Contents of this section:

[Note. An asterisk denotes a reference to a previously published or recurrent entry.]

Return to Contents Page of this issue


On the recommendation of the Physical Sciences Board, the General Board has conferred the title of Visiting Professor in Materials on C.J. PEEL (B.SC., PH.D. Birmingham), Chief Scientist, Mechanical Sciences Sector, DERA, Farnborough, for a period of three years from 1 October 2000.

Return to List of Contents of this section


On the recommendation of the Physical Sciences Board, the General Board has reconferred the title of Royal Academy of Engineering Visiting Professor of Engineering Design on J.D. RANKIN (MA Cambridge), F.ENG., Senior Science and Technology Associate, ICI, for a further period of three years from 1 January 2001.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Studentship has been awarded to SANJOY SAKSENA, St Catherine's College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Studentship has not been awarded.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Scholarship has been awarded to DANIEL MARSTON, Balliol College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Exhibition has been awarded to RAJARSHI DASGUPTA, Queen's College.

Return to List of Contents of this section

BEIT PRIZE 1999–2000

The Prize has been awarded to DAVID HAYCOCK, Wolfson College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Prize has been awarded to ALEXANDER MORRISON, Oriel College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Prize has been awarded to ELODIE HARPER, Corpus Christi College, and ANGELA YEO, Balliol College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Prize has been awarded to AMANDA HOLTON, St Hilda's College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Prize has been awarded to JENNIFER NUTTALL, Magdalen College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Prize has been awarded to JENNIFER ALLEN, St John's College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


A Junior Prize has been awarded to MS GENEVA MELZACK, Worcester College, for her performance in the Biblical Hebrew paper of the Preliminary Examination.

Return to List of Contents of this section


BP Chemicals Ltd. Prize in Chemistry

The Prize has been awarded to GARETH E. JONES, Trinity College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


First Latin Reading Prize: PATRICK FINGLASS, St John's College

Second Latin Reading Prize: DANIEL KISS, Corpus Christi College

First Latin Recitation Prize (joint award): CLAIRE HURCOMBE, Brasenose College, and DARCY KRASNE, Corpus Christi College

First Greek Recitation Prize: PATRICK FINGLASS, St John's College

First Greek Reading Prize: YASHOVARDHAN SHAH, Brasenose College

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Prize has been awarded to IAN HENDERSON, Brasenose College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The Prize has been awarded jointly to NAOMI S. DAVENPORT, St John's College, and LUCY H. MACKILLOP, Lincoln College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The examiners in the Second BM (Year 3) examination have awarded the Prize to RICHARD J. HAYNES, Magdalen College.

Return to List of Contents of this section


In common with most other universities, including the major research universities, the University finds itself facing substantial financial constraints for 2000–1 following the grant settlement announced by HEFCE in March 2000, which represents a 2 per cent cut in real terms for Oxford. This, together with recurrent commitments agreed during 1999–2000, including the running costs of new space, graduate studentship funding, appointments in light of the forthcoming RAE and the increased transfer to colleges, would have resulted in a recurrent deficit of £5.6m for 2000–1 unless corrective action had been taken. After much discussion, a balanced budget has been agreed for 2000–1. This has been judged essential by the Resources Committee and the new Shadow Council in order to provide as stable a position as possible before any new resource allocation method comes into operation on 1 August 2001. In addition, it would have been necessary to have discussed a deficit budget with HEFCE.

The main reasons for the difficult financial position are as follows:

—The basic uplift in the University's HEFCE/TTA grant of £124.786m for 2000–1 is 1.5 per cent. Against that, expenditure assumptions are (at the time the budget was prepared) of increases of 3–4 per cent in non-pay expenditure and 3–3.5 per cent for pay costs.

