Talk:University of Cambridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article University of Cambridge has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
University of Cambridge is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents


[edit] Billion

Regarding the 4.1 billion Pounds, it needs to be clarified is this billion is the American billion or the standard English billion.

American billion = 1,000,000,000 Standard English billion = 1,000,000,000,000 (a million million —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.114.27.165 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

This should be relatively clear from context, as there is a huge difference between the two. Also, billion is becoming more common for 109 in British English as well (see Long and short scales#Current_usage). — Richie 12:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Billion now always means 109 in financial usage, even in British English. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent External links cull[1]

I notice that the majority of external links was recently removed as part of a WP:EL/Manual of Style sweep. I think this is a shame, as I thought this was one of the more useful and thoughtful collections of links rather than being spammy (with regular editors doing a good job of keeping it free of spammy, silly or incongruous links). Do others feel that the external links should be restored to their former state? I think this is a case of overadherence to the rules significantly reducing the value of the article. Of course wikipedia articles should not be linkfarms but this links section had been put together with thought and decorum. (I am an editor who spent a great deal of time editing Wikipedia in a named account over the last couple of years (including many cambridge university related articles including the main one), but have now decided to only now and then edit pages anonymously, so this is not just some random user writing). 88.109.179.215 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, even assuming that the links should rightly have been drastically culled (I disagree), the selection of links allowed to remain seems oddly judged. Why is CUSU (the undergraduate students union) allowed to remain while Varsity (the main student newspaper) is binned for instance? Why is the link to the university's official webpage about its expansion plans spared but the university's webpage for its official alumni magazine deemed unacceptable? Why is the google map link deemed legitimate but the interactive map of the university on the university website forbidden by the rules? What's the rationale here? I don't think WP:EL supports the way the cull was carried out. 88.109.179.215 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered being bold? — mholland (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
well... i could, but i'm sure someone will throw the manual of style at me, and I'm too tired to engaged in something that could descend into edit warring. in anticipation of someone reverting my revert, and others then telling us "take it to the discussion page", I decided to take the shorter route. the relentless to-and-fro in everyone being bold at different purposes (the cull itself is an example of being bold) is one of the reasons i no longer edit wikipedia frequently. I'm the same anon as the one above btw. I'm using a broadband-through-phoneline connection which seems to switch IP quite often 88.111.66.243 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. While I often remove newly-added external links from articles, most or all of those ones seem OK. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, now the new improved cull has left us with just a couple of links - the official website and CUSU... yes, that august organization is sooooooooooo representative of the university and its members. (by the way I'm being sarcastic). Now mulling being bold. 88.109.14.90 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Cambridge a "public university" ?

According to the Wikipedia article itself, only one-third of the university's income comes from government teaching and research grants and the university administration is completely independent of the government. Furthermore, unlike their French and German counterparts, Cambridge staff (both academic and non-academic) are not public civil servants. Not to mention that the Colleges are also private institutions that have assets and an endowment of their own. I guess a more accurate way to describe Cambridge and, incidentally, British universities in general would be to say that they are independent institutions with public funding, as opposed to "pulic universities". In fact, the continental European concept of state-run public universities staffed by civil servants does not exist in the UK as far as I know. Please discuss. 200.177.192.61 11:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In England, institutions that provide education to a group of moderate to large size, consisting of people from different families have generally been called Public. The introduction of the public schools (now the top "private" schools") as opposed to home schooling with tutors revolutionised education and made it available to a much larger portion of the population, and that is why they are named so. The same goes for universities, though the jargon is not as established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.162.58 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The following quote from the LSE talk page seems to support the view that UK universities (and indeed a few older Canadian universities established by Royal Charter) are actually PRIVATE entities, although maintained (in part) by public funds:

" The LSE is a private institution. Indeed, since the privatisation of the polytechnics in 1992, all higher education institutions in the United Kingdom are private entities. Most are incorporated by a royal charter. The LSE is incorporated under the UK Companies Act. Public bodies in the UK can only be established by a parliamentary act and cannot be established by Royal Charter only nor under the UK Companies Act.

