Accreditation difficulties of the University of London

We sometimes mention on this board that even well-known universities were at one time unaccredited, and that some of those that had novel or creative approaches had great difficulty. As a case in point, it’s interesting to consider the University of London (later to be known as University College London, part of an umbrella organization that took the original name). UCL is today one of the world’s best and most famous universities.

I have been re-reading a somewhat dated history of the University of London by Negley Harte (from the Department of Economic History at UCL). The book provides a fascinating summary of the difficulties that UCL (then simply the University of London) faced in its attempts to receive a Royal Charter that would allow it to grant degrees. Many of the problems it faced are similar to those we discuss today. Note in the following that the words “chartered” or “incorporated” are used where we today in the U.S. would use the term “accredited.”

The University of London (later UCL) was opened in 1828 but was unable to obtain a charter, and King’s College was opened in explicit opposition to University of London in 1831 after obtaining a charter in 1829. From Harte:

• London now had two rival putative universities, one chartered but calling itself a College, the other unchartered but calling itself a University. From the outset the Gower Street institution [the University of London] sought incorporation, first by attempting to promote parliamentary bills, and then after the Whigs came to government in 1830, by seeking a charter. One was on the point of being sealed in 1831, when Oxford and Cambridge weighed in to demand the inclusion of a clause restraining the University from granting degrees. This was a power the University was keen to obtain. The resulting controversy lasted for four years.

Sounds familiar? This could have come directly from John Sperling’s “Rebel with a Cause,” with appropriate changes in the names of the institutions.

Harte quotes the London Medical Gazette, which published this statement:

• ... There was nothing intrinsically more ridiculous … than a joint-stock company taking the appellation of an University ...

Does this sound familiar some 170 years later? How many times do we hear scornful comments about “companies” masquerading as “universities”?

In 1834, the University’s petition for a charter (together with counter-petitions from Oxford and Cambridge) came before the Privy Council. Henry Brougham (a Scotsman who, with other Scotsmen such as George Birkbeck, had founded the University of London) asked: “… what is to prevent London University granting degrees now” and received the reply: “The universal scorn and contempt of mankind.” Harte writes that “Brougham, for once in his life, could think of no reply.”

Continuing to quote Harte:

• The University continued to award ‘Certificates of Honours’ but drew back from awarding degrees until it could obtain a charter properly entitling it to do so. In March 1835, after a long debate on the subject in the House of Commons, the short-lived Tory government of 1834-5 was defeated and a motion was passed requesting the King to grant ‘His Royal Charter of Incorporation to the University of London … and containing no other restriction than against conferring degrees in divinity and in medicine.’

The exclusion of degrees in divinity is one difference from the modern day – in 1835, the ability to award degrees in religion was very much restricted.

Alas, the motion in the House of Commons was not sufficient in itself to get the University of London its charter. A “compromise” was reached later in the same year whereby teaching functions were separated from examination functions. The University of London was forced to change its name to University College London, and along with King’s College became one of two teaching colleges in a new federated University. The examination role was filled by a new institution that assumed the name of the University of London.

Negley Harte refers to the first University of London founded by Brougham, Birkbeck, inter alios (and not by Bentham as commonly believed) as Mark I, and the second as Mark II. Mark III followed with the reconstitution of the University in 1900. We may yet see Mark IV if the UCL/Imperial merger proceeds. The combined College would remain under the University of London umbrella. I had dinner last night with a UCL Professor (and Fellow of the College), who told me that the UCL academic staff are deeply divided and that there is open rebellion against the administration on this issue. For more information on this, see Gower Street manifesto.

 

Thanks, Gert. I find topics like this fascinating.

Any thoughts on how the faculty at Imperial College view the possible merger?

 

Well, you heard it here first. From today's Guardian: Merger of colleges scuppered.

Snippet:

• Plans to create a world class super-university in London through the merger of two leading colleges were abandoned yesterday in the wake of a staff revolt. ...