David M. Berry
The concepts we employ to categorise British universities are important and can tell us a lot about the historical constellation of ideas from which institutions emerge. They can also reveal information about the status hierarchies that exist in academia through historical traces in the words used to describe them. From the "ancient" universities of Oxford and Cambridge through the "red brick" institutions of the industrial age to the
heptad of "new" universities of the 1960s, these designations carry ideological and cultural codings. They reveal assumptions about institutional hierarchy, architectural aesthetics, social purpose, and pedagogical approach that extend far beyond their descriptive classificatory terminology. For example, the term "plateglass universities," applied to seven institutions founded during the expansion of higher education in the 1960s, including Sussex (1961), York (1963), East Anglia (1963), Essex (1964), Lancaster (1964), Kent at Canterbury (1965), and Warwick (1965), achieved a particular resonance in relation to their
de novo status.
[1] This article adopts an archaeological approach to trace the particular term, the "plateglass universities," to suggest that it emerged through complex networks of circulation.
Educational and academic discourse tends toward straightforward attribution of terms such as these, often treating the creation of concepts to a single author rather than complex processes of circulation, adaptation, and crystallisation. In this article, I start to look at the networks of intellectual exchange, material conditions, and discursive practices through which academic terminology acquires meaning and authority. The case of "plateglass universities" offers a particularly revealing instance of how concepts emerge through dispersed practices rather than being attributable to an individual. As Beloff (1968b) argues,
The wind of change blows with increasing force through the groves of academe. The difference between the Plateglass Universities and both their predecessors and upgraded successors was that in them alone was there the opportunity for pure experiment. It is they that bear uniquely the hallmark of this generation... The seven new universities were conceived during the years 1958-61 without the benefit of a single debate in Parliament. It was only after the vital decisions were taken that the public and political argument began about the role of the universities in the new scientific and social revolutions. The Robbins Report of 1963 did not, as is commonly believed, beget the Plateglass Universities: it merely gave them an Establishment benison. Expansion in fact preceded debate on its own value (Beloff 1968b: 14).
As such these new universities didn't receive an official collective name, beyond being called the "new universities" and attempts were made by critics and academics to coin a fitting term to compliment Oxbridge and Redbrick universities. Indeed, today when we talk about the plateglass universities and it has become commonplace to make a seemingly straightforward attribution of the term "plateglass universities" to Michael Beloff and his 1968 book, itself titled
Plateglass Universities. He describes the book as being researched during "two grand tours to the new campuses in the summer of 1966 and in the spring of 1967" (Beloff 1968: 10).
[2] He wrote, in 1968,
I had at the start to decide upon a generic term for the new universities—they will not be new for ever. None of the various caps so far tried have fitted. 'Greenfields' describes only a transient phase. 'Whitebrick', 'Whitestone', and 'Pinktile' hardly conjure up the grey or biscuit concrete massiveness of most of their buildings, and certainly not the black towers of Essex. ‘Newbridge’ is fine as far as the novelty goes, but where on earth are the bridges? Sir Edward Boyle more felicitously suggested 'Shakespeare'. But I have chosen to call them the Plateglass Universities. It is architecturally evocative; but more important, it is metaphorically accurate (Beloff 1968: 11-12).[3][4]
Yet this seemingly straightforward attribution to Beloff hides a more complex genealogy that requires careful excavation. Beloff identifies seven universities as strictly-speaking the plateglass universities, distinguishing them from the Colleges of Advanced Technology (CATs) and others. The list he compiles are the universities of Sussex, York, East Anglia, Essex, Lancaster, Kent at Canterbury, and Warwick. As Beloff notes, "plateglass wants to produce people not to fit into existing society but flexible enough to change in a changing world" (Beloff 1968: 45).
However, I now believe that there is a more complex genealogy of intellectual circulation of the use of the term "plateglass" during the early 1960s. Indeed, in an interview I conducted with Beloff in 2024 he commented that a similar term was already in the air during the mid-1960s and that he was merely responsible for popularising it (Beloff 2024).[5]
 |
| Sussex as the "Pink-Brick University" (West 1962) |
This suggestive comment eventually led me to an obscure paper by A.J.W. Taylor who in 1965 writes of "glass universities" in his paper on student counselling at Victoria University of Wellington. Writing about suicide rates, Taylor casually compares New Zealand statistics "with the red brick and glass universities in England" (Taylor 1965: 116). This indicates that the terminology of "glass universities," was at least sufficiently established to require no explanation for his academic audience. So far in my research this represents the earliest documented usage, predating Beloff's use by three years. Indeed, Beloff could well have picked up this coinage at Oxford as he was an undergraduate at Magdalen College (1960) and his father Max Beloff was at this time a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, who himself grew concerned about academic life and wrote about the university in 1967 and 1968 (see also Beloff 1943).
