Cambridge mode of address strategy

updated October 2011

Differences between this and the previous version

1. Bullet-point lists have been changed to numbered lists.
2. To the current clause 1 of the Rationale, the following has been appended: "(indeed, the University website describes the staff as the "greatest asset")".
3. In the current clause 5 of the Rationale, "and that it is recognised that their time is more valuable" has been amended to read "and that it would be recognised that their time is more valuable".
4. "other graduate students" has been moved from category C to category B. This is because it has come to the author’s attention that some music undergraduates are supervised by graduate students not affiliated with the Faculty of Music; in view of which, it was concluded that to continue to discriminate against graduate students on the basis of whether they are affiliated with the Faculty of Music would be untenable, since such subject snobbery would be incompatible with the purpose of this strategy. Although the author is not supervised by any current graduate students at the University of Cambridge this term, rendering application of category C to all graduate students arguably acceptable (by the logic of the previous version), it was decided in accordance with clause 11 of the Notes to err on the side of greater formality.
5. "(where applicable, substituting their own Faculty/Department in the place of the author’s in category B)" has been removed from clause 11 of the Rationale, since it is made redundant by Difference 4.

Rationale

1. The University of Cambridge is widely acclaimed as the best university in the world. For that to be the case, it follows that the academics associated therewith are similarly world-class (indeed, the University website describes the staff as the "greatest asset"), and therefore ought to be treated with deference.
2. Even if the aforementioned were not the case, the necessity of courtesy when communicating with people (especially on business matters) ought to be recognised. It is for this reason that non-academic staff are taken into account in this strategy, since they also perform important functions.
3. Most interactions within the University, and especially those with senior members, do not have a social purpose (indeed the University prospectus suggests that "impromptu discussions" are intellectually locupletative). Similarly, most University societies exist primarily to afford opportunities to pursue a particular interest in some shape or form (of course, there will be people who, in addition to this primary purpose, will exploit opportunities to socialise). It therefore follows, that most interactions can be described as "working relationships", and consequently ought to be approached with due formality, especially where it involves important people.
4. The author’s hierarchal position (that is, a lacklustre undergraduate student) in the University is low, meaning that many people with whom he interacts are more important.
5. It is important when requesting dispensation (e.g.: rescheduling a meeting, extending a deadline, missing a rehearsal) of a superior that one would not sound demanding, presumptuous, or rude, and that it would be recognised that their time is more valuable; yet the nature of such requests is not amenable to according such recognition. Therefore, all measures must be employed to reaffirm that deference which ought to be accorded (it goes without saying that an appropriately formal mode of address alone is insufficient).
6. Perhaps because there is no official regulation or guidance, most people are too informal (e.g.: many undergraduates seem to have no qualm about addressing a lecturer by first name, without prior permission).
7. Given the atmosphere created by the aforementioned, it may be reasonably conjectured that many senior members of the University, despite taking some offence at the informal modes of address to which they are subjected on a daily basis by their inferiors, decide not to voice objections. Perhaps they fear that to do so would appear snobbish and alienate some over-sensitive students (and prospective students), and come to the conclusion that such concerns outweigh their own feelings and dignity. In resigning themselves to this situation, they cease to take offence, yet this does not legitimise the offending practice.
8. Similarly, the pressure to be (or at least appear to be) "friendly" (now a requirement of many non-academic and some academic roles) might cause people to allow themselves to be addressed more informally than would be appropriate or preferable. This can be exacerbated by colleagues submitting to such pressure.
9. The author recognises that his introverted nature does neither lend itself to the comprehension of the unspoken subtleties of human interaction, nor result in sufficient interest (even were there to be ample time) as to undertake any substantial effort towards the amelioration in such subtleties. In order not to appear disrespectful, it is thus desirable to codify a system for the addressing of people and apply it consistently.
10. Since a formal mode of address, even if it might be perceived as excessive or unnecessary, cannot ever reasonably be construed as disrespectful (whereas an informal mode of address can), the system uses that as the default setting, and defines to what extent and on what grounds deviation therefrom is acceptable.
11. The publication of this strategy on the internet has two purposes: to enable the author to be held to account in the application thereof; and to encourage other Cambridge undergraduates to adopt this system, or one more stringent in its formality.

Notes

1. These rules apply not only when addressing a person directly, but also when referring to them in correspondence or conversation.
2. When addressing a person in an official capacity, such descriptive title as might arise from that capacity might be substituted for their surname.
3. Where a person can be ascribed to more than one category (e.g.: a supervisor who is a graduate student), the higher category shall be applied.
4. Where it is not known whether a person known or likely to be in category A possesses either a doctoral or professorial title, it shall be assumed that they do possess a doctoral title (since incorrect non-attribution thereof causes greater offence than incorrect attribution).
5. Where it is not known to which category a person belongs (e.g.: whether a student is undergraduate or graduate), the higher estimate shall be applied.
6. The absence of the term "deference" from the descriptions of the categories below A does not imply that none is to be applied. Some deference (albeit to a lesser extent than in category A) is appropriate to categories B and C, as well as first-class students in category D (it was a matter of some deliberation whether first-class students properly belong in category C or D).
7. Where the surname of a person who ought to be addressed as such is not known, terms such as Sir, Madam, or Professor shall be applied. When referring to such a person in correspondence or conversation, the name of their official position, or pronouns, shall be used. If it is impossible to avoid an inappropriate means of address, a disclaimer to the effect that the surname is not known should be added, preferably in an apologetic tone.
8. The formality and deference of correspondence and conversation should reflect the mode of address, just as in most European languages (alas, not English), the singular second person is divided into two or more categories by formality.
9. Implicit invitation to address a category D person otherwise usually takes the form of being addressed otherwise by such person. However, care shall be taken not to interpret too liberally, especially in the case of first-class students.
10. Conversely, where a category D person addresses by surname, this could, depending on the context, be interpreted as an implicit retraction of such invitation.
11. If in doubt, always err on the side of greater formality.