The question of public vs private is indeed an ownership not a funding issue. Harvard University, a U.S. private institution, receives more public funds than some U.S. public institutions. The University of California is a public university system (with multiple campus) and its assets are owned by the State of California through its appointed Board of Regents (trustees of the state). The Swiss Federal Institute of Technologies - one in Zurich, the other in Lausanne - are both public institutions, its assets owned by the Swiss Federal Government.

Marcel Bigger Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee LSE Alumni Association"

Please note the important point above that the term "public university" applies only to institutions like German/French universities or state universities in the U.S. whose assets are actually owned by the State, and not to bodies like Cambridge or McGill whose assets are privately owned. I strongly believe the Wikipedia is making a serious legal mistake by referring to UK and Canadian universities as "public universities" and, accordingly, I think professional legal review of the contents of this article is needed. 200.177.192.61 11:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whenever anyone uses the term "private university" in UK discourse they invariably mean the model of the University of Buckingham. In the UK the understood definition of public universities seems to be whether or not they are funded by the Higher Education Funding Councils. Here's a bit from the talk page for Buckingham:
For the sake of non-British/Commonwealth readers, I believe it is important to stress the different meanings of the term "public university" as used in English-speaking countries and elsewhere in the world. Unlike their counterparts in continental Europe or Latin America, British or Canadian universities are only "public" to the extent that most (though not all) of their funding comes from the state in terms of teaching or research grants. Otherwise, they are privately-managed, independent institutions meaning that: (1) they elect their own officials/administration normally without state interference; (2) they hire their own faculty and staff (who, unlike in France or Germany, are not career civil servants/governmment employees); (3) they own property and other (short and long-term) assets; (4) they define their own standards/criteria for the admission of students, again normally without state interference; (5) they independently set out the curricula for the different courses of studies they offer and specify the requirements that have to be fulfilled for awarding different academic degrees; and, finally, (6) they are free to charge tuition and other ancillary fees from matriculated students, although, unlike in my previous examples, that may be subject to government regulation in certain jurisdictions (in England for example, tuition fee levels are limited by law for undergraduate domestic students, though not for international (non-EU) or graduate students, who make up a considerable percentage nowadays of the student body). Furthermore, the fact that a few UK universities like Cambridge or Oxford actually have sizeable private endowments of their own (at least, by European standards) also helps to reduce their dependence on central government grants.
Also from Private universities#United Kingdom:
The private university/public university split does not fit the United Kingdom university system very well. British universities have institutional autonomy, which is well respected as it has developed over centuries, but in the first half of the 20th century they came to rely on the government for most of their funding. The only university which is wholly privately financed is the University of Buckingham, which has a low profile within the UK and caters largely for overseas students.
Frankly from what I can tell the public/private divide for the UK is not primarily based on funding but on the degree of independence from goverment control (Buckingham for example can charge home undergraduates whatever it likes, unlike any other university which has a cap). Timrollpickering 23:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
What Timrollpickering said. British universities (except Buckingham) are publicly-regulated and considered public for any number of purposes. A semi-random example that I have to hand is that all British universities (except Buckingham) are considered public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Sch.1 s.53(1)(b)). — mholland (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not very familiar with the British constitution, but, as I understand it, the UK Parliament is supreme and therefore nothing prevents it from regulating any body or business, public or private. In other words, if Parliament decided, it could impose caps for example on food or airline prices, without necessarily turning farmers, grocery stores, or airlines into "public bodies". Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I tend to agree with the president of the LSE union above when he says that the public/private distinction is one of ownership, not of funding or regulation. Using his argument, UK universities are not public (even though they might be funded or regulated by the State) because the State doesn't own their assets and their staff members are not State employees. 200.177.16.241 18:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
No university outside of the Soviet Union has ever been, as far as I am aware, wholly state-owned and directly controlled. In the U.S., State universities are operated at arm's length from the State, usually by a board of Regents. UK universities (except Buckingham) are much more like this than they are like private institutions. The University of Buckingham, being what, in the U.S., would be termed a "private, non-profit" university, (it was expressly established in accordance with that model, and with the intention of contrasting with every other University) is considered an oddity and an exception in British higher education. Marcel Bigger (from the LSE talk page) is entitled to his POV, but it's only his POV.
In any case, what you're proposing affects dozens of other articles. This is not an appropriate venue for discussing the reclassification of all but one of the UK universities. Please also consider registering an account for your contributions to Wikipedia: there are several benefits. Thanks. — mholland (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
you win, very fast as far as i know the other one is still (on a certain different one) there unless of course they are either not so bright or not so polite. Either way u were the quickest and they were female perhaps that is the problem u have although this is mere speculation. Toload1

