Was the small print 'based on a half hour of reading per day' met with hushed reverence? Did the engineers bury their heads in their hands? (Quotes from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CTUKFNQ">Amazon.com's</a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CTUKFNQ"> Kindle </a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CTUKFNQ">Paperwhite</a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CTUKFNQ"> Touch page</a>.)</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Whatever the initial reception, there can be no doubt that it worked. In their comparison of e-readers and tablets, the respected technology site CNET <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009738-1/kindle-vs-nook-vs-ipad-which-e-book-reader-should-you-buy/">says</a>:</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>The other big advantage of e-ink readers is battery life, which is measured in weeks, not hours. Instead of using a reading app on a phone or tablet that will cut into the battery life you might need for other tasks, you can read as long as you'd like on an e-ink reader, and keep the phone ready for phone calls, email, or web browsing instead.</i></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
Hook, line, and sinker. This review is now quoted on Wikipedia as an authoritative source for the idea that e-readers have better battery life than tablets, but it is entirely based on marketing hype.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The Amazon Kindle Paperwhite claims a battery life of up to eight weeks, with wireless off and the brightness turned down. The Google Nexus 7 (2013 model) tests as having up to 9 hours of battery life in mixed-use tests at <a href="http://www.trustedreviews.com/nexus-7-2-2013_Tablet_review_battery-life-and-verdict_Page-5">trustedreviews</a><a href="http://www.trustedreviews.com/nexus-7-2-2013_Tablet_review_battery-life-and-verdict_Page-5">.com</a>. Surely there should be no contest? I decided to test the Nexus 7 under similar conditions to the Kindle to see what I would find...</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The test setup was quite simple. I charged the tablet fully, turned off wireless, turned down the screen brightness to a point where I could still read comfortably, and read until the battery hit 90%. I used two epub readers for the test - Aldiko and Moon Reader+, both available for free from the Google Play Store. The OS was Android 4.3 (the 4.4 update that is supposed to improve battery life hasn't reached me yet). One mistake was that a weather app I had used earlier turned out to still be trying to check its server in the background; this was responsible for 5% of battery usage during the test period.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
My first finding was that the screen dominates battery usage, taking about 85% of the power. The Nexus 7, like virtually every modern device, powers down unused parts of the CPU, so I was running on a single core at a low clock speed. The epub apps and the OS took about 10% of the power between them. Battery usage did not seem to depend significantly on which e-reader app I used.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
The big shock, however, was how long the test lasted: I ended up taking the tablet to bed with me instead of the Kindle. To use up just 10% of the battery took 3.25 hours, implying a total life of 32.5 hours. Or 9 weeks, if it were marketed like an e-reader.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
I was surprised. I had known that the Nexus would be a lot closer to the Kindle than the official figures implied, but that it actually had better battery life was astonishing. It may be that I got lucky - but 'up to 8 weeks' for the Kindle implies the best possible result is 8 weeks, so I don't feel I'm being unfair. Another potential problem may be that battery usage would change as the charge level dropped, but I've not noticed any such variation in general usage of the Nexus and have no reason to suspect that the battery meter isn't reporting correctly. It might also be suggested that I shouldn't have turned down the screen brightness - but I adjust the screen brightness to suit the conditions when using the Kindle, and in anything other than bright sunlight would have it on a higher setting than the one Amazon uses for their test.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify;">
In conclusion, the idea that e-readers have longer battery life than tablets is due to marketing hype and their different patterns of normal usage - comparing apples and oranges. When the Nexus 7 was used solely as an e-reader - comparing apples to apples - it actually had better battery life than the Kindle.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13854342602510650628noreply@blogger.com2