—The year-on-year increase in the University's HEFCE grant has fallen steadily over the last four years, as follows:

1997–8            4.1 per cent  
1998–9            4.0 per cent  
1999–2000         2.4 per cent  
2000–1            1.5 per cent 
These reductions are caused chiefly by the following: the 1 per cent annual efficiency gains to which the HEFCE grant is subject; a reducing proportion of QR income coming to Oxford because the relevant factors which help to determine this are not growing as fast as those for comparable universities; the increasing tendency of HEFCE to reduce core funding in favour of top- sliced special initiatives; and the general limitations on the growth of undergraduate numbers at Oxford compared to other universities.

—Since 1996–7 and 1997–8, years in which additional funding was received from the Press and from the last RAE outcome, there has been evidence of strain in the University's finances. The initial forecast for 1998–9 was a deficit of £0.6m, rising to £2.5m in 2000–1. Savings were made to produce a balanced budget for that year, but forecast deficits remained for future years.

—In May 1999, the initial projections were of a forecast deficit for 1999–2000 of £1.7m, and therefore savings of nearly £3m had to be made to achieve the target surplus. Fortunately, the University was able to agree a reduction in the employer's contribution to OSPS yielding £0.75m recurrently. A 1 per cent reduction in recurrent allocations was also imposed and it was agreed to finance a considerable proportion of non- recurrent bids for new funds out of the 1998–9 contingency and surplus.

—In preparation for the RAE in 2001, a deliberate decision was taken a year ago to release an above average number of academic posts.

The initial forecast deficit for 2000–1 of £5.6m became a forecast of an £8m deficit once bids for new funding were added. These totalled £2.4m and were judged by Resources Committee to be for indispensable items. The total shortfall was therefore £9m once the target surplus of £1m was included. The measures agreed (by Hebdomadal Council and the General Board on the recommendation of the Resources Committee, and also by the new Council in its 'shadow' form) to deal with this are as follows:

                                                               Saving £m

(a) A planned transfer to the Capital Reserve of £1m has been removed from the 2000–1 budget 1.0

(b) Reduction of contingency provision from £1m to £0.5m 0.5

(c) Reduction of target surplus from £1m to £0.5m 0.5

(d) Transfer of certain items of expenditure to trust funds devoted to general university purposes, in particular the van Houten Fund and Higher Studies Fund, where this can be justified in terms of relevance to the objectives of the trusts. Proposals are being put to the bodies responsible for these funds. 1.08

(e) A basic reduction of 2.0 per cent will be applied across all areas of the University. 2.9

(f) Additional reduction in Buildings allocation

(formerly the Buildings Committee) 0.8

It has been agreed that the reduction on the Buildings Committee budget will be increased by £0.8m from £0.2m to £1m without significant reduction to the routine maintenance programme. The reduction is made up of the following elements: reduction of rolling programme by £572,000 to £1m;
reduction of departmental minor works by £321,000 to £0.5m;
reduction of new professors' funds by £102,000 to £200,000;
and reduction of services budget by £5,000 to £692,000

(g) Additional reduction in Safety Office allocation. Discussions between the Surveyor and the Safety Office have resulted in a proposal that, through a combination of funding works and surrendering balances, a further £70,000 saving

(in addition to the 2.0 per cent) can be made in this area without damaging necessary works, bringing the total reduction in this area to £100,000. 0.07

(h) Additional reduction in the General Board allocation in respect of departmental/faculty grants.

Grants to General Board departments etc. in 1999–2000 were protected from the 1 per cent cut imposed on other spending areas to achieve a balanced budget for 1999–2000, as the Board absorbed the cut in other areas of its budget. It is now necessary to apply this.

0.5 Total 7.35

The General Board considered the extent to which the surpluses held by some departments might be taken into account in the distribution of resources next year. It was hoped that an additional £250K might be found in this way but on closer examination it was found not possible to pursue this. It has therefore been necessary to find the £250K by imposing an extra cut on all spending sectors and therefore a further across-the-board cut equivalent to £0.25m

(a saving of 0.2 per cent) has been imposed. 0.25 7.60

It has been agreed that the remainder required to achieve the modest surplus of £0.5m should be achieved by deferring planned expenditure of £750,000 from the OUP transfer on the proposed salary merit award scheme from October 2000 to October 2001 and by imposing a further 0.45 per cent flat-rate cut on the Central Administration, on the General Board budget, and on the Council departments.