[6] The notion of Sussex, York, East Anglia (Norfolk), Essex, Lancaster, Kent at Canterbury, and Warwick being called the Shakespeare Universities is attributed by Beloff to Sir Edward Boyle, Minister of Education from 1962 to 1964 and later Vice Chancellor of the University of Leeds (Beloff 1968: 11-12). However, Boyle actually is said to have coined the term the "Shakespearean Seven" rather than Shakespeare universities (See Patel 2021). In contrast, Lord Fulton, former Vice Chancellor of Sussex, attributes the term to Lord Wolfenden, who was a former Vice Chancellor of the University of Reading, noting in the House of Lords, "that has to be compared with the figures for the new universities—what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfenden, would call the 'Shakespeare Universities'—of York, Lancaster, Warwick, Sussex and so on" (Fulton quoted in HL Deb 1976). Interestingly, Birks attributes the term to the UGC, stating "of the seven centres—the Shakespearian [sic] Seven, as they are known to the University Grants Committee because of the ring of their names—all had made a previous attempt to get themselves a university, apart from Essex" (Birks 1973: 15). [7]
Stefan Muthesius also attributes the use of the term "Shakesperean [sic] Seven" to Sir Edward Boyle (although his reference to Brawne 1970 doesn't mention Boyle by name) and "a verse of 1963" by Pendennis of The Observer (Muthesius 2000: 103), which he quotes,
How speaks industrious Warwick,
Shewrd Lancaster, my noble lord of York?
Brave Sussex, ill-starred Kent, ambitious Essex (Pendennis 1964).[8]
.png) |
| University of Sussex in 1964, photo by Lewis Morley (Patmore 1964) |
Beloff's own acknowledgement of previous usage points toward these hidden genealogies. Taylor's 1965 usage of "glass university" may therefore be a kind of archaeological trace of broader processes of conceptual formation that have sadly left few documentary texts.
[9] The apparent isolation of his usage perhaps confirms the circulation of the term "glass universities" that Beloff retrospectively acknowledged, a circulation sufficiently established to enable casual use but insufficiently formalised to generate an extensive textual record. Indeed, it is interesting to note that Edward Durrell Stone argued in 1960 that in relation to modern architecture on campus "plate glass has a place today that Pentelic marble did at the time of the Greeks" (Stone 1960a: 10). Stone's comparison between plateglass and Pentelic marble links to a possible broader cultural shift in how architectural materials carried symbolic weight. The materiality of plate glass itself is interesting in this regard as in 1959 Pilkington Glass introduced their new "float method" for the manufacture of plate glass which increased the efficiency and suitability of plate glass for building. The democratisation of plate glass through these improved manufacturing processes made it available for institutional buildings at precisely the moment when these new universities were being conceived and constructed.
The institutional networks connecting these usages call for a more systematic analysis. Taylor's casual deployment of "glass universities" suggests that there was a circulation within Commonwealth academic circles, particularly given his position at Victoria University of Wellington. This raises questions about whether the terminology emerged simultaneously in multiple locations or followed specific pathways of intellectual exchange. Further research into academic journals, conference proceedings, and informal correspondence from 1960-1968 might help show the use of this terminology within these networks of circulation. It should also be noted that the term "plateglass" was not necessarily widely accepted, indeed Cunliffe writing in 1969 remarked that he preferred the term "campus universities" as, he argued, "'Plateglass' has unpleasant connotations of shop-window display... [they] are all in semi-rural surroundings, and – consciously or not – attest American influences in curriculum and vocabulary" (Cunliffe 1969).
 |
Diagrams of spatial/social relationships
for "new model communities" from York University’s
early development (McKean 2007: 213) |
These material conditions of architectural design and building align with Friedrich Kittler's media archaeological understanding that concepts emerge through technological and material conditions rather than purely intellectual means. The architectural reality of post-war modernist construction, which in some of the new universities of the time was characterised by extensive use of plate glass in steel and concrete frames, was certainly noted as a new material for both buildings and as a metaphor for thinking. The timing of Taylor's usage coincides therefore with significant developments in glass manufacturing technology and architectural practice. Indeed, W. B. Gallie, in a remarkable metaphor linking interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge with new forms of teaching and learning, argued, in 1960, that universities needed new "windows on the world,"
Good big windows, bay windows, within which one could walk about, change one's position, take up and combine together successive or even spatially separated panaromas. That is, windows of the kind that are seldom to be had unless one is willing to knock down a few partitions and room walls in order to get them (Gallie 1960).
