Talk:Mathematical Tripos

Part 3

No (explicit) mention of the distinctive Part 111...

True. This was mostly about the ancient history, for which I have a reliable scholarly source. I did Part III myself, but the memories aren't all good (John Conway's exam paper contained a technical term not defined in his course ...). Charles Matthews 09:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I once sat in on Denis Sciama's Part 3 lectures on GR - a foolish mistake for a mere post-grad physicist. The lectures used to conclude with questions and comments; most of them were from some guy at the back in a wheel-chair, who was a little hard to follow... 'Yes, yes Stephen' Sciama would enthuse ' that's an excellent point...'

Tripos

This is a pretty short article. Why isn't it merged with Tripos? Rklawton 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not too short; I think it deserves its separate existence, due to its fairly distinctive history and reputation within the field (i.e. this article can analyse the course's particular influence within mathematics, rather than just as another exam within the Cambridge system).

Furthermore, I am currently considering writing a longer section on the current Mathematics Tripos to put the development in context - this should bulk things out somewhat. If there's anything you would like to see included, let me know! Aquilina 14:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there is a very substantial book devoted to the Mathematical Tripos alone, this doesn't really need an answer. Charles Matthews 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I know they're physicists, but...

Oddly, this official history of Physics [1] at Cam gives details about the Maths Tripos that I've never heard before. I prob won't have time to work on this article for a while, so be my guest... JackyR 20:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"taught"?

The wording in the introduction strikes this American's ear as very odd: "the taught mathematics course at the University of Cambridge." Taught as an adjective? I assume that is a British usage, but it is very off-putting on this side of the pond.

I'm curious: Is the phrase equivalent to "...the mathematics course taught at ..." or is it equivalent to just "...the mathematics course at...." or does it have some technical meaning that differentiates it from other types of mathematics courses? If the latter, is it important to make that distinction in the very first sentence, or might it be delayed without creating a misunderstanding? - DavidWBrooks 17:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Oxbridge university model, one often differentiates between "taught courses", such as those leading in Cambridge to the BA, MEng, and MSci degrees, and "research courses", such as those leading to a PhD degree or, more rarely, to the MLitt, MSc, or, in the case of Natural Sciences, a few MPhil degrees. The difference between the two classes of degrees is that the awarding of the former requires attending a certain number of university lectures and passing a series of associated final written exams, whereas the latter traditionally requires only the submission and acceptance by the university of a research thesis that is examined orally. For the PhD degree in particular, the submitted thesis, in addition to reviewing the existing literature, must also document, in an scholarly manner, sound original research that represents a substantial novel contribution to existing knowledge in the field to which the thesis topic is related. Results arising from a PhD thesis are also expected to be passible of publication in peer-reviewed journals and/or as books/book chapters. (Note: Cambridge PhD students in a few departments, e.g. engineering, are also required nowadays to take classes and written exams in their first year, but that normally doesn't count for credit towards their final degree, except to help ensuring their continuation in the program when they're up for formal performance review).

Generally speaking, "taught degrees" in the Oxbridge model are initial (bachelor's or undergraduate master's) degrees, whereas "research degrees" are advanced (graduate master's or doctoral) degrees. Several graduate master's degrees however, e.g. most Cambridge MPhil degrees in humanities and social sciences, are now actually, in the British terminology, "part-taught, part-research degrees", requiring that the student attend lectures, take final written exams and submit a short dissertation which may be orally examined or not depending on the course. The MPhil dissertation is supposed to be shorter and of a lower standard in terms of originality and relevance compared to a PhD thesis. (Note: in the US, terms are inverted, i.e. "dissertation" is used to refer to PhD work and "thesis" for master's work).

The Mathematics Tripos in particular is typically a "taught course" in the sense described in the first paragraph, leading to the undergraduate BA for students who pass the written examinations for Parts I and II respectively, and to the graduate Certificate of Advanced Studies in Mathematics for students who take and pass Part III examinations. 161.24.19.82 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Since October 2010, Part III Mathematics leads to a Master of Mathematics (MMath) degree for those who take it as the fourth year of an undergraduate course, or a Master of Advanced Study (MASt) degree for those who come to Cambridge from outside to take it. These degrees can also be awarded retrospectively to those who have taken Part III Mathematics since 1962. 86.13.158.235 (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC) 86.13.158.235 (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

More Thorough Tripos Outline

Arguably, there's no point in making a more thorough Tripos Outline - but, for the benefit of a more complex and comprehensive Wikipedia article, I've added some mention of the specifics of the Part IA Tripos material.

This wikipedia article should motivate the creation of the following articles :

1) An article discussing the Mathematics Tripos Exam.

2) An article discussing some of the courses within the different parts of the Tripos.

3) An article outlining what the courses cover.

and, most importantly :

4) An article outlining the CATAM project, what it is, what students produce, and why it is soooooo much fun.

I agree that those things should be included, but they should be included all in this article rather than spinning off dozens of sub-articles; an article specifically on (say) one of the courses would quite rightly end up getting deleted as not notable. Keep it to this article. -- simxp (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As it is the section on specific structure of the Tripos is not at all notable enough for Wikipedia. This is information that should remain in the student course guide, not on an international encyclopedia. Anyone else think this section should be deleted? Imagine if every university had its own article for every course it ran, it would be ridiculous. CATAM is a homework assignment. It does not warrant any mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.255.4 (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

CATAM is perhaps more significant than we give it credit – according to its creator, Robert D. Harding, it's one of the first computer-based courses in Britain. --jftsang 09:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved to 'Mathematical Tripos'

I have moved this page from 'Cambridge Mathematical Tripos' to 'Mathematical Tripos', because as far as I am aware, there is no other course by this name outside of Cambridge. --jftsang 08:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mathematical Tripos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920182929/http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/documentation/triposguide/text.pdf to http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/undergrad/documentation/triposguide/text.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203004015/http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/CASM/ to http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/CASM/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505232038/http://www.archim.org.uk/eureka/51/warren.html to http://www.archim.org.uk/eureka/51/warren.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A comment on british Old Tripos nostalgia: As a mathematician educated outside the UK I have always found it hard to understand, why the british - just like the Wikipedia article - are so impressed by the "Old Tripos" in Cambridge. Surely it must have been a hard test to pass and The Senior Wrangler had to be smart. But what about this paradox: in the heyday of the Old Tripos british pure mathematics was not in the forefront at all and lagged far behind France and Germany. The Wikipedia article has not much to say about that. In the reference list is mentioned an article by A. R. Forsyth: "Old Tripos Days at Cambridge". That is fine but I think it should be read together with Leonard Roth: "Old Cambridge Days". Both articles appear in vol. 1 of: Douglas M. Campbell and John C. Higgins: Mathematics - People, Problems, Results (Wadsworth 1984, ISBN 0-534-02879-9 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laluha (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Laluha (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)