The effect of the reductions on the former General Board sector (i.e. on academic departments) is set out in the note below.

These measures will resolve the position for one year only. On current assumptions the underlying position will deteriorate steadily unless radical steps are taken to align the University's costs with its income in the long term. The future financial strategy of the University will be an important matter to which the new Council and its Planning and Resource Allocation Committee will turn their attention as soon as possible.

Note on the former General Board budget

The above explains the budget at a university-wide level. For the reasons which are given below, the effect on individual General Board departments is a cut of 4.1 per cent on departments' recurrent grants for general purposes and recurrent equipment grants, after inflation.

(i) Because of filled posts and commitments to fill posts from 1 October 2000, the cuts cannot be spread across the whole General Board budget evenly; a higher proportion therefore has to fall on departmental grants. The General Board deliberately decided to refill an unusually high number of academic posts in 1999–2000 and 2000–1, with a view to maximising the income which would result from the 2001 RAE.

(ii) The Board also decided not to pass on the 1 per cent cut in 1999–2000 to departments, again with the forthcoming RAE in mind. It achieved this by drawing heavily on its reserves, which are now more or less exhausted as a result, leaving no flexibility for reducing the impact of the cuts on departments in 2000–1.

(iii) After a close examination of departmental balances, the Board concluded that the bulk of balances were held for valid reasons and that to try to redeploy any of them would in effect penalise financial prudence and efforts to obtain external income. On the Board's recommendation, therefore, the Resources Committee has agreed (as stated above) that, instead of achieving a saving of £250K by this means, an additional cut of 0.2 per cent should be imposed on all spending sectors. For the reason given in (i), this translates into an extra cut of 0.4 per cent on departmental grants on top of the 3.7 per cent which is the effect of the other cuts.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The University of Oxford: Trade Mark and Domain Name Strategy

At its meeting on 26 June, Council approved a revised policy document relating to the protection of `Oxford', `The University of Oxford', and the University's logo. This Trade Mark and Domain Name Strategy, which is published below, replaces the notice `Use of "Oxford", and of the University's Arms, in Connection with Publications', published in Gazette, vol. 123, p. 637 (28 January 1993).

1. The University is concerned to protect the expressions `Oxford University' and `University of Oxford' in relation to the University's mainstream activities as an exempt charity: that is to say, teaching and research. Associated with the expressions is the version of the University's coat of arms (`the belted arms') which is reproduced, for example, on the title page of the University's Annual Review 1998/1999 (Supplement* No. 1 to Gazette, Vol. 129, February 2000). The University's central administration is protecting the belted arms and the expressions `Oxford University' and `University of Oxford' by means of registrations in the trade mark classes of relevance to teaching and research.

2. Oxford Limited—a wholly-owned subsidiary of the University—is engaged in merchandising the expressions `Oxford University' and `University of Oxford' and the belted arms on a variety of articles for consumer markets. Oxford Limited is protecting the expressions and the belted arms by means of trade mark registrations in the classes of relevance to those products.

3. Oxford University Press has used the word `Oxford' as a brand for many years. It is protecting this use and the expression `Oxford University Press' through the registration of trade marks in the classes of relevance to its business: that is to say, the classes which cover publishing services, published material, and information services (in printed or electronic form).

4. The word `Oxford' is of significant value to the business of OUP. Some of the main titles of the Press would be undermined were other parties in a position to publish the Oxford Series of this, or the Oxford Book of that. It is in the interests of the University as a whole to protect and develop the business of the Press. When the Press generates a surplus, such of that surplus as is not ploughed back into the business of the Press is applied to general university purposes. Therefore the University as a whole stands behind the Press in protecting the use by the Press of the word `Oxford' in the furtherance of all its publishing activities. To support those activities, it has been agreed that authorisation should be sought from the Press where persons or entities within the control of the University wish to make use of the word `Oxford' in connection with publishing services, published material, or information services (whether in printed or electronic form). This requirement for authorisation has no application to academic exchanges on a non-commercial basis; to the production and distribution of prospectuses, alumni material, or research/course information by the University, whether centrally or through departments; or to the University's central promotion of its core activities. In the case of a party with corporate capacity separate from the University, authorisation will entail a licence from the University in a form agreed by the Press.