The question of American influences also requires deeper investigation. The extensive use of glass in post-war American campus architecture, particularly in buildings designed by architects like Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson, may have provided visual and conceptual precedents. The circulation of architectural journals and the movement of architects between Britain and America during this period suggests possible transatlantic dimensions to this terminological development that require further research. Indeed, Stone refers to criticisms in architectural circles of "glass boxes" as an architectural pattern for university campuses and buildings (see Stone 1960b: 24). This can be seen reflected in the description used by Brown of the "new 'glass-box' (and sociologically oriented) universities of Sussex (Brighton) and Essex (Colchester)" which picks up the architectural notion of "glass box" designs (Brown 1969).
The genealogy I have presented here necessarily remains provisional, serving to open rather than foreclose questions about conceptual formation within networks of intellectual circulation. The archaeological method helps reveal how apparently authoritative attribution often obscures more complex processes of terminological use and development. Taylor's usage demonstrates that Beloff's coinage, whilst crucial for popularisation and formalisation, built upon circulations that I argue were already established within academic and architectural discourse. The case of "plateglass universities" thus is helpful to see how concepts emerge through dispersed material and discursive practices. Such archaeological work reminds us that intellectual history consists as much of hidden circulations as visible publications, and that the most interesting stories often lie in the gaps between official accounts.
Notes
[1] The founding Vice Chancellors of the plateglass universities were:
1961 University of Sussex (John Fulton, 1959-67)
1963 University of York (Eric John Francis James, 1962-73)
1963 University of East Anglia (Frank Thistlethwaite, 1961-80)
1964 University of Essex (Albert Sloman, 1962-87)
1964 University of Lancaster (Charles Carter, 1963-79)
1965 University of Kent at Canterbury (Geoffrey Templeman, 1963–80)
1965 University of Warwick (Jack Butterworth, 1963-85).
[2] We should note that the use of the term plateglass within the context of a set of universities (Sussex, York, East Anglia, Essex, Lancaster, Kent at Canterbury, and Warwick) is not standardised, so where Beloff refers to "plateglass universities" (without a space) others refer to "Plate Glass universities" (with a space) (see Blyth and Cleminson 2016; Toynbee 2002; Wikipedia 2025) or "plate-glass universities" (with a hyphen) (see HL Deb 1976). Additionally, and to add to the confusion, some accounts include the following universities in the designation of plateglass universities even though, strictly speaking, this is not correct (e.g. see Wikipedia 2025):
Aston University (1966) – formerly Birmingham CAT
University of Bath (1966) – formerly Bristol College of Science and Technology
University of Bradford (1966) – formerly Bradford Institute of Technology
Brunel University (1966) – formerly Brunel CAT; became a member institution of the University of London in 2024 and now operates as "Brunel University of London"
University of Buckingham (1983) – formerly University College at Buckingham (from 1973)
City University, London (1966) – formerly Northampton CAT; became a college of the University of London and renamed "City, University of London" in 2016
Heriot-Watt University (1966) – formerly School of Arts of Edinburgh
Keele University (1962) – formerly North Staffordshire University College
Loughborough University (1966) – formerly Loughborough CAT
Newcastle University (1963) – formerly King's College, University of Durham
Open University (1969) – de novo creation as a distance-learning university
University of Salford (1967) – formerly Salford CAT
University of Dundee (1969) – formerly Queen's College Dundee, part of the University of St Andrews
University of Stirling (1967) – de novo creation as a university
University of Strathclyde (1964) – formerly the Royal College of Science and Technology
University of Surrey (1966) – formerly Battersea CAT
New University of Ulster (1968) – de novo creation as a university; merged with the older Magee University College in 1969; merged with Ulster Polytechnic and renamed "University of Ulster" in 1984
Whilst the term "plateglass" was not settled in the 1960s, an alternative "glass-box" was sometimes used, for example in this typology from Brown (1969): "architecturally English universities have passed through the three ages-of stone (e.g. Oxford and Cambridge), red-brick (e.g. Manchester and Birmingham) and glass-box (e.g. Sussex, Essex, and Warwick). Yet a fourth and more ethereal age has now dawned with the foundation in June 1969 of a University of the Air" (Brown 1969). In contrast, Blyth and Cleminson (2016) use the following typology to divide up universities in the UK: Ancient (established pre 1800), Red Brick (1800-1960), Plate Glass (1960-1992), or post-92 (established post 1992) (Blyth and Cleminson 2016:18). As the University of Sussex was technically founded in 1959, as the University College of Sussex, this would appear to require Sussex to be paradoxically categorised as a late red brick university (see Silver 2003; Berry 2024). Indeed, the Sun newspaper described Sussex as a "red-brick" university in 1964, showing how there was still confusion about what to call the "new universities" (Lucas 1964).
