Talk:University of Cambridge

	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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed November 26, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 8, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject England      (Rated GA-Class) England portal This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject Middle Ages      (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and how best to improve it. WikiProject Universities (Rated GA-Class) Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. University of Cambridge WikiProject (Rated GA-Class) University portal This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. WikiProject Cambridge     (Rated GA-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cambridge, which tries to improve the quality of all articles related to Cambridge, UK.

Archives

Archive 1 (2003-2005) Archive 2 (2006) Archive 3 (2007)

WikiProject CD Selection

University of Cambridge is included in the Wikipedia for Schools, see University of Cambridge at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.

[edit] 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. — Richie 04:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:57, 7 August 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 [1]. — 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)

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)

[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)

[edit] 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 — the others seem too green — 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)

[edit] Notable alumni section

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)