1. In February this year the Commission issued a consultative paper on the University's objectives, structure, and future size and shape. Overall, some 3,500 copies of the paper were distributed. A total of 108 replies was received, 70 responses coming from individuals, 26 from colleges, and 12 on behalf of faculty boards, sub-faculties, departments and committees.
2. The Commission has agreed that members of the University may find it helpful to have an idea of the views which emerged from this consultation, and accordingly is publishing for information the following summary of responses to each of the questions posed in the consultative paper. Headings and question numbers refer to those used in the consultative paper.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
3. A large majority of respondents supported the Commission's assumptions. However, a significant minority (about 20) either sought to qualify the assumptions or to challenge them. The five commonest points may be summarised thus. First, a number of respondents suggested that the assumptions were bland, largely unexceptionable and thus usually difficult to challenge, and that they failed to address the serious and difficult issues which lay behind them.
4. Secondly, there was a view that the Commission should not dismiss the further development of part-time courses, or the possibility of non-residential provision. There was particular interest in the possibility of part-time/non-residential provision for graduate students.
5. Thirdly, several respondents argued that it was unrealistic to expect the University to attain the highest standards in both teaching and research across all subjects; there would increasingly be a need to prioritise different subject areas and different areas of activity within them, if only because of resource constraints. Fourthly, on the assumption that Oxford should continue to be a democratic institution, some respondents strongly endorsed this point, whereas others challenged it. Those in the latter category did so either on the basis that Oxford was not at present a genuinely democratic institution at all, or on the basis that it was too democratic and that it had as a result become `unmanageable'.
6. Finally, as regards the assumption that Oxford should continue to be a collegiate University, there was generally warm support for this from colleges, but a few respondents (all individuals) suggested that colleges enjoyed too much autonomy, and attention was also drawn to problems created by inequalities in the resources available to different colleges. The position of those excluded from college life (especially research staff and other academic-related staff) was also cited as an important issue.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
7. Almost all those who commented favoured either a steady state University or the restriction of growth to a maximum of about one per cent per annum.
8. Of those favouring steady state there were varying degrees of concern about or hostility towards the prospect of any further growth. One college favoured steady state coupled with a `vigilant commitment to abolish the obsolete' so as to make room for new developments. Other respondents also suggested that in order to incorporate new developments, there had to be the prospect of running down certain activities. One wanted to stop the growth in graduate numbers, although this view was not common.
9. Of those respondents favouring a policy of limiting growth to a maximum of one per cent per annum, some saw growth along these lines as inevitable rather than desirable, whereas others thought it was a positive good and was the only realistic way of providing for the development of new areas of teaching and research. Some commentators favoured growth in graduate numbers and in research activity, rather than in undergraduate work. There were, however, a number of concerns about the implications of further growth. Some were worried about the impact on the quality of the University's work, and on the nature of the institution. Others were concerned that growth should not be allowed unless sufficient resources were available, and suggested that it would be difficult to countenance without adequate increases in public funding. Others were concerned about the implications of growth for colleges.
