Commission of Inquiry Report

Sir John Astbury is alleged to have said: 'Reform, reform - are not things bad enough already?' The readers of this report should not be left either with the thought that the Commission of Inquiry was established because Oxford is in some state of crisis, or with the view that improvements are unnecessary or unattainable. It was, in our view, right that, some thirty years after the work of the Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Franks, Oxford should initiate a process of re-examination of its activities and organisation. We have no doubt that Oxford has been and continues to be a university which provides teaching of a high quality and, through the tutorial system, of real distinctiveness. This is evidenced by the readiness with which Oxford graduates secure employment and by external assessments of the quality of the teaching. There are similar high aspirations in the field of research; again, external evidence, such as research assessment exercises, the levels of research income and the numbers of Oxford graduates in senior academic posts in this country and abroad, indicates success in realising those aspirations.

Nevertheless, there are undoubted concerns that the current achievements of the collegiate university could and should be built upon, and that there is room for real improvement. We share that view. Account needs also to be taken of the rapidly changing world of higher education in this country. There are great strengths in Oxford, not least the collegiate system, but there are weaknesses to be addressed. The purpose of our ninety-three recommendations is to do just that and, in our view, the key to success lies in large part in structural changes to the way in which Oxford runs itself. From that, we believe, many other improvements will the more readily follow. Nevertheless, in achieving change, sight must not be lost of the nature of a university as being, in Disraeli's words, ' place of light, of liberty and of learning'.

Over the past three years, several thousand people have contributed to our work. They have done so in a variety of ways - by responding to consultative documents, by writing to us more generally, by talking to us or to the several consultants we engaged, and by responding to the questionnaires which we distributed to elicit views on a range of matters. We are grateful to all of them for their varied contributions which have informed our work. We are also particularly grateful to those who have worked very closely with us in our work and in the preparation of this report. An especial debt is owed to our Secretary, Mr Michael Sibly, and to our Assistant Secretary, Mrs Simonne Samuelson. They have worked with great skill, energy and resilience to bring this project to completion. In doing so, they themselves have been loyally and ably supported by Mrs Nadine Howard and Mrs Cheryl Howes. We thank them all.

PETER NORTH
25 November 1997

(a) To review such aspects of the operation and structure of the collegiate University and its decision-making machinery as it considers appropriate, including current issues concerning the relationship between different bodies, and between the University and the colleges, and the colleges themselves, the distinctive role of each body, the balance between undergraduate and graduate teaching, and between teaching and research, the position of different categories of senior members within the collegiate university, and related matters;

(b) to take account of recommendations made by other bodies within the University which are currently considering matters related to (a) and to consider their implications;

(c) to make recommendations to Council, the General Board and Congregation.

Dr P.M. North, Vice-Chancellor 1993-97 (Chairman)

Professor A.M. Hudson, Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford

Mr A.J. Nicholls, St Antony's College, Oxford

Dr O. O'Neill, Principal, Newnham College, Cambridge

Sir Ronald Oxburgh, Rector, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

Professor G.K. Radda, British Heart Foundation Professor of Molecular Cardiology, Oxford, and from 1996 Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council

Mr R.G. Smethurst, Provost, Worcester College, Oxford

Dr N.M.J. Woodhouse, Wadham College, Oxford

In Chapter 1, we review the steps which led to the establishment of the Commission, and give details of our working methods, focusing in particular on the consultation which we undertook and the various studies which we commissioned.

In Chapter 2, we set out the background and context to our report. We consider first broad changes in higher education nationally since the time of the last major national review of higher education (the Robbins Report) and the latest one (the Dearing Report). These cover issues such as student numbers, the structure of degree courses, developments in research, and funding arrangements. We also consider changes in Oxford since the time of the last major review of the University (the Franks Report) and the current Commission of Inquiry.

We conclude that Oxford needs better mechanisms for considering the implications of long term changes and for involving its senior members in doing so. If this can be achieved, it will reduce the need for periodic general reviews such as the present Commission of Inquiry, and for the numerous ad hoc reviews of particular policy issues which feature prominently in the University's current methods of working.

In Chapter 3, we consider Oxford's future objectives, structure, size and shape. Our recommendations are as follows.

Recommendation 1 We recommend that Congregation should be invited by the Council formally to endorse the following six principles to govern Oxford's future development:

(i) Oxford should continue to educate undergraduate and graduate students, to undertake research and to provide continuing education.

(ii) Its education should largely continue to be on a full-time residential basis.

(iii) It should continue to be a collegiate university.

(iv) It should continue to strive for the highest standards in both teaching and research.

(v) It should continue to undertake teaching and research across a wide subject range.

(vi) It should continue to be a democratic self-governing institution.

Recommendation 2 We recommend that, for the time being, the University should reaffirm its policy of limiting growth in student numbers to a maximum of one per cent per annum, taking one year with another. This policy should be regularly reviewed by the new Council and the academic boards, in consultation with the colleges through the Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee, as part of the annual planning and resource allocation cycle proposed in Chapter 5 of this report.

Recommendation 3 We recommend that the Council and the Conference of Colleges should establish a new joint Standing Committee on Access with membership drawn both from university bodies and from the colleges, and chaired by the Vice-Chancellor in the first instance. Its primary tasks should be to coordinate current and planned activities aimed at widening access, to take forward new initiatives to that end, to investigate the effectiveness and fairness of admissions procedures in relation to different groups, to decide on the statistical information needed to inform policy development and monitoring, and to set and monitor targets on a five-yearly basis.

Recommendation 4 We recommend that the Council should initiate a broad review of future needs for space and sites on a five yearly basis.

In Chapter 4, we review the current arrangements for the governance of the University, and we argue that structural changes are required to meet the shortcomings which we identify. We conclude this chapter with a list of specific objectives for change.

In Chapter 5, we set out a detailed proposals for change and make the following recommendations.

Recommendation 5 We recommend that the Council should institute a thorough review of existing legislation with a view to reducing the volume of material embodied in statute.

Recommendation 6 We recommend that there should be a single provision for procedures in Congregation whereby any sufficient number of members, or the Council, may propose a resolution on any issue at any time.

Recommendation 7 We recommend that the minimum number of members of Congregation required to propose a resolution should be raised from 12 to 20.

Recommendation 8 We recommend the introduction of a procedure to enable the Council, or any 20 members of Congregation, to put forward subjects for discussion in Congregation, without the need for a formal resolution or motion, the Council being required to have regard to the outcome; and that the operation of this procedure should be reviewed by the Council after five years.

Recommendation 9 We recommend that the Council should consider whether it should submit to Congregation a regular report on the business it has conducted and, if so, whether this should be on a termly or annual basis.

Recommendation 10 We recommend that the number of members of Congregation who are required to vote in favour of a resolution for that vote to be binding should be increased from 75 to 125.

Recommendation 11 We recommend that the Council should conduct a review of, and make recommendations on, which university bodies should have some or all of their membership directly elected by Congregation.

Recommendation 12 We recommend that eligibility for membership of Congregation should be extended to all academic-related staff occupying non-established posts in grades RSII or ALC3 and above.

Recommendation 13 We recommend that the requirement that an individual must hold either an MA or MA status as a condition of membership of Congregation should be ended and, subject to the preservation of vested interests, that the award of MA status should cease.

Recommendation 14 We recommend that it should be provided that the Chancellor preside over Congregation only on ‘ceremonial' occasions; and that otherwise the Vice-Chancellor should preside.

Recommendation 15 We recommend that:

(a) a new Council should be established as the University's principal executive and policy-making body, with responsibility extending over academic as well as non-academic affairs;

(b) the Council should be responsible for managing an annual planning and resource allocation cycle, which would govern its relationships with bodies beneath it;

(c) the Council should comprise 25 members, namely the Vice-Chancellor (chairman), four Deputy Vice-Chancellors, the Proctors and the Assessor, two external members, 12 members elected directly by Congregation from amongst its own membership, and three Junior Member representatives. The Council should have the power to co-opt up to two additional members.

Recommendation 16 We recommend that:

(a) decrees enacted by the Council should come into force with immediate effect from the time of their enactment;

(b) the Council should initiate a review of the University's decrees and regulations with a view to reducing the volume of material embodied in such legislation, to complement the review of statutes proposed in recommendation 5.

Recommendation 17 We recommend that:

(a) there should be a Planning and Resource Allocation Committee of the Council, responsible in particular for making proposals to the Council on the allocation of resources and the approval of plans submitted by spending bodies; the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee should be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, and comprise six members of the Council drawn from those directly elected by Congregation, together with the Proctors and the Assessor and one of the Council's external members; the four Deputy Vice-Chancellors should be able to attend and speak but not vote;

(b) there should be an Educational Policy and Standards Committee of the Council, responsible in particular for monitoring educational standards and quality, and for initiating consideration of policy on educational matters; this committee should be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, and in addition comprise six representatives of the colleges, one representative nominated by the Council, and four members directly elected by Congregation;

(c) there should be a General Purposes Committee of the Council, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and comprising the four Deputy Vice-Chancellors, the Proctors and the Assessor, and two members of the Council drawn from amongst those directly elected by Congregation; the General Purposes Committee should be responsible, acting under delegated authority, for any items of business which the Vice-Chancellor or the Council might refer to it;

(d) there should be a Personnel Committee of the Council, chaired by a member of the Council, to be responsible for all aspects of personnel policy in the University;

(e) the Curators of the Chest should be dissolved, and their residual functions formally transferred to the Council;

(f) the Council should establish other committees reporting to it to assist it in discharging its responsibilities for the management of the University's finances, and these should include an Audit Committee, a Press Accounts Committee, and possibly a Finance Committee, final decisions thereon to be made by the new Council after further consideration;

(g) the new Council should consider the need for other committees reporting to it, and establish the lines of delegated authority under which they should operate.

Recommendation 18 We recommend that:

(a) the General Board should be abolished and three new academic boards should be established beneath the new Council, inheriting from the General Board such responsibilities as are not assumed by the new Council;

(b) one board should cover clinical medicine, a second biological and physical sciences, and a third humanities and social sciences;

(c) each board should have its own full-time chairman, designated as a Deputy Vice-Chancellor, to serve in the first instance for five years;

(d) the appointment of the Deputy Vice-Chancellors should be the responsibility of the new Council, acting on the advice of an appointing committee chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and comprising representatives of the Council, the relevant academic board, its constituent departments and faculties, and external members;

(e) the duties of existing Pro-Vice-Chancellors should remain as at present, save that in the absence or incapacity of the Vice-Chancellor one of the Deputy Vice-Chancellors, rather than a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, should be designated by the Council to act in his or her stead, and should deputise on other occasions as required;

(f) each board should have a maximum of 22 members, and should comprise both ex officio and elected members, with up to two co-opted members; that each board should consider how cross-representation between boards might best be provided; and that the Vice-Chancellor should be free to attend such meetings of each of the boards as he or she saw fit;

(g) the academic boards should each have full responsibility, under the Council, for the management and administration of the subject areas within their sphere of responsibility. This would include in particular responsibility for submitting annually to the Council an updated long-term strategic plan and an annual operating statement; this plan should be approved by the Council each year and should provide the framework for each academic board's work during that year;

(h) the boards should be responsible for managing the detailed allocation of resources, for strategic planning and for quality assurance of the educational provision made under their aegis. They should have authority to make academic appointments without reference to the Council, except that they should not have responsibility for making appointments to established professorships and readerships which should continue to be the responsibility of independent electoral boards;

(i) each of the boards should consider its own sub-committee structure once it is established;

(j) administrative support for the boards should be provided by the central administration, under the Registrar.

Recommendation 19 We recommend that responsibility for overseeing the University's continuing education work, and for proposing the allocation of funds to the Department for Continuing Education, should rest with the Committee for Continuing Education, which should report to the new Council.

Recommendation 20 We recommend that the new Council, in conjunction with the three new academic boards, should review all existing academic standing committees with a view to determining whether there is a continuing need for their existence, and if so to which of the three academic boards either severally or jointly they should report.

Recommendation 21 We recommend that the Committee for Educational Studies should come under the aegis of the academic board for humanities and social sciences. The committee should be responsible for advising on the allocation of resources to, and on all other aspects of the work of, the Department of Educational Studies.

Recommendation 22 We recommend that there should be a Deputy Vice-Chancellor for academic support services. The terms of and method of appointment to this post should be similar to those of the three Deputy Vice-Chancellors chairing the academic boards. This fourth Pro-Vice-Chancellor should be responsible for overseeing the provision of academic support services, including libraries, computing, buildings, museums, and administrative services. Each of these areas should also be overseen by a committee; and there should be a further committee of the Council which would oversee all academic services and provide advice to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

Recommendation 23 We recommend that the new academic boards should consider the structures which should be established beneath them, having regard to the discussion of this issue in this report.

Recommendation 24 We recommend that the statute governing Convocation's powers (Title III) should be amended so as to read that ‘the functions of Convocation shall be to elect the Chancellor and the Professor of Poetry'; and membership of Convocation should include all members of Congregation and should be extended to all those holding a degree of the University, irrespective of the degree and the length of time which has elapsed since it was awarded.

Recommendation 25 We recommend that the period of office of the Vice-Chancellor should be increased to five years, with the possibility of renewal for a further two; that eligibility for election to the Vice-Chancellorship should no longer be restricted to members of Congregation; that no age restriction should be attached to eligibility; and that there should no longer be a formal ‘run in' or ‘run out' periods before and after the period of office.

Recommendation 26 We recommend that nomination of the Vice-Chancellor should be the responsibility of a committee of the Council, whose membership should consist of an external member of the Council (in the chair), two members elected directly by Congregation, the Chairman of the Conference of Colleges and one person appointed by each of the three academic boards. The committee should not be a standing committee but be appointed each time a vacancy in the office arises and should make a recommendation to the Council, which should have power to make an appointment.

Recommendation 27 We recommend that bodies representative of the colleges should consider whether to invite officers or chairmen of appropriate university committees to attend their meetings, in order to foster liaison and communication between college and university bodies.

Recommendation 28 We recommend that, in the light of the discussion in this report, the Conference of Colleges should consider its future role and in particular the possibility of developing further the responsibilities of its Standing Committee.

Recommendation 29 We recommend that the Conference of Colleges and college governing bodies should consider ways of reducing the administrative burdens which are imposed on the senior members of colleges.

In Chapter 6 we consider the implications of the changes we have advocated in Chapter 5 for the University's administrative service. We make the following recommendations.

Recommendation 30 We recommend that the Registrar should consider the implications for the central administration of the proposals on governance in Chapter 5 and make recommendations to the Council. In so doing, he or she should bear in mind the importance of maintaining a unitary structure for the central administration, whereby a single integrated administrative service is responsible for providing support both to the Council and to the academic boards, as well as to their committees, and of the value of administrators exercising a greater degree of initiative and responsibility in their work.

Recommendation 31 We recommend that the Council should consider making the Registrar formally responsible for the management and professional development of departmental administrative staff, as well as of those within the central administration; and that both groups of staff should be regarded as belonging to a single administrative service.

Recommendation 32 We recommend that the Council, in consultation with the Conference of Colleges, should initiate a wide ranging review of all aspects of Oxford's requirements for management information.

Recommendation 33 We recommend that the financial model developed for the Commission by KPMG should be reviewed and further refined by the University's administration, with a view to its future use in supporting discussion of policy development.

In Chapter 7, we consider the workload of academic staff, and review the operation of the joint appointments system for CUF and university lecturers. We advocate retention of a system of joint appointments but propose a new form of university lecturership to overcome some of the difficulties inherent in the current arrangements. Our recommendations are as follows.

Recommendation 34 We recommend that the University and colleges should give a high priority to identifying and implementing measures to reduce the overall workload of academic staff, taking account in particular of the opportunities presented in this area by our proposals to introduce more effective systems of governance and administration, greater variety in undergraduate teaching methods, more rigorous planning procedures and more flexible allocation of resources.

Recommendation 35 We recommend that Oxford should retain, but reform, its system of joint appointments.

Recommendation 36 We recommend the abolition (for new appointments) of the current CUF and university lecturerships and their replacement with a new single form of university lecturership under which the apportionment of teaching duties, within an overall maximum, would be negotiated between the University and the relevant college(s) on an individual basis at the beginning of the appointment and periodically thereafter.

Recommendation 37 We recommend that, in introducing the new form of university lecturership, the academic boards and the appropriate college bodies should initially adopt the system of weighted units of teaching devised by the General Board's and Senior Tutors' Committee's joint working party on the common contract, but that consideration should be given to means of refining these measures in due course.

Recommendation 38 We recommend that:

(a) graduate supervision should be included in the calculation of teaching units owed to the University under the contract for the new form of university lecturership, rather than being an additional duty as at present; and, consequently,

(b) holders of the new form of university lecturership should not be eligible for the payment of supervision fees.

Recommendation 39 We recommend that the contract for the new form of university lecturership should, within an overall maximum number of teaching units, express a postholder's teaching obligations to the University and the college in terms of ranges of units rather than fixed numbers of units, in order to permit individual postholders flexibility to undertake small amounts of short-term teaching for either the University or a college at their discretion (subject to an obligation to arrange replacement teaching for the other institution, where necessary).

Recommendation 40 We recommend that the academic boards, in consultation with the colleges, should institute a rolling programme of five yearly reviews of the distribution of teaching duties to individual lecturers, with a view to giving the opportunity to individuals to elect to alter the balance of their duties between University and college, in so far as such alterations are compatible with the academic plans of the relevant faculty or department and college.

Recommendation 41 We recommend that the selection process for making joint appointments at the lecturer level should involve:

(a) appointing to selection panels equal numbers of representatives of the faculty board and the relevant college(s), together with a chairman drawn from whichever partner had the greater interest in the post in terms of the number of teaching units required of the person appointed;

(b) having selection panels make a recommendation for a single candidate to both the college and the faculty board/department.

In Chapter 8, we review Oxford's arrangements for the quality assurance of teaching, and make the following recommendations.

Recommendation 42 We recommend that the Educational Policy and Standards Committee and the academic boards should identify best practice in setting standards for teaching and ensure that those practices are adopted in all subjects.

Recommendation 43 We recommend that faculties and departments should publish norms for the amounts and types of teaching to be provided in their subject areas.

Recommendation 44 We recommend that the responsibilities of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee in respect of monitoring should include:

(a) ensuring that mechanisms are in place for regular scrutiny by faculties or departments of indicators of teaching quality, such as examination grades, external examiners' reports, teaching assessment reports and student evaluation of teaching;

(b) initiation of its own programme of periodic reviews of faculties and departments, focusing on the provision of undergraduate and graduate education therein;

(c) consideration of specific ad hoc problems brought to its attention by faculties, departments, academic boards or college representatives such as senior tutors.

Recommendation 45 We recommend that the University and the colleges should work together to devise a scheme for assigning each undergraduate to a director of studies in his or her college, who would take overall responsibility for monitoring all aspects of the undergraduate's education.

Recommendation 46 We recommend that all faculties and departments should publish tutors' handbooks, which should contain factual information on standard marking practices, syllabuses, examinations and norms for numbers of tutorials, and should give guidance on the aims of a tutorial and the role of a tutor. Colleges should be responsible for ensuring that such handbooks are regularly distributed to all tutors including those not formally associated with the college.

Recommendation 47 We recommend that the University should foster a culture in which high quality teaching is demanded and rewarded by:

(a) assigning explicit responsibility for considering broad pedagogic issues to the academic boards and the Educational Policy and Standards Committee;

(b) introducing assessment of individuals' teaching performance;

(c) establishing teaching ability more firmly as a criterion for reappointments to retiring age, promotions and the making of distinction awards.

Recommendation 48 We recommend that the University should consider the desirability and feasibility of establishing a teaching award scheme in Oxford.

In Chapter 9, we consider the structure of the undergraduate degree course, the assessment of undergraduates, the tutorial system and the opportunities offered to undergraduates for developing ‘transferable' skills. We make the following recommendations.

Recommendation 49 We recommend that the University should maintain the current non-modular nature of its full-time undergraduate degree courses.

Recommendation 50 We recommend the imposition of more effective controls both on the organisation of existing joint honour schools and on the development of new ones, by:

(a) giving the academic boards responsibility for the planning and organisation of joint schools;

(b) giving the Educational Policy and Standards Committee responsibility for monitoring the progress of the academic boards in this regard;

(c) appointing a single college-based director of studies for each undergraduate on a joint honour school course, with the express responsibility of overseeing the whole of the student's course.

Recommendation 51 We recommend that the Educational Policy and Standards Committee should consider the introduction of a more structured system of transfers between courses, giving particular attention to the system already operating in Cambridge.

Recommendation 52 We recommend that the academic board for the sciences should re-examine fully the value and feasibility of adopting a broadly-based structure for undergraduate science degree courses similar to that in place at Cambridge.

Recommendation 53 We recommend that the academic boards, in conjunction with the Educational Policy and Standards Committee, should develop a university-wide structure for undergraduate assessment incorporating the following features:

(a) classified assessment first taking place at the end of the second year of study;

(b) an equal number of examination papers (or equivalent forms of assessment) of equal weight, in each year of each degree course;

(c) increased use of non-examination-based forms of assessment, particularly in the third (and, where applicable, fourth) year.