 |
| "It's smart to go Red-Brick" photo by Arthur Tanner (Lucas 1964) |
[3] The use of the material plate glass in universities was strongly associated with modernism and the use of new materials in design and building construction. Nonetheless, Muthesius lists alternative nicknames for the new universities, including "Greenfield, Whitbrick, White Stone, Pinktile, Newbridge... 'Hardboard': Arkitekten, 1966, p. 257;... 'Beadecker Universities' (Harold Wilson 1967): M. Shattock, The UGC and the Management of the British Universties, Buckingham, 1994, p. 73; 'Mushroom universities': M. Thompson, 'Natural Sciences in the New Universities', in: 'The New Universities', Higher Education Quarterly vol. 45 no. 4 Autumn 1991, p. 346" (Muthesius 2000: 307). I would also add "Pink-Brick University" to this list (see West 1962). Lord Balogh claimed in 1976 that "the numerous newly-founded universities involved not merely a fearful waste of money as services had to be multiplied, but were also isolated from the day-to-day life of the community in attractive places—I once called them 'Baedeker universities'—huddled in the countryside and making mischief" (HL Deb 1976).
[4] Sir Edward Boyle (1923-81) was a former conservative MP (1950-1970), minister of education (1962–64), minister of state with special responsibility for higher education (1964), Pro-Chancellor of the University of Sussex (1965-70) and Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University (1970-81). He also became Chair of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals at a crucial time in UK Higher Education (1977-79). After the Conservative Party's defeat in the October 1964 general election he became opposition spokesman on education and science. I have been unable to find an empirical reference for his use of the term "Shakespearean universities."
[5] I do however think it highly likely that Beloff coined the term "Plateglassian." Although, sadly, that term does not seem to have caught on.
[6] Max Beloff was concerned by student dissent and growing iconoclasm in the 1960s. Though the experiences at Oxford were "relatively tame compared with those experienced elsewhere even in Britain," they significantly upset traditionally minded senior members like Beloff and John Sparrow (Warden of All Souls). All Souls College, perhaps because it had no students, became "an easy target for the Young Turks who denounced it as a reactionary bastion of privilege." Beloff and Sparrow "reacted adamantly and did not conceal their feelings of outrage." Notably, Beloff was sometimes "the object of personal vilification" during this period. These experiences significantly disillusioned Beloff and stimulated his broader concerns about British universities. In 1967, he wrote an influential article in the journal Minerva titled British Universities and the Public Purse, which offered "restrained and sensible comments" on the threat of government audit access to university accounts. More importantly, Beloff focused on "the much more diffuse challenges to the autonomy of universities stemming from their increasing dependence on public funds and the tendency of the bodies providing them to foist their priorities on the universities." His plea was for British universities to seek private funding, emulating their American counterparts. In 1974, at age 61, Beloff resigned from his Oxford chair to become founding Principal of University College at Buckingham (Johnson 2003).
[7] There are noted spelling variants in the use of the term "Shakespearean Seven" (Patel 2021), including the additional spellings of "Shakespearian Seven" (Birks 1973: 15) and "Shakesperean Seven" (Muthesius 2000: 103). Wilson (2020) notes that in the OED "Shakespere 'was the more usual form'" and that in Fowler's A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) he argued "Shakspere, Shakespear(e), -erian, -earian, -ean, &c. The forms preferred by the OED are Shakspere, Shaksperian. It is a matter on which unanimity is desirable, & on which, in view of the conflicting arguments" further noting that by the second edition, in 1956, the editor, Sir Ernest Gowers had added "it is unfortunate that the OED's verdict has not been accepted as authoritative." Wilson also adds "Shakespeare himself, writing in a time when there was no uniformity or conformity of spelling in English, signs his own name in different forms." Wilson also notes that George Bernard Shaw "a great believer in spelling reform, uses Shakespear in the Preface to Saint Joan, where he also spells the adjective Shakesperean (1924, xxvii). This is inconsistent. T.S.Eliot aims to mock the rhythms of popular song when he writes, in The Waste Land (ll. 127 - 130)":
O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag –
It is not yet clear what, if any, written spelling Sir Edward Boyle used, or if indeed he was an early source of the term.
[8] Many thanks to Josh Patel for reminding me of this verse by Pendennis (1964) quoted in Muthesius (2000).