[edit] External links

Please do not add a large collection of external links. Please see WP:EL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Advocate

Does anyone know anything about the post of Christian Advocate? Does it still exist? Have there been famous incumbents? ... Cutler 12:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allama Mashriqi in list

Hi all, just thought I'd comment and say that Allama Mashriqi is a very good candidate for inclusion in the notable members list. Please can those editors who are removing him please take a look at his article. His life is filled with achievements that most men can only dream of. Please leave him in, or at least explain in detail why he should not be included whilst someone of much less notability in the long term such as Simon Schama should be included? -Localzuk(talk) 18:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for my part, I've never heard of him. (And I must say, now having read his article, I'm still not sure why he is a particularly notable person - his achievements, whilst considerable, are not up to the standards of most of the others). I have heard of every one of the others. This university has literally thousands of notable alumni. We can't list them all. Who to include and exclude is basically a judgement call, from what I see, so I suggest that editors use their judgement and chime in here over the inclusion of this individual in the hopes of drawing some kind of consensus. For my part: no, his fame does not seem to be of the same measure as the others currently listed. Badgerpatrol 19:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
'I've not heard of him' is not a valid argument - as you have more than likely got a westernised view of the world. His achievements are mostly within Islam, and India. His movement, the Khaksars, had more than 4 million followers according to a couple of sources. His notability, as I have said, is far greater than the person I gave an example of above.-Localzuk(talk) 20:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Localzuk comments. Allama Mashriqi must remain listed on University of Cambridge’s page. Mashriqi is a very well-known figure from the Indian sub-continent. He was not only a renowned mathematician and scholar but a famous political leader too. Anyone who has read history of the Indian sub-continent knows him. In short, he made history. His popularity can be gauged from the number of people (100,000) attended his funeral. Look at his academic record at the Cambridge University at the following web site: http://allamamashraqi.com/mashraqipraised.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 20:26, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

You know my view, as I keep removing him. For what it's worth, I think we should lose Simon Schama too because I think his fame is transient. (Hmmm, I seem to be in favour of deleting people from my own college. But Milton and Darwin should stay :-). Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I already argued for the deletion of Simon Schama in November 2005! Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
"I've not heard of him" is a valid argument. This list will always be more or less subjective. From his article it is clear that his achievements are not so overwhelming (e.g. global statesman, Nobel winner, Fields medallist, writer of acknowledged global reputation, etc) so as to make this a no-brainer. So it basically seems to come down to "does the average editor consider this person notable enough to include on the list?". The only way to judge that is to let this thread develop and see what consensus is reached. As an aside, I also agree that Schama is one of the weaker alumni listed and could easily disappear. Badgerpatrol 20:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if the weaker alumni are removed then I would be more inclined to allow him to be left off the list.-Localzuk(talk) 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess that can be looked into, if there is consensus to do so here. For my part, there are only a maximum of three that I would even consider removing. And even then, all three of those have a legitimate claim and might be controversial removals. Badgerpatrol 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

One should not base opinion by reading one article. Removing Mashriqi will be controversial. To be honest, we are opening a Pandora's Box here. Voting will be a futile effort, as editor’s knowledge of this subject matter would be questionable. Mashriqi was a frontline political leader for decades. His book "Tazkirah" is also very well known. His popularity and academic achievements at Cambridge University have already been pointed out. Localzuk wrote:"His life is filled with achievements that most men can only dream of". I agree with Localzuk. I request the editors not to open a Pandora's Box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.155.53 (talk)