10. Two respondents wanted the University to contract. No one favoured a policy of substantial growth, although several suggested that any rigid policy should be avoided so as to enable growth to occur where it was desired. There was also the suggestion that growth should be permitted in numbers of part-time students.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
11. Of those responding to this question, there was a tendency to favour some increase in the proportion of graduate students at the expense of undergraduates. However, there was also a feeling (almost as strong) that the current balance was about right, and that it should not significantly be altered. A few respondents thought that there should be fewer graduate students, whilst others argued that the question should largely be left to individual faculties and departments to determine, and that a fixed overall ratio would be inflexible and was unnecessary. Otherwise, there was some concern about the quality of provision for graduates in some subject areas, and the view was expressed that there should be no further expansion in graduate numbers without adequate resources.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
14. One or two respondents suggested that a small increase in the number of graduate colleges might be desirable. Several advocated a laissez faire policy, arguing in effect that only through private benefactions would new colleges be founded, and that if such benefactions appeared then there was no reason why there should be a general policy of refusing them.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
16. Overall, therefore, views were mixed in response to these two questions. On the one hand were those who thought that for whatever reason growth outside the city was undesirable or unnecessary. On the other there were those who believed that some growth outside Oxford would be inevitable, but that this would be a necessity rather than a virtue in its own right.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
18. First, a significant number of respondents argued (in one way or another) that more time for research could be provided by more efficient organisation of teaching. The point was made several times that the present tutorial system, and the division of responsibility for organising teaching between colleges and the University, was inefficient and took up far too much time. More class teaching, and better organisation of teaching resources, would enable research to increase without any diminution in the numbers of undergraduate or graduate students. Another point made in a number of different ways was that rather than seek to increase research activity at the expense of teaching, more time should be made available for research by reducing the administrative responsibilities borne by individual academics. More flexible allocation of duties to individuals, better administrative support for academics, and the creation of some specialist research and teaching posts, would all help to enable both research and teaching to continue to exist or to grow together. It was suggested that the data being obtained from the survey of teaching staff might well provide important information to help deal with this issue.
19. Another point made by a number of respondents was that, arguably, research was already growing at the expense of teaching because increasing amounts of undergraduate teaching were being undertaken by teachers employed (often by colleges) on an ad hoc basis and at piece-work rates. This was seen by some as a serious problem. One respondent argued that both teaching and research could continue to grow provided it was recognised that the traditional model under which those who taught also did research, and vice versa, was no longer workable.
20. Other comments made included the view that research and teaching were interdependent, and that the dichotomy posed in the consultative paper was therefore a false one. High class teaching was said to depend on good research, whilst teaching was thought to be an important way of disseminating research findings and ensuring that students absorbed an inquiring, investigative research culture. Another respondent argued that the Commission should consider the implications of Sir Ron Dearing's proposals for 16-19 education for the University's undergraduate teaching.
21. Thus the general view was that teaching—both undergraduate and graduate—should not be reduced in order to provide resources and time to increase research activity. Rather, more efficient and flexible organisation of teaching and reduced administrative responsibilities would provide most of the answers to the question posed. There was however concern that Oxford's undergraduate teaching was already suffering because of the growth in research, and that the problem of the `casualisation' of much undergraduate teaching had to be faced.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
23. Overall, therefore, there is little or no support for the idea of a higher degree of central direction, but there is support for the kind of approach to this question set out in paras. 316-330 of the Coopers & Lybrand report.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
25. Where responses were elaborated in more detail, the commonest view was that in the case of undergraduates, greater specialisation was generally undesirable, but that it already took place to a limited extent already, and that pressures to specialise more and to cease to take (or continue not to take) students for small or joint schools, would increase. In the case of graduate students, a number of respondents thought that specialisation was more acceptable, but the most commonly held view was no single model should be imposed or regarded as better than any other. Two graduate colleges set out the advantages as they saw it of taking students from a very wide range of subjects, whereas another thought that some specialised graduate colleges and some non-specialised ones could happily exist side by side as they did at present. One respondent suggested that greater specialisation amongst graduates would tend to occur as they sought to go to the college which had clear teaching and research strengths in their particular subject. Two respondents emphasised the extent to which colleges already do specialise at both undergraduate and graduate level.