5. In the case of publishing activities elsewhere in the University (that is, by departments, etc., other than the Press) authority under para. 4 will be given provided that:

(a) the word `Oxford' is used in conjunction with the name of the department;

(b) the word `Oxford' is not used in a title such as `Oxford Series/Book/Review of ... or `Oxford Studies in ...'; and

(c) the department does not, without the prior written consent of the central administration and the Press, apply to register trade marks which include the word `Oxford': any registrations for which consent is given will be in the name of the University.

In the event of a dispute between the Press and another department over the grant of authority under para. 4 or consent under sub-para. (c), the Vice-Chancellor and the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Press shall seek to resolve the dispute in accordance with the principles set out in this paper, failing which they shall agree on the name of a third party who shall determine the dispute, in accordance with the same principles.

6. The University encourages spin-out companies to use the word `Oxford' in their names, in order to highlight the association with the University. However, it is necessary to put in place a licence from the University (the form of which has been agreed with the Press), so as to protect the interests of the Press in connection with its publishing business. No charge is made for these licences.

7. If a department, faculty, unit, institute, or other grouping within the University wishes to use a logo other than one of the marks referred to in paras. 1--3, this may be permitted, provided that:

(a) the mark is used in conjunction with the words `Oxford University' or `University of Oxford' and (where appropriate) the belted arms: this may be within expressions such as `The Oxford University Centre/Institute of ...';

(b) the use of the mark is consistent with any visual identity guidelines adopted by the University;

(c) the trade mark agents acting for the University (currently Rouse & Co.) confirm that there is no likelihood of conflict with any other marks registered in the name of the University;

(d) the department or whatever requesting the registration covers all the costs involved, including those connected with the maintenance, assertion, and defence of the marks; and

(e) approval is given by the Registrar.

8. The University's policy with regard to internet domain names follows a similar pattern:

(a) the Press registers in the relevant generic and country code Top Level Domains (`TLDs') in order, where possible, to protect its `Oxford' brand: using the registered trade marks, the Press would normally challenge a domain name which included the word `Oxford', if it were used in connection with publishing services, published material, or information services;

(b) similarly the central administration registers in order, where possible, to protect `Oxford University' and `University of Oxford'. The administration has acquired or is endeavouring to acquire the available names in the .edu, .org, .net, and .com generic TLDs; but its only registrations in country-code TLDs are in the UK.

9. Only the one firm of trade mark agents is used in relation to both trade marks and domain names. Their costs are apportioned as follows:

(a) where it is a case of the word `Oxford' on its own, OUP takes the decisions and pays the costs;

(b) where it is a case of `Oxford University', `University of Oxford', or the belted arms within Oxford Limited's field, Oxford Limited takes the decisions and pays the costs;

(c) where it is a case of `Oxford University', `University of Oxford', or the belted arms in relation to teaching or research, the central administration takes the decisions and pays the costs;

(d) where it is a case of `Oxford University' or `University of Oxford' in other fields, decisions will be made jointly by the Press, the central administration, and Oxford Limited, both on the question of whether to take action and on the apportionment of the costs.

Return to List of Contents of this section


The following policy statement, rules, and guidelines on the use of the University's IT facilities are published by the IT Committee with the approval of Council. They may also be found at

Policy Statement on Computer Use, Monitoring, and Surveillance

University IT and network facilities are provided for use in accordance with the following policy set by Council.