His academic achievements at Cambridge were such that he appears to have graduated overall with a degree roughly corresponding to a Desmond or even a Douglas Hurd (although I believe Cambridge did not subdivide second class degrees at that time). I am not suggesting a vote, although I suppose a vote could be a useful tool. To be quite honest, editors' questionable knowledge is exactly the issue. This seems to be more or less a matter of subjective opinion, so we can all give our subjective opinions and see what the consensus is. You might find it advantageous to get an account and sign in btw, although ultimately it's up to you. Badgerpatrol 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the British newspapers. These newspapers would not have praised him, if his academic achievements were not remarkable. It is not easy to complete four Triposes in few years. His academic achievements are well recognized. If you still do not agree, its ok. But I suggest, you must read about him. There are plenty of books/articles out there. Mashraqi's death was widely mourned. http://allamamashraqi.com/funeral.html At the end I would say, voting is not the right solution particularly when the knowledge of the editor's is questionable/unknown. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.155.53 (talk)


I've been looking at the list in more detail and I'm thinking it's time for another substantial purge. We had a purge in November 2005 (see also the discussion I linked to earlier). The diff since then shows that the list has grown substantially. We've gained Allama Mashriqi, Sir William Lawrence Bragg, Subhash Chandra Bose, James Chadwick, Charles, Prince of Wales, Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin, Allama Mohammad Iqbal, Jinyong (Louis Cha), Kim Dae-Jung, Christopher Marlowe, Vladimir Nabokov, Jawaharlal Nehru, William Pitt the Younger, Fred Sanger, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, James D. Watson, Maurice Wilkins and Lee Kuan Yew, and lost only Salman Rushdie. Of those I would keep Prince Charles, Crick and Watson (but not Franklin or Wilkins because, rightly or wrongly, they're much less famous), Kim Dae-Jung, Marlowe, Nehru, Pitt the Younger, Sanger (not very well known, but two Nobel prizes), and Tennyson. I would probably delete all the rest.

Having looked at this list, I am worried that I might be displaying Eurocentric bias. I realise it's much more difficult to assess politicians, and even worse authors, from outside one's own culture. However, on the other side, we must remember that we haven't got space in this list to include even all heads of state who were at Cambridge, or all Nobel laureates, let alone all major poets. I would argue that someone can be crucially important to his own country or his own field of endeavour, and still not in the top 30 to 50 of Cambridge alumni, a fact which may be lost on someone from that country or subject. It's hard to balance my ignorance of another culture with another person's bias towards that culture.

Of those who survived the November 2005 purge, I would happily delete a few as well: John Cleese, Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath, Ian McKellen, Simon Schama and Amartya Sen.

Am I being too trigger-happy?

Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are, but it is entirely called for ;). The section does need a bit of trimming and I think your suggestions for deletion are a good idea, despite how much some people may be valued. asyndeton 13:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ANOTHER SUGGESTION: It would be considered bias if Alumni from all regions of the world are not included. I suggest a list by regions should be created. For example "Famous Alumni From South Asia" “ Famous Alumni from Europe”. This type of list would be acceptable to people from all regions. I hope editors will keep my suggestion in mind before they decide —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.155.53 (talk)

The reason Stephen Turner suggested cutting it down was because the list is getting too long - adding in all the sections you are suggesting would make the problem much worse. The fact is, while there are some alumni from, say, South America who have the peak of fame in South America, in world terms, and in Cambridge alumni terms, they are nothing special. asyndeton 14:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, list suggested by Stephen Turner may not be important to many people. A lot of people in various parts of the world may not even know who these people are. It is for this reason, I suggested that it should be by region. People are always interested to know about important people from their own region. Hope this helps! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.155.53 (talk)

That's true, but when it comes down to it some people are just more famous than others. And like I said, Stephen Turner suggested this new list because it is currently too big; your suggestion, as I said before, will only make this problem worse. asyndeton 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

65.110.155.53, please sign and date your contributions on talk pages by using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Even better, have you considered signing up for an account? It's optional, but it's always nice to be able to recognise regular users. Thanks, Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