Recommendation 54 We recommend that the academic boards for the sciences and for the humanities and social sciences should:

(a) review the use made of different teaching methods in their subjects;

(b) particularly in the arts and social sciences, emphasise to tutors and students that the role of a series of tutorials is not to cover a syllabus, nor are tutorials to be regarded as substitutes for lectures, classes and personal background reading, which must be established as the prime vehicles for imparting factual information;

(c) promote greater cohesion between lecture courses, classes and tutorials; and

(d) consider to what extent lectures, classes and technology-based learning can be used, particularly in the first year, to bring undergraduates up to a broadly equal, appropriate standard for their course.

Recommendation 55 We recommend that faculties and departments should ensure that their undergraduates are informed of their policies for commenting on and grading tutorial work by setting these out explicitly in the student prospectus for each course.

Recommendation 56 We recommend that the academic boards and the Educational Policy and Standards Committee, in consultation with the University Careers Service, should consider how teaching and assessment methods might be utilised in order to develop a broader range of skills in Oxford's students.

In Chapter 10, we review the responsibilities of both the University and the colleges in respect of graduate education. We also consider the graduate admissions system in the humanities and social sciences, the need for graduate studentships and the desirability of increasing the opportunities for graduate students to gain some experience of teaching undergraduates. We make the following recommendations.

Recommendation 57 We recommend that the academic boards should be given explicit responsibility for developing effective frameworks for interdisciplinary graduate studies, both within and across the boards.

Recommendation 58 We recommend that, in departmentally organised subjects, formal responsibility for the organisation and delivery of graduate education should be transferred from faculties or sub-faculties to heads of department.

Recommendation 59 We recommend that the academic board for humanities and social sciences should ensure that there is a clear focus of responsibility for graduate education in each of the faculties under its aegis.

Recommendation 60 We recommend that the Memorandum of Guidance for Supervisors and Research Students should be published as a separate document and distributed by the Graduate Studies Office to all newly appointed supervisors.

Recommendation 61 We recommend that the academic boards should review the practice of the faculties or departments under their aegis in setting and complying with norms for the numbers of supervisees allocated to a supervisor, and ensure that faculties or departments are rigorous in enforcing them.

Recommendation 62 We recommend that the academic boards should consider the effectiveness of the mechanisms which each faculty board or department under their aegis has for supporting and monitoring the progress of graduate students, and should ensure that these conform with best practice.

Recommendation 63 We recommend that in its long-term plans the University should aim to ensure that each of the humanities and social sciences faculties can make at least the following minimum provision:

• a working space for each graduate student, with a desk and a place to leave papers and personal belongings, usually in a library or a shared office in the relevant faculty centre or department;
• computing facilities for graduate students appropriate to the nature of the work within that faculty;
• attractive common room facilities, open to both academic staff and graduate students.

Recommendation 64 We recommend that all faculties should be required to adopt a self-reporting scheme for graduate students and that all graduate students should receive self-reporting forms every Trinity Term, so that students in each year, including the first year, of their graduate work would have the opportunity to comment on their progress and on their experiences of Oxford.

Recommendation 65 We recommend that faculty boards and departments should adopt clear guidelines for determining the circumstances under which research students can be required to give up their studies on academic grounds (subject to an appropriate appeals procedure).

Recommendation 66 We recommend that colleges should, as a matter of urgency, give renewed attention to ensuring that there is in place a system of college advisers and ‘collections' for graduate students and that the effectiveness thereof is monitored.

Recommendation 67 We recommend that:

(a) each faculty or, where applicable, department should draw up a schedule of the academic facilities which are to be made available to graduate students in each particular subject, and decide in consultation with the Committee of Tutors for Graduates whether these are to be provided by the faculty/department or college;

(b) the academic boards should monitor whether the agreed levels of provision are being maintained for graduate students in the subjects for which they are responsible;

(c) faculties should inform graduate students at the beginning of their course what facilities they can expect, and whether these will be provided by the faculty or the college.

Recommendation 68 We recommend that the academic boards, in conjunction with the Educational Policy and Standards Committee, should give specific attention to the teaching and administrative arrangements for taught graduate courses, and ensure that best practice is disseminated and observed.

Recommendation 69 We recommend that the academic board for the humanities and social sciences should encourage the faculties and departments under its aegis to adopt a ‘gathered field' system for graduate admissions.

Recommendation 70 We recommend that the University should undertake a review of the administration of graduate applications in both the University and the colleges, with a view to enabling applicants to be informed of the outcome of their applications as swiftly as possible.

Recommendation 71 We recommend that the University should establish a graduate studentship scheme.

Recommendation 72 We recommend that all faculties and colleges should:

(a) consider increasing the amount of undergraduate teaching delivered by graduate students;

(b) set appropriate norms and maxima for teaching by graduate students in respect of each course and year, bearing in mind the needs of undergraduates, and the abilities of and time constraints on graduate students;

(c) ensure that such teaching is fully supported by compulsory training of the graduate students, effective dissemination of information and good quality control systems.

Recommendation 73 We recommend that directors of studies and those organising teaching in faculties and departments should, as a matter of course, consult the appropriate register of graduate students wishing to teach before allocating teaching time to graduate students, rather than relying simply on personal contacts.

In Chapter 11 we consider a range of issues concerning the organisation and support of research in Oxford, and review changes which have taken place in recent years. We then make the following recommendations.

Recommendation 74 We recommend that the academic boards should keep under review the balance of teaching and research in the subject areas under their aegis, as part of their long term planning responsibilities.

Recommendation 75 We recommend that the academic boards should assume responsibility for promoting inter-departmental and inter-faculty liaison in the development of research.

Recommendation 76 We recommend that the Council and the academic boards should give high priority to the further development of faculty centres to support the humanities and social sciences, and especially to the improvement of facilities for researchers in the faculties of English and Modern History.

Recommendation 77 We recommend that the University should develop a long-term strategic policy for the development of research in all subject areas. This would in turn influence the allocation of resources for the support of research. Responsibility for overseeing the development of a strategic policy for the support of research should rest with the Council, drawing on proposals made by the academic boards through the annual planning cycle, with boards in turn being responsible for consulting their own constituent departments and faculties, and for liaising with colleges.

Recommendation 78 We recommend that responsibility for administering the special research grant schemes, bridging support schemes, and other research grant schemes currently administered by the General Board should be devolved to the three academic boards, which should be required to review present practice and consider how it might best be developed.

Recommendation 79 We recommend that the Council should establish a university research development fund, to fund new initiatives proposed by departments and faculties, and for which funding would not otherwise be available.

Recommendation 80 We recommend that the academic boards should be given primary responsibility for developing relationships with external funding agencies; and particular responsibility for conducting such relationships should rest with the Deputy Vice-Chancellors chairing each of the three boards, who should regard this as an important part of their duties.

Recommendation 81 We recommend that colleges and departments or faculty boards, as appropriate, should liaise closely in the selection of junior research fellows and in ensuring that the necessary resources and facilities are available to support them.

Recommendation 82 We recommend that colleges should ensure that they liaise closely with appropriate faculties and departments in developing plans for college-based research centres.

Recommendation 83 We recommend that the academic boards should, through the Conference of Colleges or otherwise, seek to arrange college association for holders of Royal Society research fellowships and analogous awards.

Recommendation 84 We recommend that academic-related research staff who undertake teaching for the University or for a college should be considered for election to faculty membership.

Recommendation 85 We recommend that the Conference of Colleges, the Committee of Heads of Science Departments and the academic boards should establish a joint working party to consider how far contract research staff could be brought more fully into contact with college life.

Recommendation 86 We recommend that the Council should give high priority to the re-development of facilities for academic-related and non-academic staff currently provided through the University Club.

Recommendation 87 We recommend that the Council should consider developing new collegiate communities to provide a social and academic base for academic-related research staff, and should establish a working party to address this issue.

In Chapter 12 we review the collegiate University's sources of income and discuss the likely implications of the Dearing Report for its future funding. We then argue that Oxford should seek to remain part of a publicly funded UK higher education system, even though the balance between public and private funding may shift towards the latter in future. We then consider the impact of differences in the levels of resources which are currently available to colleges, and make a series of proposals for change. Our detailed recommendations are as follows.

Recommendation 88 We recommend that Oxford should aim to remain part of the UK's publicly funded system of higher education, supported on the basis of a partnership of both public and private funds.

Recommendation 89 We recommend that the Council and the Conference of Colleges should jointly establish a review of the current format of the published college accounts, with a view in particular to enabling both University and college accounts to be produced on a comparable basis, bearing in mind the terms of the SORPs for higher education institutions and, if appropriate, for charities, and the need to supplement these.

Recommendation 90 We recommend that the current college contributions scheme should continue on the basis recommended by the report of the College Contributions Committee to Hebdomadal Council, in Michaelmas Term 1995, and with the prime objective of enabling the poorer colleges to improve their provision for undergraduate and graduate students. The College Contributions Committee should also consider making grants conditional on their use for these or other specified purposes.

Recommendation 91 We recommend that:

(i) the five colleges currently ineligible to participate in the college contributions scheme (namely Green, Harris Manchester, Kellogg, Mansfield and Templeton) should be brought within it; and

(ii) in future the University should not agree to the establishment of any new college without its immediately becoming eligible to participate in the scheme.

Recommendation 92 We recommend that housing allowances currently paid to those fellows of colleges who do not live in college accommodation should be abolished, and that any other additions to salary should be discontinued in their present form. Instead, there should be a new joint maximum salary set at a higher rate than the present one, and we propose that the increase should be a sum equivalent to the weighted average of the present range of housing allowances. This new joint maximum should be payable (at a standard age point) to the holders of all joint appointments not living in college accommodation, including university lecturers with non-tutorial fellowships (ULNTFs), and the present interim scheme to supplement the salaries of ULNTFs which was agreed by Congregation in 1996 should be phased out.

Recommendation 93 We recommend that the costs of the proposals summarised in Recommendation 92 should be met (a) by the redeployment of funds currently used by the University to pay for The General Board's scheme to relieve holders of joint appointees of college teaching responsibilities (‘trade-offs'), and funds currently used to make payments to Oxford academic staff to undertake graduate supervision; and (b) by establishing a new mechanism for redistributing income from the wealthier to the poorer colleges, in order to cover the costs to the latter of equalising total remuneration received by joint appointees on the basis of a new joint maximum.

1.1 In Hilary Term 1994, the University's Hebdomadal Council agreed to establish a Commission of Inquiry, to be chaired by the then Vice-Chancellor (Dr P.M. North) to review a wide range of issues concerning the operation and structure of the University of Oxford, and its decision-making machinery. Having completed our work, we submit this report to Council, the General Board and Congregation. We are also, in a supplementary volume to this report, publishing various studies which we commissioned as part of our work, summaries of the results of consultations we undertook, and some other working papers. This supplementary volume is being distributed to colleges and departments and is available on request from the University Offices.

I: Background to the establishment of the Commission

1.2 The decision to establish the Commission arose out of recognition that many important issues being considered by different bodies within Oxford were closely related, but that there was no obvious way of ensuring that their consideration was brought together and coordinated. Such issues included the determination of the proper balance between teaching, research and administration, both for individuals and in the work of Oxford as a whole; the future of the present joint appointments system (whereby most of Oxford's university lecturers are jointly employed by the University and a college); and concern over the continuing inequalities in the level of resources available to different colleges (and the consequent inequalities in the remuneration of their academic staff). In addition, it was perceived that there were other substantial matters which were being addressed only in part or even not at all, including the University's planning and decision-making machinery, and Oxford's long term structure, size and shape.

1.3 The Hebdomadal Council appointed a small group to consider whether there was a case for a wider review, and if so what its terms of reference and membership should be. The group was chaired by Dr North as Vice-Chancellor, and its other members were the then Chairman of the General Board (Dr J.V. Peach), the Master of St Peter's College as Chairman of the Conference of Colleges, and the Provost of Worcester College as Chairman of the College Contributions Committee and of the Colleges' Fees Committee.

1.4 This group met during Hilary Term 1994. It recommended that, because of the difficulties of achieving a coordinated approach to considering many of the matters mentioned above, a wider review of these questions - and of the University's machinery for considering them - was required. This would enable proper account to be taken of the inter-locking nature of the issues themselves, and would also provide an opportunity to take stock of the implications of changes within Oxford in the last thirty years, and of the impact of developing government and funding council policies. The proposal was for a Commission of Inquiry which could review these issues; this would have been difficult for existing bodies to do, given their day to day preoccupations and the divisions of responsibility between them.

1.5 This proposal to establish a Commission was approved by Council at its meeting on 14 March 1994, and, after the Commission's membership had been settled, an announcement was made in the University Gazette of 14 July 1994.[1] The Commission's terms of reference and membership are given at the beginning of this report. Subsequently, a general resolution endorsing the establishment of the Commission was discussed and approved at a meeting of Congregation held on 1 November 1994. [2]

II: The Commission's working methods

Timetable and organisation of work

1.6 We met for the first time in October 1994. Our original intention was to produce a final report within 18 months of starting work, but for several reasons it has proved necessary to operate on a longer timescale. The task of gathering information and undertaking consultation has proved more time consuming than expected, as has subsequent analysis of this information. In addition, while we were working the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Committee) was established, and was required to report by the summer of 1997, which it did on 23 July.[3] We concluded that it would be sensible to delay the completion of our own report so that we could take at least some account of the Dearing Committee's report. This revision to our timetable was announced in the Gazette of 15 May 1997.[4]

1.7 We met as a full Commission a total of 47 times. 13 of these meetings took place over two days on a residential basis. In addition, we established three sub-groups to take forward particular parts of our agenda. One considered teaching and learning, the second research, and the third financial matters. This last sub-group included representatives of the Estates Bursars' Committee and we are grateful for their contribution.

1.8 Our secretariat comprised two members of the University's central administration, Mr M.D. Sibly (Secretary) and Mrs S.E. Samuelson (Assistant Secretary). The Registrar of the University, Dr A.J. Dorey, also attended all our plenary meetings.

Evidence and consultation

1.9 We began our work by preparing a 'Framework Document' which was issued in January 1995 and sent to all 3,000 or so members of Congregation, as well as to other staff, to bodies representing non-academic staff and junior members of the University, and to a number of bodies outside Oxford. This document set out the background to the Commission's work, and described the main issues which we intended to address and our reasons for doing so, inviting comments on our agenda. In response we received 83 letters and submissions, including seven from college governing bodies, over 50 from individuals, and 23 from various university bodies and representatives of external organisations.[5]

1.10 The responses suggested that there were two topics to which more explicit emphasis should be given in our agenda, namely the possibility of greater delegation of responsibility for resource allocation within the University, and the organisation of faculties and departments under the General Board. Otherwise, the suggestions for additional agenda items were, we felt, already implicit in the Framework Document's outline of issues to be covered. We took all the points raised carefully into account.

1.11 As our work progressed, we undertook a wide range of further consultation. In February 1996 we issued a consultative paper on Oxford's future objectives, structure, size and shape, which also raised a number of questions about the joint appointments system and the role of the colleges in Oxford. We received 108 responses to this paper, which are reflected throughout our report and in particular in Chapters 3 and 7.[6]

1.12 In April 1995, after competitive tendering, we appointed the consultants Coopers and Lybrand to undertake a study of the University's arrangements for governance, and to prepare a report to be used as a basis for consultation.[7] This report was published in March 1996, and was widely circulated within Oxford and elsewhere; in addition a summary of the report (which is reproduced in the supplementary volume to this report) was sent to all members of Congregation. In response to an invitation to comment on it we received submissions from over 100 individuals and bodies within Oxford and elsewhere. Later, at the end of 1996, we discussed our own draft proposals on governance with Council, the General Board, the Committee of Heads of Science Departments, the Chairmen of Humanities and Social Science Faculty Boards, and the Conference of Colleges.

1.13 During Hilary Term 1996 we conducted three extensive surveys of staff and students in Oxford, seeking both factual information and opinion. These surveys took the form of postal questionnaires, which asked a large number of specific questions, and also gave those responding the opportunity to make comments on any subject they wished. Sample copies of the questionnaires are contained in the supplementary volume to this report. The first questionnaire was addressed to over 3,000 staff employed by the University and the colleges to undertake teaching and/or research; the second to a sample of one in five graduate students (a total of about 1,000); and the third to a sample of one in four undergraduate students (a total of about 2,000). The technical aspects of these surveys were handled for us by staff of the Computing Unit at the University's Social Studies Faculty Centre, who both assisted in the design of the questionnaires, and piloted them on a small sample of staff and students. They also organised the selection of the samples of students for the main surveys and the initial data analysis. Five graduate students of the University (Richard O'Leary, George Speight, Lucy Eyre, Philip Barton and Jonathan Palmer) conducted initial analyses of the surveys for us (including comparisons with data from the Franks Commission's surveys)[8], while Dr Francis Marriott of the Department of Statistics prepared a report on the surveys which is contained in the supplementary volume to our report. We are grateful to them and to others who assisted with this major consultative exercise.

1.14 The response rates to the survey questionnaires were generally high: 75.4 per cent in the case of the staff survey, 68.7 per cent for the undergraduate survey, and 73.3 per cent for the graduate survey. In addition, almost 1,000 of the respondents to the staff survey (nearly one third) made written comments in response to the general invitation to do so, as did some 400 undergraduate and 300 graduate students. These replies have produced a mass of data, both quantitative and qualitative, about teaching and learning in Oxford in 1996. As well as being summarised in the supplementary volume to this report, the data has been referred to at various points throughout this main report.

1.15 We consulted within Oxford and more widely on a range of other issues. Invitations to comment on matters relating to research were issued to faculty boards, departments and colleges, as well as to representatives of external organisations which sponsor research in Oxford (research councils, charities, and industrial and commercial interests). We surveyed colleges about the nature and extent of the support which they provide for research: the results, which underline the scale of this support, are reflected in particular in Chapter 11. Colleges were also consulted about several other questions, including the effects of differences in the levels of resources available to them, and whether the current arrangements for their collective representation should be changed.

1.16 Summaries of the outcome of all the consultation which we undertook are provided in the supplementary volume to this report.

1.17 As well as consulting widely, we set in hand a number of other studies and gathered a range of further information relevant to our agenda. We commissioned from an independent consultant, Dr Harry Atkinson, detailed studies on the governance of Oxford and five other UK universities, and we are grateful to the other institutions which were the subject of these studies for their cooperation.[9] We also obtained information about the governance of certain higher education institutions in North America. These studies are reproduced in the supplementary volume.

1.18 The consultants KPMG, working initially with the accountants Clark Whitehill, were commissioned to prepare a report on financial modelling, which has informed our discussion of a number of important issues; the results are reflected in particular in Chapters 3 and 6. A report by KPMG arising from this work is reproduced in the supplementary volume to this report. Representatives of the Committee of Estates Bursars provided advice on aspects of this work, and have also supplied other information.

1.19 Finally, we have received a large number (over 200) of other submissions from individuals within and outside Oxford (a number of the latter being graduates of the University), as well as from various bodies and representative groups within Oxford and elsewhere. These have all been helpful in informing our thinking.

The cost of our work

1.20 The total cost of our work was approximately £280k. This figure comprises the following principal elements:

(i) £190k consultancy fees;

(ii) £30k in travel and subsistence costs for members of the Commission (including the costs of weekend residential meetings);

(iii) £22k for the cost of printing and distributing the report and the supplementary volume;

(iv) some £40k for the costs of printing and distributing consultative papers and associated material.

Other costs - and in particular those of providing a secretariat to the Commission - were absorbed within the budget of the University's central administration.

The relationship between the Commission's work and that of other bodies in Oxford

1.21 We were concerned from the outset that the establishment of the Commission should not delay work already in progress elsewhere in Oxford, even where it might overlap with our own agenda. To that end we have kept under review the work of other bodies within the University which has been relevant to the issues which we have considered. We have noted, for example, the initiatives taken in 1996-7 by Council and the General Board's joint Resources Committee in developing the University's capacity for strategic planning and have noted that the General Board is seeking from faculty boards the submission of longer term plans.[10] On questions concerning joint appointments, we have taken into account the work of the General Board's and Senior Tutors' Committee's joint Working Party on the 'common contract'.[11] Similarly, we have been kept informed of the thinking of the Review Committee on the Management of the Clinical School, of the Technology Transfer Arrangements Review Committee, and of the Working Party on University Sites, each of which submitted reports to Council or the General Board whilst we have been at work. We have also considered the report of the College Contributions Committee submitted to Council in 1995, which reviewed the scheme whereby wealthier colleges contribute to a fund to support the less well-endowed colleges.[12]

1.22 We have welcomed the progress made in all these areas, and have taken it into account in formulating our own proposals, many of which are designed to build on such work. On the other hand, there are areas of our work which have, as far as we know, not been the subject of any detailed or structured consideration by the University's central bodies in recent years. These include in particular issues concerning governance which we discuss in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 undergraduate teaching (discussed in Chapter 9), and the organisation and support of research (discussed in Chapter 11).

1.23 Given that certain aspects of our work have overlapped with those of other bodies in Oxford, we should make clear at the outset that we are not providing detailed answers to all the varied questions which have been raised with us. We have addressed many of them, but our prime intention has been to propose a framework within which more detailed answers can be worked out. We have also been concerned that the Commission should not take on the role of a standing body, nor should it act as a substitute for other bodies which already exist. Our approach has been that where there are, or we have proposed that there should be, bodies with a clear remit to consider issues which have been raised with us - however important - then they should be considered by those bodies rather than taken up in this report.

Relationship between our work and that of previous reviews

1.24 Looking back over the last two centuries, it is clear that systematic reviews of Oxford have rarely been undertaken by the University itself. Fundamental changes in Oxford's structure and objectives have more often been imposed from outside, usually by the state, rather than generated from within. External intervention was particularly apparent in the Royal Commissions of 1850-52, 1877-82, and the Asquith Commission of 1919-22, each of which prompted important reforms.[13] The last major review of the University's structure, size and shape was however an internal one, conducted by the Franks Commission in 1964-6.[14] Even so, the establishment of that Commission of Inquiry was very much prompted by external criticisms of what were described as 'Oxford's obscure administrative structures' in the Report of the Robbins Committee, published in 1963,[15] which was the last major national review of higher education before that of the Dearing Committee this year.

1.25 We have been conscious throughout our work of the example of the Franks Report. There are many who still regard it as the bench mark against which to measure any review of Oxford and its activities, and we shall refer to its recommendations at various points. However, we also note that many of the Report's most important recommendations were not implemented. In particular, many of the proposals on governance, and some of the fundamental recommendations about teaching, were not accepted. We give further examples of this sort in Chapters 2 and 4; and an analysis of which of the recommendations of the Franks Report were implemented and which were not is provided in the supplementary volume to this report. As will become clear, we believe that there remains considerable force in the reasoning behind a number of the recommendations of the Franks Report which were not adopted, although their particular form may need reconsideration in the light of developments over the intervening thirty years.

1.26 The present Commission of Inquiry was established in rather different circumstances from that of Franks. Whilst it was in part prompted by broader developments in the higher education system in the UK, such as changes in the size and composition of the student population, changes in course structures, and the changing funding position (all of which are considered more fully in Chapter 2), the decision to establish the Commission came from within Oxford itself. It reflected a recognition that there were broad strategic issues which Oxford needed to address, and which the existing machinery of governance appeared unable to tackle effectively. Since then the scale of change in UK higher education, and the challenges facing it, have led to the Dearing Report. The University's anticipation of the need for a major review of its structure and purpose is a good indication that Oxford fully recognises the importance of keeping these matters under active consideration, rather than allowing them to rest until some external inquiry prompts action. It is important that Oxford should demonstrate clearly its capacity to do this successfully.

Terminology

1.27 We provide in Appendix B a glossary of abbreviations used in this report. We also draw attention here to two sets of terms which it may be helpful to clarify. First, we have adopted the practice of the Franks Commission[16] and used the word 'Oxford' to refer to the whole university, covering both the University in the narrow sense, and the colleges. We have used 'University' to refer to the University in contrast to the colleges, and 'colleges' to denote the colleges of Oxford in contrast to the University.

1.28 Secondly, we have used several terms to describe those staff employed by the University to undertake teaching and research. Thirty years ago those engaged in teaching and research in Oxford were a relatively homogeneous group. Now there is much greater variety, and at least three broad groups may be distinguished:

• There are some 1,300 established academic staff - university and CUF[17] lecturers, readers and professors; most hold joint appointments and all are entitled to college fellowships; all hold their appointments under academic contracts. We describe this group as 'academic staff'.
• There is a large group of academic staff employed solely by the colleges. No systematic information exists about these staff, but our own survey in Hilary Term 1996 suggests that they number about 1,250. They appear to be a disparate group, most of whom are employed to teach; they include stipendiary lecturers who receive regular salaries, but also many others who are employed on a piece rate basis including graduate students. Few appear to have a contractual duty to undertake research, but many do so. They are described in this report as 'college teaching staff'.
• There are some 2,000 research staff employed by the University on academic-related contracts, a group larger than either of the other two. We describe this group as 'academic-related research staff'. Some of them hold very senior positions (equivalent to readerships or professorships); some (about 250) hold established (i.e. permanent) posts, but the majority are on fixed-term contracts. Many such research staff (about 500) were submitted as research-active staff in the University's return to the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise, and evidence from our 1996 survey suggests that about 500 of them also teach.

1.29 We should add that we have used these various terms for clarification only: they are not intended to make or imply any judgements about the position of the three groups of staff.

Data

1.30 Throughout this report we refer to statistical data on students, staff, and financial matters. It will become apparent that the range and quality of the data available is variable, especially when attempts are being made to show changes over a number of years using long time series. Particular problems are created by changes in definitions used in compiling data, or where some data have only begun to be collected recently. These problems affect both data on national developments (some examples of which are given in the Dearing Report), and Oxford data.

1.31 In compiling data, we have sought to adopt a common basis for comparing changes over time, usually seeking to use 1965-6 and 1995-6 as the years for comparison. (It might have been desirable to use 1996-7 data instead of that for 1995-6, but whilst the former is sometimes available it is often not, and for the sake of consistency we have not in general used it.) Where information for 1965-6 or 1995-6 is not available we have used the best data which we have been able to obtain.

2.1 In the thirty years since the Franks Commission, there have been major changes in higher education within the UK as a whole, and also within Oxford itself. Some of the national changes (such as the increased participation of women in higher education) have been paralleled by developments in Oxford, but others have not. All of them have formed the background to our work. In this chapter we briefly review these developments in order to provide the context for our report.

I: Higher education in the UK since the mid-1960s

General developments

2.2 In the mid-1960s most universities offered residential, full-time degree courses, requiring three or four years' consecutive study. These courses were aimed at academically well qualified recent school leavers: both part-time study and study by mature students were comparatively rare in universities.

2.3 When the Robbins Report[18] was published in 1963 there were 31 universities in the UK, all of which expected their staff to undertake both teaching and research. They received their public funding through the University Grants Committee (UGC) and through public support for student fees. Some higher education was also provided in other institutions, such as colleges of education.

2.4 Since the mid-1960s, there has been substantial growth and diversification in this pattern of higher education in the UK. The first phase of expansion took place in the aftermath of the Robbins Report, which recommended that 'courses of higher education should be available to all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so'. [19] As a result, seven new universities were built on greenfield sites during the later 1960s, and eight former Colleges of Advanced Technology (CATs) were awarded university status. One consequence of these changes was that the more vocationally orientated CATs were grafted onto the university system. The 1960s also saw the establishment of the first polytechnics, which were expected to offer more vocationally orientated courses than most universities, and which were not funded to carry out research.

2.5 A second phase of growth took place during the later 1980s and early 1990s. First the polytechnics, and later the universities, began to expand their intakes rapidly. The number of full-time students in higher education in the UK grew from some 450,000 in 1978-9 to over 1.1 million in 1995-6 (see paragraphs 2.9 to 2.11). The institutional structure and the funding arrangements for the higher education sector were also radically altered by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, through which the government removed many of the distinctions between universities, polytechnics and higher education colleges, and sought to foster further expansion of higher education by encouraging greater competition for funds and students. The Act set up unitary funding arrangements to cover higher education as a whole, and redesignated the polytechnics and certain other higher education institutions as universities. These 'new', post-1992 universities compete on equal terms with the 'pre-1992' universities for public funds both for teaching and for research. The allocations of funding for higher education in England have become the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Similar funding councils were established in Scotland and Wales, the latter covering further education as well as higher education; separate arrangements were made for Northern Ireland.

2.6 Since 1993 the government's policy of encouraging growth in undergraduate numbers has been replaced by one of 'consolidation'. This change arose largely because it became clear to the government that the financial commitment to support continued growth from public funds was unacceptable, and also because the rapid rate of growth achieved in the early 1990s meant that the government's target of a one in three participation rate in higher education for 18-19 year olds was achieved earlier than originally expected.

Number of institutions

2.7 There are now 176 higher education institutions in the UK, 115 of which bear the title of university (including the various constituent colleges of the University of London and the University of Wales).[20] Although these institutions all work within a broadly similar higher education funding regime, they have widely varying missions and student profiles, reflecting their different origins and history. For example, in 1995-6 in England, HEFCE funded 72 universities (including eight directly funded schools of the University of London), and 48 colleges of higher education. HEFCE also allocated funds to support higher education provision at 75 colleges of further education (where over 11 per cent of all higher education students are now taught). Some of the institutions funded by HEFCE (including Oxford) offer teaching in a wide range of subjects, but others are more specialised.

2.8 Over the last thirty years Oxford has thus become one of over 100 universities instead of one of 31. Oxford remains a large institution by UK standards (only 11 universities in the UK have more students than Oxford) but, whereas in 1965-6 Oxford educated some five per cent of higher education students, it now educates less than one per cent of them.

Students

2.9 In 1995-6 there were about 1.6 million students undertaking courses of higher education in the UK; 1.1 million of these were studying on full-time or sandwich courses, the remainder on part-time courses.[21] Figure 2.1 summarises the growth which has occurred in full-time students since 1966.

Figure 2.1: Growth in UK full-time students in higher education, 1965-6 to 1995-6

Source: DfEE, cited in Dearing Report, p. 18

2.10 Nationally, the number of full-time students has grown three-fold. In contrast Oxford's total resident student body[22] has in the same period grown by 70 per cent, from 9,808 in 1965-6 to 15,236 in 1995-6.

2.11 Figure 2.2 illustrates further features of the national student body and compares it with Oxford. It will be seen that Oxford's current student profile differs in several important respects from the national pattern. Oxford has a much higher proportion of graduate students (30 per cent as compared to the national average of 14 per cent). Leaving aside continuing education students, full-time undergraduate and graduate students constitute the overwhelming majority of the total student body at Oxford (there are no part-time undergraduate degrees in Oxford, and part-time graduate students constitute only a very small proportion of the total graduate student body).

Figure 2.2: UK and Oxford HE students: 1995-6

Source: HESA and Oxford Student Database

Degree courses

2.12 In higher education as a whole there is now considerably greater diversity in the pattern of courses available than there was at the time of the Robbins Report in 1963. One change in recent years has been the widespread development of modular courses. These enable students to study discrete modules on which they are separately examined, building up credits towards a degree as they progress. Sometimes credits can be built up by a mixture of full-time and part-time study over a number of years, without continuous study, and (especially in cases where teaching is franchised out) without a student necessarily taking all the modules at a single institution. This introduces considerable flexibility into a degree course, but also raises questions about the coherence and identity of the course.

2.13 The Dearing Report has encouraged the trend towards modular courses and credit transfer by proposing a national framework for qualifications which would enable them to be assessed according to common criteria.[23]

2.14 Another development is the reorganisation of the academic year so as to replace the traditional three terms with two or three 'semesters', each usually 15 weeks in length. The aim is to increase the proportion of the year available for formal teaching and to open up the possibility of students taking a course which would normally last for three calendar years over two years or a little more. A three 'semester' system reduces the time available to academic staff for research and scholarship and to students for private study.

2.15 In contrast to these developments elsewhere in the higher education system, each Oxford degree course remains freestanding, taking three or four years to complete, with transfers between courses relatively rare. A greater degree of variety in the initial choice of courses available has been introduced since the mid-1960s through the growth in joint honour schools, whereby students are able to combine the study of two or more different subjects within a single degree course;[24] about 20 per cent of undergraduates now take honour schools involving two or more subjects. However, except in the case of its continuing education programmes, Oxford has not chosen to develop modular courses and credit transfer arrangements; nor has it thought it appropriate to change the existing pattern of a three-term academic year.

Research

2.16 Until the changes introduced by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, all universities were expected to undertake research, and most academic staff within them were assumed to be carrying out both teaching and research. With the expansion in the number of universities since then, and the introduction of unitary funding arrangements for higher education, the position has changed. On the one hand there are now many more institutions competing for research funding: in the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise a total of 210 institutions across the UK submitted researchers for assessment. On the other hand, there has been no increase in the overall level of funding for research in higher education since 1992, and the funding councils have therefore adopted more selective policies in allocating these funds. While many more institutions receive some funding, the bulk of it is increasingly concentrated in a smaller number of universities; and while there are more institutions undertaking research in at least some subject areas, for most this is a minority activity and research funding forms a minority part of their income.

2.17 The position at Oxford is somewhat different, in that research is a major activity for almost all staff who are engaged in teaching, and in addition forms the main occupation for the 2,000 academic-related research staff who either undertake research in their own right or support that of others across the University. Oxford returned more staff as 'research active' in the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise than any other institution in the UK, and a high proportion of its total income is research funding (over 50 per cent of the income of the University (as narrowly defined) in 1995-6 fell into this category). Moreover, unlike many other universities, Oxford has staff conducting research across almost all its academic subject areas. Finally, the volume of research activity as measured by research-related income has been growing rapidly in recent years, with research in the biomedical sciences growing particularly rapidly. Growth in this latter field has a higher impact, in terms of requirements for space, support staff, and equipment costs, than in some other subject areas, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.

The funding of higher education

2.18 At present the main sources of funding for both teaching and research come from the public purse, but there is a trend towards diversification of funding sources. While the state is likely to remain a major source of funding, it seems certain that the Dearing Report will lead increasingly to more of the costs of teaching in higher education being borne by those who benefit most directly from it.

2.19 Public funding for teaching comes, at present, mainly from the funding councils (HEFCE in England) in the form of block grants, and from local authorities (who are reimbursed by central government) in the form of direct payment of fees for Home/EU undergraduates. (The research councils and the British Academy also support a proportion of Home/EU graduate students.) The balance between the two streams of funding has changed over time as the government has adjusted them to influence institutional behaviour. Generally, a greater proportion of funding has flowed through student fees when expansion of the system was sought, and a smaller proportion when consolidation was sought. Since Home/EU students have not themselves paid the fees, these changes were undertaken with little public awareness. Students are also at present eligible for maintenance awards, which are means tested according to parental income. In recent years these awards have been reduced and students (or their families) have been required to contribute more to the costs of their own maintenance, often through taking out student loans. The government's outline acceptance of the recommendations in the Dearing Report for income-contingent contributions to tuition fees and living costs, to be paid by students themselves once they have graduated and are in work, is likely to lead to a further increase in the extent to which higher education receives its teaching funding from non-public sources.

2.20 Public funding for research comes to universities in the form of block grants from the funding councils, project and programme grants from the research councils, and contracts from government departments and other public bodies. The balance of funding responsibility between the funding councils and research councils was altered in 1992 from the former to the latter, and corresponding transfers of funds between them were made.[25] In total, the funding councils and the research councils spend over £1,200 million on research in higher education in the UK each year. In addition to their funding from public sources, universities also receive substantial research funding from charities and from industrial and commercial sources: in 1994-5, for example, charities spent some £354 million on research in UK higher education, and industrial organisations spent some £190 million.[26]

Institutional sources of funding

2.21 In 1995-6 a 'typical' UK university received some 44 per cent of its income from a funding council recurrent grant. A further 16 per cent came from publicly funded tuition fees, 5 per cent from research council grants, and 35 per cent from other sources, mainly income from catering and residences.[27] Figure 2.3 illustrates this.

Figure 2.3: UK HE institutions 1995-5: Typical analysis of income

Source: CIPFA

Figure 2.4: Oxford 1995-6: University and colleges income

Source: University Financial Statements and Accounts of the Colleges

Note: for purposes of comparison with the 'typical' UK picture, income for the University and colleges has in this case been combined.

2.22 Oxford differs from this pattern in certain important respects, as Figure 2.4 below illustrates.

2.23 We may note in particular that Oxford's income shows a greater diversity of funding sources, while research funding comprises a much bigger proportion of its income than for the 'typical' UK university. Oxford is not as dependent on funding council income as the 'typical' institution, although such income still forms a major component of the total.

II: Developments in Oxford in the last thirty years

2.24 It will be clear from some of the comparisons between Oxford and the overall UK position given above that Oxford is not now typical of UK universities. This does not however mean that it has remained unchanged over the last thirty years. Oxford may often be thought of - particularly by those not at present working within it - as representative of unchanging stability. Continuity of purpose and the endurance of underlying principles and structures are certainly among its important characteristics. However, it is often easy to forget that many aspects of Oxford which are taken for granted are in fact recent innovations, and elements of continuity should not be allowed to obscure the considerable changes which have taken place in the last thirty years. In this section we consider further some of these changes, and the particular features of Oxford's current position which form an important background element to the rest of this report.

Oxford's size

2.25 Oxford is now a much bigger university than it was in the mid-1960s. As we noted above, between 1965-6 and 1995-6, total numbers of students in residence in the University rose from 9,808 to 15,236, an increase of over 70 per cent.[28] Growth in undergraduate student numbers from 7,528 in 1965-6 to 10,514 in 1995-6 contributed substantially to this overall increase. Proportionately, however, the growth in graduate numbers has been even more striking, with an increase from 2,026 in 1965-6 to 4,413 in 1995-6. Graduate students now make up almost 30% of the total student body. In addition, the University organises a substantial and thriving continuing education programme, with over 15,000 enrolments each year, comprising students taking award bearing and non-award bearing courses, continuing professional development courses, and a large body of international programmes.

Implications for colleges

2.26 This considerable growth in student numbers has had important implications for the colleges. To some extent, the increase in the student population has been accommodated by the foundation of new societies: in 1966, there were 34 colleges and five permanent private halls (PPHs), whereas by 1996, there were 39 colleges in addition to six PPHs (some of the increase in the former was a result of PPHs developing into full colleges, but a number of new PPHs have also been designated). However, this increase in the number of societies was insufficient to absorb all the increase in student numbers, which has in part been accommodated by a growth in the average size of colleges.[29] Figure 2.5 summarises this position.

Figure 2.5: Size of Oxford colleges 1965-6 and 1995-6 (excluding graduate colleges)

Source: Oxford University Gazette annual student numbers supplements

2.27 These changes have affected college life in many ways. Change in the size of college fellowships has been one result. Governing bodies had already grown in size in the 1950s and early 1960s but in 1965-6 the average size of governing bodies was only 28. Some colleges (e.g. Hertford and Somerville) had governing bodies of fewer than 20 members, and Balliol and Magdalen, with 51 members each, were unusually large. By the mid-1990s the position had changed, with governing bodies in general having grown to between 40 and 50 members. Much of this growth took place in the 1970s, when numbers of academic staff in the University grew rapidly.[30]

2.28 Most colleges have responded to increases in the size of their fellowships and their student body by undertaking substantial building programmes. Colleges have thus grown physically as well as in terms of the number of senior and junior members. Moreover colleges now provide accommodation for almost all of their undergraduates who want it, and for many of their graduate students. Information collected by the University's Accommodation Office shows that in 1973-4 the colleges provided some 6,730 'units' of accommodation, but in 1996-7 this had risen to 12,019. One way of considering this growth is that extra student accommodation equivalent to that to be found in a medium-sized UK university campus has been built by colleges in Oxford in a little over 20 years.

2.29 A further important change during the last thirty years is that now all but one of the colleges admit both men and women, whereas there were no mixed colleges in 1965-6. This change occurred very rapidly: in 1974 no Oxford college admitting undergraduates contained fellows or students of both sexes, but by the end of 1985 only two remained single-sex.[31] This change has been accompanied by an increase in the proportion of students (both undergraduate and graduate) who are women: in 1965-6 16.5 per cent of students were female, whereas in 1995-6 the proportion had risen to nearly 43 per cent. There has however been only a modest rise in the proportion of female academic staff: at the time of the Franks Report about 13 per cent of academic staff were women; by 1995-6 this had risen to 16 per cent.

Staffing structures

2.30 Figure 2.6 shows the numbers of staff on the University payroll in different staff groups as at 31 December 1995.

Figure 2.6 : Staff on the University payroll - 31 December 1995

2.31 Significant changes have taken place over the last thirty years in Oxford's staffing structures. Comparable data spanning the whole of the period since the publication of the Franks report is not available, but a number of trends are clear. The number of established academic staff in the University has increased substantially since the mid-1960s, so that for example the total of university and CUF lecturers was 610 in 1965-6 and had grown to 786 by 1975-6 and 909 in 1995-6.[33] Even more striking has been the considerable growth in the numbers of academic-related staff, particularly those employed to undertake research who now number over 2,000 (more than the total - approximately 1,300 - of established academic staff). Most of these research staff (some 90 per cent) are employed on fixed-term contracts in posts supported by external income of one kind or another. The staff survey which was conducted in Hilary Term 1996 suggests, as we noted in Chapter 1, that, as well as making a valuable contribution to the University's overall research effort, over a quarter of these research staff also undertake at least some teaching. The majority of those employed by the University in this way would appear to have no college attachments, although there is no comprehensive or reliable data on their college affiliations.

2.32 There also appears to have been considerable growth in the numbers of staff employed by colleges, who are not fellows but who are appointed either on fixed-term contracts or under other arrangements to undertake teaching, especially in the humanities and social sciences. Lack of data makes it impossible accurately to plot changes over the last thirty years. However, a survey of colleges which we conducted in Hilary Term 1996[34] revealed that there were some 1,250 individuals who were not employed by the University but who were employed on one basis or another (not necessarily full-time) by colleges to undertake teaching. These included stipendiary lecturers, but also many others who apparently held no formal position within the college. Some of those teaching for colleges were graduate students, and the survey of graduate students conducted in Hilary Term 1996 shows that 27 per cent of graduate students had at some point taught for a college or for the University.

2.33 Taken together, this data shows that established academic staff holding conventional academic appointments as professors, readers or lecturers now form a minority of those undertaking teaching and research in Oxford. This has considerable implications for the structure and ethos of the University. We consider elsewhere in this report, and especially in Chapter 11, some of the implications of this position.

The University's income

2.34 Some of the changes in the profile of the University's teaching and research staff noted above reflect changes in the pattern of its income. Between 1965-6 and 1995-6 there was over a five fold increase in real terms in the value of the University's income from external research grants and contracts. In 1965-6 such income formed approximately 17 per cent of the University's total income; by 1995-6 this had risen to almost 40 per cent.[35] Figure 2.7 illustrates this growth. In 1965-6 funding council grants and student fees made up 72 per cent of the University's total income; in 1995-6 the equivalent figure was 44 per cent. This means that the University is increasingly reliant on funding whose purpose is restricted; moreover much research grant income does not cover the full costs of the activity which it is supporting. We discuss the implications of this point elsewhere.

Figure 2.7: University of Oxford: External Research Grant and Contracts Income 1965-6 to 1995-6

Note: Cash figures are taken from the University's annual financial statements; they have been rebased using the UPPI and its predecessor to give real terms figures.

2.35 Another significant development in the last ten years has been the growth of Oxford's efforts to raise funds for development activity. Fundraising campaigns on behalf both of individual colleges and of the central University have raised substantial sums. The University conducted a Development Campaign in 1988 which ran until September 1994. Since then a Development Programme has been raising funds for specific projects. In total over £700 million has been raised, of which some £500 million was money to support research, and £200 million primarily for endowment of posts, provision of scholarships and building development.

Oxford's governance

2.36 A number of changes were introduced into Oxford's system of governance following the Franks Report of 1966.[36] For example, the Curators of the University Chest became responsible to Council, while new arrangements were introduced for the election of the Vice-Chancellor, whereby eligibility was extended to all members of Congregation (rather than being restricted simply to heads of houses), and the period of office was extended from two to four years. However, as we have noted already,[37] what is striking is the number of changes advocated by the Franks Commission which were not eventually adopted. These included the proposal that there should be a Council of Colleges, working under the Hebdomadal Council, which would be able to commit the colleges by majority voting and to speak authoritatively on their behalf. Instead, the Conference of Colleges was established, whose function is essentially consultative. Similarly, the Franks Report's proposal for the re-organisation of the faculty structure under the General Board so that the then 16 faculty boards would be replaced by five 'super boards' was not adopted.

2.37 Since the time of the Franks Report the degree of continuity is as striking as the degree of change: colleges have remained fully autonomous institutions, and existing faculty board structures have remained largely intact. Such developments as have taken place in Oxford's system of governance since the mid-1960s have largely been evolutionary, with new structures being grafted onto existing ones. Thus there has been a growth of inter-faculty committees, and of other bodies such as the Bioscience Research Board, while the Committee of Heads of Science Departments has assumed increasing importance (even though it has no statutory basis). There has been a tendency for new committees and new bodies to be established which seek to bypass existing structures, and for existing structures to adapt to fulfil different roles rather than be abolished. This has led to a considerable degree of complexity, and a division of responsibility between different bodies that is not always clear.

The international context

2.38 Oxford is an institution which operates within an international context. Many staff and students (both graduate and undergraduate) come from outside the UK and competition for non-governmental research funding increasingly operates at an international level. Oxford's alumni live all over the world, and both the University and the colleges devote considerable effort to maintaining contact with them. A number of specific issues arise from Oxford's international profile which, though not unique within British higher education, are certainly atypical. One is that its academic salaries and other terms and conditions of service need to be sufficient to compete with leading universities in North America, Western Europe and the Far East. Another is the increasing pressure to compete to provide scholarships for outstanding graduate students who may well otherwise attend the leading North American universities. A third is that a considerable amount of the Vice-Chancellor's time is now spent on overseas travel, representing the University especially on work connected with the Development Programme. All these factors have implications for the University's future operation and structure.

III: Conclusion

2.39 The brief review presented in this chapter underlines the degree of continuity in Oxford since the time of the Franks Report as well as the extent of change. Oxford remains a collegiate University and it also remains a self-governing academic institution, with a high degree of democracy in its governmental structure. Furthermore, throughout the period under review it has managed to maintain its position as an institution of international repute, conducting teaching and research across a wide range of subjects, aiming at and usually achieving the highest standards. Change however has been equally important, and Oxford is now a much bigger university than it was thirty years ago (whether measured in terms of student numbers, of staff numbers, or of annual turnover).

2.40 In the light of the changes sketched above, it is sensible for Oxford to reflect on its place within the UK higher education sector. It is operating within a higher education system in which its own interests and concerns are not always shared by the majority of other institutions. It can no longer be regarded as typical of higher education institutions in the UK, or as providing a model for other universities. It is now an atypical university in many respects, catering only for a small proportion of those students who enter higher education. Oxford must seek to define its position in this new world, and this will require a more conscious effort than has perhaps been necessary in the past.

2.41 The Introduction to the Franks Report stated:[38] 'The last half century has been one of varied experiment in Oxford: in the course of these experiments important choices have been made which have altered its nature. But such choices have been taken one by one and often under pressure. As a result Oxford has not fully understood the change in direction which has been involved: nor has it fully appreciated its own part in the scheme of twentieth century education. In consequence its efforts have too often been uncoordinated and its explanation of itself has lacked coherence.'

2.42 These points are still valid today. The University must place itself in a position where it can make well informed choices about the future direction it wishes to take, and set detailed decisions within an agreed overall framework. Many of the recommendations which we make in the remainder of this report are designed to help Oxford to do this.

I: Oxford's long term objectives and structure

3.1 Oxford's current objectives may be summarised as being to educate undergraduate and graduate students, to undertake research, and to provide continuing education. Oxford aspires - usually successfully - to carry out each of these activities to the highest standards, fostering and developing academic excellence across a wide range of subjects. It aims to maintain its position as one of the world's leading universities. These and other points are reflected in its current mission statement, which was originally prepared in 1991 in response to a request for such a document from the then Universities' Funding Council (UFC); a copy is provided as Appendix A to this report.

3.2 The consultative paper which we issued in February 1996 set out our working assumptions about the future structure and objectives of the University. These were as follows. (i) That Oxford should continue to teach undergraduate and graduate students, to undertake research and to provide continuing education. (ii) That its teaching should largely continue to be on a full-time residential basis. (iii) That it should continue to be a collegiate university. (iv) That it should continue to strive for the highest standards in both teaching and research. (v) That it should continue to undertake teaching and research across a wide subject range. (vi) That it should continue to be a self-governing democratic institution.

3.3 The replies to the consultative paper showed that the large majority of those who responded agreed with all these assumptions.[39] There was also a wide range of other points made arising from the assumptions. We examine those arising from the last assumption (concerning Oxford's governance) in Chapters 4 and 5 of this report, and there confirm that assumption. We comment in this chapter on the following points which arise from the other assumptions. These are:

• The scope of Oxford's work, and the case for its continuing to undertake graduate and undergraduate teaching, research, and continuing education.
• The nature of Oxford's degree courses.
• Oxford as a collegiate university.

The scope of Oxford's work

3.4 Our first assumption was that Oxford should continue to undertake undergraduate teaching, graduate teaching, research and continuing education. We believe that each of these activities is closely related, and that each of them has a positive and beneficial influence on the others.

3.5 We have considered, but rejected, possible alternatives. These might include, for example, abandoning teaching undergraduates so as to concentrate on graduate teaching and research, or vice versa; or abandoning continuing education and focusing solely on full-time residential provision. However such fundamental shifts in Oxford's objectives would bring few benefits, and these would be far outweighed by the losses; nor is it clear that such changes would be practicable.

3.6 Any case for abandoning undergraduate teaching would have, for example, to meet a range of counter arguments. Oxford has a long and distinguished tradition in undergraduate provision, and the assessments conducted by HEFCE of Oxford's undergraduate education have so far concluded that the teaching of almost all the subjects considered is of very high quality. Through the provision of undergraduate education, the University brings able young people and a small number of mature students into contact with the values and disciplines, as well as the content, of rigorous academic study. Most of these students will not take up an academic career, but their experience of undergraduate study at Oxford helps to diffuse the values and approaches which underpin its academic work throughout society as a whole. If Oxford concentrated on graduate teaching and research to the exclusion of undergraduate teaching, the range of its contacts with the rest of society would become more limited. Abandoning undergraduate education would also be impracticable. Unless Oxford was to contract in size, it would need to recruit additional graduate students to replace the present 10,000 undergraduates; and unless there was a major increase in the number of graduate students in the UK, this would require Oxford to attract a much higher proportion of the general pool of graduate students than at present, which would damage graduate programmes at other universities.

3.7 Nor do we believe that there are good arguments in favour of abandoning other areas of Oxford's current activity. For example, Oxford now provides a very wide range of taught graduate courses and research degrees, which draw on the advanced resources, both physical and intellectual, available in Oxford. As we argue elsewhere in this report (in Chapter 11), there is a close relationship between teaching and research, and the two activities are usually mutually supportive. Given this, and Oxford's achievements and potential in research, we see no case in principle for curtailing graduate provision. Similar considerations apply to continuing education, where Oxford has a distinguished record of achievement dating back to the 19th century Extension movement. The modern Department for Continuing Education, now working in conjunction with Kellogg College, has developed this tradition and also diversified its work into new areas such as continuing professional development, and part-time award-bearing provision: we review these developments more fully in paragraphs 3.54-3.56 below. Given these successes and the enormous scope for drawing on Oxford's wide range of resources to develop continuing education, there is every reason to maintain and promote this work.

3.8 In concluding that Oxford should continue to undertake all the principal activities it currently conducts, we are aware that major questions are left open. Foremost amongst them is that of determining the balance of effort which should be devoted to different areas of activity. Should some subject areas be developed in addition to or at the expense of others? Should undergraduate provision be expanded at a faster rate than graduate provision, or vice versa? Should Oxford devote more of its resources (and hence of the time of its staff) to research, or more to teaching? Should some activities be scaled down in order to make room for growth in new areas? We comment on these points later in this chapter, but they do not detract from the main conclusion that Oxford should continue to undertake the four basic activities outlined above.

The nature of Oxford's degree courses

3.9 The second of our assumptions was that Oxford's teaching should largely continue to be on a full-time residential basis. As we noted in Chapter 2, recent years have seen the development of alternative forms of provision elsewhere, with part-time study increasingly popular, and growing interest in modular course structures. It is important that Oxford should be clear about how and why its own provision might differ, and how far it needs to adapt to take account of such developments.

3.10 The recommendations of the Dearing Report may be expected to lead some universities to rely less on the traditional model of the full-time three/four year residential course. That report recommends that undergraduate degree courses should become broader, should encourage students to understand their particular degree subject in its wider context, and should encourage the development of four key skills: communication skills, numeracy, the use of information technology, and the ability to learn throughout life. The report also questions whether the three year degree is the appropriate qualification for all students in a mass system of higher education, and suggests that it may not suit either the needs or the abilities of a significant number of students. Although the Dearing Report[40] does not favour the introduction of additional qualifications into higher education, it does argue for 'recognised exit points' below the level of the first degree. This might be achieved through shorter courses, which offer a worthwhile qualification after the equivalent of two years' (or six terms') study, at the end of which students would not be expected to have reached the level conventionally expected at the end of the three year full-time degree programme.

3.11 Oxford must take account of these developments, and ensure that its educational provision continues to meet the needs of students and their future employers. In particular, we believe that Oxford's undergraduate degree courses would gain from a greater degree of flexibility in the combinations of subjects which undergraduates are able to study, and we consider in Chapter 9 some ways in which such flexibility might be increased. We also consider that Oxford should devote much more explicit and structured attention than hitherto to teaching and learning methods, and should review the contribution which can be made by the use of educational technology. Our proposals in Chapter 5 for a new Educational Policy and Standards Committee of the Council address these questions. Nonetheless, we have concluded that, rather than diversify into wholly new forms of provision or fundamentally change the nature of its degree courses, Oxford should concentrate on building on its existing strengths, and seek to occupy a distinctive place in higher education rather than simply to emulate developments elsewhere.

3.12 The expanded higher education system is more diverse than its predecessor. Different institutions offer distinctive types of provision, each seeking high standards, but not necessarily aiming to meet the same objectives. Oxford has an established record in offering highly challenging intensive academic courses requiring residential provision. Its collegiate structure encourages both undergraduate and graduate students to mix with others studying in different disciplines, and to gain some appreciation of the different approaches which obtain in different areas of academic work. Such provision is valuable, and we believe that Oxford should continue to deliver it. This is not to cast doubt on other aims, nor to suggest that other forms of provision are not more appropriate for many students. It is simply to reaffirm the value of an institution which combines intensive teaching in small groups with the ambitions and resources of a major international research university.

Oxford as a collegiate university

3.13 Our third assumption about Oxford's future structure was that it should continue to be a collegiate university. There are now 39 colleges and six permanent private halls ('PPHs')[41] which are able to admit students and present them to the University for matriculation, i.e. formal admission.[42] The colleges are almost all legally independent foundations, but partnership between them and the University is essential for the work which Oxford as a whole carries out, both in teaching and research. Colleges are responsible in particular for the selection of undergraduate students; for providing them with tutorial teaching and for overseeing their academic progress; for employing staff responsible for undertaking both teaching and research; for providing board and lodging to most undergraduates and to a high proportion of their graduate students; and for providing all students (both undergraduate and graduate) with academic, social and pastoral support, including library and computing facilities, and access to travel or book grants. The quality of Oxford education depends on the resources which the colleges devote to such work. Colleges also support research, providing facilities, research fellowships, and academic salaries, and we discuss some of these points more fully in Chapter 11.

3.14 These advantages need to be sustained, and the strength and vitality of a collegiate university system maintained. We believe that this must be a high priority for Oxford in the future, notwithstanding the current uncertainties over whether the present extent of public support for college tuition fees will continue. It is inevitable that a collegiate university is more complex than a unitary one. This means that it requires some extra resources. These are the justified price of the advantages of such a system. Nevertheless, complexity needs to be minimised, and the divisions of responsibility between the colleges and the University need to be clear, particularly as they affect the operation of the joint appointments system and the organisation of undergraduate and graduate provision. We address these points in Chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 below.

Conclusion

3.15 We believe that the assumptions set out in paragraph 3.2 above, which have commanded wide assent in our consultation, should form the basis of Oxford's own statement of its core aims and structure.

Recommendation 1
We recommend that Congregation should be invited by the Council formally to endorse the following six principles to govern Oxford's future development:

(i) Oxford should continue to educate undergraduate and graduate students, to undertake research and to provide continuing education.
(ii) Its education should largely continue to be on a full-time residential basis.
(iii) It should continue to be a collegiate university.
(iv) It should continue to strive for the highest standards in both teaching and research.
(v) It should continue to undertake teaching and research across a wide subject range.
(vi) It should continue to be a democratic self-governing institution.

II: Oxford's future size and shape

3.16 The last major review of the University's size and shape was conducted in 1990, at a time when the Universities' Funding Council (UFC) was planning to introduce a bidding system into the method of allocating funds for teaching, with the aim of allocating resources competitively in order to encourage rapid expansion of student numbers. The University's policy at that time was the subject of a general resolution put to Congregation on 1 May 1990, which approved a policy of limiting aggregate growth in the numbers of students in the University to one per cent per annum.[43] Council and the General Board took the view that the rate of growth in terms of student numbers which Oxford could accommodate must be curtailed both by resources, and by the physical capacity of the University, the colleges, and indeed the city to absorb additional students. At the same time it was recognised that some growth was essential, because of pressure to develop new academic areas and because of the difficulty in a university such as Oxford, where almost all subjects are highly rated, of making compensatory reductions. Numbers could not be allowed to remain static, it was argued, since this would lead to academic stagnation.

3.17 Since this policy was adopted, government policy has shifted to one of 'consolidation' of student numbers, which has in effect imposed a cap on Home/EU undergraduate student numbers since 1993-4. As a result, although Oxford's overall student numbers have continued to increase, most growth has come from additional graduate students and overseas undergraduates. The Dearing Report may herald in due course a renewed period of growth nationally, since it has recommended that the government should respond to likely long term increases in demand for higher education and should lift the cap on full-time undergraduate places over the next two or three years.

3.18 We believe that Oxford's policies on size and shape should now be reviewed, given the changed circumstances since the existing policy was formulated. It is also important to improve Oxford's capacity in future to keep its policies on these questions under review on a regular basis. We believe that our proposals for an annual planning and resource allocation cycle, to be overseen by the new Council and the three academic boards, which we set out in Chapter 5, will form an effective means of keeping such policies under review. In particular, the academic boards and the Council will be expected, through the planning cycle, to take a clear view in both the short and longer term of objectives for the future size and composition of the student body, and to consider the allocation of resources to support educational provision for them.

3.19 It will also be important to consider the mechanisms through which agreed policies can be implemented. We believe that the present system whereby colleges are responsible for undergraduate admissions should continue. However, this points to the importance of effective University/college liaison through the Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee (JUAC), particularly since the proposed academic boards will have a close interest in the admissions targets set by colleges each year, and will need to take them into account in the annual planning and resource allocation exercise. We take up this point again in Chapter 5.

3.20 In reviewing policy on size and shape it is necessary to take into account a range of factors. In the rest of this chapter we examine seven of them, namely:

• overall student numbers;
• the balance between graduate and undergraduate numbers;
• Oxford's policies on the composition of the undergraduate student body and on access;
• Oxford's contribution to life-long learning;
• the implications of growth in student numbers for the colleges;
• the impact of growth in research activity;
• the implications of growth for space and sites.

Overall student numbers

3.21 We noted in Chapter 2 that overall student numbers in Oxford increased by some 70 per cent between 1965-6 and 1995-6. The current rate of growth is running at between 1.5 and two per cent per annum, which is higher than the one per cent growth rate of the University's declared policy. Most recent growth has come from an increase in graduate student numbers, although in 1995-6 undergraduate numbers rose significantly as illustrated by Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1: Changes in student numbers at Oxford, 1991-2 to 1995-6

Source: Gazette annual student numbers supplements

3.22 We have considered whether there is any argument for seeking a significant increase in the numbers of full-time students at Oxford, and have taken account of the responses to our consultation on this point,[44] as well as the arguments which were advanced in 1990 when the present policy was established (referred to above in paragraph 3.16). Our conclusion is that at present there is no such case.

3.23 The most important factor underlying this conclusion is the likely effect on the overall character and ethos of Oxford of any rapid or substantial change in its size. Oxford is already a large institution by UK standards, but it is fortunate in that its collegiate structure provides ample opportunity for intellectual and social interaction between its members, enabling both staff and students to gain many of the advantages of a small scale institution. We do not consider that such growth should be allowed to occur as would fundamentally alter this intellectually valuable aspect of Oxford.

3.24 Even so, a modest degree of growth is essential to allow for the development of new areas of work without having to restrict or close down existing high quality activity. For example, the University might wish to establish a new degree course in a subject for which there was strong student demand, or to broaden the scope of an existing course, or to extend its length. To do the latter by extending the length of an undergraduate course from three years to four would (unless initial intakes are to be reduced by one third) pre-suppose an overall increase in the numbers studying that particular subject. The same applies to growth measured in other ways: the University must be able to accommodate new areas of research. For this reason, we believe that a policy of allowing modest growth should be pursued, and that the present approach is broadly correct.

3.25 The implications of this current policy do, however, need to be spelt out. On the one hand, growth even at what appears to be a modest annual rate of one per cent per annum is not insignificant. Over a period of ten years, it would produce an additional 1,500 students and, as noted in our Consultative Paper of February 1996, one way of thinking of the scale of such growth is that it is the equivalent in student population terms to an additional three or four new colleges in a decade. Such growth in student numbers clearly has significant implications for space, facilities, and staff, and would influence the character of the University (and indeed of the city).

3.26 On the other hand, limiting growth to one per cent per annum also means that there will be restrictions on how far new courses and new subject areas can be developed without curtailing existing ones in order to keep overall numbers in line with the policy. One per cent growth per annum will not usually allow for all the new developments which may seem desirable; to accommodate them it might be necessary to reduce some existing activity.

3.27 In order further to illustrate the implications of this policy, we used the financial model of Oxford which we commissioned the consultants KPMG to construct for us (see paragraph 1.18, above) to explore the likely effects of different future rates of growth: details of the model, and of the assumptions on which it was based, are given in the supplementary volume to this report. Two possible scenarios were exemplified. One allowed for total annual growth of one per cent, but skewed so that there was only 0.5 per cent growth in Home/EU undergraduates, with the remaining growth coming from increases in graduate students and in overseas undergraduates. The second scenario assumed annual growth of one per cent spread evenly over all categories of students. The model suggested several conclusions, which were broadly similar in the case of both scenarios. These were:

• after 10 years Oxford would need to have found additional resources, over and above those deriving from student fees at current levels, of between £10 million and £12 million recurrent, to pay for this growth, unless other costs were to be reduced; this might come from HEFCE block grant, but this could not be relied on;
• some 330 additional academic staff would be required by year 10 unless the additional demand for teaching were to be met by more teaching in larger groups;
• unless the pattern of space usage changed, additional university teaching accommodation of about 6,850 square metres would be required, some of it laboratory space. At present prices this would cost of the order of £15.1 million;
• additional student accommodation would be required, to cater for an extra 1,600 students, at a cost of about £46 million.

3.28 If Oxford accepts the policy which we recommend it will be necessary for the Council, the proposed academic boards, and the colleges to take account of these and other factors (such as the need for the employment of additional non-academic staff, or the impact on the city) in planning for growth. As we argue in Chapter 6, the model whose results we have summarised will need to be built on and developed further by the University's administration: its main purpose at this stage is to illustrate that even apparently modest growth in student numbers can have large implications.

Recommendation 2
We recommend that, for the time being, the University should reaffirm its policy of limiting growth in student numbers to a maximum of one per cent per annum, taking one year with another. This policy should be reviewed by the Council and the academic boards once the changes in governance which we propose have been implemented; and should be kept regularly under review by these bodies, in consultation with the colleges through the Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee, as part of the annual planning and resource allocation cycle proposed in Chapter 5 of this report.

The balance between graduate and undergraduate numbers

3.29 We have considered whether the present broad balance between undergraduate and graduate students in Oxford should change. This balance has been shifting in recent years: at the beginning of the 1980s, graduate students comprised some 23 per cent of the total student body, whereas by 1995-6 this had risen to almost 30 per cent. This reflects a buoyant demand for graduate courses, and in particular the growth in provision in the humanities and social sciences of taught graduate courses, which are proving increasingly popular, and many of which meet the research training demands of the ESRC and of the British Academy.

3.30 There are two sets of factors which need to be taken into account in considering this question: those which are internal to Oxford, and those which are external. Internal factors include the capacity of the University and the colleges to cater for each type of student and the desirability of maintaining Oxford's strong commitment to undergraduate teaching. Of external factors, one of the most significant is student demand. As we have noted, demand for graduate places has in general been buoyant in the last decade, especially for taught courses in those subject areas where a taught graduate course is seen as providing an essential preparation, beyond a first degree, for doctoral work, or as providing a valuable qualification in its own right.

3.31 Another factor which must inevitably influence Oxford's own position is national policy on graduate education, and in particular policies on the provision of financial support for graduate students from public funds. Public funding for those UK and other EU graduate students who receive it currently comes through two main routes: the HEFCE block grant, and studentships covering fees and maintenance provided by the research councils and (at present) the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy. HEFCE, in conjunction with the Committee for Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Standing Conference of Principals, recently completed consultation on the results of a major review of its policies towards graduate provision, the Harris Report, published in May 1996.[45] The Dearing Report has endorsed many of the proposals of the Harris Report. They are likely to change aspects of graduate work, and in particular would lead towards the development of a standard nomenclature for all graduate degrees, and to changes in HEFCE's own approach to funding graduate students. The research councils and the British Academy have also in recent years reviewed their policies on the funding of graduate students, and have taken initiatives which have influenced the structure of courses and the pattern of graduate work, so that for example in the humanities and social sciences intending research students are usually required to have undertaken a taught masters' course before being eligible for public support for doctoral study. We also note that the changes in arrangements for the funding of undergraduate students being proposed in the aftermath of the Dearing Report[46] may well have a significant effect on recruitment to graduate courses: if students complete their first degrees with a substantial debt, they may be reluctant to embark on a graduate degree which could well result in yet further debts.

3.32 These points illustrate the range of factors which will influence the balance between undergraduate and graduate numbers and the uncertainty which attaches to many of them. Taken together they argue against any prescriptive policy. Certainly, we believe that there is no case at present for advocating any substantial shift from undergraduate to graduate numbers or vice versa ; this was also the preponderant view of those who responded to our consultation.[47] At present, Oxford should be pragmatic about these questions. The important point is to have in place the machinery to keep these questions regularly under review, and the mechanisms which we propose in Chapter 5 for the planning of student numbers by the proposed academic boards (in consultation with colleges, faculties and departments) will ensure that these considerations are properly taken into account in each case.

The composition of the undergraduate student body and Oxford's policies on access

3.33 One important issue in relation to the future size and shape of Oxford is that of the composition of the undergraduate student body. Four sets of issues in particular need to be addressed:

• the relative proportions of men and women who apply and are admitted;
• the proportions of applications from and admissions of members of ethnic minorities;
• the proportions applying and admitted from particular socio-economic groups;
• the proportions of pupils applying and admitted from different types of school or college.

3.34 We have not found it easy to obtain reliable or consistent data on all these points, especially data which would enable Oxford's position to be compared with the national average or with other individual universities. Good data is important because raw figures can be misleading, both because of the small numbers involved (nationally and in Oxford) in some of the categories being analysed, and also because simple comparisons can be unhelpful if they do not take account of factors such as variations in the subject mix in different institutions, variations in the types of courses offered, and an institution's geographical location. The data we have used comes primarily from Oxford's own student database and from the Universities and Colleges' Admissions Service (UCAS), but some of the conclusions we reach must be tentative because of limitations in the data we have been able to consult, as well as because of the other factors we have mentioned.

3.35 The data cited below has been compiled in order to analyse Oxford's undergraduate student body according to its gender balance, ethnic origin, socio-economic background and type of school attended. In each case we have sought to show how the position at Oxford compares with the national average. Where appropriate we have also looked at national averages for applicants with A-level scores which are comparable with those of Oxford students, since it is necessary to compare like with like in order to obtain a clear picture. It should also be noted that the figures represent averages over different periods and so are not always directly comparable: we have used what we believe to be the most representative data which is available to us.

3.36 As regards gender, figure 3.2 compares aspects of Oxford's position with the national average.

Figure 3.2: Oxford undergraduates by gender

Note: Oxford figures are a 5-year average 1992-96. The national figures are a three year average 1994-1996.

3.37 As regards students from ethnic minorities , Oxford figures over the years 1992-6 show that an average of 22.3 per cent of applicants from ethnic minorities[48] were successful in their applications for admission as compared with an average of 33.8 per cent of all applicants. Ethnic minority students admitted to Oxford comprised 5 per cent of the entry. The national figures for 1996 entry show that, overall, there was a 60 per cent success rate for ethnic minority applicants compared with a success rate of 67.6 per cent for all applicants. In terms of the overall entry, ethnic minority students comprised 11 per cent but, significantly for comparisons with Oxford, they comprised 7.9 per cent of those admitted with A-level points scores in the range 26-30 points, the overall average Oxford points score on entry being 28.4.

3.38 As regards students from different socio-economic groups, data[49] is available on five broad groups and we have concentrated on the three 'lower' groups, namely applicants classified, by home background, as falling into the 'skilled' (both non-manual and manual), 'partly skilled' and 'unskilled' categories. In 1996 in Oxford, applications from students from those three groups had a 29 per cent success rate as compared with the overall Oxford success rate in 1996 of 33.8 per cent. Students from these groups entering Oxford in 1996 comprised 17 per cent of the entry. Nationally, they had a 64 per cent success rate as against an overall average of 67.6 per cent, and comprised 39 per cent of the entry.

3.39 Finally, we have considered data on the school background of undergraduate applicants and new entrants.[50] Taking a three-year average of applications to Oxford (1994-1996), there is a significant variation in the success rates of applicants depending on their educational background. For those from maintained schools and colleges, the success rate was 32.3 per cent, from independent schools, 45.6 per cent, and for those from other institutions 20 per cent. The average success rate overall for that period was 34.5 per cent. Turning to numbers actually admitted, the three-year average for Oxford was 43.2 per cent from maintained schools, 46.9 per cent from independent schools and 10 per cent in the 'other' category. The comparable statistics on a national basis are that, in the case of success rates, 78.6 per cent of those from maintained schools succeeded in their applications, as did 83 per cent from independent schools and 72.5 per cent of 'other'. In terms of actual admissions, 81 per cent came from maintained schools, 18.3 per cent from independent schools and 0.7 per cent from the 'other' category. We have also compared the Oxford figures with the national figures in 1996 for those admitted with A-level scores of 28 or more points. The latter reveal entry figures of 62.7 per cent from the maintained sector, 32 per cent from independent schools and 5.3 per cent of others.

3.40 We have drawn the following broad conclusions from this data. First, on gender, the chances of success in application by males and females differ insignificantly both within Oxford and nationally. The composition of the student body does differ markedly, suggesting that the concern in Oxford should be to attract more well-qualified women applicants. Secondly, there is some cause for anxiety over the low success rate by applicants to Oxford from some ethnic minorities, although the total numbers involved are very small, and account needs to be taken of variations between subject areas. Thirdly, we feel that the data on socio-economic background of undergraduates also gives some cause for concern, but that more analysis is required before any firm conclusions can be reached. Finally, in the case of applicants from different types of school, there is a clear difference in the various success rates when comparing Oxford with the national scene, and a clear difference between the proportions of students admitted from different educational backgrounds, even when the comparison is simply limited to those who do best at A-level.

3.41 The immediate concern which arises from this review is that Oxford could be more successful in attracting the ablest students from right across British society as a whole. This is very clear in the case of the numbers of female applicants and of applicants from the maintained sector, though less clear in relation to admission of students from the ethnic minorities or from the 'poorer' socio-economic groups. We also believe that more attention needs to be focused on the needs of disabled applicants.

3.42 We do not believe that this situation has arisen because Oxford is unwilling to try to attract such students. Oxford is an open institution and has, over the decades, made very considerable efforts to widen and deepen participation by all sections of society. Some of the steps which have been taken to try to achieve this are:

• The development of new courses to reflect the broader-based school curriculum in order to make Oxford's courses more accessible to candidates from disparate backgrounds.
• The targeting of ethnic minority applicants in particular, with a full-time graduate coordinator for the Access Scheme which sends ethnic minority students to target schools and to target regions in order to encourage applicants from such minorities.
• The recent appointment of a dedicated Schools' Liaison Officer specifically to work with those maintained schools with a low record of sending applicants to Oxford, and also working with maintained school teachers to explain what Oxford has to offer.
• The extension of the mentoring scheme for would-be maintained school applicants which enables them to spend a week 'shadowing' second year students during an Oxford term.

3.43 Oxford has also recently (in 1996) abolished the special entrance examination, one of the reasons for this decision being anxiety that it favoured those more versed in Oxford methods, and this year has established a new summer school targeted at some sixty less-advantaged potential maintained sector applicants, drawn from some 300 selected schools, which has enabled them to spend a week being taught whilst living in college in Oxford.

3.44 In addition, colleges have been doing a great deal to widen access through individual initiatives. These include open days for applicants, often targeted on particular groups such as women applicants or those who might be interested in particular subjects, especially in the field of science; events for teachers, whether open days or conferences or subject workshops; the establishment of longer-term links through schoolteacher fellowships and vacation programmes; special link schemes to foster applications from under-represented regions; and targeted subject support workshops for sixth formers. In addition, academic staff and students make a regular series of visits to schools, and there is also considerable financial support provided for needy students through college scholarship and hardship funds.

3.45 These schemes have made a valuable contribution and need to be continued and, where appropriate, expanded. They also show that Oxford has recognized the need to demonstrate that admission to the university is based on merit, and that the undergraduate admissions process puts the highest emphasis on seeking out potential, as opposed to focusing on actual achievement. It is partly for these reasons, for example, that Oxford has retained its practice of interviewing virtually every suitable candidate in order to ensure as fair an opportunity as possible for each applicant, irrespective of school or other background.

3.46 Nonetheless, we think that Oxford needs to become more successful in achieving the objective of open access for all who have the intellectual ability and aptitude to benefit from its undergraduate courses. We believe that more can be done to meet this objective, and we think that this view is widely shared within Oxford. We are conscious that the University would like to develop a number of further initiatives ideally in partnership with the Department for Education and Employment and the government. These initiatives include:

• a systematic programme of targeting key schools in educational areas which have little record of sending pupils to Oxford.
• new schemes designed specifically to attract a larger number suitable students from the lowest socioeconomic groups and from ethnic minorities.
• developing the range of links which already exist with schools in order to see how Oxford academics and students could support the aims of raising standards and widening participation.

3.47 Colleges are also developing proposals for a new 'access award scheme' which would provide bursaries for applicants from the lowest socio-economic groups. The purpose of this scheme is to avoid those most likely to be discouraged from coming to university for financial or other reasons from being further inhibited by the prospect of a burden of debt, particularly in the light of the government's decision to charge fees, albeit means-tested, on those most likely to be discouraged from coming to university.

3.48 We welcome all these initiatives and believe that attention undoubtedly needs to be focused on encouraging more applications from under-represented areas. This needs to be coupled with investigation of the effectiveness of the admissions process, which will require monitoring of the subsequent academic performance at Oxford of those admitted from apparently under-represented groups, and comparing this with the average. One way forward could be to establish targets (not quotas) for progress, against which performance could be monitored. We also believe that more analysis is required of the attractiveness or otherwise of Oxford's courses to those who are under-represented amongst its undergraduate body, to ascertain how far this is a factor in deterring applications.

3.49 Taking these points forward requires better coordination between the University and its departments and faculties on the one hand, and the colleges (which have direct responsibility for undergraduate admissions) on the other. This will need to involve, amongst others, the colleges individually, the Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee (JUAC) and the University centrally, including its Equal Opportunities Committee.

3.50 We believe that access issues should have a higher profile amongst the matters to be addressed by Oxford at large. Whilst the University has a very real and legitimate interest in this area, up to now access issues have been regarded as more a college matter than a university one. Better coordination of effort would assist in raising the profile of these important issues.

3.51 We also believe that more effective monitoring of both the current position and of the effects of individual initiatives should be undertaken. We referred earlier to the variability of the data currently available. We think it essential that data should be available to enable all the areas of concern which we have identified to be carefully monitored, to test the effectiveness of individual initiatives, and inform the development of future policy. We do not think that the present Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee is the best body to take these questions forward, since its main responsibilities are for managing the details of the annual admissions process. We believe that a new joint university and college body, which can bring together all the relevant interests within Oxford, is required. This would be a body which was able to focus on policy development and which could take responsibility for the monitoring which we believe is required.

Recommendation 3
We recommend that the Council and the Conference of Colleges establish, jointly, a new Standing Committee on Access with membership drawn both from University bodies and from the Colleges, and to be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor in the first instance. Its primary tasks would be to coordinate current and planned activities aimed at widening access, to take forward of new initiatives to that end, to investigate the effectiveness and fairness of admissions procedures in relation to different groups, to decide on the statistical information needed to inform policy development and monitoring, and to set and monitor targets on a five-yearly basis.

Oxford's contribution to life-long learning

3.52 The general case for education being a life-long activity is now well-established, and in recent years continuing education (broadly defined) has become recognised throughout the world as making a vital contribution to economic effectiveness, to the lives of individuals, and to the well-being of society as a whole. Its importance is based on many factors, including:

• the speed with which new knowledge is accumulated;
• the rapid application of new ideas, particularly in technological fields;
• the consequent impact on the economic performance of organisations and individuals;
• the effect of these changes on the social and cultural lives of men and women, not least through the globalisation of communications.

3.53 The Dearing Report has reviewed some of these developments and argued that higher education has a major role to play in the further development of what has been termed 'the learning society', that is 'a society in which people in all walks of life recognise the need to continue in education and training throughout their working lives and who see learning as enhancing the quality of life throughout all its stages'.[51] We strongly endorse this view of the importance of life-long learning and we note that the University has done likewise in its response to the Dearing Report.[52] Especially through the work of its Department for Continuing Education and of Kellogg College, we believe that Oxford can make a major contribution to the further development of life-long learning.

3.54 The University of Oxford has a long record of pioneering developments in adult continuing education, stretching back to its innovative work in the nineteenth century Extension movement. Its work during the last twenty years has underlined the University's continuing strength in the field of continuing education, and there has been considerable growth and diversification in the provision which is made. There are now record numbers of participants in the University's continuing education programmes (some 15,000 a year); the scope of provision has been broadened to include Continuing Professional Development; new certificates, diplomas and degrees open to part-time students have been developed; and Kellogg College (formerly Rewley House) has been established to focus on the needs of continuing education students.

3.55 The University should seek to give more people access to education and scholarship of the quality associated with Oxford, and to develop courses which increase accessibility and enhance opportunities for life-long learning. In so doing it will need to respond to the needs of business, industry and the professions, as well as to the needs of individual students, and to strengthen its links, through life-long learning opportunities, with the wider community locally, nationally and internationally. We see such developments as having an integral part in Oxford's future.

The implications of growth for colleges

3.56 We have considered the implications of any future policy on growth for the colleges of Oxford. As noted earlier in this chapter, the growth in student numbers which has occurred in the last thirty years has to some extent been accommodated by the foundation of new colleges, but the bulk of it has been absorbed by existing ones, which on average have significantly increased in size. Overall, our view is that for the present this laissez-faire policy in regard to the future development of colleges should be followed, rather than adopting an explicit policy of expanding existing colleges or of founding new ones to cope with future growth.

3.57 On the other hand, there are clearly major questions which the colleges will need to address. As many colleges face increasingly difficult financial circumstances, there is pressure to increase student numbers in order to boost fee income. At a time when there are externally imposed constraints on numbers of Home/EU undergraduates, this pressure has in some cases manifested itself through the recruitment of additional Visiting Students or 'associate students'[53] who do not count against external constraints on numbers, but whose presence nevertheless places demands on university and college resources. It may be that pressures of this kind will lead to a further general increase in the size of colleges, in which case growth of one per cent a year over, say, twenty years could be accommodated. If not, and a point is reached at which colleges are unwilling to expand to accommodate a planned rate of growth, then clearly consideration would need to be given to the foundation of new colleges. Different considerations might, of course, apply if current arrangements for the support of college fees from public funds were to change.

The growth of research

3.58 So far we have considered Oxford's growth largely in terms of student numbers. It is equally important, however, to consider growth in terms of research activity, since this has a very significant impact on the size and shape of Oxford and on demand for resources, including space and sites.

3.59 We noted in Chapter 2 the rapid rate of growth in the real value of the University's external research grant and contract income in the last thirty years, growth which has been especially swift since 1990. This source of income now comprises almost 33 per cent of the University's total income. We are concerned that the University has not fully thought through the implications of these developments. We consider some of these issues in Chapter 11, but in the present context we wish to draw attention to the impact which changes in the volume of research activity can have on Oxford's size and shape, and to emphasise the need to review this rate of growth.

3.60 In order to illustrate our concerns, we have used the financial model prepared for us by KPMG, referred to above in paragraph 3.27. We used the model to explore some of the likely effects of various possible future rates of growth in external research grant and contract income, other things being equal. Our objective was not to demonstrate whether such growth is or is not desirable, but to try to identify the policy choices which need to be faced, and to clarify the issues which need to be dealt with, if such growth does occur.

3.61 We used the model to illustrate the impact of three different annual rates of growth in external research income over a period of twenty five years. It was assumed that growth would occur across all subject areas and that requirements for space, staff and other resources would grow proportionately; these other resources include support from the University's own funds to support those elements of externally funded research projects, the costs of which are not fully covered by the project funding. The three different rates of growth which were used for illustration were:

• five per cent per year (option 1)
• ten per cent per year (the recent growth rate) (option 2)
• fifteen per cent per year (option 3)

3.62 The first point which the model makes clear is that, for each rate of growth, considerable deficits will build up unless resources can be found to cover those elements of the project work which are not supported by the project funding. Figure 3.2 illustrates this point, and shows that the University would have to find additional funding of the orders of magnitude in Figure 3.3 to cover those elements in the costs of externally funded research which, under present funding arrangements, are not covered by the project funding.

Figure 3.3: Implications of various rates of growth used in the KPMG model

3.63 The model also illustrates some of the other effects of continued growth along current lines. For example, under option 2 (a continuation of the recent rate of growth of 10 per cent per annum), a further ten years' growth at that rate would have a major impact on Oxford's size and shape. By year 10, a number of changes would have occurred. Externally funded research would account for 73 per cent of Oxford's total expenditure; humanities and social sciences would between them account for 18 per cent of spending (at present the figure is 30 per cent); 57 per cent of all staff employed on teaching or research or both would be contract researchers (at present the figure is 39 per cent); requirements for additional space would exceed 130,000 square metres. Each of these points is illustrated more fully in the KPMG report in the supplementary volume to this report.

3.64 Clearly the University needs to take action to deal with the effects of continued trends of this sort. One option would be to increase the proportion of the indirect costs of externally funded research which are recovered from research funding bodies, and the Dearing Report[54] encourages universities to make more effort to do this. The KPMG model shows that increasing the current overhead recovery rate on externally funded research to an appropriate level could generate sufficient additional sums to provide all the additional funding required to cover the costs of the growth in externally funded research, and also to make a contribution to the University's overall funds. However, it is well known that full recovery of overhead costs is a difficult task.

3.65 Our conclusion is that continuation of the present rate of growth in external research grant and contract income is unsustainable, so long as the income does not cover the full costs of the activity which it supports because (if nothing else) it will absorb an increasing and unjustifiable proportion of the University's other resources, including academic staff time. This does not mean that the University should simply seek to reduce the rate of growth in external research grant and contract income; rather, the implications of such growth need to be rigorously evaluated, to ensure both that the increase in activity being supported by such grants is properly funded, and that the effects of such a level of growth in research income on the allocation of resources to other areas of activity and on the University's overall size and shape are properly considered.[55] Our conclusion is that improvements in this area will most effectively be achieved through changes in the University's mechanisms for considering such questions, which highlights the importance of our proposals for changes in governance contained in Chapter 5.

Implications of growth for space and sites

3.66 Any decision to allow Oxford to grow, albeit slowly and in an effectively managed way, and to accept continuing changes in the ratios of undergraduate to graduate students and between different categories of staff, carries significant implications for the availability and use of space and sites both by the University and by colleges. Considering first the University's position, we welcomed the decision by Hebdomadal Council in May 1995 to establish a Working Party on University Sites, chaired by the Master of Balliol College, Dr Colin Lucas, (now the Vice-Chancellor). We have had the opportunity to consider the report of this Working Party, which was submitted to Hebdomadal Council in July 1997 and subsequently published in the Gazette. [56] The report surveyed likely future needs of the University (but not the colleges) for space, and made recommendations for the acquisition of sites by the University to meet expected future demands. One difficulty faced by the Working Party, however, was that it was inhibited in making accurate forecasts of needs because it was 'unable to identify a strategic plan for the University's activities over the next 20 years upon which it might base a projection of requirements for space'. In the absence of such an overall plan, the Working Party made its own assumptions by extrapolating from recent trends, and also asked faculties and departments to predict their own long term future needs for space.

3.67 We have drawn three main conclusions from the Working Party's report in the context of our own consideration of Oxford's future size and shape.

3.68 The first is that the report provides a comprehensive analysis of currently perceived needs of the University for space and sites over the next decade or so. The report accepts that both the need for new sites and their availability will change over time. We agree and have concluded that an analysis of this kind needs to be repeated at intervals.

Recommendation 4
We recommend that the Council should initiate a broad review of future needs for space and sites on a five yearly basis.

3.69 Secondly, the report provides additional evidence of the need for a better overall approach to academic and resource planning in Oxford. The absence of coherent plans for academic activity, to which attention was drawn by the Working Party, clearly illustrates a weakness in Oxford's current planning machinery. We argue this point in more detail in Chapter 4, but mention it here since the difficulty of planning the use of space provides a good example of the problems which a deficiency in planning structures can bring. We believe that this deficiency can be overcome by the new planning machinery which is proposed in Chapter 5, and that (as in other areas of Oxford's work) these proposals will make it much easier to make decisions about requirements for resources, including space.

3.70 Thirdly, it is also important that Oxford's future needs for space are considered as a whole, taking both the University and the colleges together. This points to the importance of close cooperation between university bodies responsible for these matters (which under our proposals in Chapter 5 would be the Buildings Committee, and the academic boards) and college representatives. The proposed Deputy Vice-Chancellor for academic services, described in Chapter 5, will play a key role here in liaising with colleges and ensuring that a coordinated approach is taken.

I: Introduction

4.1 In this chapter we consider the University's present arrangements for governance. Drawing on the evidence and consultation described in Chapter 1, we review the main features of these arrangements and identify where improvements need to be made. In particular, we argue that:

• it should be clearer who is making decisions, on what basis, and to whom the decision-makers are accountable.
• where possible, decision-making should be delegated so that faculties, departments, and those working within them have more involvement in making decisions which affect them, as well as more responsibility for their consequences.
• Oxford as a whole needs to improve its capacity to think about its longer term direction, and to enable strategic matters to be addressed.
• Academic planning should be more closely linked to decisions on resource allocation.

4.2 The bulk of our analysis was undertaken before the publication of the Dearing Report in July 1997, which considers institutional governance and makes various recommendations which have a bearing on the material in this chapter and the next.[57] While many of the objectives of the changes which we shall propose are shared by the Dearing Report, our specific proposals are different, above all because Oxford (like Cambridge) has a constitutional structure which differs fundamentally from that of almost all other universities. We argue more fully in Chapter 5 that our proposals do, nonetheless, meet the essential requirements which have been set out in the Dearing Report, particularly in terms of achieving clarity of responsibility in decision-making.

II: General themes

4.3 A number of general themes underlie much of the discussion which follows. One is that Oxford's structures of governance must be robust enough to enable the University to respond to the need for change while remaining in control of its own future. This is especially important given the accelerating pace of change in higher education, and in society and the economy more widely. There has for some time, for example, been great uncertainty about the long term funding of higher education, and about the development of its future shape and structure. These uncertainties will not be resolved until the full implications of the Dearing Report and the government's response to it are known. Whatever the outcome, Oxford needs to be better at thinking about the broad direction it wishes to take, rather than allowing such direction to emerge through an accumulation of individual decisions, which may not necessarily be consistent with each other and whose overall impact may not have been fully thought out. If this can be done, then changes which occur are also more likely to be ones which the University has clearly chosen for itself rather than those which have been imposed on it.

4.4 Secondly, Oxford has changed significantly in both size and shape since the days of the Franks Report of the mid-1960s. As we noted in Chapter 2, Oxford is now a much larger, more complex and more diverse university than it was thirty years ago. This has important implications for governance. One of them is that the sheer volume of business facing the University, and the effort required to administer it, are now much greater. The University's methods of governance need to be able to handle this greater volume of complex business effectively, and to do so in a way which is clear to the world outside Oxford, whilst ensuring that members of the University are kept informed of what is happening and have the opportunity to take part in major decisions. This is not an easy balance to strike.

4.5 Thirdly, and far more so than in the past, the issues facing those working in some subject areas differ markedly from issues facing those in other subject areas. These differences include variations in their main sources of funding, their relationships with external bodies, their organisation of undergraduate teaching and graduate work, and the nature of developments in research. This point becomes very clear if one considers the different patterns of activity in clinical medicine, the sciences and the humanities and social sciences.[58] If Oxford is to remain viable as a single university, its structures of governance must be both flexible enough to accommodate this diversity, and strong enough to hold a large and complex organisation together effectively. We have concluded that the present central bodies (Council and the General Board) do not exercise a sufficient unifying influence. In consequence they are widely perceived as remote and their roles are little understood in Oxford at large. We must address this problem.

4.6 Fourthly, Oxford's distinctive characteristics as a self-governing collegiate university need to be taken into account in considering the structures of governance most appropriate to it. These features of Oxford would make it difficult simply to import structures which exist in most other UK universities, even though Oxford must ensure that its own systems are as effective and efficient as those elsewhere. This point has become particularly important following the publication of the Dearing Report, which as we noted above makes a number of recommendations about institutional governance. As we described in Chapter 1 (paragraph 1.17), we have studied practice at other universities in some detail, and this has been helpful in illustrating a range of useful principles and guidelines; but we do not believe that practice elsewhere provides all the answers.

4.7 Finally, we should add that, in examining issues of governance we have not found it helpful to oversimplify the issues as a quest for 'efficiency' or 'effectiveness'. Nobody wants an inefficient or ineffective system: the real question is how to achieve a satisfactory balance between efficiency and other requirements, such as openness and accountability in decision-making, and hence legitimacy. As the Franks Report commented, juxtaposing concepts such as 'efficiency' and 'democracy' is not particularly helpful.[59] Oxford's governance should encourage both efficiency and democracy, as well as other qualities.

III: Oxford's present system of governance

Convocation and Congregation

4.8 As we have noted, the main feature which distinguishes Oxford's governance from that of all other UK universities except Cambridge is that sovereign power is vested in bodies comprising academic, and senior academic-related,[60] staff. This reflects Oxford's position as a self-governing community of scholars. In contrast, the 'governing body' of other universities is usually much smaller, and does not comprise all the members of the academic community; in some cases it is dominated by those with little first hand experience of research or teaching.

4.9 Oxford in fact has two large sovereign bodies or assemblies, Convocation and Congregation. Convocation is by far the larger, comprising all those holding the MA, D.Phil. or comparable degrees. In the later 17th and the 18th centuries, Convocation became much the more powerful of the University's two assemblies,[61] but since then its powers and functions have dwindled. The role of Convocation was last reviewed by the Franks Commission in 1966,[62] and following its report almost all of Convocation's powers which then remained were removed from it. Convocation now retains just two significant functions. The first is to elect the Chancellor, normally a lifetime appointment, and the second is to elect the Professor of Poetry, who holds office for five years.

4.10 The smaller of Oxford's two general assemblies, Congregation, developed during the later 19th and the 20th centuries as the University's effective sovereign body. It comprises all academic, and some senior academic-related, staff and currently has just over 3,000 members. Congregation's powers include those of considering and approving statutes promoted by Hebdomadal Council (the principal executive body), consideration of general and special resolutions promoted by Council, initiation of general resolutions instructing Council and the General Board to take a particular course of action, and approving decrees, regulations and motions promoted by Council and by other bodies. Members of Congregation may also ask formal questions of Council, and they make elections to many university bodies, in particular to Council and the General Board.[63] Some of these powers are described more fully in Chapter 5.

4.11 Overall responsibility for the day to day running of the University rests with two principal central bodies, the majority of whose members are directly elected by Congregation, namely Hebdomadal Council and the General Board of the Faculties.

Hebdomadal Council

4.12 Council, which is formally chaired by the Chancellor but which in practice is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, is the University's principal executive and policy-making body, charged with ultimate responsibility for the administration of the University and for the management of its finances and property. The present Hebdomadal Council developed from the Hebdomadal Board originally established under the Laudian statutes of 1636.[64] It comprises 25 members, 18 of whom are directly elected by Congregation; the remainder (including the two Proctors and the Assessor) belong ex officio . It currently meets at fortnightly intervals during term, and at certain other times.

The General Board

4.13 Under Council, the General Board of the Faculties is responsible for overseeing the academic work of the University, for approving all but the most senior academic appointments, and for allocating recurrent general funding to faculty boards and academic departments. These responsibilities have developed in particular during the last forty years: the General Board was originally established in 1913, but until the 1950s enjoyed little power or prestige. Its growing importance from then on was associated with its administration of an increasingly large volume of university (as opposed to college) spending, much of it supported from public funds. It now comprises 23 members, eight of whom are elected by Congregation from the humanities and social science faculties, and eight from the science and medicine faculties. There are several ex officio members, again including the Proctors and the Assessor. Formally speaking, the Vice-Chancellor is also a member, but in practice does not usually attend meetings. The Board is chaired by a full-time Chairman, elected by the Board, and usually holding office for two years. This arrangement is relatively recent: the first full-time chairman was not appointed until 1969, and until 1990 he was 'Vice-Chairman' because until then the Vice-Chancellor was formally the chairman of the Board.

Other central committees

4.14 A joint Committee of Council and the General Board, the Resources Committee, advises on the formulation of the University's annual budget and on a range of related matters. This committee has also (in 1996) established a Planning and Resources Sub-committee to advise in the first instance on the establishment of priorities between different objectives for fund raising. Other joint committees of Council and the General Board include the Buildings Committee (responsible for all matters concerning estates administration), the Information Technology Committee, and the (non-academic) Staff Committee.

4.15 Council and the General Board each also have their own sub-committee structures. Under Council these include the Curators of the University Chest, the Committee on Health and Safety, the Audit Committee, and the Committee for the Allocation of Professorships and the Appointment of Electors. The General Board's sub-committees include Planning and Development, Finance and General Purposes, Appointments, Research and Equipment, a Joint Committee with the Senior Tutors' Committee for the Regulation of Joint Appointments, and Graduate and Undergraduate Studies Committees.

Faculty boards, inter-faculty committees and departments

4.16 Beneath the General Board there are currently 16 faculty boards elected by and from the members of the University's 16 faculties. The faculty boards are responsible to the General Board for the structure and content of undergraduate and graduate courses and examinations under their aegis, for admitting and supervising graduate students, for making recommendations of most academic and other appointments, and for other matters of policy and administration affecting the faculty concerned. The faculties vary considerably in terms of the numbers of academic staff within them: Figure 4.1 illustrates this.

Figure 4.1 : Academic staff by faculty board 1996-7

Source: University Calendar 1996-7[65]

4.17 In addition to faculty boards, there are also committees with responsibilities for particular subject areas not covered by the main faculties, such as Management Studies, Educational Studies, and Continuing Education. To a considerable extent they have the same powers as faculty boards. There is also a group of inter-faculty committees, notably in area studies, which have some of the powers of faculty boards.

4.18 Academic work in some faculties (mainly in clinical medicine and the physical and biological sciences) is departmentally organised, and the departments form the base for much teaching and most research. They often employ large numbers of academic-related research staff and other support staff, and provide computing, library and social facilities. Other subjects (principally the humanities and some social science subjects) are in general not organised on a departmental basis. Most have faculty centres and libraries, or faculty offices; however, the colleges provide the physical location and resources for much of the work in these subjects.

The Vice-Chancellor and other officers

4.19 The University's principal executive officer is the Vice-Chancellor, who at present must be a member of Congregation at the time of his or her election, and who serves full-time for four years. The Vice-Chancellor is nominated by a small appointing committee, the nomination requiring formal approval by Congregation. As noted above in paragraph 4.13, there is also a full-time Chairman of the General Board, elected by the Board from its own membership, usually serving for two years: the Chairman is in effect a 'deputy vice-chancellor for academic affairs'. A further half-time academic 'officer' is the President of the Development Programme who carries responsibility under the Vice-Chancellor for the work of the Development Office.

4.20 The Vice-Chancellor, the Chairman of the General Board and the President of the Development Programme are supported by the University's central administrative services. The chief officer is the Registrar who heads a unitary administration in which the Secretary of the Chest (Finance Division), the Secretary of Faculties (Academic Division), the Deputy Registrar (Administration) (General Administrative Division), and the Surveyor (Buildings Division) all report to the Registrar. In total there are some 190 academic-related administrative staff in the central administration.

IV: The Franks Report

4.21 The government and the administration of Oxford were last reviewed in detail by the Franks Commission,[66] whose report in 1966 made a substantial number of detailed recommendations for change.[67] Some of Franks' recommendations were adopted. These included the recommendation that the Vice-Chancellor should be appointed full-time for four years; that the chairmanship of the General Board should be a full-time salaried post; and that the Registrar should head the University's administration. However, as we noted in Chapter 1, many of the more significant recommendations of the Franks Report were either not implemented at all or were adopted only in part. These included the recommendation that there should be a Council of Colleges under Hebdomadal Council, able to represent the colleges collectively, and whose decisions would be binding on colleges individually; that Oxford's academic activities should be divided into five new faculties; and that Council should have the absolute power to make decrees, rather than that members of Congregation should have the power to object to them through a general resolution before they come fully into effect. We provide in the supplementary volume to this report a full analysis of the extent to which the Franks Report's recommendations were implemented.

4.22 Many of the principles underlying the Franks proposals remain as relevant today as they were in the 1960s. These include the desirability of having a structure of governance in which the responsibilities of different bodies are clearly defined; in which there is an appropriate degree of delegation both to subordinate bodies and to individuals; and in which the senior bodies of the University are freed from as much routine business as possible in order to enable them to consider policy and review developments from a broad perspective. However, it is perhaps inevitable that, after an interval of some thirty years since they were formulated, the detailed prescriptions advanced by the Franks Report are no longer adequate. In particular, this is because (as we set out in Chapter 2 above) the size and structure of Oxford, and the sources of its income, have changed in ways which were largely unforeseen in the 1960s.

V: The case for change

Delegation and centralisation

4.23 Oxford's present system of governance represents a combination of considerable centralisation in some areas, and considerable delegation in others. For example, those matters which are required to be the subject of legislation in the form of statutes or decrees must be considered by Hebdomadal Council, which has to promote the necessary legislation. This does not mean that all business which is the subject of such legislation is of equal importance, or that all important business is the subject of legislation. All changes in examination decrees, however minor, require Council's formal approval, but it is possible for other major developments to proceed a long way before any of the central bodies becomes directly involved. This can occur for example in cases where external funding is being sought for a new initiative or where funding may have been obtained before the academic case for the development in question has been fully considered.

4.24 The General Board exercises detailed control over decisions on whether to fill most (but not all) academic appointments, but otherwise it provides a block grant to faculties and departments to meet expenditure on non-academic staff and on most non-staff items. In terms of academic policy, the Board and its committees can exercise a relatively high degree of centralised control, for example through scrutiny of the legislation which governs examinations and the establishment or amendment of degree courses, through control of academic appointments, and by other means. Although many other decisions on relatively minor matters are also taken by committees at the centre, it is not obvious that the patterns of central control of decision-making are consistent. For example, some faculties choose to embody the detail of the structure and content of degree courses in decrees and regulations, with the consequence that they must have such material closely monitored by the General Board or its committees, with legislation promulgated by Council for the approval of Congregation. Other faculties choose to embody only general material in such legislation, and then determine the detail on their own authority.

4.25 At the other extreme there are large areas of the University's life and work which receive little direct or regular attention from the central bodies. For example, the only central involvement in decisions governing applications for external research grants and contracts (funding from which is now the single largest item in the University's income)[68] is essentially administrative; and the broad policy issues arising from the rapid increase of such activity are not overseen or monitored by any committee.

4.26 We therefore believe that a first objective of change should be to introduce a clearer rationale for deciding what is and what is not considered by central bodies and, where possible, that there should be a greater and more consistent pattern of delegation in Oxford's decision-making processes.

Planning and resource allocation

Planning in the University: current practice

4.27 There is a range of bodies within the University responsible for particular aspects of academic planning and for planning other related activity (such as the development of libraries, IT, buildings etc.). At the centre, these bodies include the Resources Committee, the General Board itself, and the Buildings Committee, while the Joint Committee of the General Board and the Senior Tutors' Committee is also involved in considering matters of joint college/University concern in administering the system of joint appointments. The General Board also undertakes a regular cycle of reviews of individual subject areas which inform their future plans and the allocation of resources to them.

4.28 Individual faculty boards and departments can also play an important role in defining their own objectives, and there are recent examples of where they have developed clearly articulated plans covering particular subjects or areas of activity within them. This is often done in the context of fundraising, when it is necessary to set out for the benefit of potential donors a faculty's or department's broad objectives. Examples include recent initiatives in respect of Management Studies and Law. Departments and faculties also have the opportunity to consider their longer term objectives in response to the ten year cycle of reviews conducted by the General Board. More generally, all subject areas have recently produced research plans to meet the requirements of the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise, where each unit of assessment was required to set out its plans for the development of research over the following five years.

4.29 Significant though they may be, these examples paradoxically reveal some of the weaknesses in Oxford's present approach to strategic planning. Most of these plans have been developed only in response to a specific and immediate need; they have not been developed as part of the regular business of the faculty or department concerned, and usually it has been only in response to some external stimulus or pressure that the opportunity has been taken to think through and set out longer term objectives. The initiative for the development of such plans has not regularly come from any of the central bodies described above which are charged under present arrangements with responsibility for the oversight of university business. Furthermore, when these central bodies have in fact considered such plans, they have done so largely in isolation from other business. There has been no systematic attempt to relate plans developed by different subject areas to each other and to consider whether such proposals overlap or complement each other, or indeed whether they might be inconsistent, or to consider their relative claims for funding.

4.30 There might be thought to be a clear example of annual strategic planning in Oxford, given that, like other universities, Oxford is required each year to submit an updated 'Strategic Plan' to HEFCE. However this is more apparent than real. In part perhaps because until now HEFCE has itself done little with the plans once submitted,[69] the Oxford document has in the past been prepared without any direct consultation with faculties and departments, and has rarely been considered by the central bodies. Instead, it has been developed as a conflation of plans and objectives from different bodies (especially those of the General Board), but its compilation has been seen largely as an administrative task, necessary only to satisfy the funding council, and once submitted this composite plan has not been used for any other purpose. Neither Council nor the General Board has reviewed or coordinated the University's overall plans for development in any other context, nor do they consider the overall pattern of resource allocation or systematically assess the use to which all resources are being put.

4.31 Council and the General Board have recently come to recognise some of these problems and have taken steps to address them. For example, as noted above, the Resources Committee has established a Planning and Resources Sub-committee, whose initial task has been to assess the priority to be given to the wide range of projects for which members of the University wish to raise funds. In a separate initiative, the General Board has asked all faculty boards to draw up long-term plans for the development of their subject areas over the next ten years. Whilst these measures are welcome, they are likely to be limited in their impact, especially because they are not directly linked to resource allocation decisions.

4.32 Our conclusion is that, whilst faculty board A or department B may have developed its own plans, it is not clear whether these plans can be regarded as having the University's sanction, approval or support, nor is it clear precisely which central bodies need to give such sanction, approval or support. It is also difficult for the University as a whole to know whether it has achieved what it has set out to do, because there is no easy or standard way of monitoring performance against objectives. More serious, perhaps, is the danger that, if it has not established a clear view of its priorities, then the University cannot be sure that it is devoting its resources and energies to those activities it most wants to develop. In the absence of a clear and coherent statement of those priorities, it is likely that effort will be dissipated, that resources may not be used to best effect, and that developments will occur which are not properly supported and may even be inconsistent with one another.

Resource allocation: current practice

4.33 We have considered Oxford's present methods for resource allocation, and believe that a weakness of the current approach is the absence of any sufficiently clear and systematic relationship between the development of plans for academic work and support services on the one hand, and the allocation of resources to faculties and departments by the central bodies on the other. This can be illustrated by examining the way in which the University's annual budget is prepared.

4.34 The budget is considered each spring by the Resources Committee, which makes recommendations to Council and the General Board. This exercise does not, however, encourage an overall assessment of how resources are being used. A first problem is that at no point in the budget exercise is an overall view taken of the University's plans for total income and spending: this emerges only after the end of the financial year when the annual Financial Statements are being prepared in conjunction with the University's external auditors. The annual budget exercise relates solely to expenditure from the General Fund - that is from resources (largely composed of the HEFCE block grant and fees) which are not received for specific purposes, and which comprise under half of the University's total income. As we have seen, the single most important source of income coming in to the University is now that from research grants and contracts, amounting to over £100 million in 1995-6 out of a total income of £260 million, but this is not considered at all in the annual budget exercise, and has been growing without any reference to the University's overall strategic direction, or to any clear analysis of costs and benefits. As we argued in Chapter 3, it is essential that the University should consider the effects of growth in this source of income on Oxford's overall size and shape. From the point of view of the annual budget, we have noted that most external research grant income covers only a proportion of the total costs of the activities it supports. The University should take such income fully into account in its financial planning, and the budget process should give explicit attention to the sources of the remainder of the funding.

