Cambridge Conversations

So how was my False Claims by Cambridge? post received on Cambridge's e-forum?

At this point I suppose none of us has high hopes for Cambridge conversations. But by the criterion of controversiality, at least, my post was a winner, exceeding the runner-up conversation, "Banking Advice," with a total of 51 replies. (I'm looking just at page 1 of the list of topics, which lists the most recent 50 with any activity.)

My later False Claims by Cambridge -- II post (initiated after a decent period of silence at False Claims by Cambridge?) garnered 26 further replies, which put it in a dead heat with "Do British blokes shave?" (Admittedly, the latter conversation won in terms of audience size, having attracted the interest of 400 more readers.)

But I don't wish to suggest my grand mission here is to get attention .... Who on earth would want to do that? I must be clear on this because that is the determination that was being favored by Claudia, a grad student in Psychology, until she began leaning more towards a diagnosis of obsession:

Claudia, Sep 23, 2005 2:58 am:

It is unfortunate that you are not satisfied with your Cambridge experience, however, it is not clear what you are trying to achieve here.

With all due respect, it appears that nothing these people say can satisfy you. I think they have tried to address your concerns to the best of their knowledge, and you just keep coming up with more stuff. To what end? Do you want a refund? An apology?

Again, sorry you didn't like what you were offered. I am sure your criticism has been noted though by several instances and I think unless there is something very specific you want from these people at this point, you should really give it a rest. Surely, you have better things to do with your time too.

[Excerpts here and below edited for brevity.]

---

Uriel, Sep 23, 2005 9:19 am:

People are asking what I want. It should be obvious even if I hadn't spelled it out. If credentials have been misstated, what's called for is:

- Acknowledgement;

- Correction.

But at unworldly Cambridge, it seems this is anything but obvious.

---

Claudia, Sep 23, 2005 9:28 am:

If anything, I think your complaints have been acknowledged...by faculty members, by the administration, by us. There is nothing scandalous or out of the ordinary here. Therefore, I think what you want is either to keep busy by writing to people or posting on forums, or maybe you just want attention. I believe everything has been said about this now...don't let it become a useless obsession (it's pretty close to that already). There are more important causes you could get involved in.

---

Uriel, Sep 23, 2005 5:38 pm:

Perhaps Claudia, an aspiring psychologist, should try harder not to confuse dissent and deviancy.

---

Claudia, Sep 24, 2005 3:39 am:

I think we all have acknowledged that the summer schools may not be a perfect institution, that the staff here can be rude, that there is room for improvement. It's just that Mr. Wittenberg keeps coming back for more, for some reason. It's cases like that that made me steer clear of clinical psychology. The fact that people find it hard to remain polite around him is not surprising as it is very difficult to meet his demands.

We're not moving anywhere here....whenenver Mr. Wittenberg posts, it's just to argue against something we said, no solution is good enough, and we still don't have any concrete suggestions from him as to how this should be resolved. Plus, we're not the right people to talk to anyways.

So, again, I suggest to LET IT GO.

I do not profess to any recognized psychology credentials. But Reader, frankly: Does it not occur that Claudia herself is exhibiting symptoms of obsession? The rising panic of that "LET IT GO"? Is it not the classic construction, the quintessential plea of the subject feeling trapped, as identified by the authoritative texts?

No no, I'm not an authority myself, I'm a mere dabbler. But in this circumstance, I deemed a verbal slap in the face to be just what the doctor ordered for Claudia:

Uriel, Sep 24, 2005 9:11 am:

Claudia. Relax! What compulsion makes you keep coming back for more?

And it worked! The subject's obsession was resolved, and she was heard from no more.

Her pronouncements had however made an impression on one Goat:

Goat, Sep 24, 2005 9:24 am:

Uriel, your messages here and the material on your webpage show every sign of obsession. When something is resolved, you cannot help but continue to pester. A few shortcomings in the list of personnel for the summer school you attended is no good reason for battering people over the head with claims that you were misled. Did other summer school students have the same indictment? Moreover, you seem to have simply alienated them. And on examination of your webpage, your behaviour in this instance seems to be part of a wider pattern, in which you pick fights and refuse to back down, even when the other side presumes (knows?) that there really is nothing to fight about.

Let this be my first, and final word. You've been indulged for long enough. Reactions are what you want, and you shouldn't get any more.

But this was suspicious. The characteristic rapid response. That protesting-too-much "Let this be my first...." Had my slap cure only driven Claudia undercover?

In any case. Although, again, I am not pretending to be a qualified psychologist, surely Goat's thought processes would intrigue authorities in the field.

As Goat says, I had a dispute with Cambridge. And I persisted, while Cambridge wished to drop it. That in itself, Goat recognizes, is not unreasonable. The world is full of guilty subjects who would like to have inquiries dropped. So, arguing that my persistence was unreasonable, Goat shakily adds:

You refuse to back down, even when the other side presumes (knows?) that there really is nothing to fight about.

This lends considerable credence to the thesis advanced by my fellow amateur commentator on matters psychological:

If Cambridge were to fart, many graduate students here would deeply inhale, insisting it was perfume.

Goat was not the only contributor offering hints of suppressed ambivalence. Another poster begins straightforwardly enough:

Noodles, Sep 12, 2005 2:57 am:

Ahem, Uriel, you overestimate your ability to persuade as well as the significance of your gripe. All in all, we're looking at something that is impotent here. Brits and others are smart enough to treat a wanker as a wanker deserves. Cambridge may make mistakes, but it scarcely needs to deliberately bait and switch its teachers to draw idiots like you....