[9] The concept of archaeological traces that I use here draws on the work of Michel Foucault and particularly his archaeological method in The Archaeology of Knowledge (2002). His method helps to examine how discursive formations emerge through dispersed practices rather than merely through a linear development, this can be seen most clearly in his discussion of "discursive events" and their material conditions of possibility. This methodological approach also follows what Carolyn Steedman terms "archival fever" through the pursuit of traces and fragments that conventional historical narratives overlook, as she argues "the fever, or sickness of the archive is to do with its very establishment, which is at one and the same time, the establishment of state power and authority" as "Derrida indicated, for the archive: the fever not so much to enter it and use it, as to have it, or just for it to be there, in the first place" (see Steedman 2001:1). This is the "desire for the archive is presented as part of the desire to find, or locate, or possess that moment of origin, as the beginning of things" (Steedman 2001:3). In this article, rather than seek an origin, the intention is to problematise origins and foundations and gesture to the collective and social context within which such concepts emerge.
Bibliography
Beloff, M. (1943) Outside Oxbridge, 11 September 1943, p. 745.
Beloff, M. (1968) The plateglass universities. Secker.
Beloff, M. (1968b) ‘The Plateglass Universities’, Encounter, May, pp. 14–22.
Beloff, M. (2024) Personal Interview with David M. Berry, Trinity College, Oxford, 02/07/2024.
Berry, D.M. (2024) ‘A History of the Concept of the University of Sussex: From Balliol-by-the-Sea to Plate Glass University’, in R. Darwall-Smith and M. Feingold (eds) History of Universities XXXVII. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Birks, T. (1972) Building the new universities. Newton Abbot: David and Charles (The New Environment).
Blyth, P. and Cleminson, A. (2016)
Teaching Excellence Framework: Analysis of highly skilled employment outcomes: Research report: September 2016. Department for Education. Available at:
http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/27533/1/Teaching-Excellence-Framework-highly-skilled-employment.pdf (Accessed: 21 August 2025).
Brawne, M. (1970) The Architectural Review, Apr 1, 1970; 147, 878, pg. 240-242.
Brown, L.N. (1969) ‘Student Protest in England’,
The American Journal of Comparative Law, 17(3), pp. 395–402. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.2307/839218.
Cunliffe, M. (1969) The Campus Universities & The Others, Encounter, pp. 65–69.
Lucas, J. (1964) Suddenly it's smart to go Red-Brick, The Sun, 13 November 1964.
Foucault, M. (2002) Archaeology of Knowledge. London, New York, NY: Routledge.
Gallie, W.B. (1960) A new university: A.D.Lindsay and the Keele experiment. First Edition. London: Chatto & Windus.
HL Deb (1976)
The Universities,
HL Deb 31 March 1976 vol 369 cc1074-243. Available at:
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1976/mar/31/the-universities (Accessed: 13 August 2025).
Johnson, N. (2003) Max Beloff 1913–1999, Proceedings of the British Academy, The British Academy, 120, pp. 21-40.
Muthesius, S. (2000) The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus and College. New Haven London: Yale University Press.
McKean, J. (2007) ‘The English university of the 1960s: Built community, model universe’, in I.B. Whyte (ed.) Man-Made Future: Planning, education and design in mid-twentieth-century Britain. Routledge.
Patel, J. (2021) Utopian Universities, History Workshop Journal, Volume 92, Autumn 2021, Pages 264–271, https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbab029
Patmore, D. (1964) Seat of the Sussex Mind, Vanity Fair, 15 July 1964.
Pendennis (1964) The seven brave young Britains: Pendennis on the new universities, The Observer, London (UK). 14 June 1964: 12-13.
Silver, H. (2003) Higher Education and Opinion Making in Twentieth-century England. Woburn Press.
Steedman, C. (2001) Dust: The Archive and Cultural History, Manchester University Press
Stone, E. D. (1960a) Modern Architecture on Campus,
Sooner Magazine, Vol. 33 No. 2, 8-11: October 1960.
https://journals.shareok.org/soonermagazine/ojs/soonermagazine/issue/view/479
Stone, E.D. (1960b) ‘the Case for Modern Architecture’, SAIS Review (1956-1989), 4(3), pp. 20–25.
Taylor, A.J.W. (1965) ‘Aspects of Student Counselling’,
Applied Psychology, 14(1), pp. 112–119. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1965.tb00570.x.
Toynbee, P. (2002) ‘After the jubilation must come the reckoning’,
The Guardian, 5 June. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/jun/05/society.labour (Accessed: 21 August 2025).
West, R. (1962) The Pink-Brick University, Sunday Times, 04 November 1962.
Wikipedia (2025) Plate glass university,
Wikipedia. Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plate_glass_university&oldid=1300689160 (Accessed: 21 August 2025).
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment