Talk:University of Cambridge/Archive 1

What is a fellow?

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)

Relative age of ancient colleges

There appears to be a little internal controversy over foundation dates =). This article, and the college's own site, claim that Clare was founded before my college, Pembroke (Clare is claimed for 1326, Pembroke claims 1347). However, Pembroke's website claims that it is the "third oldest college". Since we have 1284 for Peterhouse and 1317 for King's Hall, someone has to be lying :). Unless Pembroke don't consider King's Hall a "college", possibly. Anyone got any ideas? --AW

Yes, Pembroke mean 'third oldest surviving college'. Michaelhouse also was older than Clare and Pembroke. Matthew Woodcraft

What is a tripos?

On Bachelor's degree there is a reference to the Tripos of Cambridge in relation to the granting of honors degrees. Can anyone explain it? Rmhermen 15:28, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Approximately Tripos means subject. i.e. Mathematics Tripos, English Tripos etc. I'll investigate. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) see Tripos DJ Clayworth 22:07, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• This is all described on the Tripos page, as DJ Clayworth pointed out.

User:Charles Matthews and User:Oliver Periera should be able to furnish you with more detail if you press them. They are alumni of the university. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:23, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) (apologies in advance to those two if they don't want that info public - if so please delete this message)

Tripos == an honours examination, apparently. See http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/prospectus/tripos.html or http://www.jesus.cam.ac.uk/admissions/teaching.html . Penfold 15:27, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Formally, the word "tripos" describes the examination, yes. Informally, however, it is used for almost everything relating to it: The course and its syllabus, the examination, the qualification obtained, and sometimes (rarely) even the department or buildings associated with a subject. — Timwi 16:41, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that Tripos originally refered to three legged stools that students sat on when taking exams! John Pratt 18:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Triposes were originally the 3-legged stools that viva exams were taken on. Now it generally applies to the Cambridge system of Parts of a degree, generally Parts 1A, 1B, and 2 are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years respectively. You can take differing Parts 1 and 2 (Part 3 is often a 4th Masters year), and still get "A Cambridge Degree". They are structured like this to allow widely-based studies in Part 1, leading to increasingly specialised Parts 2 and 3. For instance, in the Medical Sciences, Part 1 is the basic Medical undergraduate studies, then Part 2 (3rd year) is available for specialisation in, say, Medical Law and Ethics, or Biochemistry, Anatomy, Genetics, etc. and if you wish, with your tutor's and DoS's permission, you can jump to almost any other Part II on completion of your Part 1, so long as it is considered "beneficial to your education". For that, read "we think you're serious and you'll do well."Wee Jimmy 23:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I believe it's a requirement to do a part 1 and a part 2 in order to graduate, not all subjects divide into 1A and 1B. Some split part 2, and some have a pre-part-1 bit. All from my memory, I'm afraid, but I think History is a counterexample to the statement above. 1A/1B/2 is (was) certainly followed in Natural Sciences and Computer Science. --221.246.251.26 05:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the University wealthy? How about the colleges?

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 [1]. In 2002 the university had total investments of about £850m[2]. (The BBC says they had investments of £1200m in 2001[3] 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 [4]. This year I can't find figures on its assets, but the college accounts give a figure of income of =25m [5]; 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 [6] 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)

I think the University being roughly twice as rich as Trinity is remarkable more due to Trinity's wealth than anything else - I think the point about comparative wealth with the redbricks should be noted - perhaps the line under debate in the Univ of Cambridge Article is misleading?

"One of the most prestigious universities": weasel words?

Widely regarded as one of the most prestigious universities in the world

The above line was recently added to the second sentence. Although it may well be true, it smells rather weasely (in the sense of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms). Could we say something more definitive? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, we can - we can say it's "the best undergraduate university for science in the world", for example, or that it's "one of the world leaders in computer security research", or that it's "perhaps the most widely-recoginised non-American university in the world", or... But I can't think of anything NPOV that we can say, because there is and probably never will be a proper analysis done of the world's universities, because they're all from slightly different cultures and so work in slightly different ways, and so on...