The University provides computer facilities and access to its computer networks only for purposes directly connected with the work of the University and the colleges and with the normal academic activities of their members. Individuals have no right to use university facilities for any other purpose. The University reserves the right to exercise control over all activities employing its computer facilities, including examining the content of users' data, such as e-mail, where that is necessary:

(a) for the proper regulation of the University's facilities;

(b) in connection with properly authorised investigations in relation to breaches or alleged breaches of provisions in the University's statutes, decrees, and regulations, and the rules on computer use published by the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Committee [1] from time to time; or

(c) to meet legal requirements. Such action will only be undertaken in accordance with guidelines laid down and published from time to time by the ICT Committee.

Return to List of Contents of this section

Rules Governing IT Use

The following rules govern all use of university IT and network facilities, whether accessed by university property or otherwise.

(1) Use is subject at all times to such monitoring as may be necessary for the proper management of the network, or as may be specifically authorised in accordance with rules laid down from time to time by the ICT Committee for the purpose of investigation of allegations of activity in breach of the law, or of the University's statutes, decrees, and regulations.

(2) Persons may only make use of university facilities with proper authorisation. Proper authorisation in this context means prior authorisation by the appropriate officer, who shall be the Director of OUCS or his or her nominated deputy, in the case of services under the supervision of OUCS, or the nominated college or departmental officer in the case of services provided by a college or department. Any authorisation is subject to compliance with these rules, and with the University's statutes, decrees, and regulations, and will be considered to be terminated by any breach or attempted breach of these rules.

(3) Authorisation will be specific to an individual. Any password, authorisation code, etc., given to a user will be for his or her use only, and must be kept secure and not disclosed to or used by any other person.

(4) Users are not permitted to use university IT or network facilities for any of the following:

(a) any unlawful activity;

(b) the creation, transmission, storage, downloading or display of any offensive, obscene, indecent, or menacing images, data or other material, or any data capable of being resolved into such images or material; [2]

(c) the creation or transmission of material which is designed or likely to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety, or to harass another person;

(d) the creation or transmission of defamatory material about any individual or organisation;

(e) the sending of any e-mail that does not correctly identify the sender of that e-mail or attempts to disguise the identity of the computer from which it was sent;

(f) the sending of any message appearing to originate from another person, or otherwise attempting to impersonate another person;

(g) the transmission, without proper authorisation, of e-mail to a large number of recipients, unless those recipients have indicated an interest in receiving such e-mail, or the sending or forwarding of e-mail which is intended to encourage the propagation of copies of itself;

( h) the creation, access or transmission of material in such a way as to infringe a copyright, moral right, trade mark, or other intellectual property right;

(i) private profit, except to the extent authorised under the user's conditions of employment or other agreement with the University or a college; or commercial purposes without specific authorisation;

(j) gaining or attempting to gain unauthorised access to any facility or service within or outside the University, or making any attempt to disrupt or impair such a service;

(k) the deliberate or reckless undertaking of activities such as may result in the following:

(i) the waste of staff effort or network resources, including time on any system accessible via the University's network;

(ii) the corruption or disruption of other users' data;

(iii) the violation of the privacy of other users;

(iv) the disruption of the work of other users;

(v) the introduction or transmission of a virus into the network.

(l) activities not directly connected with employment, study or research in the University or the colleges (excluding reasonable and limited use for social and recreational purposes where not in breach of these rules or otherwise forbidden) without proper authorisation.

(5) Software and computer-readable datasets made available on the university network may only be used subject to the relevant licensing conditions, and, where applicable, to the Code of Conduct published by the Combined Higher Education Software Team (CHEST).

(6) Users shall treat as confidential any information which may become available to them through the use of such facilities and which is not on the face of it intended for unrestricted dissemination; such information shall not be copied, modified, disseminated, or used either in whole or in part without the permission of the person or body entitled to give it.

(7) No user may use IT facilities to hold or process data relating to a living individual save in accordance with the provisions of current data protection legislation (which in most cases will require the prior consent of the individual or individuals whose data is to be processed). Any person wishing to use IT facilities for such processing is required to inform the University Data Protection Officer in advance and to comply with any guidance given concerning the manner in which the processing may be carried out.

