Skip to main content

Just call me senator

Cambridge rooftops, shortly before my first visit to the Senate House
From now on, feel free to address me as Senator Clegg.

This all started when I got an email from a friend asking if I was going to be voting for the next Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. Apparently the candidates are the actor Brian Blessed, the politician Lord Sainsbury, the barrister Michael Mansfield and the local convenience store owner Abdul Ahrain. Now I was vaguely aware that the Chancellor was elected by the university's senate. My only rather indirect experience of this august body was when I got my degrees, ceremonies which took place in the rather stern building called the Senate House.

However, on checking on the University website I see my friend was right. I am informed as follows: the Chancellor is elected by the senate, and the senate consists of holders of any Doctor's degree of the University, any Master's degree of the University, or the degree of Bachelor of Divinity of the University, and all current members of the Regent House. So indeed, as a holder of a Master's degree of the University, I am a member of the senate. A senator.

In case any US readers feel my adoption of the title devalues their honourable politicians, I ought to point that, while I have a deep respect for the United States of America and its constitution, the University's Chancellor was first elected in 1226, a convenient 550 years before US independence. So we got there first.

Which means... the Senator is in.
Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox11 July 2011 at 14:06

    Wow! I never knew that. As I got my Doctorate from Cambridge I can haz now Senator Cromercrox, Celebrity Nutritionist. And Bar.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg11 July 2011 at 20:11

    I recognize my honourable fellow Senator from Cromer.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more