______________ It would be considered biased decision, if only a few persons are picked up. A list must generate interest, otherwise there is no point listing a few personalities of little or no interest to people from across the world. List should be based on famous people from each region. I think this very important. If a consensus can not be reached, list may be completely deleted. ______________ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 15:33, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, is everyone aware of the longer list at List of University of Cambridge members, and the exhaustive list at Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge (and its subcategories)? That shows that people who don't make the university's article still have somewhere to go. It also gives some idea of the calibre of people who have been left off this page. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For my part, the three that I would strongly consider ditching would be Greer, Schama, and Plath (and Mashriqi). Of the rest (given the extremely high number of extremely successful individuals) I would consider Cleese, Franklin, Lewis, McKellen, Milne, Thompson and perhaps Wilkins "on the bubble" - i.e. not sure things. I think everyone else is pretty cast iron though? (And I wouldn't say the list is enormous at present - it scans pretty well to me). (PS- To anon/s, please sign your posts in future.) Badgerpatrol 16:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone is deleting Allama Mashriqi from the list of notables. This matter has already been discussed. Editors are requested to intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion resulted in consensus for getting rid of him, which is what we did. Please stop adding him in. And, once again, could you please sign your posts by typing ~~~~ after them. Moro 14:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Please could people on both sides note the three revert rule, otherwise you will be blocked. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He is deleting his name without any legitimate reason(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason has been explained several times. He is less notable than the other people on the list, and indeed less notable than many people who didn't make it onto the list. The list is not a list of all notable alumni, only of the most notable ones. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He is definitely a notable. He played a vital role towards the independence of British India. His academic achievements are remarkable. Unfortunately editor(s) seem to have limited or no knowledge of Allama Mashriqi. I do not think it is appropriate to discuss this matter again and again. Editors on South Asian subject are requested to read about him before they start deleting his name from the list of notables. I hope his name would not be deleted. With best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If 'editor(s) seem to have limited or no knowledge of Allama Mashriqi' then how can you say he is notable? asyndeton 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors are requested to read books and articles on Allama Mashriqi. These books are available in reputed libraries. His death would not have been widely mourned, if he was not a well recognized leader. Headlines would not have appeared in the newspapers, if he was not a notable personality. Enough is available on his academic achievements. I hope this helps. I, once again, suggest that his name must be kept on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I am sure very few, if any, editors will read books on him at your request; even if they did, that would not change the fact that he has limited notability and will not be included in the list. asyndeton 15:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

65.110.155.53 has now added Allama Mashriqi to the list thirteen times in the last eight hours. Can someone please block him? asyndeton 21:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has given no solid reason to remove him from the list. He seems to have no or limited knowledge about him. He is ignoring all the aruguments that have been given in this regard. He is ignoring my requests. The list must be balanced and represent all countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are ignoring the reasoning for getting rid of him. It is many editors, not just one, that say he shouldn't be there, while you are the only one who is ignoring our arguments. It has been said that the list is for the most famous of alumni, not just anyone who happens to have his name in a history book.

In today's society, I'm sure even you, despite how pedantic you may be, cannot deny that Ian Mckellen is far more famous and well known than Allama Mashriqi, but he is no longer in the list and so Allama Mashriqi has no right to stay.

The list is to be kept to a minimum. And if we did as you suggest, and add in sections for every geographic region we can think of, then the list would spiral out of control. It is a very simple fact that the most famous people in Africa, for example, may have no fame whatsoever around the world as a whole. asyndeton 21:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For editors: • Mashriqi had millions of followers and supporters (see books) • Widely reported in the press (before and after death) • Mashriqi is also referred to in large number of books • His name appears in many scholarly journals • Mashriqi had an outstanding academic record (see British newspapers) • His death was widely mourned. Over 100,000 people attended his funeral.

Please keep in mind; people are always interested to know about important people from their own country/region. The idea of having a list is to generate interest. People in various countries may not even know about the notables on the current list. It must also be ensured that the list is not biased and is not representing people from one part of the world.

Impartial editors are requested to intervene to resolve this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems User:65.110.155.53 and User:Moro have each been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A person having no knowledge or little knowledge about Allama Mashriqi (founder of the Khaksar Movement) is allowed to delete his name. I consider this action discriminatory.

