Talk:Mary Beard (classicist)

It says in the article that, "Beard attended an all-female direct grant school"
Which all-female direct grant school? Beard commented that she was not keen on the boys from Shrewsbury School, when interviewed on Radio4's Desert Island Discs. Why Shrewsbury School? Was it nearby? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has since been edited to include details. Span (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dates overlap
It says she remained in Cambridge till 1982. Then says she was in London from 1979. I guess she graduated in 1976, spend 3 yrs in Cambridge studying for her PhD then 3 years working in London while writing it up in her spare time. Please clarify. 31.185.241.136 (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Overseas and International
Include material on extensive American and Italian connections. How many languages does she speak - etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.127.225 (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Degree
"Beard received a BA (Hons) at Newnham" - in which subject? The article doesn't say. There's an implication that it was Classics, but is this the case? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It can pretty much be taken for granted that it was; she has pursued the field of classics in academic and popularizing writing ever since, and she's clearly not specializing in language-oriented Latin studies. Her writing a book about the Roman republic with Crawford (who had serious credentials of his own in this field) at age 30, to begin there, would not have happened if she had not been a certified classical scholar. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I realise that this is 2 1/2 years late, but in case anyone else is confused by this and comes to the talkpage looking for clarity, Beard presumably studied classics for both Part I and II of Tripos, but she didn't get a BA in anything. Cambridge University's bizarre system only offers one Bachelor's degree: everybody graduates with simply a "BA (Hons)" (or, rarely, a "BA (Ordinary)" – no subject is specified.
 * The system is basically explained here, but the simple version is this: a bachelor's degree at Cambridge requires an undergraduate to study two "parts". Usually, but not always, students study Part I and Part II in the same subject, though you can change after Part I (and medical students must, because there is no Part II in medicine; they take part II in another subject before returning to studying medicine at clinical school).  Upon completing both parts of the degree, students are (assuming they have fulfilled any other obligations, such as a college's residency rules) eligible to recieve The BA, which is not qualified either by subject or grade. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

According to The Times archive - class lists were published in the national newspapers in those days - she achieved a First in both parts of the classics tripos, Part I in 1975 and Part II in 1977 (one year Part I and two year Part II then, I guess; these days there are Parts IA, IB and II). In the main, batchelors degrees at Cambridge are not "in" a subject (with a few exceptions, such as the BTh and MB, and the old BEd), and almost everyone gets a BA, but you could say that she read classics at Cambridge, achieved a double first and graduated with a BA(Hons) in 1977. I've not checked, but no doubt she moved up to an MA three or so years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.66 (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The other historian Mary Beard
There's no doubt they are different people, just from their vital stats: iirc, their years alive don't even overlap, and the earlier one would presumably have to have passed the surname via a chain of male Beards, constituting one or more generations, one of whom immigrated ("back") to the UK. And both are historians, consciously concerned about the status of women, and married to academics in history. Anyone who expects a genetic (or adoptive) relationship is foolish, but it sure would be nice to have a (not necessarily bibliographic) note tracing the Brit, via a chain of male Beards, back to one who was a contemporary of Charles A. Beard, but not closely related to him by "blood." --Jerzy•t 04:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This comment appears to be referring to Mary Ritter Beard (August 5, 1876 – August 14, 1958). She was born Mary Ritter, to parents without Wikipedia articles, and married Charles Beard. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Am a bit freaked out by the chain of male beards. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was initially confused as to what relation Mary Beard had to Charles A. Beard, knowing his wife was a co-author of some of his work. Turns out there isn’t any, or none I can see. It might be worth a note at the top indicating “not to be confused with Mary Ritter Beard.” I’m not competent to do so but it’s a sound idea. Sychonic (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTAMB, there is probably no need for a hatnote here. Mary Beard is already a disambiguation page which points to Mary Ritter Beard, and MRB was not a classicist, so anyone arriving at Mary Beard (classicist) rather than Mary Beard can be presumed to be in the right place.  The only redirect is currently from Winifred Mary Beard, which is equally precise. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Have added, as they are both academics. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

new Gaurdian profile
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jan/30/mary-beard-the-cult-of

This was interesting. I didn't know about her before. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Gopal's View is irrelevant. Change my mind
Gopal is a relatively minor academic, and her opinion is irrelevant in comparison to Mary Beard's notoriety. Are we just quoting any old Tom Dick or Mohammad these days? It's also terribly sourced! Sort it out. Call your selves encaeclopaedians?! This led to widespread criticism, in which Mary Beard was accused of racism.[68] Does this not suffice!? 2A00:1370:8113:6A50:8D69:3AD:E035:F0B5 (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)