But Noodles then veers into weird territory:

... I'm sure if the world's foremost expert in whatever field you thought you were 'studying' at Cambridge this summer was on staff for the summer at some obscure university elsewhere, you'd have waived your interest in Cambridge and gone for the obscure but pure learning experience. If so, you're the kind who really needs a certified list of teachers complete with a guarantee.

For this case I do not offer a diagnosis.

Another poster I hesitate to pronounce upon is this fellow, though there are echoes of Christina's "I am allowed to have my opinion just as you are allowed to have yours":

qwerty, Sep 23, 2005 7:20 pm:

Look Uriel this is a ridiculous pass time for a grown man. Just because you have this opinion and perception doesn't make it true. There are countless discussions by other students on your course on the internet complaining about how you ALLEGEDLY ruined THEIR summer course, continually interupting, playing the naught pretentious child in class. You continually ALLEGEDLY harrass those students especially BR (a germanic sounding girl) on the internet they repeatedly state they just don't want anything to do with you or to talk to you or to receive emails from you, you persist. DO YOU NOT GET IT. You complain YOUR specific complaints aren't addressed and yet the majority of students gave contradicting accounts of the course to you. Why should we believe you? There are many examples ALLEGED available on the internet and blogs of you pestering and stalking a restaurant owner, a medical company, several summer students, a teacher in china, his wife, the school that sacked you in china, the students who hated you in China. Is Sarah Ormond the latest victim of your ALLEGED bizarre campaign against other people? [And more in this vein; stripped for brevity.]

My english is poor but I hope I have conveyed my points.

My memory, for what it's worth, is quite firm on, at least, my never having stalked a medical company. (I think qwerty was referring to my article, Heart Trouble.)

I'd venture a finding of hysteria for this one. It's really rather reminiscent of the students Inside China's Diplomacy School.

Perhaps qwerty was one of them.

This being Cambridge, there was naturally some head-scratching about whether mere words -- in this case, "Member of the Faculty of English" -- could really signify something unambiguous about the reality outside the mind:

Simon, Sep 08, 2005 3:18 am:

Is this partly a US interpretation of the terminology, though, not taking into account the peculiarities of the Cambridge system? For example, undergraduate students are (junior) members of their colleges, and faculties are just another rung in the university hierarchy. In the sciences, it is often School => Faculty => Department, so it is not clear how one qualifies as a "member" in the general Cambridge case.

---

Rachel, Sep 08, 2005 5:44 pm:

Cambridge is a research university - many faculties have members doing solely research - teaching courses seen as a less valuable activity and one very senior and those active in research positively avoided. PhD students are regarded as members of faculties - indeed there are PhD students who attend faculty board meetings and help shape policy.

---

443, Sep 08, 2005 6:15 pm:

Faculty has a very different meaning in Cambridge than it does elsewhere. In fact it's not even a term often used in association with individuals. In Cambridge parlance it's primary useage is to describe a group of departments eg. "Faculty of Architecture and History of Art".

In some cases it's used interchangeably with "department".

In those cases "member of faculty" could be interpreted as having the same meaning as "member of department", whereas elsewhere in the world the phrase "faculty member" or "member of faculty" may imply an academic role or even a senior academic role equivilant to a permanant academic position at Cambridge.

Those from elsewhere do sometimes continue to use their own meanings for the term while in Cambridge which can result in confusion.

---

Rachel, Sep 09, 2005 3:03 am:

Well most undergraduates are taught by PhD students in fact the majority of my teaching was by phd students - why is this a problem, and in my department probably 30% of staff are research only, teaching really is a nuisance especially if required to be abroad for 4-5 months at a time as is the case in my subject... usually web pages list the most senior people for people to address queries to, i don't think the english department is actually a faculty with it's own faculty board - faculties are groups of departments that administer degree committees and research studentships. In cambridge I'd be perfectly happy and was to have phd students teaching me and described as members of the faculty and its common, are you just trying to find any technical point to discredit a course because you didn't like it? I don't quite understand why you want a definitive definition of faculty when the description in UK and Cambridge much more vague - like the title professor in the US has fairly little meaning regarding seniority and crudentials compared to UK

---

Simon, Sep 09, 2005 5:14 am:

In a minor correction to Rachel's post, the English "department" actually is formally a Faculty, with a Faculty Board.

Technically, the term "member" is defined by the university's Statutes. The formal definition is an extension of the one Uriel would expect - those involved in teaching and employed by the university or the colleges in that capacity.

It sounds like English [uses this formal definition] when producing its online list; this may not be true of other faculties, or their departments.

[Elucidation of further complications.] I hope this indicates at least the possibility of confusion, if not (formally) ambiguity, even to those familiar with the Cambridge system - I really don't think it is likely that there was an intention to mislead.

---

Rachel, Sep 09, 2005 5:17 am:

It's not a correction, because it wasn't an error, I said that *I* didn't think it was a faculty in its own right with a board, I did think that and so it was correct, I am surprised it isn't wrapped up with some other departments as e.g. chemistry isn't faculty, physics isn't a faculty, materials isn't a fauclty and much bigger deparmtents

---

Simon, Sep 09, 2005 5:39 am:

Many apologies! For "correction to", please read "clarification of" - I did not intend to argue with your ability to correctly and honestly express your own thoughts. Assuming that your report of surprise at discovering English to be a Faculty is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt it), it helps (in my opinion) to demonstrate that the system isn't as straightforward as (I believe) Uriel expected.

Some guys just have the knack for diplomacy!

One bystander's plaintive post evokes sympathy. I suspect a few individuals at Cambridge virtually are trapped -- and undergoing more misery than my 3-week stint caused me:

Observer, Sep 11, 2005 6:48 pm:

I only wish you were a grad student here, simply because too many of us are simply stuck in our rut of kissing anything Cambridge (including myself, but given the money I've spent, I have no choice).

(Continued....)