On the current list of notables, majority of them are English. Is this justified? How many of them are known across the world? I bet only a few may be known across the world. If anyone does not agree with me, I suggest, pick up five people in your area and read the current list of notables to them. I can assure you majority of them would have no information on these people.

To resolve this issue, this is what I recommend:

Create pages such as "Notables from South Asia", "Notables from Europe" "Notable from America" and provide links to these pages from the main page of the Cambridge University. The present list seems biased. My recommendation is non-discriminatory and I hope Wikipedia would look into the matter seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got something of a utopian vision of how Wikipedia works. I suspect thatno-one is going to "look into the matter seriously" except for the editors, i.e. all of us. There's no real overarching editorial structure here, that's kind of the point. There already is an extensive list of those associated with the University, although it's arranged by vocation and not country of origin (and imho, rightly so). I would only point out that the subset on Cambridge University is intended to represent the University, not the world. I would suggest that we can resolve this if we put our heads together and try and come up with some objective criteria for inclusion in the smaller subset list on the main Cambridge page. My initial thoughts (for discussion, not in any order, and not intended to be exhaustive) would be:
  • Nobel Prize/Fields Medal winners, and winners of other prizes of similar status within their fields;
  • Heads of state, or heads of government, or in the case of royalty, immediate heirs there to;
  • Booker Prize/Pulitzer Prize (or similar) winners;
  • Olympic Gold medallists;
  • Academy Award (and Bafta Award?) winners in a major creative category (e.g. directing, acting, writing, producing);
  • Presidents of major learned societies, e.g. Royal Soc., British Academy, French Academies, US National Academy of Science;
  • Poet Laureates;
  • Leaders of major organised religions, e.g. Archbishops of Canterbury or those of similar stature.
  • Anybody who was ever a member of Monty Python*
(Hint: This is a joke)
This would truncate the current list a little, but suitable replacements could most definitely easily be found, and if we can agree, it has the advantage of at least a measure of objectivity. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 04:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Ummm... how many hundreds of names would that include? We have 81 Nobel laureates for a start. I think the right approach is the current one: to have a very short list of the most famous on this page, and an complete list of anyone notable (in the Wikipedia sense) on another page, even if that leads to occasional arguments here. The alternative is not to have a list on this page at all, but I think this page would be poorer as a result. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course- the sub-division of the pool would still have to be done subjectively (perhaps on a more or less rotational basis)- but this at least would provide a set of objective minimum criteria for making the list, thus going some way towards preventing randoms from taking root. Badgerpatrol 10:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The worst proposition of all. Badgerpatrol 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

65.110.155.53 is back again. After my third revert, I'm leaving Mashriqi in the list. asyndeton 16:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion is not the solution to the this issue. Do not make it a point of ego. I again suggest, create pages based on region.If the matter could not be resolved, the list should be completely deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems,deletion of his name is being done in turns and on purpose. It does not reflect good on their part. I have tried my best to resolve the issue by giving various proposals. Nothing seems to change their mind. They have ignored everything I proposed. They are trying to dictate, which is not expected of editors. I request impartial editors to look at my suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.155.53 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's information, User:65.110.155.53 has now been blocked by an administrator for a further 72 hours for violation of WP:3RR. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

Would it be worth asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias for an outside opinion? It does seem to me that consensus here is to remove Mashriqi and a few others of a similar level of notability. Mashriqi does not appear to me to be significantly more notable than the other alumni who have been pruned, but there may be an underlying bias that I can't percieve. — mholland (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, although if they say we need objective criteria to avoid systematic bias, I don't see how that can work here. I think we have a pretty good proportion of foreigners listed for a British university, and I think the anon editor is just alleging systematic bias because he can't understand how else we could be uninterested in his favourite alumnus. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Stephen Turner. The anon seems to think Mashriqi is one of the most important scholars in Cambridge's history, which isn't the case. And for any accusations of 'bias,' let's face it, the majority of students from a British university will be British, we are not just picking on him. Also, splitting the list into sections by region will make the page much longer. asyndeton 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. — mholland (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