James F. (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could say that it has had more Nobel prize winners associated with it than any other university, or that you 'believed' that the university is held in high regard by many, but when it comes to such words like 'best' and 'greatest', people tend to be offended and such words are generally highly contentious. That said, someone did do some table of the 100 "best" universities in the world (The Times Uni Guide 2004 mentioned it) and Cambridge came 3rd, the ighest non-USA institution in the world. --Wee Jimmy 21:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of citing the relative number of Nobel prize winners. It's quantifiable, and once stated, other adjectives become superfluous. Rklawton 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You could also say that University of Cambridge was ranked number 2 in the world by a Shanghai Jiao Tong University study. Go to http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm.

Date of foundation of the University?

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)

I don't think anyone knows exactly for sure. Marnanel 14:37, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

Move alumni to separate page?

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)

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)

I fixed the links: List of alumni of the University of Cambridge 00:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed this link from the page because it didn't work. Archived here incase it was just my browser or a temporary problem. 131.111.212.183 18:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wooden spoon statement

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)

I removed this statement after no verification was provided. Joseph Myers 23:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alumni

Hi Richie, I reverted your edit because it deleted some well-known alumni. I don't know whether you intended that. Let me know if you object. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Richie: I suppose I do agree, otherwise the list will be endless. But it's hard to judge the criteria for inclusion in such a short list. For example, I see that Turing is not there (this is based on a glance, so I could be wrong) and nor is Keynes. On the other hand, more WP readers will have heard of Peter Cooke and John Cleese than Turing or Keynes. So do we go by fame or by significance of work? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should find a balance between fame and significance of work (focus). This should also be seen more generally and not too UK-centric. I don't know Peter Cook, but think that John Cleese definitely deserves to be listed there. I would also like to see Sacha Baron Cohen (Ali G) listed there, but I accept that some wouldn't like this. I would remove John Harvard (clergyman) Sylvia Plath, Siegfried Sassoon, Ted Hughes and Graham Chapman from the list, maybe also William Harvey. Added Turing. — Richie 19:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Richie, we should probably have this discussion on the talk page there, so I'm copying this to there. However, I'd say that Peter Cook is probably a more eminent comedian than John Cleese, Sacha Baron Cohen I wouldn't include, and I'd see no argument for excluding Ted Hughes as a poet laureate. Perhaps we should just leave it until it becomes too large, which hasn't happened yet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't creating a category (no need to reference "famous", etc.) for Cambridge Alumni solve our problem? A category has several advantages. Alumni names won't clutter up the Cambridge article. Second, any alumni worthy of an article in Wikipedia makes the list. Lastly, the Cambridge article editors won't have to moderate the "who is worthy" debate. Instead, the debate opend up to the entire Wikipedia community with regard to the candidate's article-worthiness. By comparison, I do believe a list of Cambridge Nobel Prize Winners is appropriate within the Cambridge article. List membership isn't subject to debate, and it effectively illustrates the school's merits. Rklawton 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Myths and Legends

This section needs to be fixed. A portion of the history section has been pasted here. User:193.1.100.102

Fixed, I think. Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates

So, University of Chicago apparently has the most affiliated Nobel laureates, too. Which one is correct? :) 140.247.31.112 8 July 2005 14:29 (UTC)

• University of Cambridge: 80 [7]
• University of Chicago: 78 [8]

— Richie 8 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Cambridge MA

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 [9] (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)

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)

