Even more controversial:

Imperial college and UCL could come head to head in Robot Wars University Challenge this weekend. Perhaps a Ferrari style fix would be in order?

Well, you have to hand it to him. Sir Richard does have balls (unlike some in Beit Towers).

I can see future generations using the term "Lonbridge" instead of "Oxbridge" - in many areas Imperial has overtaken Oxford, but there's not enough external awareness of this. If the newly-formed University of London is seen as one institution, then it would clearly benefit from increased awareness and thereby paving the way for new sources of external funding. Imperial College, almost certainly the most successful of the London colleges has the chance to play a key role in the development of this new institution, which is likely to be inevitable at some point in the near future anyway - surely this is better than taking a back seat?

The Colleges of the current UoL together are fortunate to have such a rich variety of courses and research interests - by bringing together the best of these, we're surely going to create a new University that will offer a broader range of courses and be recognised as the best in all of those areas.

Or you could just call the combined Uni ICL, as planned originally.

Oh GOD!

Has the world gone insane. I was attempting to get out of student politics at IC but I feel myself inexplicably drawn back.

The Rector is listening more to his management consultants than to his staff or students. When you are at the cutting edge of messing up the degrees of students of two greatly respected institutions, all for the sake of saving a few pounds (possibly a few hun thous)

[carried on from above]

you have to wonder where this will end. I want my degree form Imperial. I want my ARCS.

Many of the things which make Imperial special and improve the job prospects of students are being stripped away by the consultants.

We need decisive action from all the sabbs to stop this madness, otherwise I believe that they should all be sacked. If they don't represent students (cf. the debacle last year), then their representing the college, and the two things don't necceseraly want the same things.

THe University fof London need to be rationalised... I quite agree. Perhaps I am being more swayed to Sir Richard. There is certainly a nice new chemistry building here at Mile End up for graps atm...

Let's face it, if College want to merge with UCL, then there is very little that the union can do to stop them. If this does go ahead, then the union should do its best to ensure that students get the best deal out of it, raising matters such as will students have to travel between campusus whereas prior to the merger they didn't (mentioned in an earlier discussion). One of the complaints I most frequently hear from students is that the average man (or employer) in the street has no idea how good Imperial is, or how much harder we have to work for our degrees. This is a chance to change all this, and make Imperial (or whatever it becomes) known to everyone.

I think students here (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) want the best recognition possible for their degree. If this is the best way to get that recognition, then so be it.

I don't want to sound like the Rector's henchman - my main concern is that, after having seen what happened at GlaxoSmithKline, it will take more than a couple of years of teething problems to get a new institution up and running.

In reply to Woodstock:

a) this situation only becomed inevitable if nobody tries to do anything to stop it - case in point: NUS backing scrapping of grants and introduction of tuition fees. If resistance (as had been the case in Scotland) had been shown to this plan then maybe student funding would not be the mess it is today.

b) Many students have been inconvenienced by the past 2 mergers IC was a part of - why do you think that the college will suddenly care if you have to travel for an extra hour or so each day?

c) Students who currently graduate from IC already receive recognition for their hard work - from the people that matter: employers/educationalists. Nobody can claim that graduating from IC has damaged their employment prospects, and in the circles that matter a degree from IC is considered as good as a degree from an Oxbridge college. Like us, people at MIT work hard... do you think that people think they are less employable than graduates from Harvard? It strikes me that the type of recognition you refer to is more along the lines of immediate recognition from Joe Bloggs. Grow up! That doesn't matter int he grand scheme of things, unless you want to work in maccy D's for the rest of your life.

d) Like you, I am concerned about teething problems if this ever happened, and teething problems would occur on a grander scale than any of us have experienced to date - you thought med school merger, wye merger and faculties were a nightmare. That's nothing compared to what this would be like.

e) I know the world doesn't revolve around me, but surely I am not the only person in this college that is annoyed that nobody even told the students until they had to. I suspect, given half a chance, ther merger would have occurred before we'd been informed.

f) I know the world is progressing, but just as CCUs were done away with in favour of FSAs (and I was saddened by this), this will erase a whole part of the culture and traditions of IC. I think this in itself is something worth saving.

g) Imperial students will be in a minority if this goes through - if we let it happen without doing anything then you can kiss goodbye to having your voices heard over the UCL crowd.

h) If I wanted to be at UCL I would be. But I'm not. I chose IC.

i) UCL smell!

