Talk:University of Cambridge/Archive 4

Reputation/Nobel Laureates
sorry but who care about the royal family in the context of cambridge university?? I might be unable to understand this as I am not british. --Maximilianh (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite a few people on the whole. It's one of the differences between Cambridge and Oxford, and hence relevant. Mrh30 (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * I've attempted to standardise a wikipedia wide approach to this problem, by removing the weasely and unconfirmed 2 more than any other university in the world phrasing on both Columbia's, Chicago's and Cambridge's site.

The official count on Wikipedia says 76 for Columbia, and Cambridge's and Chicago's official counts say 82/81 respectively. If we compared the unofficial counts (Cambridge 88, Columbia 87 and Chicago still 81) Columbia still does not have more than any other university in the world, at least not on counts we will all agree on. For that reason, I think it is less weasely to write:

one of the highest counts in the world.

JDnCoke (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "more than any other university according to the world according to some counts". I think that more accurately conveys the claim, as well as the fact that there may be some doubt. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The grammar’s broken. I fixed it, but please change it if this is not what you meant. &#8212; Richie 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

&mdash; 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 . &#8212; Richie 20:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * In a lot of universities the CATS system operates at degree level but is never actually presented to most of the students themselves because often it's much easier to just talk about degree requirements and module sizes - e.g. for my second and final year it was "take three full modules from the general list in year 2 plus the dissertation (worth one full module); take two full modules from the general list in the final year plus one Special Subject worth two modules". However it's my understanding that CATS operated (and indeed a couple of the modules I did had alternative classes available through the Continuing Education programme which did use CATS and which full-time students could pick as an alternative seminar group). Since the modules were all the same size there was no need to explain it in terms of credit based systems even though we were accumulating them. As the full name of "Credit Accumulation and Transfer Scheme" implies, CATS is primarily used for transfer between institutions or for conversion between full & part time courses or recognising previous study (e.g. someone with a CertHE or DipHE might be waived the requirement to do part of the degree) where a common currency is needed, as well as for extremely modular programmes and part-time students who generally have far more flexibility of choice and so need a standard currency that is immune to changes in the course structure during their time. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * Has the election ever actually been contested? London Convocation members had the right from 1898 but in practice until 1981 each election was an uncontested single candidate affair (with Royals continuously from 1932 onwards). The 1981 election wasn't the most open - nominations closed less than three weeks after the incumbent announced her resignation and this was in December, a slow month postally, so it was only by chance even that election was contested - and earlier ones may similarly have been run too fast for any alternative candidate to stand, rather than a unanimous opinion of Convocation members. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Colour of Cambridge Blue
I'm not convinced by the (#99cc99) currently being used to represent Cambridge Blue. According to Cambridge Blue (Colour), the generally used Cambridge Blue is that of the rugby union club, which is Pantone PMS 324. The club's website uses (#97B9AA) in a few places. On the other hand, a couple of pantone-to-rgb tables here and here suggest (#AADDD6) for that Pantone shade. The boat club, on the other hand uses a colour closer to NCS S 2020-G, which this page suggests is represented by (#8FBD9D). What do people think? Bluap (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, only (#AADDD6) looks close to what I think the colour is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.221.139 (talk • contribs)
 * Here's a better reference: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/communications/services/identityguidelines/guidelines-colour.pdf. It lists Pantone 557, which is (#A3C1AD).
 * I must admit that #AADDD6 looks more like what I imagine the colour to be too &mdash; the others seem too green &mdash; but we have to go with the source, obviously.
 * Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are multiple different variations on the colour in use, legitimately. The Boat Club uses a different colour to the rugby club. Mrh30 (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: small areas of colour - such as those presented here - are usually perceived differently to large areas of colour, due to local contrast differences (not even factoring monitor brightness and gamma). Go with defined standards, not with what you imagine. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 15:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But which standard? The Identity Guidelines document linked above, is about colours in printed media issued by the university.  "Cambridge Blue" is a colour associated with sports teams, so could be differents from whichever colour the admin people decided would be best for the house style.  There might be other constaints in play for print media, such as having to use "mainstream" Pantone shades, so Pantone 557 might simply be yet another approximation to the "correct" colour. Bluap (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are legitimately different colours used for different parts of the university. The original Cambridge Blue colour is the one used by the Rugby team. This is a 'blue-ish' version of the colour. The boat club (CUBC) uses a different colour, that was created by taking Cambridge blue and adding more yellow. So the colour you see on the TV for the Boat Race is far more yellow than the rugby colour, and in fact turns out to be a shade of green. Mrh30 (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable alumni section
The President of Zambia is no longer a former Cambridge Alumni. Rupiah Banda (president 2008-2011) did study at Cambridge but he was defeated in the October 2011 elections to be replaced by the populist Michael Sata, who has no University education let alone one from the University of Cambridge. I would change this but don't feel I have the wiki experience! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.195.137 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the list of notable alumni and replaced it with prose. There is a better listing available on the List page. Mrh30 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The alumni section is very unbalanced. If there is to be such a section, it should not, as present, omit Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, but include Margrethe II of Denmark, lovely lady though she may be.