Campus Networking

Is this section appropriate? Bluap 16:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont think this section is appropriate - firstly because its about a technical matter which is much too marginal for the general subject of the page. secondly, the user who wrote that part states himself or herself, that almost all UK universities use this technical system - so how is this specifically to do with cambridge? Bwithh 17:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Too specific for a general article about the university. Stephen Turner 18:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The intent was to provide a consolidation of useful information which is difficult to find elsewhere, yet which is highly relevant to visitors and students. Many oversease students in particular are not familiar with the restrictive networking policies of many UK universities, and will find the information especially valuable. I imagine that undergraduates from the UK who have been using DSL are in the same boat. People are accustomed to being able to easily provide wired or wireless internet access to visiting friends with laptops on short notice, neither of these are typically possible at Cambridge. 128.40.213.15 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I still say that it's too specific for a general article about the university. A link to it from the main article, as we have at present, is OK. Stephen Turner 19:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's fine with me, too, but I think there should be at least some explanatory text to indicate why people might be interested in following the link. Furthermore, Bwithh has put the new page up for deletion, so it may go away entirely. I mentioned in one of my edit summaries that an acquaintance had quit his PhD in the Zoology department in part because they would not let him use ssh. Wikipedia could help avoid this sort of wasted effort by informing people of potential problems in the first instance. However, information summarizing network restrictions or comparing Cambridge colleges is not likely to appear on any Cambridge-based websites.

Network and computing capabilities are highly rated in selection preferences. Most students want high-speed access, and not all schools uniformly provide this at present. As a result, the information will be useful for the time being. However, there may come a time when network access becomes taken for granted, much like electricity. You won't see any references to first-world schools to the effect that their campus is "fully electrified." Do we make reference to it here? The question becomes a matter of utility. If Cambridge maintains this information online, then we should point to it. If not, then we should maintain it here as it is clearly useful. Rklawton 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately useful information is not the same as encyclopedic information... Bluap 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

References

The references aren't working properly-they link to the right places, but the numbering is wrong. John 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC) I read the wikipedia footnote instructions, but I can't seem to make it work - someone else more experienced have a go please? Bwithh 23:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• this problem is now fixed! thank you, Joan of Arc page... Bwithh 03:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Entrance procedure

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)

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)

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)

Alumni again

People are starting to add the likes of Graham Chapman and Eric Idle. At this rate, we'll have pages full of Cambridge alumni. Should we decide on a set of criteria for inclusion? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the number of distinguished alumni, skip the assorted/selected alumni section completely, and simply put a link to the List of University of Cambridge people? Bwithh 04:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

We could do that, though in a way it would be a shame to lose the really famous ones among the rest. I was wondering if we could develop a set of criteria for entry into this one so that only those who are very well known internationally, or who have made a substantial contribution to their field, would be added. Or would that be inherently POV, do you think? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a tricky question. I like having a short list, if it consists of only the very famous (let's say, people we expect to still be household names in 25 years' time): but it's very difficult to draw the line (leading to danger of POV), and it does invite editors to add people who are famous in the editor's own field but not necessarily more widely.

I've removed another seven names whom I consider to be less famous, although I realise I'm in danger of having removed people's favourites. I have mixed feelings about whether we should retain the list and be bold in policing it, or whether we should remove it altogether. I think it's valuable, but may be inherently unmanageable.

Stephen Turner 10:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If we keep the list, I think we should make distinction a criteria to temper the criteria of fame. For instance, Vladimir Nabokov (who has now been removed) is less well-known (though still internationally famous, and more so than E.M. Forster) than A.A. Milne (who I would actually drop if asked to make a more select list - has he done anything lastingly notable beyond Winnie the Pooh?), but clearly had much more to contribute to world literature both as an author and a scholar. Bwithh 10:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'd like them to be both famous and important before they get on the list. I could still happily lose a few more, such as E.M. Forster, Amartya Sen and Simon Schama, but I didn't want to get into too much trouble. :-) Stephen Turner 11:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

well, Amartya Sen is one of the world's most influential living economists, and Simon Schama is probably the most important and well-known living British historian (and historian of Britain). E.M. Forster could be dropped (and perhaps replaced with Nabokov perhaps...) Bwithh 11:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason I would drop Sen is because he's not famous enough, rather than because he's not important enough. Stephen Turner 11:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you dropping Douglas Adams, but I'm going to restore A. A. Milne — he's very famous, and whatever you think of the literary merits of the books, they undoubtedly extremely influential in our culture. Stephen Turner 11:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Of the most recent removals, the only one I would argue about would be Thomas Young, of Young's slits fame, as his experiment is taught to almost every school child. Perhaps Babbage could be removed instead -- he does not form part of school curriculae and there are no major physical laws or experiments named after him. However, I understand that you have to draw the line somewhere, so I will leave the list for the moment! Rnt20 10:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I guess six out of seven ain't bad!