*Rant Over*

New chemistry building at Mile End? Are you sure? :)

So what are the chances that we'll end up with IC(L), UCL and LSE as the new university of London?

I guess that way we get rid of all of the smaller colleges no one has ever heard of but who get the same degrees (University of London) as us.

Rob's right, I'm beginning to like this concept. A single University of London combining the best elements of each College (which may be more from some than others) would certainly be better placed to compete globally.

I'm still a little sceptical about how successful the attempt will be but it does seem worth thinking about.

Just to clarify... I'm not convinced, yet. But I am prepared to consider it.

One reason why the merger will benefit the new institution is in terms of fund-raising.

Philanthropists are in general reluctant to fund scientific and technological research. They like funding other worthy causes like orchestras, opera houses, holocaust memorials etc. Cancer research is probably the only major area of scientific research which attracts significant amounts of charity or philanthropy.

Having access to all kinds of humanities departments implies access to this kind of funding, which gets literally thrown at high-profile institutions.

UCL currently lacks that sort of major high profile. Imperial currently lacks any humanities base. And, unlike MIT and the like, Imperial is in no position to garner huge sums of money from government or defense contractor industrial sources to fund large-scale research.

I'd like to reply to Zebedee's comments in particular about "getting rid of the smaller colleges that nobody's ever heard of". Just because a college may be small does not at all imply that it is without value or prestige. The Royal Academy of Music, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the London School of Business and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) all may be small and indeed unheard of outside their fields, but they excel spectacularly within their specialist fields. For instance, it would be a serious loss with regard to the social sciences for any future University of London to be without the National Library for Asia and Africa that is located at SOAS. The solution here isn't to pick and choose from among the best known and largest colleges to make a new, trimmed-down and efficient University of London. Rather, what we must do is make the University of London a real university without this "consensual federation" nonsense. All UL students should be equal with a common UL ID card and equal access to all of the college's facilities. We should concentrate on making the UL name and logo synonymous with excellence in education instead of retiring into the confines of our respective colleges. Such insular thinking will ultimately NOT create a university with a diverse range of ideas, faculties and programmes that any world class university should have. I'm not saying that we should get rid of the colleges, but what I am saying is that we should drop the barriers that exist between them and rally around the University of London as a unified entity.

I'm warming all the time... assuming Sir Richard is being London-wide and not just IC-UCL...

Listen to the postgrads in mys dept and it's like sifting through poo with the numbers of beefs they have with UoL...

So Sir Richard has his eyes on an office in Senate House. A fine choice - rumour had it Hitler had earmarked it for his London headquarters follow the successful invasion of Britain

I quite like the idea of making a stronger London Uni. And why stop at just UL colleges? Once we've got the arts and humanities courses from UCL, why not grab hold of a couple of presigious establishments on our own doorstep? Royal College of Music and Royal College of Art anyone?

I agree with Justin that the smaller colleges, (eg. SOAS) are important with the University of London.

However, having considered the news, I increasingly believe that the creation of a new University of London (NewUL), containing UCL/IC/LSE and a old University of London (Old UL) with all of the smaller colleges/schools + Kings, is a really good idea.

There is a great deal of similarity in how UCL/IC/LSE operate. They are all large institutions with lots of students and have many of the same aims. Joining these into a single entity would strip them of the shared burden of the University of London's administrative base and some of their vagueries. This would allow the formation of a NewUL which could be competitive on a global scale.

The smaller colleges, who actually need the Senate house style of government (because they are too small to be self-sufficient) would, I believe, be better off continuing under the old style of government, hence OldUL.

I disagree with Justin in that I don't believe that it is possible to remove the barriers within the UL. This, I believe would lead to a greater loss of identity for these small colleges than LSE/IC/UCL leaving.

There are two big issues against this. Firstly the question of whether OldUL could survive financially and secondly how would IC deal with Wye under such an arangement.

Personally I like the idea of an Imperial University: partially this ibecause of he higher profile the institution would have, but mainly I am keen on IC offering a wider range of subjects to a high standard. This we can do by absorbing UC.