69.86.82.237 (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, you're right. I guess they're in the "Contributions to the advancement of science" section. I'm not sure if it's possible to combine those sections though. Personally, I thought this was much better as a list, though it did always seem to lead to edit wars. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This section needs some major work as it is now untidy with no consistancy - two long when looked at the article as a whole, images of varying sizes just plonked in. Codf1977 (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the point of the section given List of University of Cambridge members, what is the criteria for inclusion ? Since I can't see why it is here in its current form I am proposing re-writing it so that it covers the 'areas' without lisating names. Codf1977 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of attempts recently to add various alumni convicted of criminal offences to this section. I have taken the view that these have been given undue prominence, & that the right place for them, if WP:RS & WP:NOTABLE, is List of University of Cambridge members. Is there a dissenting view? The most recent edit of this type tried to encourage editors to "Please add further Cambridge University convicts on this main page". David Biddulph (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No spot on - I agree with you two much undue prominence - as I said above the whole section needs pairing down. To be listed on this page I think you should be exceptionally notable and your attendance at Cambridge should form a part of that notability, for other cases of just run-of-the-mill notability go to List of University of Cambridge members. Codf1977 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we perhaps just remove all the alumni listed, make a short remark to the effect of 'The University of Cambridge has produced many distinguished alumni since its inception.' and then have the links to the other articles? It is so ridiculously out of control. It is completely unreadable and nothing short of a list. I think the problem is perhaps that we have tried to list certain people, such as Newton, and this has encouraged people to add whoever they want. Ultimately, if we do continue to list a small number of people that we deem to be significant in this section, we will just go round and round in circles, constantly having this futile debate. If they can't be mentioned elsewhere in the page, eg Newton could be mentioned in mathematics, then we should remove them and have done with it. asyndeton   talk  13:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Improvements?
I've made an effort to improve the article's structure today, which has involved a pretty thorough re-ordering of the sections. Feel free to tell me what you think here. I've also got rid of most of the stuff from miscellaneous (see above) and put it in other sections. A.C. Norman (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't James Bond 007 graduate from Cambridge? He doesn't seem to be mentioned.... 98.176.94.73 (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge, England?
The opening of the article states that the university is in "Cambridge, England". Since it is so well known in the English-speaking world, the last detail is redundant. But, if it were not, then it would be insufficient, since there is more than one Cambridge in England, the other being (appropriately close to Newnham) in Gloucestershire. We therefore need either "Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, England" (which seems de trop) or "Cambridge" (which seems to me good enough). Deipnosophista (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the clarification is necessary simply because another Cambridge (namely Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States) is also home to several world-renowned universities (in particular Harvard and MIT). You would be surprised, for example, how many Americans are not familiar with the University of Cambridge - a couple of times when I have told people where I study, they thought I meant either Harvard or MIT. However, I do suggest that the county name, Cambridgeshire, be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.131.165 (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would tend to go along with keeping it to 'Cambridge, England'. I think the country clarification is necessary for the reasons mentioned above (Harvard, MIT). The exact clarification of which Cambridge is meant is probably covered by cross-linking the word Cambridge. Although, to be fair, the whole lead paragraph needs a rewrite! Mrh30 (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Cambridge in England" might look a bit nicer, though: "Cambridge, England" sounds a bit... well, American tourist. --— Chris (blather • contribs) 11:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

League table rankings
I'm getting increasingly unhappy with the League Table Rankings section. It seems to consist of Cambridge people saying "we came top in this survey" followed by Oxford people saying "but we came top in this survey". It's all rather pointless. The big table is worth keeping, but for the rest is there any more worth saying than that Cambridge consistently comes first or second in national rankings, and very high in international rankings, without listing each new survey as it occurs? Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess there's an element of NOT in your argument as well. As such, I'm quite inclined to agree. You can imagine a scenario in 20 years time where the table is longer than the article, which would make it somewhat ridiculous! Mrh30 (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List institutions in Cambridge (City) that are not part of Cambridge (University)?
Is it worth including a list of institutions in Cambridge that are not part of Cambridge University? I.e. Anglia Ruskin Poly etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No. This article is about the University of Cambridge, not other unrelated institutions in the same town. The Cambridge article duly mentions Anglia Ruskin University – that should do. &#8212; Richie 00:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words "No, we don't want to be associated with the commoners! Mentioning on our city's page was bad enough!"--193.128.72.68 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC).


 * These are your words, not mine. In my opinion, the article should concentrate on its main subject and not list a lot of unrelated institutions. &#8212; Richie 13:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the relationship with the town
I tried to add a small paragraph but it keeps being deleted with no explanation. I'll try again, please discuss it here next time, instead of throwing around accusations. --193.128.72.68 (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Try to do it in a remotely neutral manner; try to actually cite a source. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Relationship between university appointments and college fellowships and status of affiliated lecturers
I was a little puzzled to read in an obituary for Harry Porter (the historian H.C. Porter) that on being appointed to a tenured university lectureship he immediately resigned his college fellowship. I got the impression that he was not required to resign from his college but chose to do so and that university lecturers need not be fellows of colleges. I find this surprising because I think it is completely different at Oxford. My understanding of the Oxford system is that all lecturers, readers, and professors, as well as certain directors, keepers, curators, librarians, etc, must hold their university position in conjunction with a college fellowship, which may, in the case of less senior appointments, carry college teaching duties. I wonder how it works in Cambridge then. Are tenured lecturers members of a faculty with no college affiliation? Is college affiliation optional? If a university lecturer is not a college fellow is he paid less than one who is a college fellow? Do tenured lecturers without a fellowship still undertake tutorial teaching? I am also unclear about the status of the affiliated lecturers in faculties, who, I believe, are generally never college fellows. I know somebody who is an affiliated lecturer and my understanding is that it is a part-time position held by somebody who is effectively a freelance academic who happens to have a contract to work at Cambridge, but is not a full member of the university. I take it that affiliated lecturers are not members of the Regent House, and the one I know certainly holds no Cambridge degree (I would expect a full member of the university who did not hold a Cambridge degree to become a Master of Arts, and indeed the holders of some Cambridge degrees who are not MAs to have to take an MA degree in order to join the university fully). Perhaps if somebody can answer this and provide references the material can be incorporated into the article--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxon2006, just a quick comment about something you wrote above, namely "I would expect...the holders of some Cambridge degrees who are not MAs to have to take an MA degree in order to join the university fully". That is true, but only for Cambridge BA graduates who have not 'upgraded', so to speak, to the MA and who also have not received a higher Cambridge degree. Other Cambridge graduates do not have to take the MA in order "to join the [U]niversity fully". At Cambridge, one needs the MA or higher (MPhil, MLitt, PhD etc.) to become a member of the Senate (I assume you mean the Senate when you speak of "the [U]niversity fully"). See http://www.cam.ac.uk/univ/works/senate.html See, also, http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/degrees/ma/ : "Possession of the MA, or a postgraduate masters degree or doctorate, confers membership of the University Senate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.255.33 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin Name
All the books in Pembroke College Library have got the following Latin writings on them: "Collegium Sive Aula Mariæ de Valentiâ communiter nuncupata Pembroke Coll, in Academia Cantabrigiensi." These Latin writings are on a piece of paper and the paper is stuck at the beginning of the book. Academia Cantabrigiensi appears in numerous old college statutes as well. Hence I changed the name from Universitas Cantabrigiensis to Academia Cantabrigiensi. Fangfufu (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Universitas" is a better term than "Academia". "Universitas Cantabrigiensis" means "University of Cambridge". What does others think about this? --Spdiffy (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we should really use the name which the university refers itself to. It has been calling itself Academia Cantabrigiensi for at least 400 years. The term appeared in a very old (around 1600) statute of Jesus College, which is written in Latin. There is no need to try to find a new Latin name to University of Cambridge, unless you can prove Academia Cantabrigiensi does not actually mean University of Cambridge. Fangfufu (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what happens in these degenerate times when people don't learn Latin any more. The ending ensi is in the ablative case, governed by the preposition "in". The nominative case is ensis. That's the form you should use if you're going to use this name.


 * The actual legal name in English is "The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge". Peter jackson (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Extract from degree ceremony :

Dignissima domina, Domina Procancellaria et tota Academia praesento vobis hunc virum (hanc mulierem) quem (quam) scio tam moribus quam doctrina esse idoneum (idoneam) ad gradum assequendum (name of degree); idque tibi fide mea praesto totique Academiae."

"Most worthy Vice-Chancellor and the whole University, I present to you this man (this woman) whom I know to be suitable as much by character as by learning to proceed to the degree of (name of degree); for which I pledge my faith to you and to the whole University."

Peter jackson (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of history section
the history section has a messy layout and would benefit from more sources - i have added it to my todo list but for anyone looking to improve the article I think that this would be a good place to start —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajbpearce (talk • contribs) 12:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban on Catholics removed?
According to this Lord Acton could not gain entry to Cambridge University in the 1830s because it was impossible for a Catholic to do so. Does anybody know when Catholics were allowed in again, and the circumstances behind the change? 93.107.221.209 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Caius-"leading college for medicine" - removed/edited?
I find it unlikely that G&C's own medicine page is an adequate source to suggest they are particularly good or well-known for medicine, and it is a poor example of the variance between the colleges that does exist. I have edited to make clear that this is a variance based on reputation, and that it applies to more than one college S785 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Departments
How about a list of all the departments? 86.133.53.54 (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Organisation > Teaching
That bit about Oxbridge "often being cited to be the only" universities with a teaching system as described is complete bollocks. First of all, if it is often being cited, why is there no citation in this article? And secondly: If you do find a source to prove this, you should maybe add something like "in Great Britain" or "amongst Anglo-Saxon universities", since e.g. the University of Heidelberg (Germany) definitely has "tutorials" with the exact same aims &procedure, as do the Universities of Karlsruhe, Mannheim, Berlin (FU) and Munich. This system/method may have been developed in Oxbridge, but definitely is not exclusive to those two universities. There should at least be reference to the citations not being true. Best Regards, AndySpades --95.208.60.208 (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, no university in Germany affords a similar teaching system to Oxford and Cambridge. What makes them special is the teaching in very small groups of 1–3 students, up to 5 times a week. So although tutorials no doubt exist in German universities (and likely others), their size will often be an order of magnitude or two larger than at Oxbridge. This makes a huge difference. &#8212; Richie 15:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

History.
I removed the whole section detailing the myth of the University's foundation in 1209, because it was a direct copyright violation of page 3 of. Freel free to re-write based on this source and others. Claritas § 10:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge
I would like to know why the above article was removed without consultation by Cameron Scott. Many Cambridge departments are UK and world leaders in their field and deserve an entry in their own right. I look forward to restoration of the entry and the links to it.LarkinToad2010 (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"The University of Cambridge is a public research university"
At Talk:University of Oxford we are discussing whether the American notions of "public university" and "private university" should be brought into articles on British universities. As no one seems to have a clear idea of what makes a British university "public", I do not think it is helpful at all. I have tagged the expression in this article to invite a discussion here. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an example of slanted canvassing, and that's being charitable. 1. they are not 'American notions', as is clear from the numerous citations which have been provided in the discussion at Talk:University of Oxford, including one from the University of Oxford itself e.g.,, ,,.
 * 2. It's not a question of introducing the terminology in articles on British universities, it has already been in most of them for a number of years. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To me it's an American notion, but others may disagree. I don't think you'll find more than a handful of uses of this expression outside the US and those imitating the US. That may be why the OED sees no need to define "public" and "private university". In any event, when our ancient universities have been described as "public" the use of the word has sometimes been akin to the English "public school", which to Americans means "private". Oxford and Cambridge both have "public examinations", in which the meaning of "public" is "open to members of the University". It seems to me that Cambridge, like Oxford, can't be fitted into this attempt at polarity and is sui generis, but I'll be interested to see what others think. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The expressions are used less commonly in the UK because there is only one private university here (which itself has only existed for a few decades) and there therefore has been and continues to be far less of a need to make the distinction. The sources show very clearly that the terminology is used in the UK however. WP articles on British universites, whilst written in British English, are aimed at readers from all over the world, many of whom are likely to be unaware that the UK higher education system is almost entirely public. For them it is very helpful to make the distinction.
 * What puzzles me about this discussion is that the public/private information has been in the WP articles of essentially all UK universities for a number of years.
 * Regarding your other points, firstly a huge number of concepts which are not single words do not appear in dictionaries but have entire WP articles devoted to them e.g. Fifth generation jet fighter and Academic health science centre. The scope of WP is far greater than that of the OED. Inclusion in the OED is not a necessity for a topic/concept to have a WP article, let alone for a concept to be used within articles. Secondly, are "public university" and "private university" found in U.S. dictionaries? Thirdly, "public examinations" is a specific phrase used in a specific context, which does not apply to the institutions as a whole but to a specific aspect of them, and is therefore not relevant to the issue at hand or analogous.Rangoon11 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion at the Oxford page has been much fuller and has led to a consensus to take the term "public" out of the lead and to cover the public/private point later in the article. As suggested by Bduke, I shall make the same changes here. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is clearly no consensus here for such a change, and it is debatable that such a consensus even exists on the University of Oxford talk page. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Section on the history
It would be good if the section on the history had a table listing the chronological order in which the colleges of Cambridge were founded, with Peterhouse], Clare College and Pembroke College as the three oldest colleges. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Supervisions
The article proclaims that 'many people say that lectures are just a bolt on to supervisions'. This is a load of nonsense. The vast amount of learning you do is from spending hours every day going over your lecture notes and books. The notion that a couple of hours' every week dwarfs this is just ridiculous; certainly so for technical subjects. At any rate the statement is weasel-wordy; it needs fixing.
 * I've heard that expressed for a couple of Arts subjects. But for the technical subjects, it's often the other way round... Bluap (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reworked the "Teaching" section a bit, but it could do with some cleanup Bluap (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cantabrigia
We are told that "Cantabrigia" is the Latinised form of "Cambridge". Why not Tibetanise the same word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.122.68 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the university was not created at a time or in a place with Tibetan as the language of learning. --Bajazeth.  And think to rouse us from our dreadful siege / Of the famous Grecian Constantinople 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect University shield
The shield of the University currently shown at the top of the entry is incorrect. Each lion should fill the entire space in which it resides. As such, the two lions in the bottom quarters are unique. The shield currently displayed inaccurately shows all four lions as identical, and failing to fill the entire space. The correct shield is then displayed at the base of the box on the right of the page which sets out a summary of the basic details of the institution. 188.222.176.198 (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have an SVG file of the official/correct crest, but can't figure out an easy way to upload it without an autoconfirmed account. If anyone has any ideas... 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, my account has been autoconfirmed and I have updated the shield on the main article. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Heraldry doesn't work like that. As long as as a depiction of the coat of arms corresponds to the blazon in the original letters patent from the [College of Arms]] granting the arms, it doesn't really matter what it looks like. As long as it fulfills these criteria, then they are in no way 'incorrect '.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal Colleges
What are the "royal colleges" referred to in the section on graduation? Churchill College was founded by royal charter, and is not among those referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.149.181 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All the colleges are established by Royal Charter by law, and until they receive approval by the Privy Council and a Royal Charter is issued they are merely associated institutions of the University. If you look at certain colleges' Wikipedia pages they were established on a certain date, then officially established by Royal Charter at a later date. Until this process is complete they are not officially a college of the University. The term royal colleges for graduation simply refers to the fact they were founded by royal benefactors, e.g. Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII. This is why they are given presidence at graduation and go first, as it is in recognition of their royal benefactors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.14.34 (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Judge Business School?
It mightn't qualify for a Nobel Prize, but I've just discovered a heinous thing...the Judge Business School is mentioned nowhere in this artlcle. Why? Jaker5 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm, no reason it shouldn't be in there. I'm not sure where it ought to fit into the article though.  Perhaps as an addendum to the 'Colleges' section or under 'Schools, faculties and departments'.  I might add it later if I have a minute, but of course feel free to do it yourself if you can think of something. 8AE34D5F29933DED51D0A42F7454AEF2 (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Added under the Location paragraph. -- Mark91  it's my world   11:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNIGUIDE
It would be good if editors could refer to WP:UNIGUIDE and try as far as possible to follow the structure. If you really feel that the structure proposed there doesn't work, it would be good to have the feedback. The guidelines were, I think, written by people who know the US system best, but it would be good if they could ensure international consistency in university articles.

Accordingly, I moved the Sites section earlier, as the second main heading after History is supposed to be Campus. I would expect to see in the lead paragraph something about Cambridge college buildings being spread around the town, rather than it being a campus university. And surely there is a lot more to say about the architectural history. Other UK university articles are liable to go on at length about dull 1950s slab blocks, and here we have one university that really does have an important architectural history and we say next to nothing. Thanks and best of luck with the GA. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I will have a look at including some information about architecture when I have more time, though it is not my strong area of expertise. I think the lead paragraph says collegiate university which to me sounds obvious, but maybe it's unclear? With regards to WP:UNIGUIDE, I do think it's a bit biased towards the US system, but I see your point. My only concern is that it's inevitable to refer to departments and faculties when you're talking about buildings and sites, though these are now described later in the Organization section, where I think they belong. Any ideas to improve this?-- Mark91  it's my world   11:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would really lift the article to include some solid information about the architectural significance of at least the medieval colleges. Perhaps a note at WikiProject Architecture might bring some expert editors in. I don't think that "collegiate university" suffices to describe the nature of the "campus", because a collegiate university could be all on one campus (Kent at Canterbury comes to mind), and a non-collegiate university could be in buildings around a city, like Leeds, Sheffield and Bristol. I find the information currently in the article about "sites" and "departments" to lack explicit connection with the colleges, so the reader could come away very confused. Hope this helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the lead a bit, does it clarify your issues? I also left a message at WikiProject Architecture, hopefully someone will come around to give me a hand! -- Mark91  it's my world   23:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I think Oxbridge are almost bound to break any guidelines intended for "normal" universities, they're just too weird to fit into straitjackets that are necessarily tight to cover 98% of universities. Should all universities have sections on their police force or their own version of football? I think this is a perfect example for a bit of Ignore all rules - or at least the detail of one guideline. In response to Itsmejudith's reordering - I think you have to start with the organisation of the university because the rest just doesn't make much sense without it as I think you've now shown to yourself. But maybe split it up - have the first half of the Organisation section (colleges vs depts) as the first section of the article, but leave the detailed administration further down the page. As for Location - it just doesn't really work, at the moment you've got a list of some of the dept areas, but nothing on the colleges, which make up most of what the casual visitor would regard as the "campus". Except there's no campus of course. I think in the British context it's understood that a collegiate university doesn't really have a campus - yes Canterbury and York are technically collegiate universities but they're really just pretentious halls of residence at campus universities that want to ape that other cathedral city, Durham.  Imagine asking a student "Can you give me directions to the university?" In Leeds or Bristol there would be no question where you meant, even if bits of it are off the main campus, whereas in Oxbridge they genuinely wouldn't be able to give you an answer, it's all around you (and they only interact with their college and dept, but almost never with "the University". If Judith is confused by a lack of explicit connection between the depts and colleges, that's because there is none, formally. It's a federation a bit like the way the USA works with the states and the federal government, they're just separate "things". That split of endowments 2:1 in favour of the colleges is a rough guide to the balance of power, although it's swinging towards 50:50 these days. As for tackling the architecture of the colleges - that could be a long article in itself! Just as an aside - the thing about student cars is not done on parking permits and is not an absolute ban, they need a special chit from the Motor Proctor to keep a car within 10 miles of Great St Mary's which is granted if they're postgrads or eg are in a club that requires travel like gliding or climbing. I've access to some books like the 800th anniversary coffee-table book, but really don't have much time to spend here. 82.26.115.68 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Institutional bias?
User:Doogely has made a number of reverts to recent edits by my (e.g. this revert) which remove the inline attribution of the claim made in The Guardian that Cambridge admission is biased against ethnic minorities, and removed the response (reported in the same article) made by the university to these accusations. I think such a strong claim requires in-text attribution, and that the article should not be cherrypicked to present only the accusation, not the response. I am not even sure that, since The Guardian appears to have obtained and analyzed the figure itself, the claim even qualifies as RS since this is in some sense a primary source that has not been reviewed: the article is at best a source for what the Guardian is claiming. Alexbrn talk 12:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This particular user appears to be soapboxing by making related edits on the Oxford University article. I will raise the issue at their talkpage and direct them to this discussion  Jebus989 ✰ 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I reject any claims of soapboxing. I went through both Guardian articles, and the data they released. Therefore I have updated wikipedia with the facts stated in the articles- nothing more.