I must admit, I wondered about removing Thomas Young for the same reason as you. But in the end, I decided that he was really only famous for that one experiment. I would argue that John Venn is even more clearly in that category — everyone learns about Venn diagrams, but does that really make John Venn famous enough?

Of course, these sort of questions are why the whole exercise is so difficult.

Stephen Turner 11:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• By the way you guys, speaking of alumni, fyi Cambridge relaunched their alumni website couple of days ago... check it out. It still has glitches, but its a huge improvement on the previous one. and the alumni magazine seems to have been revamped somewhat too (or made to be more boosterish). Support the 800th Anniversary Campaign! Bwithh 11:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• On other note, how about partially selecting people for the main page list based on reflecting important Cambridge traditions of research? e.g. if it is decided to leave out Charles Babbage, we would think about putting in someone else who is associated with computing. (I know we already have Alan Turing... just using that as a hypothetical example) Bwithh 11:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Looking through the list, there are 12 Scientists/Mathematicians (Dirac, Hawking, Kelvin, Maxwell, Newton, Rutherford, JJ Thomsom - physics; Babbage, Turing - maths; Darwin - biology; Harvey - medicine; Bacon - generic), 11 Literature (Tennyson, Byron, Coleridge, Ted Hughes, CS Lewis, AA Milne, Milton, Sylvia Plath, Salman Rushdie, Sassoon, Wordsworth), 3 Actors (John Cleese, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson), 3 politicians (Cromwell, Wilberforce, Manmohan Singh - current Prime Minister of India), 2 philosophers (Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein), 1 Theologian (Erasmus), 2 economists (Keynes, Sen) and 2 others (Germaine Greer, Simon Schama). If we wish to reflect the influence of Cambridge on the world, then I'd be tempted to add a politician (say Pitt the younger), and perhaps Prince Charles. I've no idea how important a theologian Erasmus is. Perhaps he should be replaced by Rowan Williams. Literature-wise, I'd be tempted to remove Ted Hughes and Sylvia Plath. We've got a huge number of physists, but they all deserve to be in the list. How prominant is William Hardy? Perhaps he should be replaced by Watson and Crick. Notably, there aren't any engineers... While Amartya Sen is prominent within his field, I would remove him from the list. Likewise, I'd remove Simon Schama, but keep Germaine Greer. Perhaps we could replace Simon Schama with David Attenborough (they're both known as broadcasters, but Attenborough is far more prominent. As an academic, Schama doesn't qualify for the list.). No sportsmen, but there aren't any particularly prominant ones on the full list. Bluap 17:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"ius non trahi extra"

What is this and what does it mean? John 22:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

From a google search (try print.google.com or scholar.google.com), it appears to be a right granted by the Pope to medieval universities that exempted members of those universities from being sued in (presumably eccelestical) court outside their local diocese. This is an early form of academic freedom, as scholars and students could discuss radical religious ideas without fear of being charged with heresy (or whatever) anywhere in Catholic Europe, whilst still being subject to the judgement of the local church courts. I might be wrong on this, as this is a guess based on the tiny fragments of sentences that print.google.com allows me to see. Bwithh 23:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Franco-British Student Alliance

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)

The section on the Franco-British Alliance is much too long. I agree with your perspective about there being other comparably important associations - indeed, they are listed as links in the Organizations and institutions associated with the university section. This is where the FBA belongs too, as a link. Bwithh 13:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have now moved the FBA content to its own page. It also needed to be edited for copyvio, as it was a direct cut and paste of a press release Bwithh 13:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. Stephen Turner 14:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of "US private universities do not receive state funding" comment removal

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)

Possible removal of CU Labour Party Club

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)

Someone's just added another political society for "balance". I vote for removing them both. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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)