(8) Any person responsible for the administration of any university or college computer or network system, or otherwise having access to data on such a system, shall comply with the provisions of the `Statement of IT Security and Privacy Policy', as published by the ICT Committee from time to time.

(9) Users shall at all times endeavour to comply with guidance issued from time to time by OUCS to assist with the management and efficient use of the network.

(10) Connection of computers, whether college, departmental, or privately owned, to the university network is subject to the following additional regulations:

(a) Computers connected to the university network may only use network identifiers which follow the University's naming convention, and are registered with OUCS. In particular all such names must be within the domain Any exception to this must be authorised by the Director of OUCS, and may be subject to payment of a licence fee.

(b) The administrators of computers connected to the university network are responsible for ensuring their security against unauthorised access, participation in `denial of service' attacks, etc. The University may temporarily bar access to any computer or sub-network that appears to pose a danger to the security or integrity of any system or network, either within or outside Oxford, or which, through a security breach, may bring disrepute to the University.

(c) Providers of any service must take all reasonable steps to ensure that that service does not cause an excessive amount of traffic on the University's internal network or its external network links. The University may bar access at any time to computers which appear to cause unreasonable consumption of network resources.

(d) Hosting of Web pages on computers connected to the university network is permitted subject to the knowledge and consent of the department or college responsible for the local resources, but providers of these Web pages must endeavour to comply with guidelines published by OUCS or other relevant authorities. It is not permitted to offer commercial services through Web pages supported through the university network, or to provide `home-page' facilities for any commercial organisation, except with the permission of the Director of OUCS. This permission may require the payment of a licence fee.

(e) No computer connected to the university network may be used to give any person who is not a member or employee of the University or its colleges access to any network services outside the department or college where that computer is situated. Certain exceptions may be made, for example members of other UK universities, official visitors to a department or college, or for those paying a licence fee. Areas of doubt should be discussed with the Registration Manager at OUCS.

(11) In the event that a user is thought to be in breach of one or more of these rules or of university statutes, decrees, or regulations he or she shall be reported to the appropriate officer who may recommend to the appropriate university or college authority that proceedings be instituted under either or both University or college disciplinary procedures. Access to facilities may be withdrawn pending a determination, or may be made subject to such conditions as the appropriate officer shall think proper in the circumstances.

Return to List of Contents of this section

Guidelines for Examining Users' Data

(1) All staff of an IT facility who are given privileged access to information available through that facility must respect the privacy and security of any information not intended for public dissemination, that becomes known to them by any means, deliberate or accidental.

(2) System Administrators (i.e. those responsible for the management, operation or maintenance of computer systems) have the right to access users' files and examine network traffic, but only if necessary in pursuit of their role as System Administrators. They must endeavour to avoid explicitly examining the contents of users' files without proper authorisation.

(3) If it is necessary for a System Administrator to inspect the contents of a user's files, the following procedure must be followed. Normally, the user's permission should be sought. Should such access be necessary without seeking the user's permission, it should, wherever possible, be approved by an appropriate authority prior to inspection. If it has not been possible to obtain prior permission, any access should be reported to the user or to an appropriate authority as soon as possible.

(4) For the purposes of these guidelines appropriate authority is defined as follows:

(a) in the case of any university-owned system, whether central or departmental: if the files belong to a student, the Proctors; if the files belong to a Senior Member, the Registrar or his or her nominee; or, if the files belong to an employee who is not a Senior Member, the Head of the Department, House, or other unit to which the employee is responsible, or his or her delegated representative;

(b) in the case of a departmental system, either those named in (a), or, in all circumstances, the Head of Department or his or her delegated representative;

(c) in the case of a college system, the Head of House or his or her delegated representative.

