The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!
Community chat for current Cambridge students and alumni.
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,726
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!Compsci I'd have thought...?(Original post by Y__)
Part III NatSci or Maths? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Cambridge/Glasgow
- Posts: 7,310
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!(Original post by Topaz_eyes)
:O Any reason? You ask to defer a year and start after Part III? Well done on the offers anyway :PYep Part III CompSci. I thought if I reapply next year I would have a stronger application as this year it was rather rushed, and I would be more ready for research. The direction of research of those departments in my area doesn't really match what I want and the strength of the departments themselves I think do not overtake Cambridge anyway. -
- Reputation:
- PS Helper
- TSR Demigod
- Location: London
- Posts: 5,960
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!(Original post by ukdragon37)
Yep Part III CompSci. I thought if I reapply next year I would have a stronger application as this year it was rather rushed, and I would be more ready for research. The direction of research of those departments in my area doesn't really match what I want and the strength of the departments themselves I think do not overtake Cambridge anyway.
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!Congrats on your Cambridge place, by the way. I didn't really know what to make of your FB status though, it was definitely the least enthusiastic 'I have the PhD place of choice' status I have seen all year(Original post by Zhen Lin)
I turned down a fully-funded place at Michigan earlier this week for much the same reasons... (Cambridge has one of the largest research groups in category theory, afte all.)
. Are there still some problems with funding?
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 4,791
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!Thanks!(Original post by Y__)
Congrats on your Cambridge place, by the way.
Indeed. As of today I have only secured one partial scholarship...I didn't really know what to make of your FB status though, it was definitely the least enthusiastic 'I have the PhD place of choice' status I have seen all year . Are there still some problems with funding?
But I'm sure things will sort themselves out by the end of the year.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Cambridge/Glasgow
- Posts: 7,310
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!Congratulations too!(Original post by Zhen Lin)
I turned down a fully-funded place at Michigan earlier this week for much the same reasons... (Cambridge has one of the largest research groups in category theory, afte all.)
Although category theory seems to be getting way too popular...
-
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Posts: 4,791
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!Hah, if only. Then I would have an easy time finding a place to study and a job after that...(Original post by ukdragon37)
Congratulations too!
Although category theory seems to be getting way too popular...
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Cambridge/Glasgow
- Posts: 7,310
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!I mean amongst students I know. Doesn't bode well for competition.(Original post by Zhen Lin)
Hah, if only. Then I would have an easy time finding a place to study and a job after that... -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,726
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!What's your take on referencing papers that one read and learned something from never explicitly cited in one's work? Have it in the bibliography anyway? Squeeze in a citation somewhere (eg "for a good overview of this topic see Craghyrax & Bigfudamental (2012) " )?(Original post by Craghyrax)
Yep. And footnotes. Bibliographies don't usually count.
(anyone else welcome to chime in too obviously...) -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- PS Helper
- Mother Duck
- Posts: 9,423
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!I think the general form is to split your bibliography into 'works cited' and 'works referenced' or something, can't remember the exact wording. One refers to the citations, and the others to those you learnt things from but didn't directly cite. That's what I did for my dissertation, as I had to learn about the history of Russian space travel and other things but didn't really have space in my 8000 words to start expounding all of my background knowledge.(Original post by BigFudamental)
What's your take on referencing papers that one read and learned something from never explicitly cited in one's work? Have it in the bibliography anyway? Squeeze in a citation somewhere (eg "for a good overview of this topic see Craghyrax & Bigfudamental (2012) " )?
(anyone else welcome to chime in too obviously...) -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,726
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!Thanks! It's only one paper so I think I might just cut it rather than start a whole new section for it. Sounds like an amazing thesis topic.(Original post by Zoedotdot)
I think the general form is to split your bibliography into 'works cited' and 'works referenced' or something, can't remember the exact wording. One refers to the citations, and the others to those you learnt things from but didn't directly cite. That's what I did for my dissertation, as I had to learn about the history of Russian space travel and other things but didn't really have space in my 8000 words to start expounding all of my background knowledge. -
- Reputation:
- PS Helper
- Mostly Harmless
- Location: East London
- Posts: 15,266
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!I didn't include said papers in my dissertation bibliography. It would've been hard to know when to stop if I included every single thing that contributed towards my understanding of the subject.(Original post by BigFudamental)
What's your take on referencing papers that one read and learned something from never explicitly cited in one's work? Have it in the bibliography anyway? Squeeze in a citation somewhere (eg "for a good overview of this topic see Craghyrax & Bigfudamental (2012) " )?
(anyone else welcome to chime in too obviously...) -
- Reputation:
- Peer Of The TSR Realm
- Location: London
- Posts: 1,914
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!The solution you give here is used in some physics papers. Otherwise you can just sprinkle it into your introduction somewhere. If it's a review article then often it's obvious that it is one from which journal it's in.(Original post by BigFudamental)
What's your take on referencing papers that one read and learned something from never explicitly cited in one's work? Have it in the bibliography anyway? Squeeze in a citation somewhere (eg "for a good overview of this topic see Craghyrax & Bigfudamental (2012) " )?
(anyone else welcome to chime in too obviously...) -
- Reputation:
- Section Moderator
- PS Helper
- Bluestocking Mod
- Location: The Isle of Ely
- Posts: 45,199
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!If its just one thing, you can mention it in a footnote somewhere in the text that its most relevant, and then include it in the Bibliography normally.(Original post by BigFudamental)
What's your take on referencing papers that one read and learned something from never explicitly cited in one's work? Have it in the bibliography anyway? Squeeze in a citation somewhere (eg "for a good overview of this topic see Craghyrax & Bigfudamental (2012) " )?
(anyone else welcome to chime in too obviously...) -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Shanghai
- Posts: 2,528
Re: The Cambridge Chat Thread - it's over 90,000!If this is for a dissertation, you usually have some sort of 'background' section near the beginning where you can throw in arbitrary number of references. A 'related work' section also sometimes appears, where you basically 'cover your arse' by citing every related piece of research you can think of so you can prove that you 'read around' to the reviewers.(Original post by BigFudamental)
What's your take on referencing papers that one read and learned something from never explicitly cited in one's work? Have it in the bibliography anyway? Squeeze in a citation somewhere (eg "for a good overview of this topic see Craghyrax & Bigfudamental (2012) " )?
(anyone else welcome to chime in too obviously...)
LaTeX only includes in your bibliography items that you have actually cited somewhere in your document, so I think it's common practice for CS to actually reference them in the text. Though, it sometimes comes in the lovely form of block references, e.g.
Recent advances in diversity-based recommendation [5,7,14,15,21] have led to...
. Are there still some problems with funding?
But I'm sure things will sort themselves out by the end of the year.
But I enjoyed reading the comments on facebook.
