Re: How Good Is Cambridge Part III Mathematical Tripos?

From: Richard Herring (junk_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:52:04 +0100

In message <Hz9JnB.2KA@bath.ac.uk>, Martin Hardcastle
<m.hardcastle@bristol.ac.uk> writes
>In article <q7V511IqVixAFw0y@clef.demon.co.uk>,
>Charles Francis <charles@lluestfarmpoultry.co.uk> wrote:
>[re Part III maths]
>>It is generally regarded as a prerequisite to a meaningful PhD in the
>>UK.
>
>This isn't remotely true, in my experience. Many good theoretical
>physics (and even maths) PhDs get done in the UK without reference to
>part III. If by `meaningful' you mean `from Cambridge' -- for which it
>*is* more or less a prerequisite --

Narrower even than that - "from DAMTP" would be closer. It's certainly
not a prerequisite for Physics Dept. theoretical physics PhDs.

> then I suspect that that
>definition, while one I can live with personally, is not widely
>accepted...
> 

-- 
Richard Herring

Relevant Pages