26. Overall, therefore, the general view was that the current position in terms of specialisation by subject, both for undergraduate and graduate students, was probably about right, and that individual colleges should be left to decide for themselves how to develop. There might be growing pressure for some greater degree of specialisation at both undergraduate and graduate level—pressure being both academic and financial—but the system should be allowed to develop without any overall policy being imposed.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
28. Again, there was almost universal agreement that graduates should continue, as at present, to be admitted both by graduate only colleges and mixed graduate/undergraduate colleges. It was argued that it would be impracticable as well as undesirable to force all graduate students into graduate-only colleges—this would require either the founding of new graduate colleges, or the conversion of existing graduate/undergraduate colleges. The present diversity and choice offered to graduates was desirable, and it was felt that graduate students made a positive contribution to the life of those colleges which also admitted undergraduates. There is thus no support for changing the present position.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
29. In general, there was a very clear view that colleges should have an academic role in graduate provision. A significant number of responses argued that this role should be increased, both because this was desirable in its own right, and because it was the only way of ensuring the continuance of a collegiate model for graduate provision. Some respondents argued that graduate students should wherever possible belong to their supervisors' colleges, and some suggested that colleges might take more of a role in providing graduate teaching in taught courses. There was some reference to the difficulties which certain colleges might have in assuming any greater role in graduate provision; a suggestion that colleges should seek to provide financial support for graduates; and an argument that colleges should specialise more by concentrating their graduate students in a selected range of disciplines. 30. Overall, therefore, there was a view that colleges should assume a significant academic role in graduate provision, that this could be more positive in many cases, and (a point made several times) that the University should continue to ensure that the recommendations of the 1987 Roberts Report in this respect were implemented effectively.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
31. This question provoked some lengthy responses. A number of those commenting, particularly the colleges, simply stated their continuing support for the joint appointments system, with little further comment. There was no support for a wholesale move to the Cambridge system.
32. Several respondents thought that the proposal for a single contract was the best way forward and the best means of preserving a system of joint appointments.
33. Important criticisms of the present position occurred in a number of replies. Firstly, it was argued that much more flexibility was needed in the allocation of duties to be performed by an individual for the two employers. A point made several times was that graduate teaching needs in particular were insufficiently represented, which meant that it was proving difficult to allocate adequate resources to graduate provision. Another respondent suggested that full scale joint appointments were not necessary, and that some University employees should have the option of having a college attachment without a full fellowship and without employment by the college.
34. A second general comment was that under the present system, the poorer colleges made a disproportionate contribution to the overall costs of joint appointments, and got fewer benefits in that they found it difficult to attract CUFs. A related point was that the considerable variations in the wealth of individual colleges, and the consequent effects for the overall `benefits packages' which they offered to their fellows, meant that the present system of joint appointments was not working properly and might become unsustainable. A third point was that colleges had too great an influence over the appointment of CUFs, and that the faculty's hand should be strengthened so that the University's need to make an appointment in a particular area of a discipline could be secured. This point was made in relation to English, Literae Humaniores, and Medieval and Modern Languages, where there was concern at the `lack of control' by the faculty over the subject of appointments.
35. A final point was concern about those who were in effect excluded from the present joint appointments system, either because they were employed by colleges only, or because they were employed by the University on fixed term contracts and were excluded from the college system altogether.
36. Overall, therefore, most of those commenting on this issue believed that joint appointments should continue in some form, but that greater flexibility should be introduced, possibly through a single contract, and that the interests of graduate teaching and of research should not be overshadowed by those of undergraduate teaching in the allocation of duties and in the specification of a field in which an appointment was to be made.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
38. In general, it was felt that formal, institutional level links were unhelpful, and simply served to increase bureaucracy. Where such formal links existed, their primary purpose should be to encourage links at individual or departmental level. The benefits accruing from international links were thought to be many. They provide intellectual stimulus, a wider sense of responsibility, and serve to promote Britain's national interests by making known the achievements of its higher education sector. Links were helpful in broadening individuals' horizons, stimulating new developments in research, and attracting high quality students, particularly at graduate level.
39. Other comments included the view that poor colleges were unfavourably placed to promote international links through attracting visiting fellows, etc., and that measures should be taken to deal with this problem. Two respondents stressed the need to focus on developing links with Europe rather than just with the English speaking world or with the Far East.
Return to List of Contents of the supplement
Return to List of Contents of the supplement