These are the reasons for my edits:

1. The Guardian didn't crticise the Universtiy. The Guardian reported certain facts, which is all that should be entered in the article.

2. The University claimed the costs to provide more data were too high. There is no evidence that indeed it was too high. Hence it is fairest to state it precisely that the University "claimed" the costs were two high. Since Oxford provided more data, it is reasonable to not to necessarily take the University's word for it.

I believe these two reasons above are valid, and can't see why anyone would contest them.

3. The reason for removing the Unversity comments: they don't say anything relevant, are not backed up with any fact or insight. Further they are unbacked opinions/ claims written in bureacratese and don't cite any substantive data or reasoning. To place them would be indeed cherry picking, and non-encyclopedic.

Further the argument made by the University that the analysis is "superficial" is misleading, and very spurious and not credible. The facts reported ethnic minorities do have lower success rates even with the same grades is uncontested. That is all wikipedia should mention. This fact is not irrelevant, (for one on the University website it is written that A levels are the best predictor of success). Unbacked claims by the University administration is irrelevant for the wikipedia article, in my opinion.

Now for the argument by Alexbrn:

1. The Guardian isn't a reliable source. I find this claim rather odd. The Guardian is one of the world's most respected newspapers. Further the Guardian isn't an opinion piece making unbacked claims. The article is a news report reporting facts. Further the Guardian data was cited by the journal 'Science'. If it is good enough for 'Science', then surely it is good enough for wikipedia?

Doogely


 * A few concerns here:
 * WP:CHERRYPICKING. WP's guideline states "the main information from a source, insofar as stated in Wikipedia, must be accompanied by any contradictory and qualifying information from the same source. ... Failure to do so often violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ...". For this reason the University's response must be given.
 * In The Guardian the neutral verb used for the University's statement on FOI cost is "say". Here it has become "claim" which falls afoul of WP:CLAIM.
 * While The Guardian may be a reliable source for many things, here it has obtained a data set and run an analysis on it which has apparently not been subject to any kind of expert or independent review. At the very least the claims it is making should be attributed.
 * If this information is referenced in a journal, that would make a much better source - where is that exactly? Alexbrn talk 14:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The first fact being cited is that ethnic minority applicants with same A levels have lower success rates. This isn't qualified or contested by anyone including the University, or the Guardian article. The next fact mentioned in the wikipedia article is that claims of institutional discrimination have been made. This too is uncontested, and is not qualified by the Guardian article. No one contests whether the "claim" of institutional discrimination has been made.
 * All the University contests in the article is the fact whether or not institutional discrimination is taking place, not the fact that a claim was made (by MP David Lammy among others). If wikipedia stated that there was institutional discrimination, then perhaps for neutrality sake the comments made by the University would be needed to ensure neutrality. That is not the case here.
 * The University provides unsubstantiated counter-claims in bureaucratese which have no relevant encyclopedic content without any informational value, supporting data or substantive reasoning. To insert it would be unencylopedic.
 * There is no semantic difference between the University "says" it is too costly, to the University "claims" it is too costly.
 * The Guardian article is the primary source. It is a reliable source. To say otherwise is bizarre, and to suggest all sources need to be 'independently verified' or whatever is bizarre, and would result in most of wikipedia needing to be erased. It is cited in other papers and in the Journal Science: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2013_03_21/caredit.a1300048

