Talk:University of Cambridge/Archive 1

message: I am searching for the meaning of "Fellow", such as Research Fellow. What does a fellow have to do, or how much education is needed to become a fellow?
Cannot find in reference books...
Thanks,
Allison Bilbao
abilbao@aol.com
:In this context, a fellow is a role within a college. Duties and status vary widely. A research fellow is most frequently a junior post-doc-ish position. A fellow of a college may or may not have a separate position in the university. Matthew Woodcraft
I put a full explanation up at fellow Jonathan 16:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a fellow? 

message: Is Cambridge University itself not wealthy? I was under the impression that even aside from collegiate wealth it was by no means poor.
Arbiter
:You can see the financial statements at . In 2002 the university had total investments of about £850m. (The BBC says they had investments of £1200m in 2001 but I'm assuming they included the colleges in that.). Anyway, compare this to Trinity (by far the richest college) which apparently had assets of £310m in 1997 with income of £19m . This year I can't find figures on its assets, but the college accounts give a figure of income of =25m ; if the investment value has risen in proportion we could estimate it's about £407m now. So, very roughly, the university is twice as rich as Trinity.
:AFAIK, this wasn't so in the past; in the last century or so the university has had to increase its ownership of real property because so much more scientific research is being done, which is expensive and done at a university level and not by the colleges.
:The figures the BBC gives for 2001 show the wealth of various redbrick universities, none of which come close to these figures even if we don't count collegiate wealth. Marnanel 02:57, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
::It is undoubtedly true the nominal wealth has increased dramatically due to property. It seems appropiate here to mention the Cambridge2000 project - someone's fantastic pet project to photograph the whole of Cambridge. See in particular  which is an index to all the buildings he has photographed, indexed by date of building... you soon realise how many University buildings have been built over the last 40 years or so! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:13, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the University wealthy? How about the colleges? 

message: Does anybody know when Cambridge University was founded, as the Ancient Universities page contradicts the UK Universities page, and the Cambridge University page.  I think oxford may have the same problem. John Pratt 18:27, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone knows exactly for sure. Marnanel 14:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The short answer is, no-one knows. They started off as localised gatherings of scholars, where students came to study, but there was no unified body, as such. As the student and scholar numbers grew, firstly houses and then halls and hostels were taken over to provide residence. The universities of Oxford and Cambridge at first were just federations of these halls to give themselves a level of protection, as town/gown relations were never that great. The universities were never founded as such, they gradually took form. As for earliest records, Oxford was eminent enough to attract foreign scholars of note by 1115, and the traditional founding of Cambridge is 1209, allegedly when eminent scholars from Oxford fled after a particularly vicious fight between town and gown, where several students were lynched. I hope this answers your question. Wee Jimmy 23:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Just a note to say that according to the recently published history of the University of Cambridge by the University archivist there is written evidence of the University existing in 1209, so this is taken as the founding date. The University is preparing to celebrate it's 800th anniversary in 2009. I will change the other pages to match this date. Rnt20 11:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of foundation of the University? 

message: It seems everybody wants to put their favourite alumni on the list, and it's growing rather long. Maybe the list should move to a separate page? What do people think? Stephen Turner 10:23, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've moved it. Unfortunately I gave it small letters and wasn't skilled enough to work out how to rename the page so it would be great if someone could correct this. By the way there is also a duplicate list of Colleges of the University of Cambridge which should I assume be merged with the list on this page. --Cjnm 14:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the links: List of alumni of the University of Cambridge 00:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move alumni to separate page? 

message: What is the source of the statement that "They stopped awarding the wooden spoon when they learned some students were attempting to win it."?  The proposal of the reform including the abolition of the order of merit (Cambridge University Reporter, 1905-6, pp 740-746) and the subsequent Discussion (pp 873-890) mention the problem of the order of merit causing students at the top to devote too much effort to doing well in the examination on elementary mathematics at the expense of learning real mathematics, but not undesired effects on the behaviour of students at the bottom.  I don't recall such a mention in the minutes of the Board of Mathematical Studies / Special Board of Mathematics, 1848-1916 (Cambridge University Archives: Min.V.7) either.  But there may have been issues left unsaid in the official proposals and the formal Discussion; I haven't e.g. looked at what may have been said at the time in the Cambridge Review, or at what was said in Discussion of the unsuccessful 1900 reform attempt. Joseph Myers 01:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wooden spoon statement 