4.35 A second problem is that the assumption is usually made that the first call on the budget each year is the continuation, as far as possible, of existing commitments, with suitable adjustments being made for pay and non-pay inflation factors. Some general retrenchment is often required, and in recent years this has sometimes been significant. In such circumstances, retrenchment is usually achieved by applying a common percentage cut in all budgets, across the board. The overall outcome of this process is that the bulk of spending (the 'spending base') rarely gets reassessed, in times either of plenty or of scarcity. If additional funds are available, these are allocated in response to bids for extra spending, and the key decisions relate largely to how far such bids for marginal additions to spending can be met. Given that the resources available to the University for general expenditure are under ever increasing pressure, these marginal decisions usually concern only a small proportion of the available funds. The scope for decisions is further restricted because the largest part of the General Fund income - some £90 million out of approximately £110 million - is allocated as a block grant to the General Board, so that many key spending decisions are taken by the Board, not by Council or the Resources Committee.

Planning and resource allocation: the objectives of change

4.36 We believe that a substantial improvement in the arrangements for planning and resource allocation described above could be made by introducing a closer relationship between the annual resource allocation exercise and the development of plans for the University's academic activities and the services needed to support them. This would encourage more rigorous and longer term thinking about the use of all the resources available to the main spending sectors, clearer assessment of the total costs of particular proposals, and would also make the basis on which budgetary decisions were taken clearer and relate them to declared priorities.

4.37 In a well developed planning cycle, there would be regular opportunity for considering the plans of the constituent parts of the University together, so that a more coherent and consistent view would be taken of the priority to be attached to each element. Provided that the development of such a view is carried out openly and commands respect, then the consequent decisions on how to allocate resources between competing priorities should also command respect, even if not everyone agrees with the particular decisions taken. The integration of decisions on resource allocation with academic priorities is often difficult to achieve under the present structures of governance since no single body has the appropriate powers or responsibility: as noted above, the current division of responsibility between the Resources Committee and the General Board means that the former is largely confined to allocating most of the resources available to it as a block grant to the latter. Priorities between different areas therefore tend to be established on a more piecemeal basis, with decisions on such priorities taken in reaction to particular circumstances rather than as part of a regular planning cycle.

4.38 As well as making the University's policies and priorities clearer to its own members, improved planning and resource allocation methods should aim to meet at least one other important objectives. They need to foster more effective working relationships with external funding agencies. Those agencies, both public and private, on whom the University depends for much of its income are placing increasingly demanding requirements on the University to account for the way in which resources are used. If Oxford is to be able to deal effectively with the outside bodies and institutions from which it gains its income, and with potential benefactors, it must be able to state clearly and confidently what its aims and policies are. In an increasingly competitive funding environment this is a necessity not a luxury, and is essential if Oxford is to continue to obtain the resources to pursue the developments it wants to undertake.

4.39 Thus, there should be a closer link between establishing academic priorities and allocating resources. Unless academic priorities are established reasonably clearly, decisions about the allocation of resources cannot properly be informed by them. Since decisions on resource allocation must be taken one way or another, the absence of agreed priorities means that such decisions are likely to be made on a piecemeal basis, and their overall impact will be unclear and may not turn out to be what is desired. It is better, in our view, if such decisions are taken consciously and advisedly on the basis of agreed plans.

Clarity of responsibility and accountability

4.40 We have also considered how far Oxford's present system of governance provides clarity of responsibility and encourages proper accountability for decision-making. This has been an important element in our thinking, and we have also noted that achieving clarity of responsibility in decision-making is a principal objective of the code of practice for institutional governance proposed in the Dearing Report.[70]

4.41 At present, and especially for most of those not closely involved in the University's governance, it can be unclear how and why decisions are made, who is making them, and at what point they have actually been taken. The present system also tends to lead to what a previous Vice-Chancellor characterised as 'delegation upwards', with problematic issues being referred ever further up the committee hierarchy until they reach the highest body. This in turn can result in the business of the University's most senior bodies becoming heavily dominated by issues which could more appropriately have been resolved at a lower level, whether by committees or individuals.

4.42 In addition, it is often difficult for bodies or individuals, both within the University and outside, to know whom to approach directly when they seek a clear view of the University's policy on a particular matter. The difficulty of identifying who can speak authoritatively for the University has been highlighted in a number of recent reviews, including that of the organisation of the Clinical Medical School, and that of the University's policy for technology transfer and intellectual property, as well as in some of the regular reviews of humanities and social science faculties conducted by the General Board.

4.43 We have therefore concluded that there should be two further objectives for change: one is to establish a clear mechanism for agreeing priorities and policies, and the second is to delegate responsibility in a way which enables appropriate office holders to speak for the University within a framework of defined responsibilities and agreed plans.

4.44 The counterpart to responsibility is accountability: if it is not wholly clear who or which body has taken responsibility for a decision, it is difficult to know who can be held accountable for it, and for ensuring that it is implemented. Clarifying where responsibility lies improves accountability. An example of where such clarity is at present sometimes lacking is when a particular body takes a decision 'on the understanding that' certain conditions will be adhered to - for example when approval for a new course is given subject to assurances that the resources can be found or that no new resources are required. If subsequently it becomes clear that resources were not available or were required, who is accountable for the initial error of judgement? We believe that greater clarity is required in order to improve accountability.

Democracy and self-government in Oxford

4.45 One of Oxford's most distinctive characteristics, much valued by many, is that it remains a self-governing community of scholars, whose members, in theory at least, enjoy the opportunity for a high degree of direct involvement in its governance. Thus, as we noted above, the University's ultimate sovereign body is Congregation, essentially comprising its resident senior members. Congregation elects representatives to fill the majority of places on Hebdomadal Council and the General Board; and through its powers as a legislature its explicit approval is required for changes in the legislative framework governing the University's life. Direct involvement in governance is also fostered through the faculty structure, with members of faculties and sub-faculties meeting to consider matters concerning teaching and examining in their subject areas, and electing the faculty boards which carry out a wide range of business on their behalf. The collegiate system also embodies important democratic principles, with the life of each college overseen by its governing body, comprising all, or virtually all, of the fellowship.

4.46 As we argued in Chapter 3, we believe that Oxford should remain a self-governing academic community, and we believe that Congregation should remain the University's sovereign body, since its authority is a prime expression of Oxford's identity as a self-governing academic community. However, there are also aspects of its present structure which could be improved, and we are concerned that unless they are then the rationale for self-government will be undermined. In particular, if Congregation is to remain a large body of over 3,000 members, its responsibilities must be appropriate to a body of such a size, and the procedures through which it discharges them must be effective.

Congregation's current composition and procedures

4.47 Many of Congregation's current procedures and functions were established at a time when it was a much smaller body than it has now become. In 1934 it comprised 740 members; by 1954 this had risen to 1,161, by 1964 to 1,620, by 1974 to 2,043, and by July 1997 to 3,185. There may also (as we argue in Chapter 5) be a case for extending membership further, to embrace more fully those with a direct involvement in the University's academic work. Whatever the case, Congregation's present size is such that it cannot be expected to operate as a 'working parliament', which is the model upon which many of its procedures are based. It is very unlikely, for example, that a formal debate will ever attract more than a minority of members. This point can be illustrated by considering the debates during the academic year 1996-7 over the siting of, and terms of the benefaction for, the new Business School. This was clearly a contentious issue, yet the first debate in November 1996 attracted only 476 people who voted in person, and the second attracted 397. Many detailed issues also require a considerable amount of background knowledge if they are to be discussed effectively, but it may be impracticable or unreasonably expensive to provide all the relevant information to enable a fully informed debate to take place. There is also the question of confidentiality of sensitive matters, when it may not be prudent to reveal to the University at large all the details of an issue because negotiations are in train which are commercially or personally sensitive. Whilst some might argue that this University should not enter into discussions or negotiations that require confidentiality, a moment's reflection will reveal that this is neither satisfactory nor practical. To adopt such an approach would put Oxford at a grave disadvantage.

4.48 We believe that Congregation's procedures need re-examining so that it can discharge its functions more effectively. In analysing these functions we have found it helpful to distinguish:

• its role as a forum for debate and discussion, whereby the University's central bodies can test the opinion of the academic community;
• its role as a legislature, whereby Oxford's self-government is given expression;
• its role as an electorate, enabling the principal executive bodies to be representative of, and accountable to, the wider academic community.

4.49 At present, the procedures governing the first two functions are largely based on the assumption that there will be formal meetings of Congregation attended by members in person (even though in fact there is no assembly place in Oxford large enough to accommodate more than about one third of its total membership). Our first concern is that it is increasingly unrealistic to expect Congregation regularly to operate on this basis, as though it were a working parliament. Current practice bears out this concern. For example, 'stated' meetings of Congregation are scheduled to take place six times a term (and the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor have power to call meetings at any other time, although in recent years at least they have not had occasion to do so). In practice, however, most of the stated meetings of Congregation are cancelled; of 72 stated meetings in the four years 1992-96, 12 were held for debate, and a further 6 were held for 'technical' reasons; however 41 were cancelled because all the business was straightforward and unopposed, and for the remaining 13 there was no business.

4.50 We have also noted that the vast bulk of legislation taken before Congregation in the form of statutes and decrees proposed by Hebdomadal Council is unopposed. For example, in the two years 1994-5 and 1995-6, 46 statutes were formally enacted by Congregation, but only 1 was opposed. Whilst this might arguably be because the other 45 commanded general assent, it is more likely to reflect the fact that ordinary members of Congregation do not have the time, the interest or the background knowledge to become involved in the largely routine or uncontentious matters which were the subject of most of the legislation - legislation which had in many cases been initiated in faculties or departments and which in all cases had already been scrutinised by elected bodies. Congregation's size is such that it cannot be expected to scrutinise legislation as in a 'parliamentary' model. Where it does have a valuable role, and one which we believe should be encouraged, is in acting as ultimate arbiter of contentious issues, and in being a forum through which the central executive bodies can be called to account.

4.51 We are also concerned that Congregation's procedures do not encourage the general discussion of broad policy matters. Debates focus on the proposing of a motion or resolution, or on the formal promulgation of a piece of legislation. This inevitably tends to foster a confrontational approach to business, requiring opposition to or support for a proposal, rather than examination and discussion of a broad issue before final proposals are formulated by the central university bodies.

4.52 There are also, of course, procedures to enable postal votes to take place on any item of business which has been the subject of debate or which is the subject of legislation, either at the initiative of Council, or if a sufficient number of members of Congregation request a postal vote. Such votes can provide a valuable way of testing opinion within the University and of securing a decisive view on a difficult matter. They are however rare, and even when they take place only a minority of those eligible usually vote. For example, in the last 10 years such votes have been held on only seven occasions. The highest response rate was 48 per cent (in the vote in 1997 on the question of the siting of the new Business School), the lowest 19.5 per cent. Nor, of course, do postal votes allow the exchange of ideas or discussion of options which are a valuable feature of a debate; nor are they without cost.

4.53 Congregation's third function is that of an electorate. Under present arrangements, Congregation directly elects 18 of the 25 members of the Hebdomadal Council, and 16 of the 23 members of the General Board. It is also responsible for electing some or all of the members of 14 other varied university bodies, such as the Committee for the Scientific Collections in the University Museum, the Curators of the Sheldonian Theatre and of the University Parks, and the Select Committee for the Nomination of University Preachers.

4.54 We are concerned at what appears to be a general lack of interest in many of these elections. In the last two years, Congregation has been required to make elections on 27 occasions. In nine cases elections were contested; while eight others were uncontested. In 10 cases no nominations at all were received, so that the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors were required to make appointments to fill the relevant vacancies. In recent years this appointing procedure has had to be followed in respect of vacancies on what might be regarded as significant bodies, including Council, the General Board, the Visitatorial Board, and the Nominating Committee for the Vice-Chancellorship. In the one third of elections which were contested the contests were limited, and the number of candidates was usually only slightly in excess of the number of vacancies to be filled.

4.55 The number of those voting in those elections which were contested was usually also low. The highest turnout has been in elections to Council: three out of the last four of these have been contested, with 1,006 voting in 1996, 1,029 in 1995, and 984 in 1993, that is approximately one third of the eligible electorate. Elections to the General Board appear to have generated less interest: in the case of elections of members from the humanities and social science faculties only one of the last four elections was contested, with 602 members of Congregation voting. In the case of elections of members from the science and medicine faculties, three out of the last four elections have been contested, with about 600 votes cast in each case. Whilst these figures for General Board elections could be explained in part by the fact that those standing for election were drawn from one section or another of the University community, it still remains the case that the turnout was little more than 20 per cent.

4.56 It is thus comparatively rare for elections by Congregation to be contested and, in those cases where they are, many members of Congregation seem to have found it difficult to decide for whom to vote because they knew little about the candidates, and no information has in the past been provided to them. Whilst 30 or 40 years ago Congregation (and the University) were of a size where it might have been expected that most people would have known most others, the University is now such a large, diverse and complex organisation that it is no longer possible to rely on informal channels to inform voters.

Congregation's future business: objectives of change

4.57 Our review of the way in which Congregation is operating has led us to the following conclusions. First, too much routine and uncontentious business has to pass through it in the form of legislation of one kind or another. All of this legislation has previously been initiated and scrutinised by elected bodies, and we do not think that the additional costs and time involved in its formal passage by Congregation are always justified by the requirements of accountability or self-government. We therefore believe that an objective of change should be to reduce the volume of material which is embodied in formal legislation which requires Congregation's approval. Secondly, we believe that a way should be found of making Congregation a more effective forum for discussion, through which the University's central elected bodies can test opinion and sound out views before having to make formal proposals. Thirdly, we believe that ways should be found of encouraging wider participation in elections and in postal voting.

Communication and openness

4.58 We have considered how far the University's central bodies are regarded as effective in communicating their decisions and the reasons for them to the University as a whole. A criticism that there was 'a high level of obscurity and opaqueness' in the University's decision-making and governmental structures was developed in Chapter 5 of the Coopers and Lybrand report.[71] This complaint also featured in many of the written responses to the questionnaires in which we sought the views of staff in Hilary Term 1996.

4.59 The University's central bodies generally rely on formal, traditional methods to communicate decisions. These usually involve the publication of a decision (mainly in the form of proposed legislation) in the University Gazette, and the communication of that decision to another formal body. But neither of these routes is really effective in informing most members of Congregation: the official part of the University Gazette, it is often observed, uses a style which does not encourage readers. Similarly, unless someone is a member of a particular committee or body which is formally told of a decision by one of the central bodies, there is no general way of finding out what has happened or even that a matter has been considered. This problem is linked to the fact that many decisions are taken both centrally and at a high level.

4.60 Attempts are made to communicate more widely, particularly through the publication of the Vice-Chancellor's and the Senior Proctor's annual Orations, the reports of bodies such as the Delegates of the Press or the Visitors of the Ashmolean, departmental reports, and the University's Annual Report. However, these appear to have had only limited success, not least because much of this material is itself published with the Gazette. At times, it appears that Oxford Today (which is designed to sustain links between the University and Oxonians in this country and abroad) provides an equally important communication function for those in Oxford.

4.61 Improving internal communication in so large and diverse a university as Oxford is by no means simple, and in practice there will always be a limit to how far senior members of the University have the time or inclination to interest themselves in matters which are not of direct concern to them. Nevertheless, if Oxford's constitution is to function more effectively, and if decisions reached by the central bodies are to command respect, then an objective of change must be to improve communication within the University. 

The use of academic staff time

4.62 The close involvement of senior members of the University in its governance inevitably makes substantial calls upon their time. This arises not only because of the University's structure of committees, but also from the demands of college administration and in particular of holding college offices. The results of our survey of academic staff in Hilary Term 1996 show that, in general, administration was taking up between 15 per cent and 25 per cent of the working week. One of the loudest and most commonly voiced complaints made by the almost 1,000 respondents to the staff survey who offered individual comments was that the combined demands of university, faculty/departmental and college administration were too great. Many were frustrated by the substantial demands on their time which the University's methods of governing require. Thus, while Oxford's structures are democratic in the sense that 'ordinary' dons can influence decision-making and become involved in it, they also require an enormous investment of time.

4.63 We are not the only body to have identified this problem. Concerns over the question of the best and most effective use of staff time have been one of the main factors lying behind the General Board's discussions over the possibility of introducing a common contract to govern joint appointments, a development discussed more fully in Chapter 7. We are clear, however, that any change in Oxford's system of governance should aim to reduce the time academic staff have to give to administrative matters, and to ensure that, when staff are giving time to university administration, it is time spent effectively on dealing with issues which genuinely require their input, rather than on matters which can more appropriately be dealt with in other ways.

Hebdomadal Council and the General Board

4.64 We have also looked specifically at the current operation of both Hebdomadal Council and the General Board. We have concerns about both.

Hebdomadal Council

4.65 We are clear that Council is not functioning as the Franks Report envisaged that it should. Franks wished Council to be 'the chief administrative body of the University...that is, a body in which policy is decided and from which the execution of that policy is controlled. Council must be the centre at which ideas about the general structure and intention of the University are discussed and settled. It must execute such decisions or cause them to be executed...it must commit the whole body when it decides and speaks...and has ultimate responsibility for the whole of Oxford...[this means] the whole community, colleges as well as University'.[72]

4.66 In practice this is not happening. Instead, Council remains largely reactive. A considerable amount of business passes through it, much of it uncontentious, but because of the sheer volume of this business and the demands that are made on the University's administrative machine in its preparation, Council does not often have the opportunity to consider broader strategic issues, or to initiate policy. A further problem stems from the current division of responsibility between Council and the General Board. Since the General Board has prime responsibility for academic matters, Council generally has little opportunity to engage in serious discussion of matters which should be central and fundamental to the University - namely the development of its academic work. Present structures discourage the kind of strategic thinking which would bring together consideration of academic matters with other broader questions, and they foster the somewhat fragmented approach to planning and resource allocation which we discussed earlier.

The General Board

4.67 The evidence submitted to us suggests that the General Board is regarded as more effective and is better understood than is Council, responsible as it is for the academic administration of the University, for making appointments to established non-statutory academic posts, and for controlling a budget of over £90 million a year. However, we believe that there are significant disadvantages in the way in which the General Board currently has to operate.

4.68 The first difficulty stems from the sheer volume and range of business which now falls to the General Board. This means that the Board has rarely found time to take the initiative in developing policy on the organisation and support of teaching, on examination methods, or the development of policies in support of research. As a result, teaching and research develop within the University largely on the basis of individual decisions taken in individual cases, without clear reference to an overall policy. Furthermore, Oxford's undergraduate degree courses have no common structure, but this appears to be as much by accident of individual decisions as by overall design. For example, in the last twenty years the use of the viva in undergraduate examinations has almost vanished, but it is not clear whether this has been the result of any conscious overall policy, nor is it clear that any general assessment has been made of the impact of such a change. The Board's Graduate and Undergraduate Studies Committees have been largely reactive in considering issues such as the structure of courses, examination practice, methods of assuring and assessing quality, the setting of standards, and related matters.[73] The workload of General Board committees clearly illustrates the damaging effects of upward delegation, where some faculties (but not others) send upward for approval very fine details of syllabus changes: the result is clutter, and a very unbalanced scrutiny of what is going on below. The consequence is that there is no one committee or body within the University which can be readily identified as having an explicit concern with the development of overall educational policy in Oxford, and which is able to demonstrate Oxford's mechanisms for monitoring quality to students and to outside bodies.

4.69 In the case of research, there is a similar absence of consideration of broader policy issues arising from developments either within the University or outside. The General Board's own Research and Equipment Committee is charged with considering 'long-term trends in research which should influence University policy ... changes in research council policy and other matters likely to have a significant effect on outside support for research ... and changes in the overall balance between teaching and research in the University', but the committee itself reported to the Board in its 1995 annual report that it was unable to discharge any of these functions. The reasons appear to relate partly to what the committee regards as a 'lack of information' about such issues, and partly to preoccupation with a weight of detailed matters; but it may also in part be due to the fact that, even if the committee were to monitor factors affecting the long term development of research, it is not clear what the purpose of this monitoring would be within the present structure of governance. We discuss this point in more detail in Chapter 11.

4.70 A further problem affecting the operation of the General Board stems from changes over the last twenty years in the ways in which the University is funded. In 1974-5, the General Board's income represented some 65 per cent of total university income, and was three times the income from research grants and contracts (which represented only 21 per cent of the university total). By 1995-6 the position had changed radically. The General Board's income represented only 30 per cent of total university income, whereas income from research grants and contracts exceeded that of the General Board by £13 million, and represented 36 per cent of total university income. The proportion of the University's budget administered by the General Board has thus declined substantially, while income from research grants and contracts (which the General Board does not administer) now substantially exceeds the Board's own budget. Yet it is the General Board which has had to deal with the consequences of the shift of a proportion of public funds for research from HEFCE to the research councils (the 'dual support shift'),[74] even though it has no immediate influence over or responsibility for external research funding or relationships with the research councils. The real problem is that no other university body does either.

