Plenty of information is in the public domain about the history of the University, so this summary provides some background on York as a ‘new’ university. York is one of seven of what Beloff (1968) coined ‘plate glass’ universities, along with Essex, Sussex, East Anglia, Warwick, Kent and Lancaster, founded in the 1960s as a modern, campus-based University, distinct from the ancient (Oxbridge) institutions in England, the University of London colleges and the ‘red brick’ universities (e.g. Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham). The University Grants Committee (UGC) approved the establishment of the new universities (as distinct from the polytechnic institutions which were beginning to expand in number), with York in the earlier wave, on the back of university expansion recommended in the Robbins Report (1963).

Plate glass universities were seen as radical and experimental departures from their ancient and redbrick counterparts. However, Beloff describes York as ‘playing it more trad than mod’ (95) in operating a College model, which did not entirely copy the Oxbridge pattern of financially and academically autonomous bodies within a federal University structure. What the York model had in common with the Oxbridge colleges was a co-educational philosophy of Colleges being a base for the academic departments. In short, Beloff notes that ‘York knows the essence of the College system without its ritual’ (101). This non-hierarchical feature of York’s organisational structure is seen as a distinctive part of its culture and, arguably, provides conditions for impressive collaboration across academic departments, and as products of its research centres, institutes and units.

In 2012, York was invited to join the self-selecting Russell Group, principally on the basis of its research esteem and quality (in good company with Durham, Queen Mary and Exeter), bringing the Russell Group’s membership to 24 UK HEIs. Based on the Russell Group reference point, such membership places York in the top rank of the 164 universities in the UK based on 2017/18 Universities UK (UUK) data. However, such management does not of itself lead to high rankings in the various domestic league tables such as the Complete University Guide (CUC), Guardian Good University Guide and Times/Sunday Times league tables. York still returns a top quartile position but shows variable positions in the top 20-30 range based on a range of measures and different criteria of variable weightings across these.

Whilst York is a ‘new’ University relative to its ancient and late-Victorian counterparts, it is a ‘pre-1992’ HEI, in that is it has always held the ‘university’ title, unlike former polytechnics and colleges which were granted such status in 1992 onwards. Other university mission groups included the ‘1994 Group’ of other self-selecting pre-1992 HEIs outside the Russell Group, which dissolved in 2013; the University Alliance which champions technical and professional universities; and the MillionPlus group of 20 post-1992 HEIs. The dissolution of the 1994 Group sits alongside a desire by some institutions’ leadership teams and governing bodies to disaffiliate from, or not affiliate to any mission group in the first place. Some UK universities instead seek to make their own regional, national or international affiliations on other measures. This is relevant to York, which is also a member of other mission groups including the N8 research partnership with the other Northern England Russell Group HEIs plus Lancaster, and the Worldwide Universities Network (WUN) of 19 global research intensive universities. However, the so-called ‘binary line’ between pre and post-1992 universities, whilst still evident, has become blurred in specific areas of institutional performance. Some post-1992 HEIs outperform the more traditional HEIs in the domestic league tables not only in terms of overall ranking, but also in a number of measures, including teaching quality rankings and enterprise.

Whatever their legal history, origins, structure, or mission group alignment, universities’ purpose can be seen through a range of lenses. Marginson and Considine in The Enterprise University note that universities ‘mix cathedral rituals and astrophysics without apparent embarrassment’, and David Watson points to a number of paradoxes of the modern university e.g. conservative yet radical, elite yet open, hierarchical yet meritocratic. In governance terms, Marginson and Considine observe that ‘there is no single unified chain of command’, although this is changing in a new regulatory context heralded by the Office for Students (OfS), which is covered in a separate section of this handbook. What we are seeing are universities projecting themselves under various identities, and they may identify as several of these on the global, competitive stage.

More than ever, universities are subject to, and to some extent willing participants in, performance measurement, through domestic regulation whether it be the Research Excellence Framework (REF), the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) or the forthcoming Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF). League tables are the product of this domestic and global measurement regime, and for all their arbitrariness and relativities, they do play a part in an institution’s reputation: governing bodies will want both to critique and understand them as tools. The terms ‘research-intensive’, ‘enterprise’, ‘civic’, and 'globally-engaged' can be applied to many universities. Some commentators have argued that there is no such thing as a higher education sector any more, with ‘provider’ pitted against ‘provider’ in a dysfunctional market for HE. More positively, David Watson (2014) argued that a ‘mutually assured higher education enterprise’ still prevails in this competitive climate. York is reaffirming its own identity for the public good in this space.