Departments which are duplicated in the existing institutions pose more of a problem I feel. However, this is where Sykes cites the main advantages: where he sees opportunities for research collaboration, I see potential for undergraduate discord ad curriculum confusion. This is because I come to the issue from an undergratuate perspective, whereas he approaches from a research-driven perspective. In short, the new departments formed will be excellent research centres but fairly crap (at least at first) for UG education, cf the new ICSM.

As for Sykes' motives, I don't think, as some have said, that this is an entirely financially motivated decision. In fact, it makes little sense financially: the actual cost savings from a merger will be realtively modest, and will mainly be within central college admin. No: Sykes' expansionist tendency, displayed so vividly in the GSK merger, is what is behind this in my view.

In conclusion one must ask whether this is an idea which furthers the interests of the college's undergraduates, either by design or as a side-effect. I say that it does, insofar as Imperial will become a more diverse community with more to offer applicants outside the lecture theatre. However, within the lecture theatre, for those students in newly merged departments thias change herald several years of upheaval and bad teaching.

Timetable

9am - Lecture in South Ken

10am - Lecture in Bloomsbury

11am - Lecture in Aldwych

Could be fun!

With all due respect, I can't foresee that kind of timetabling. Unless it's for the Medics!

Undergraduate discord? No big deal. It will substantially disappear in 3/4 years once the old farts leave.

Sunil

I agree; however, one should not compromise the education of those unfortaunte enough to joint the new institution whilst it's still in a state of flux, especially when the longer-term benefits to UGs are so ephemeral.

Has it occurred to anyone at IC that UCL, far from being 'absorbed' by IC, is the bigger player in this, both in terms of research funding and student numbers. After the most important issues of student welfare, IC should be more worried about loss of their identity than 'smelly UCL students'. UCL was, after all the originaly university of london; it just seems things destined to return that way...

I hate to break this to you robL, but UCL may be bigger, and have more research funding - but it's also massively in debt.

It sacked it's last Provost, and got the old one back temporarily. It's Union is royally f#cked, with no clear leadership.

Hate to say this, but this is a hostile takeover by a smaller leaner fighting machine.

Sir Richard does this for a living; he merged all of the individual letters that made up the acronym GSK, i think he is perfectly capable of merging two colleges...

Don't try and kid yourself that UCL is in charge, this is an IC takeover... look at the facts!

Ok, spare me the exaggerations. UCL is certainly in deficit this year but 'massively in debt' is a little over the top, don't you think? IC's financial record is hardly one to shout about - in fact it's absolutely dire. Why on earth do you think Sykes is pushing top-up fees. Both colleges are being squeezed by ever increasing government cuts and neither is in a position to gain ascendency.

Anyway, Sykes would be heading this process whether he was at the helm of IC or UCL. And I've no doubt of his ability to merge the two colleges.

Llewellyn-Smith was asked to resign because he was attempting to streamline UCL in the face of government funding cuts. He faced a revolt from senior staff.

When was the last time you visited UCL Union? Royally f*cked is hardly the term -you've obviously had your head deeply buried in back issues of 'Derriere' for most of your life. Don't get me wrong, I'm an IC student - but one really disappointed by the union here. UCLU's efficiency and range of services puts ICSU's record to shame, only highlighted by the awesome conceit expressed above. Get a grip guys cos those at UCLU are gonna screw you when it comes to merging the unions - they're the only student union in london to make any sort of profit and have capital of over £1million to fall back on. OK, maybe not what a students’ union should be about, but I sort of imagine they’ll be in the driving seat when the day comes.

robL, it's not their actual Union building, services, or events that are f#cked... It's their whole Union structure which is fucked. At UCLU, there are 5 Vice Presidents... who do you think is in charge of these VPs.... Is it a president... is it f#ck! all 5 VPs work as a committee, the entire Union is basically run by their general manager - that's not a student lead body - it's a staff quango. Now robL, you may not be impressed with your Union, and i bet you've got your own reason for that - but at least we have strong student leadership. One President in charge, and a large number of staff who are accountable to that President.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure UCLUs staff run it perfectly, but it's well known throughout UL that as a student led body, UCLU is a joke.

Sorry to break it to you all, and i know the facts hurt sometimes, but WTF have UCLU done about fees? 0, nada, nothing... What have ICU done about fees? Well quite a lot actually.

Check out the press releases, view all the stories in the press - then ask yourself - who cares more... ICU or UCLU?

Dear robL

to quote you:

"I am an IC student"

to quote [this webpage|http://www.uclu.org/forum/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=481:]

you see any mismatch between the two ideas? well do you?

maybe you were just confused - onset of dementia perhaps - or maybe your head is buried so far up your derriere that all you can see is your own Rectum... sorry Provost.

I should have applied for UCL in my UCAS. The offers were much lower, and in the end I will get a degree from this new IC/UCL university anyway.

ooh look robL... looks like i have more info...

check here

i think that convincingly proves your a liar... are all UCL students as duplicitous?

OK, I guess I underestimated you supersleuths at IC. But surely you can understand a UC student visiting your site and feeling ever so slightly peeved by the anti-UCL sentiment - it's just something that's not reciprocated at UCL and hardly a reflection of your obvious intellect that you find it necessary to resort to this.

Sam - having a President doesn't stop a Union being a staff-led quango. Just look at QMSU over the last two years (at least...)

I have recieved an email from Rob Lown (robL) above, and i feel that seeing as he said some stuff, and i said some stuff - possibly i owed UCL students an apology too.

Not all UCL students are duplicitous, and in fact my insinuation that they are is as bad as Rob's pretence to being an IC student.

I think more UCL students posting here on this topic would be a good idea - come on guys, show us what you think!

Thanks sam - very honourable. Will post message on UCLU discussion board to encourage them to join Live forum - our one is crap.

It's dangerous to be too enthusiastic about a fully merged University of London. At first sight, it seems tempting. But it has happened before and it was far from successful. The huge size of the previous centrally-administered University of London made it very hard to manage and actually led to sluggish uncompetitiveness. Bigger is not necessarily better.

It makes sense to have multiple institutions with autonomous drive and focus, rather than one big white elephant!

Indeed, it could be argued that it was the very decision to have autonomous colleges that has allowed London to close in on Oxbridge and challenge its supremacy.

A new fully integrated University of London would lead to a loss of healthy pluralism and inter-college competition.

That is not to say that collaboration as such is a bad thing. But there is no reason why collaboration cannot occur without retaining an important degree of autonomy. A line needs to be drawn.

At the same time, the UCL/IC merger is essentially being viewed in isolation from other London colleges. Let's assume that IC & UCL structures are complementary. It may well make the merged institution stronger and more competitive, but it would leave other colleges by the wayside -except, perhaps LSE (which already has a sufficiently strong international reputation & I don't believe would look favourably at the idea of being 'merged').

All in all, this 'cannibalistic' process actually risks reducing London's capacity to provide higher education, through the series of inevitable 'rationalisations' that would result: staff cuts, etc.

Also, following from this, we have to ask if intimidating the academic community with the prospect of uncertainty is the right way stimulate and 'enable' it.

I suggest that a strong commitment to increased inter-college collaboration, without compromising autonomy, would build on the gains already made and be sufficient in significantly raising London's academic profile in the world -presenting a more meaningful challenge to other world players, rather than getting there through tricks, such as merging and 'rationalising'. There is a sense in which what is being attempted here is a 'shortcut' of sorts.

As a scientist here at UCL, I am firmly opposed to the proposed merge with IC, and many other scientists here are as well. (Not only students). I am sure that a merge with IC will swallow up many of the science departments here, and that the scientists will be forced to relocate over to the Imperial site. I actually turned down a place at Imperial to go to UCL, and this is why:

a) The biology department at UCL is better (I think!)

b) The ucl location, union etc is really good

A merge with IC could jepardize this and therefore it should not go ahead....

The subject of the IC/UC merger was discussed at an emergency meeting of ULU Executive on Friday from 6 to 9pm, as well as the tuition fees which was the big issue of the week (not wishing to belittle the merger plans - but tuition fees were discussed at IC Council on that Friday whereas the merger is not discussed until December and both IC and UCL students have not had SU meetings to formalise their own stance on it yet.)

As ULU we will make sure that their is consultation on the merger. We did a round-robin of views on both fees and merger - a policy document will be going to UL stabbs/Exec on Tuesday at Presidents' Council emergency meeting and to an Extraordinary ULU Council meeting on Tuesday 5 November (I think it's that day).

We have also allocated a £50,000 transfer from ULU reserves to fight tuition fees. Look out in The Times this wednesday...