The history is presumably a large enough subject that it would sit better in an article all of its own? That would help clean that section up and take this article closer to FA status. --Mrh30 16:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've started working on a more detailed history of the university to put in a separate page. Unfortunately, real life means that it'll be a while before it's finished. Bluap 13:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


I have read comments of everyone. The comments against Mashriqi are illogical. The suggestion of listing people region wise is reasonable. Mashriqi must be on listed by all means. I hope my suggestion is accepted.M.T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.233.133 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degrees without examination

A C Benson, in his introduction to William Johnson Cory's Ionica, states that "in those days Kingsmen did not enter for the Tripos, but received a degree without examination, by ancient privilege." This refers to a B.A. gained at King's College, Cambridge, in 1845, which was 20 years before they began to allow non-Etonians to enroll. I presume such a privilege would have extended to eligibility for award of an MA a few years after the BA given for residing in college for the prescribed number of terms. Does anyone know when examinations began to be taken by King's College undergraduates? Was this privilege extended to other categories of students or to other colleges?

I believe examinations came to be regarded as old fashioned, and were abandoned by other English institutions, such as the Inns of Court, after the middle ages and were not reinstated until late in the nineteenth century. I also have the impression (which may be mistaken) that doctorates (such as LLD, DD, LittD, etc) were normally awarded without thesis or examination (i.e. as honorary degrees) until recent times. Does anyone know when examinations became the norm before the award of Cambridge degrees? NRPanikker 22:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In 18th and early 19th century Cambridge, most students did not take an honours degree (in the sole Tripos of Mathematics), but instead took the ordinary degree. These "poll men" (from "hoi poloi") did not have an examination at the end of their degree (though there might a been a cursory "disputation" - a relic of when logical disputations formed the basis of education). There was, however, an examination of their knowledge of Greek and Latin in their 2nd year (known as the "Previous Examination"). The Mathematical Tripos, taken by the keener students, was originally examined by all of the students writing down answers to dictated questions. Lasting all day for several days, the weaker students were gradually eliminated. The strongest students were eventually whittled down, to form a list of all students in rank order, the top student being known as the Senior Wrangler. Over time, the dictated questions were replaced by written examinations. Even later Triposes were formed in other subjects and, by the start of the 20th century, the examination process was more-or-less familiar. Rouse Ball wrote a History of Mathematics at Cambridge University. The book is available via Google Books, if you want more details about how the mathematical tripos started. Bluap 02:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reputation/Nobel Laureates

According to the Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation article, Columbia is number one in Nobel laureates with 87 and Harvard and Cambridge are tied for second with 82 affiliated laureates. However, one of the articles cited under the "Reputation" section of this article (http://almaz.com/nobel/alma.html) gives very different numbers from the Wiki article. I have changed this article to be consistent with aforementioned Wiki article.Ian Glenn (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As an addendum, Cambridge officially lists itself as having 82 Nobel laureates (http://www.cam.ac.uk/cambuniv/nobelprize.html), Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation lists them as having 85 laureates, and one of the other articles cited (http://almaz.com/nobel/alma.html) lists Cambridge as having only 80 laureates. I am unsure as to how to reconcile this conflict.Ian Glenn (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't have a good answer to this. I strongly suspect it depends on exactly how you count; in other words, exactly what counts as being affiliated to a university. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CUTEC

CUTEC (Cambridge University Technology and Enterprise Club) is an article which the authors think is neutral and appropriate, and I think is an advert and possibly not notable. I would be very grateful if as many other people as possible could offer their opinions in the discussion at Talk:CUTEC. Thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HESA student numbers

Dear User:Mholland,

I’m surprised to see the HESA numbers (Excel file). How is Cambridge supposed to suddenly have some 10,000 more students? There are some serious flaws in the numbers:

  • According to application statistics, about 3,400 undergraduate students are admitted every year. With courses lasting either 3 or 4 years, this results in a total undergraduate population of between 10,200 and 13,600, not 18,185.
  • It is also not possible to do part-time undergraduate degrees at Cambridge, but there are 6,415 such students listed according to HESA. Finally, the figure for the remaining full-time students, which is 11,765, is very close to the Cambridge “Facts ad Figures January 2007” number of 11,903.