Return to List of Contents of this section


[1] The policy statement, rules, and guidelines are published by the IT Committee with the approval of Council. Up to 1 October 2000, all references therein to the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Committee shall be taken to read IT Committee.
Return to text

[2] This rule is not intended to prevent the use of the facilities for properly supervised research purposes, provided that the use is lawful and that the user has obtained prior authority for the particular activity in the manner set out from time to time by the ICT Committee.
Return to text

Return to List of Contents of this section


Clergy of the Church of England who are members of Congregation are required from time to time to elect a Proctor to the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury, to represent them in the General Synod.

An election is due to take place later this year, and it is desirable to draw up beforehand a register of the University's electors. A register was last prepared in Trinity Term 1995, and any members of Congregation who are Church of England clergy and who were not qualified electors at that time are asked to get in touch with Mr P.W. Moss at the University Offices, Wellington Square, giving their name (with initials and title) and college (or other address).

The qualifying date (for being a member of the clergy and of Congregation) is that on which the current Convocation of Canterbury is dissolved. If anyone who would currently be qualified is likely to cease to be a member of Congregation in the next two or three months, he or she is asked to notify Mr Moss, who would also welcome details of Church of England clergy who are likely to become members of Congregation in that period. Eligibility can then be ascertained. It should be noted that a university or college chaplain, if employed by the Diocese rather than the University or a college, will vote in the Diocesan constituency rather than the university constituency.

Return to List of Contents of this section


European Computer Driving Licence

The European Computer Driving Licence (ECDL) is designed as a basic literacy qualification for non-IT professionals. It covers Basics of Computing, File Management, Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Databases, Presentations, and Use of E-mail and the Internet.

A special taught course will run from 4 to 8 September at OUCS. The course is very condensed and assumes a basic knowledge of using e-mail, using a mouse, and simple word processing skills. Tuition will run from 9.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. (an hour is allowed for lunch), and the capacity to take all seven ECDL modules during the week. The cost is £65 to include all documentation, an ECDL logbook, and eight ECDL tests. To book, telephone (2)83434 or e-mail

For those unable to be released for a block, computer-based training can be used (at home, in the Learning and Resource Centre, or on Tuesdays in Lecture Room C at OUCS) to follow the syllabus at a self-paced speed. The training CD is available for home use at £31.50 plus VAT from the OUCS shop. Courses provided by OUCS in Essential File Management, Essential Word Processing, Essential Spreadsheets, Essential Access, and Creating Presentations with MS Powerpoint also cover the relevant parts of the ECDL syllabus.

A drop-in session for testing on the ECDL is available every Tuesday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Lecture Room C at OUCS from 12 September to 12 December. Tests can be taken when the candidate feels ready, in any order, and with a time limit for completion of all tests of three years from purchase of the logbook. The logbook and seven tests cost £40, available from the OUCS shop.

Further details can be found at

Return to List of Contents of this section


Automated Stack Request: a new book ordering system for the Bodleian Library

The Bodleian Library plans to launch the new Automated Stack Request system on Monday, 25 September. This system, which is one of the largest library automation projects undertaken in Oxford since the launch of OLIS itself, will enable readers to order Bodleian holdings listed in the pre-1920 catalogue and on OLIS from anywhere they can gain online access to the catalogue. Readers will now be able to order stack books without coming into the Library. Readers will also be able to check whether the item they have ordered has arrived in the designated reading room before setting out.

Training sessions for staff

As part of the preparations for introducing Automated Stack Request it will be necessary to hold training sessions for large numbers of bookstack and reading room staff at intervals during the summer. Every effort will be made to minimise the inconvenience to readers, but the Library expects it will prove necessary to shut down book service from the stack for up to four half days during the period 3 August to 15 September while these training sessions are held. Advance notice of the exact dates of these half-day closures will be given as early as possible. There may also be some disruption and restrictions in normal reading room service in the Central Bodleian, the Radcliffe Science Library and Rhodes House Library on days when these training sessions take place.