message: What significance does the MA have at Cambridge?  The MA is mentioned at Master's degree but does not expand much upon it's significance.  Whilst there is a separate Degrees of Oxford University page, there doesn't seem to be one for Cambridge.  Could somebody clarify how important the MA is?  What rights or privileges does it give you?  For example, on the Degrees of Oxford University page, it states that "...the MA remains the most important degree in Oxford."
: In Cambridge, you get an MA "for free" a couple of years after your bachelors degree.  In that sense, the Cambridge MA can simply be regarded as being the same as a BA (plus a bit of experience).  Many colleges give dining rights to people once they obtain their MA (e.g. Trinity allows an MA to dine on High Table for free, 4 times per year).  The order of precendence of degrees is given in  (page 178) as (Doctor of Divinity ; Doctor of Law; Doctor of Medicine; Doctor of Science / Letters ; Doctor of Music; Bachelor of Divinity; Doctor of Veterinary Medicine; Doctor of Philosophy; Master of Surgery; Master of Arts; Master of Law; Master of Music; Master of Science / Letters; Master of Philosophy; Master of Engineering; Master of Business Administration; Master of Education; Master of Natural Sciences; Master of Studies; Bachelor of Medine; Bachelor of Law; Bachelor of Vetinary Medicine; Bachelor of Music; Bachelor of Arts; Bachelor of Education; Bachelor of Theology of Ministry).  As you can see, MA ranks higher than most of the other masters - but will also tend to be awarded a couple of years later.  Notably (and contrary to rumour), MA is ranked 'lower' than PhD.  (NB: The other "Doctors" tend to be honorary degrees.) Bluap 11:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule is 10 terms after graduation and with something about upholiding moral standards, usually interpreted to mean 'hasn't gone to prison'.  Wish I could find a source for this... --221.246.251.26 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cambridge MA

message: The references aren't working properly-they link to the right places, but the numbering is wrong.
John 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I would debate the statement at the moment in the page which gives the impression that acceptance is by faculty and then getting a college place is a formality.  If someone has a solid reference for this, then fair enough, I'm wrong, but it wasn't my understanding.
When I was interviewed, I was interviewed in a college by a fellow of that college - this is normal procedure.  Only if there isn't a fellow in the subject to interview you at the college you choosedo they find another one from the department.  (This can happen for subjects with small departments, but small is relative - even Computer Science students come up against this.)  Also, the colleges have different entrance requirements - some require STEPs and S-levels and some will not normally ask for them.  This would imply that the college is in the driving seat for the applications procedure.
And beware of using the word 'faculty', which means something specific - there is no 'faculty' of Computer Science, for instance, it's the Computer Laboratory and is not a part of any of the faculties.
The minimum entry requirement used to be 2 E's at A level (the lowest passing grade) and if you were wanted enough this would be the offer you got.  I know people who have been given EE offers.
Finally, the application process at least as it used to be is that you put down 3 colleges in preference order - or an 'open' application if you have no preference, in which case you will be assigned to a college.  (Organ and choral scholars have a slightly different procedure.)  If your first-choice college rejects you either before or after interview then your chances of entry are significantly lower.  Someone who's matriculated more recently may be able to help here.--221.246.251.26 06:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For graduates, admission by a college is essentially a formality if the department likes you. It's not true for undergraduates, but I don't think we say that it is, do we? Stephen Turner 08:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: For undergraduates it is the colleges that decide whether or not they are going to accept you.  You now apply to one college (or make an open application), and then that college usually interviews you and decides whether or not to accept you.  If it doesn't accept you it may but you in the Winter Pool if it thinks another college might want you, for other colleges to look at your application.  You may then get an offer from a college, or not.  Then in the summer if you meet your offer then you have a place, if not you may b put in the Summer Pool, and then may be chosen by a college, or you might not.
Hope that helps.
For authoritative answer:
Official Website
John 11:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Entrance procedure

message: What is this and what does it mean?
John 22:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "ius non trahi extra"

message: What do people think of this new section on the Franco-British Student Alliance? I'm always reluctant to remove true information from an article, but there must surely be dozens of comparably-important associations. Stephen Turner 11:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better, thanks. Stephen Turner 14:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco-British Student Alliance 

message: Actually, US private universities do receive state funding, though mostly for research.
John Hopkins University in Baltimore is the largest university recipient of US federal research funding.
MIT (which also classifies itself as a private university) is another big recipient of government funding.
It is the wealthiest traditional liberal arts universities such as Harvard which choose to forego govt funding altogether. In addition, the largest US state run and funded public universities have significant endowments (though these are mostly spread over multiple universities within a state "system" e.g. the Califonia and Texas systems) Bwithh 19:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of "US private universities do not receive state funding" comment removal 

message: I'm not convinced this society is notable enough to be on the main page, and am not enthusiastic either about including the Lib Dems and the Tory Clubs for balance purposes if the Labour Club is retained.
any other opinions or arguments in favour/against retaining the Labour Party Club listing before I go ahead and edit it out? Bwithh 13:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's just added another political society for "balance". I vote for removing them both. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, that was actually me - I forgot to log in. I chose to "balance" (admittedly not a very good balancing item) with a new addition as was still unsure about removing the Labour Club link. I'm removing both now. Bwithh 14:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible removal of CU Labour Party Club