DDoogely (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an editorial piece from Science's Careers magazine. It's a good example of how this Guardian piece should be neutrally described (rather than the biased way Wikipedia has now): it has attributed the accusation and included the University response. Alexbrn talk 15:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That Science article is report of the original story, which includes the univeristy's statements. It isn't an entry into an encyclopedia. There is no point in interspersing undisputed fact with unsubstantiated and rather spurious claims in the name of neutrality in an encyclopedia. Further including the University's statement adds no informational content. Doogely (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've inserted a line: "The University denied the claims of institutional discrimination by stating the figures didn't take into account "other variables"" I think this contains the University's response in full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doogely (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Charles Darwin
It states in the article that Darwin "was a Cambridge man" - true but he was not educated in biology at Cambridge. It is a little misleading to imply that he was a "Cambridge Biologist" when his course of studies at the university had no such content. His final examinations included Homer, Virgil, aspects of theology and moral philosophy and mathematics. The text should make it clear that his education in biology was informal and was not part of his official studies whilst at Cambridge. Urselius (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Third oldest, fourth oldest, "one of the oldest"
Anyone else care to take a look at the recent edits? I think "one of the oldest" is daft, but seek consensus and all that... Pinkbeast (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. I considered your view to be so self-evident I reverted the changes before I noticed you had opened a discussion here. Sorry. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I won't argue. Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in Literature and popular culture
With reference to Nikkimaria's removal of many referenced points in the Literature and popular culture section, could someone please state the criteria for inclusion of a cultural reference (and if possible, point to the relevant Wikipedia guideline(s) for them)?

Whilst I think there are far too many items in the list, I cannot see any given reason for each item's removal. cm&#610;&#671;ee&#2927;&#8202;&#865;&#176;&#160;&#814;&#1583;&#8202;&#865;&#176;&#8201;&#2669; 18:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideally, every item should have a reliable secondary source indicating its significance. That obviously isn't the case here right now, and further trimming should be done for items for which such sources cannot be found. The reference and work in which it appears should be significant. Again, more trimming is likely needed in this regard. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed - way too much miscellaneous fluff here. Alexbrn talk 18:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the previous two comments. I'd be expecting to see secondary sources here backing up any selection. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I've boldly split much of the content to University of Cambridge in popular culture. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all, especially Nikkimaria. When I've some spare time, I'll categorise them on the new page. cm&#610;&#671;ee&#2927;&#8202;&#865;&#176;&#160;&#814;&#1583;&#8202;&#865;&#176;&#8201;&#2669; 10:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've categorised them as in . Any objections? cm&#610;&#671;ee&#9094;&#964;a&#671;&#954; 17:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Babbage
i still think charles babbage deserves to have his picture among the other "famous alumni". he is the father of the computer. without the analytic engine, we would be screwed. why hasn't anyone corrected this travesty? it is both frustrating and disappointing to see such a glaring omission. I3roly (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The illustrations on the University of Cambridge page cannot (without turning it into an image gallery) show every notable person who was at the University and is mentioned in the article.
 * Babbage started at Trinity in October 1810 and transferred to Peterhouse in 1812. He did not graduate with honours but instead received a degree without examination in 1814.  He was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics from 1828 to 1839, but never gave a lecture.  For the rest of his life (and probably for much of time during these periods also) he was elsewhere, mostly in London.
 * This is not to diminish Babbage as an important mathematician and brilliant polymath. Clearly he was at Cambridge, and, as it says in the article already, ‘designed the world’s first computing system’, but there are many other famous and outstanding people who spent their lives at Cambridge, and who are much more closely associated with the University.  Rutherford, Hershel, Eddington, Dirac, Rayleigh, Thompson, Bragg, Crick, Chadwick, Cockcroft, Walton, Sanger and so on, all spent substantial parts of their careers at Cambridge. They are mentioned, but none is shown.
 * As to the Analytical Engine, it is arguable how influential it was on subsequent developments, as most of Babbage’s innovations were unknown and had to be re-invented. It has never been built, so to that extent, we are still ‘without it’.  85.210.169.114 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Chomsky
Noam Chomsky is taught at Cambridge and described there as world-renowned. This should be mentioned in the article on Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.168.232 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Many 'world renowned' people are 'taught at Cambridge'. It's what the place does.  Other than receiving an honorary degree, and delivering a lecture in 1970, did Chomsky spend any significant time at the University of Cambridge or have any other strong connection?  If not, then there is no reason to mention him in this article.  85.210.172.88 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Method of assessing undergraduate candidates incorrect
"Cambridge, together with Oxford and Durham, is among those universities that have adopted formulae that gives a rating to the GCSE performance of every school in the country to "weight" the scores of university applicants." - It has already been noted that the citation does not say this. Added to that, I was at an Oxbridge conference for potential applicants a few months ago and they specifically said that whilst GCSE results are looked at (albeit significantly less than AS level results and A2 predictions), there is no formulaic calculation involving them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.47.70 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)