One-day closure of the Bodleian on Friday, 22 September

In order to accomplish the successful transition from a manual system to Automated Stack Request, it will be necessary to close the Central Bodleian Library and three of its dependent libraries, the Radcliffe Science Library, Rhodes House Library, and the Indian Institute Library, to readers on Friday, 22 September (other Bodleian dependent libraries will remain open to readers on this day). This will enable the essential work of transferring onto the new system all books currently out from the bookstacks prior to the launch on Monday, 25 September. In addition, no requests for books to be ordered from the stacks of any of the above named libraries will be accepted in any library on Friday, 22 September or Saturday, 23 September.

The Library apologises for any inconvenience caused to readers during the preparatory stages of introducing this major advance in service to readers.

Return to List of Contents of this section


Temporary closure of some basement areas, July and August

From 31 July, and likely to continue throughout most of August, access to books kept in the Taylorian's North and West Basements will be impossible, or very difficult, due to essential building work. The main collections which will be affected are Latin American and Portuguese, as well as certain other items (including Vet. Fr, Vet. Span, Vet. Port, Vet. Per and X.OUT). Readers are therefore requested where possible to obtain books they may need from the affected areas as soon as possible. Some of the books will be moved during the third week in July, and every effort will be made to maintain access to these books; the rest will be covered securely with heavy duty plastic sheeting to protect them whilst work to the walls is carried out, and these books will not be accessible for the duration of the work. The Librarian and staff apologise for the inconvenience this will cause.

Return to List of Contents of this section


Survey of Students (Michaelmas Term 1999)

The Libraries Committee conducted a survey of undergraduate and postgraduate students at the end of Michaelmas Term 1999.

Over 3,000 forms were sent to a random selection of students, of which just over 1,000 were returned. Questions were asked both about general library perceptions and the assessment and use of individual libraries. Several questions were repeated from a similar survey conducted in 1996. Combining the overall responses, the responses for individual libraries and the comments, the following general results may be inferred.

Improvements: Readers' assessments of opening hours, OLIS, and delivery of material (loans and book-fetching) have all improved since 1996.

Opening hours: The measures taken (weekend opening in the Law Library, Saturday afternoon in the Radcliffe Camera, and Sunday opening in the Radcliffe Science Library in Trinity Term, together with some extensions in hours) have been appreciated but are not seen as sufficient. There is still a strong demand for weekend opening, and vacation opening is still an issue for postgraduates. The libraries where demand is greatest are Central Bodleian, Ashmolean, Social Studies, English Faculty and Hooke.

Delivery: Automated stack request is wanted and should be welcome when it becomes operational in September. The speed of the current fetching system is the subject of much criticism. Lending services are seen as good except in Cairns; but the OLIS recall system is perceived to be inefficient.

Stock and access: Having a non-borrowing copy somewhere in the system is still a key requirement, as in 1996; coupled with this is a degree of frustration where key texts are in a library inaccessible to the user. A quick and simple system of temporary access and/or inter-library loan within Oxford, including college libraries in its scope, would be welcomed.

OLIS: The calls for OLIS to be fully comprehensive have lessened since 1996, with the conversion of the bulk of Oxford's post-1920 holdings, but this has highlighted the (mainly college) libraries which are not members. The majority of users consult OLIS in preparation for visiting a library. Besides the recall system noted above under felivery, the interface is seen as complex and unhelpful.

Online resources and computers: Users now rely heavily on online resources and want more full-text resources. There is some demand for more and faster computers.

Photocopying: Photocopying facilities are important: readers think charges are high and dislike the Central Bodleian system. (The introduction of self-service copying at the Central Bodleian site may improve perceptions.)

Induction and training: Although libraries' provision of training is not rated highly, neither is it seen to be an important issue. There are requests for induction to be organised around subjects rather than libraries. The new structures being brought into place in the integrated library sector should go some way towards addressing this issue.

The full report of the survey is available at

Further information may be obtained from Michael Heaney, University Library Services, Clarendon Building, Bodleian Library (telephone: Oxford (2)77236, e-mail:

Return to List of Contents of this section