— Richie 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could the part-time people be studing for CATS credits? I agree that the number seems rather high to me. Bluap (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well the figures come from Cambridge's own return to HESA via pro forma so the differences (other than different times of the year and HESA rounding to the nearest 5) probably stems from the different formulas used by the two (HESA takes the totals for full time and part time and simply sums then, some universities use a "Full Time Equivalent" - often 2 part timer = 1 FTE) and Cambridge not counting continuing education students in its figures (as the sheet says).
Because HESA uses a common standard across the board (and is commonly used in research on UK higher education) it's better to use a single source for all UK university articles as it allows clear comparison between institutions. Individual institutions' own publicised figures are very often not using the same standards and so can generate wild discrepencies. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems we're back to the HESA numbers. They're so high, I don't see how they can be right however you count. I'm unhappy using numbers we know are wrong just for the sake of consistency with other universities' articles. Is there any chance of resolving this? Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well in what way are they proven to be wrong? Not matching the figures given in publicity or in the university's own limited counting is pretty standard. And as the HESA figures originate from Cambridge themselves it's doubtful they're factually inaccurate - the issue does seem to be whether or not the Continuing Education students are counted. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[Edit conflict] I'm not convinced that they're actually high. My understanding is that HESA include part-time students at the Institute of Continuing Education, either as full students, or as full-time equivalents, depending on which HESA table you look at. The university, on the other hand, only counts full-time students. I definitely agree with the comments that we need a uniform standard number for all UK universities: the most logical (to my mind) would be the full-time equivalent numbers. I know Mholland personally and, since he's looked into the numbers, am prepared to go with his judgement. Bluap (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe there's some way we could work out for sure what's going on and explain it in a footnote? Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The numbers seem to have changed in the HESA source and are now more similar to the official numbers of 11,824 undergrads and 6,001 postgrads [2]. — Richie 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CATS credits?

Can one study for CATS credits at Cambridge (or at Oxford for that matter)? In my time at Oxford I never heard of a CATS credit, and only in the last months have discovered what one is. Even now I don't fully understand. At Oxford an undergraduate degree is awarded on the basis of passing papers prescribed for an Honour School or Pass School, which can be a different number of papers in different Schools. For example, Modern History, in my day, required seven papers for the Honour School, whereas Theology required eight. Presumably Modern History required one fewer because the course is one term shorter, and perhaps because the Special and Further Subjects are so incredibly difficult. My friends at Cambridge (of which I have surprisingly many) have never spoken of accumulating a certain number of CATS credits for their degree. Instead they talk about the papers required for the different parts of their Tripos. My guess is that CATS credits are not involved in getting a degree at Cambridge (or Oxford).--Oxonian2006 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

At Cambridge, you can accrue CATS credits at the Institute for Continuing Education. However, Cambridge awards certificates and diplomas based on CATS accumulation, but not degrees (other than the "Master of Studies"). I believe that you can "transfer" the credits towards degrees at other institutions. The Oxford University Department for Continuing Education behaves in a similar manner. Bluap (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
In other words, you can accumulate CATS credits, but it is via an institute that is completely separate from the normal undergraduate courses, so very few students will be exposed to the system. Bluap (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chancellorship of the Duke of Edinburgh

How is the Chancellor appointed? I assumed that, like the Chancellor of Oxford, he was elected by graduates of the university, based on nominations by members of that electorate. When I once said to somebody that I thought Oxford could have done better than Chris Patten she replied that at least at Oxford we get to choose the Chancellor, whereas at Cambridge they had had the Duke of Edinburgh foisted on them. I wasn't able at the time to find out what the procedure is. She made it sound like some very elite body within the university had the power to choose a Chancellor. Or did she mean that because the Duke of Edinburgh is the Queen's husband nobody felt it was proper to stand against him?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • "... elected for life by the Senate (all graduates holding an M.A. or a higher degree)." From CU website. David Biddulph (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CUSU-LBGT

I came across the recently created Cambridge University Students’ Union Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay and Transgender Campaign article and tried to do some cleanup, but was reverted (by someone's first ever edit!). I'd be grateful if someone else took a look at the page. Bluap (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)