4.71 Finally, the General Board's position has also been affected by the growth of the University since the time of the Franks Report. There are now several distinct subject groupings within the University, the balance of whose income from different sources varies markedly, and for whom current issues concerning the organisation and support of both teaching and research are quite distinct. For example, for clinical medicine, dominant policy questions revolve around the growth of outside grant income, relationships with medical charities, and the interface with the NHS; for departmentally organised subjects in the sciences some of the questions facing medicine are also important, but with particular emphasis on issues arising from the policies of government and of the research councils. However, in the humanities and social sciences teaching and research are organised and (in the case of research) funded on a different basis: research is often library or archive based, colleges provide much support for it, and relationships with external funders of research, though not unimportant, do not play such a crucial role as in the natural sciences and in medicine. Further differences between subjects arise from the absence of departmental organisation in most humanities and some social science subjects. It also became very clear to us in the course of our discussion of graduate education that patterns of provision - and current issues of concern - in that area were very different in humanities and social science subjects as compared with those in the sciences and medicine (see also paragraph 10.20).

4.72 The General Board has found it increasingly difficult and time-consuming to deal effectively with each of these three distinct subject areas. It has not proved easy for a single body to command the expertise necessary to cover such a range of business in the detail currently expected of the Board. Indeed, these pressures have already led to some significant changes in the way in which the General Board operates, and in its relationships with some of the faculties beneath it. This is particularly so in the case of clinical medicine. The General Board is now responsible only for a small fraction of the total budget of the clinical medical departments. The major part of their income comprises external research funding, and most posts in the clinical medical departments - both academic and non-academic - are no longer supported by the General Board's budget. Moreover, whereas in the case of other faculties the General Board retains control over the number of academic posts and makes decisions on whether they can be filled, it has now delegated this responsibility to the faculty board of Clinical Medicine. As a result, the remaining policy issues affecting clinical medicine which come to the General Board tend to cover a disparate range of questions. Because of this division of responsibility, both the General Board and the clinical medicine board find it difficult to provide an overall strategic direction for the subject. The General Board's position has not been helped in this area by the fact that in 1996-7 its membership included only one member of the clinical medicine faculty.

4.73 The clinical medicine board thus already enjoys a considerable degree of independence, achieved within a structure which was not designed to accommodate such independence. There are strong and understandable pressures to adopt a parallel approach in other areas. We believe that these pressures should be recognised, and, in our view, this can best be done through adopting wider changes.

The colleges and Oxford's governance

4.74 It is important that the interests of colleges are effectively represented in the University's planning and decision-making machinery. At present the colleges exercise a considerable, if informal, influence on university decision-making. Virtually every member of a university committee is also a fellow of a college, and currently 11 of the 25 members of Council are heads of colleges. Colleges do not in general have formal representation on university bodies, but this does occur in some cases: one example is the Joint Committee of the General Board and the Senior Tutors' Committee on Joint Appointments, where there is a specific joint task to be performed. The Proctors and Assessor, having been elected to their posts by the fellows of their colleges, are also well placed to represent college views on university bodies.

4.75 Given that the University and the colleges are jointly engaged on the common tasks of teaching and research, an effective working partnership between them is essential. This points to a need for close involvement of colleges in the work of the main academic planning and resource allocation bodies at the centre of the University's machinery, and for cooperation with colleges in planning facilities such as libraries and information technology. The central bodies - and the Vice-Chancellor - should be regarded as being representative of college interests as much as of those of the University in the narrow sense.

4.76 We recognise that achieving this objective is complicated by the fact that the relationship between university departments and faculties on the one hand, and colleges on the other, varies between different subject areas, as does the balance of responsibility for teaching and research exercised by the various partners involved. But the objective is important in all subject areas.

4.77 In the mid-1960s the Franks Report argued that effective representation of the colleges could best be achieved through a single body to represent colleges (the proposed 'Council of Colleges'), which would, under Hebdomadal Council, represent college interests in the affairs of Oxford as a whole.[75] We do not ourselves favour this approach. We believe that, rather than view the colleges as a distinct and separate 'estate' within the University's machinery of governance, we should seek a more integrated approach whereby college interests and concerns are represented in the affairs of all the principal decision-making bodies. The proposals we make in the next chapter reflect this approach.

4.78 The precise relationship between the University and the colleges will depend greatly on the future mode of financing college fees, which at the time of writing this report is under discussion. If some or all of the funds currently received directly by the colleges were in future channelled through the University, then the relationship would need to adapt to accommodate this different balance of funding. We are aware that this issue might need to be re-examined after our report is published, and our aim has been to propose mechanisms which would enable shifts in the balance of resources between the University and the colleges to be handled effectively.  

The office of Vice-Chancellor

4.79 As we have noted, the present arrangements governing the office of Vice-Chancellor were introduced in the late 1960s, following the Franks Report. The Vice-Chancellor is appointed for a period of four years. A new Vice-Chancellor is nominated at least two years before the end of the existing Vice-Chancellor's term of office by a special Nominating Committee, whose recommendation falls to be approved by Congregation. Any member of Congregation is eligible for nomination as Vice-Chancellor, but (although the requirement that a Vice-Chancellor should be a head of House was dropped after the Franks report) all but one Vice-Chancellor elected since then has been a Head of House. Eligibility is subject to an age limit, in that a Vice-Chancellor cannot be over the age of 61 at the time when he or she will enter office. When these provisions were introduced, the arguments in their favour stemmed from clear recognition of the ever increasing burdens on the office of Vice-Chancellor, and the need for a full-time occupant of the post who would, in Franks' words, be 'the key figure...as administrator, planner, and spokesman...[of the University].'[76]

4.80 In the thirty years since the present arrangements were introduced, the burdens on the office have continued to increase. In part these burdens reflect the changes in the structure and size of Oxford which were described in Chapter 2; in part they reflect the far greater demands now placed on the University by external funding bodies - such as the funding councils, the research councils, charities and others. They also reflect the fact that the Vice-Chancellor is now expected to undertake new roles which have developed greatly over the last decade or so. In particular, he or she must devote a significant proportion of time to fund-raising, to the development of relationships with potential donors, to travel abroad and to the representation of the University to the wider world.

4.81 We believe that some further changes to the provisions governing the office of Vice-Chancellor are needed to take account of the changes in Oxford which have occurred since the time of Franks. 

VI: The need for structural change

4.82 We have concluded that meeting the various objectives set out above will require structural changes in Oxford's governance, and in particular in the present division of responsibilities between Council and the General Board. As we have noted, the University's most senior body under the present structure (Hebdomadal Council) has no general involvement in academic planning and associated decisions on resource allocation; and its highest academic body (the General Board) is ill-placed to bring together decisions on resource allocation and strategic academic planning. How far Council becomes involved in any given matter usually depends on whether it has to pass a decree, which reflects the University's legislative procedures rather than the intrinsic importance of the issues concerned. The result is that it is very difficult for Council, or the General Board, or the two bodies taken together, to exercise effective strategic oversight of the University's academic work. We believe that Oxford needs a principal executive body which combines responsibility for oversight of academic work with responsibility for allocating resources, so bringing together responsibilities currently divided between Council and the General Board.

4.83 A second element in the case for structural change concerns the position of the General Board itself. At present the Board exercises substantial responsibilities for much of the detailed administration of the University's academic work, and is expected to combine these with responsibility for strategic oversight of that work and the allocation of resources to support it. But the Board is hampered in the exercise of these functions. As we have argued, the present combination of responsibilities for both detailed matters and for strategic oversight is too large a burden for a single body to undertake effectively; and the Board has no responsibility for managing external research grant and contract income, giving it only partial control over the resources supporting academic work. We believe that the way forward is to pass upwards from the General Board to a new Council the broad strategic oversight of the University's academic work; to abolish the General Board; and then to devolve responsibility for all other matters (including much of the business currently undertaken by the Board) to a lower level.

4.84 We have considered whether alternative approaches to the one we advocate in the next chapter might provide effective solutions to these problems. One might be to abolish the present General Board and to delegate most of its responsibilities to the existing bodies below the General Board. However, these bodies are not in general appropriately organised so as to exercise any substantial devolved responsibilities. Faculty boards and departments are too numerous (16 faculty boards and, depending on the criterion used to count them, well over 50 departments) and contain too many units for any satisfactory delegation. Arguments about the division of resources between them would be so detailed that effective decision-making would inevitably remain at the centre, whilst the disparity in their size and composition would make any consistent strategic thinking very difficult. Larger bodies, with a more coherent academic identity, and a more consistent structure, are required.

4.85 The aim of delegating responsibility from the Board might alternatively be met by the approach proposed thirty years ago in the Franks Report, which advocated the creation of five new 'super faculty boards' beneath the General Board, under which existing faculty boards would be grouped.[77] However there were good reasons behind the University's decision not to pursue this proposal. As well as creating an additional layer of administration, it would have involved too many bodies in the second layer, beneath the central bodies, while the division of responsibility between the General Board and the 'super-boards', and between the General Board and Council, would have remained unclear. Our view is that a more satisfactory solution, which does not involve creating an extra tier in the administrative structure, is needed. The proposal is laid out in the next chapter.

4.86 Our clear conclusion is thus that structural change is essential if the objectives set out in this chapter are to be met. While it is difficult to prove or disprove this contention, we believe that it would be much easier to make the necessary changes in process if there were corresponding changes in structure, and that such changes would have a much greater chance of success within a new structure. We thus prefer to go to the heart of the matter, rather than to tinker with or to add further complexities to the present structure.

VII: Conclusion

4.87 We believe that there is a clear need for change in Oxford's structures of governance. Our general objectives in recommending change may be summarised as follows:

• Oxford's structures of governance must be robust enough to enable the University to respond to the need for change but at the same time to remain in control of its own future;
• Oxford must take account of the substantial changes in its size and shape since the days of the Franks Report;
• account needs to be taken of the way in which current policy issues facing those working in some subject areas often differ markedly from issues facing those working in other areas;
• Oxford's distinctive characteristics as a self-governing collegiate University should be reflected in its central structures of governance.

4.88 We have also argued that proposals for change should reflect the following more specific objectives:

• there should be a clearer rationale for deciding what is and what is not to be considered by central bodies and, where possible, a greater and more consistent degree of delegation of decision-making;
• there should be a closer relationship between the annual resource allocation exercise and the development of long-term strategic plans;
• improved arrangements for academic planning should aim to foster effective working relationships with external funding agencies;
• the structure of governance should enable appropriate office holders to speak for the University;
• there should be a reduction in the volume of material embodied in formal legislation requiring Congregation's approval;
• Congregation should be made a more effective forum for discussion;
• wider participation by members of Congregation in elections and in postal voting should be encouraged;
• better understanding of Oxford's governance, and wider communication of the issues being considered by the University's central bodies, should be sought;
• the time contributed by academic staff to administrative matters should be reduced and their contribution rendered more effective;
• changes in the University's structures of governance should aim to make the central bodies more effective in exercising strategic oversight of the University's business and in initiating discussion of policy matters, and they should aim to reduce the amount of detailed work which the principal bodies undertake by fostering more systematic delegation;
• there should be effective representation of college interests in the affairs of the principal decision-making bodies;
• the Vice-Chancellor's responsibilities should be reviewed, and support for the office improved.

4.89 The discussion in this chapter has drawn attention to ways in which we believe that the present structure of governance requires improvement. The tone of the discussion may sometimes seem unduly negative, because we have (quite appropriately) focused on what we believe to be difficulties in the way the structure of governance is currently working. This is not to detract from the immense and continuing achievements of the University, nor should it imply that Oxford's governance faces any sort of crisis. Oxford is a highly successful university and there are many positive features to its system of governance; but we believe that improvements are possible and that they are needed.

I: Summary of proposals

5.1 Bearing in mind the objectives for change considered in the last chapter, we now make proposals which are designed to:

• improve the University's approach to planning and resource allocation;
• make accountability more effective and clarify where responsibility for decision-making lies;
• improve communication and openness in governance;
• enable academic staff to make a more effective, but less time-consuming, contribution to governance, thus helping to reduce the overall administrative burden on academic staff - which was a source of much complaint in the evidence submitted to us.

5.2 The changes which we propose to meet the objectives already discussed are also designed to preserve rather than alter Oxford's character as a self-governing community of scholars. Thus we recommend that many basic features of Oxford's governance should stay broadly as they are, and that their advantages and utility should be reasserted. In particular, the sovereign power of Congregation within the University should remain, as should the position of the colleges as independent institutions with control over their own resources. We argue however that there should be changes in the way Congregation operates and in some of its responsibilities, in order to make it a more effective body; we also recommend a modest extension of its membership.

5.3 The most substantial changes which we recommend concern the University's central bodies, whose job it is to oversee and support the academic activity of the University, to manage its resources, to coordinate strategic policy, and to represent the University in dealing with external bodies, including funding bodies. We propose that Hebdomadal Council and the General Board (and many of their sub-committees) should be replaced with a new structure consisting of a Council that acts as the University's principal executive body, responsible to Congregation not only for the administration and financial management of the University (as Hebdomadal Council currently is) but also for an active oversight of the academic work of the University, which Council does not at present undertake. The interests of the colleges would need to be properly reflected in the composition of the new Council bearing in mind their vital contribution to teaching and research in Oxford.

5.4 Beneath the Council there would be three new academic boards, each covering a particular group of subjects, which would take on many of the functions of the present General Board. Under the proposed structure some of the broader strategic responsibilities currently exercised by the General Board would be passed upwards to the Council, but the bulk of the General Board's existing responsibilities for academic planning and management would be divided between the three academic boards, each of which would enjoy a high degree of delegated authority. Each board would be chaired by a full-time academic officer, to be known as a 'Deputy Vice-Chancellor', and there would be a fourth Deputy Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for academic services. It would be at the 'second tier' level of the three academic boards in particular that effective linkage with and representation of colleges would need to be maintained, to deal especially with joint appointments and the organisation of undergraduate teaching.

5.5 A diagrammatic representation of the outline of these proposals is provided in Figure 5.1  (57kb). This diagram does not, of course, reflect all the detailed aspects of the proposed structure.

5.6 Our proposals are designed to provide a structure with an effective principal executive body, able to serve the University's interests by focusing on broad strategic issues rather than dealing with large amounts of (often very detailed) business referred from below. The delegation of as much decision-making as possible away from the centre is integral to the proposals. Only such delegation can increase the involvement of those most closely affected by particular decisions both in making them and in having responsibility for their execution. The relationship between the new Council and the bodies beneath it would be to a considerable extent governed by a new annual planning and resource allocation cycle. This structure would link decisions on resource allocation to the University's agreed policy priorities, and bring academic planning and resource allocation closer together. It would thereby also improve accountability.

5.7 We believe that the proposals in this chapter are in many ways the most important in our report. In considering much of the rest of our agenda we have concluded that if, in 1994, the University's arrangements for governance had been operating more effectively, then the establishment of the Commission would probably have been unnecessary. This clearly points to the importance of improvements in those arrangements for the future. Moreover many of the recommendations which are made elsewhere in this report on matters such as the organisation and support of teaching and research and the joint appointments scheme, important though we believe them to be, will depend to a great degree for their successful implementation on the revised governance arrangements proposed in this chapter.

II: The role of Congregation

Congregation's constitutional position

5.8 In Chapter 4 we described Congregation's position as the University's sovereign body, comprising academic staff and some senior academic-related staff holding established posts. This position is paralleled within UK higher education only by the position of the Regent House at the University of Cambridge. There are those who have argued to us that Congregation's position is anomalous, that it cannot be expected to exercise any effective decision-making powers, and that its role should be restricted to that of an electorate and/or to providing advice to elected central bodies.

5.9 As we stated in Chapter 3 when considering Oxford's future structure, we do not believe that the University should take this approach. The existence of Congregation as the University's ultimate governing body provides a fundamental expression of Oxford's nature as a self-governing community of scholars and gives members of that community the opportunity of having a voice in government; it is the means whereby the University's executive bodies and its Vice-Chancellor are held accountable to the University as a whole; and it is thus an important means of giving legitimacy and proper authority to the actions of those bodies and of the Vice-Chancellor.

5.10 In reaching this conclusion we have taken note of the recommendations in the Dearing Report[78] to the effect that a University's ultimate decision-making body should be its Council; that a University's 'Court' (the nearest equivalent to Congregation in most institutions) should have no more than an advisory role; and that a majority of the members of the governing body of each university should be lay members, that is, not active members of the University's academic staff.

5.11 It is not clear how far these recommendations are meant to apply to Oxford, whose ultimate governing body is Congregation. We accept fully the need for clarity in identifying an institution's governing body, and for openness and accountability in the way in which executive bodies operate. We do not accept, however, that there is only one single effective way in which these objectives can be achieved. We have considered the objectives set out in the Dearing Report, and believe that they can be delivered in Oxford within the broad framework of its present constitution, particularly if the changes we propose in this chapter are adopted. Moreover, these objectives would, in this way, be achieved with a far greater degree of involvement on the part of ordinary members of the academic community, and with a much greater degree of accountability to them, than would be the case with a small governing body comprising a majority of lay members. We see no reason to change those aspects of Oxford's present structure of governance which encourage wide involvement in running its affairs, and which value the principle of open self-government by all members of the academic community which is embodied in Congregation's position.

5.12 We would also emphasise that Oxford has long had an executive body, Hebdomadal Council, which is responsible for running the institution's affairs. In terms of the size of its membership (25), the present Council and the new one which we propose in this chapter both closely resemble the model set out in the Dearing Report. The accountability of this executive body to the wider academic community, and a high degree of openness in governance, are both encouraged by the fact of direct elections by Congregation to Council, and through the need to promote all major decisions on future developments in the form of legislation which needs to be approved by Congregation.

5.13 The principal differences between the existing Hebdomadal Council and the new Council we propose in this chapter, and the councils envisaged in Dearing, are that the latter are expected to contain a majority of 'lay' or external members and that they have ultimate authority for decision-making. At present, Oxford's Hebdomadal Council contains no external membership; we believe that some external membership would be beneficial, and later in this chapter make proposals for there being two external members on the new Council. External members are already present on other university bodies. However, we do not believe that accountability and openness would benefit from, but rather could be damaged by, moving to a position where a majority of members of the principal executive body were external to the University, or where ultimate authority was vested in such a body. We consider these points further in relation to the Council later in this chapter.

5.14 We have, however, also argued in the previous chapter (paragraphs 4.47 to 4.57) that there are shortcomings in Congregation's present structure and operation. In particular, its membership needs to be properly representative of all those with a legitimate interest in the University's wider business; its responsibilities must be appropriate to a body of over 3,000 members; and the procedures through which it operates need to be reformed and made more effective. We now make proposals designed to achieve these objectives, considering first Congregation's role as a legislature and as a forum for discussion, secondly its role as an electorate, and thirdly its membership.

Congregation as a legislature and a forum for discussion

Present procedures

5.15 The present procedures governing Congregation's functions as a legislative assembly in which policy is debated and decided, and legislation enacted, may be summarised as follows. First, there are stated meetings of Congregation on the Tuesdays in Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 each term, and the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor have power to summon a meeting at any other time. By long-standing convention, there is also a meeting shortly before each Michaelmas Term for the Vice-Chancellor's Oration, and for the admission of the Pro-Vice-Chancellors and the Clerks of the Market, whilst on the Wednesday in Week 9 of Hilary Term another meeting is held for the delivery of the Senior Proctor's Oration and the admission of the new Proctors and Assessor.

5.16 Secondly, Congregation's formal business at the non-ceremonial meetings falls under five main headings:

• Congregation's approval is required for new legislation, in the form of statutes and decrees, or the amendment of existing legislation. There are two stages in this process of enacting a statute or amending one. First, the pre-amble to a statute (promulgation) must be followed by the elapse of a period of not less than two weeks before approval of the enacting part. Each proposed statute must therefore be submitted to Congregation on at least two occasions, unless special provision is made to expedite matters so that both promulgation and enactment can take place at the same time. Statutes cover a number of different types of business; examples from the last two years include statutes establishing new degrees, concerning trust funds, concerning the membership and duties of boards and committees, and establishing of professorships. In the case of decrees, these are made by Council but may be amended or annulled before coming into effect if any 12 or more members of Congregation object to any decree within 15 days of its publication in the Gazette. Objection is notified by the submission of a general resolution on which Congregation then needs to vote.
• Other general resolutions may be submitted by Council, or by any 12 members of Congregation, and usually concern general matters of policy. Examples in recent years include resolutions on promotions policy, the position of university lecturers with non-tutorial fellowships ('ULNTFs'), and the making of distinction awards to non-clinical professors.
• Special resolutions may be submitted only by Council, and the University's statutes specify the matters which they may cover, typically the allocation of sites for new buildings, or the conferment of honorary degrees.
• The asking of questions: any member of Congregation (with a supporter) may ask a question in Congregation which must be answered by Council. This provision pre-dates the Franks reforms, but is rarely used: there has only been one example in recent years.
• Motions: Since 1990, it has been possible for any 12 members of Congregation to propose a motion to Congregation, a measure intended to allow members of Congregation the opportunity to take soundings on an issue in a way which is not binding on Council. The procedure has been used only once since its introduction.

5.17 As we have argued earlier, our concerns about these procedures are two-fold. First, too much routine or relatively unimportant business is formally required to be taken to Congregation. Almost invariably it is unopposed and attracts little attention, to the extent that three-quarters of stated meetings have been cancelled in the last four years. Nonetheless, processing this business is time-consuming and costly, without bringing any tangible benefits. It also means that the University's formal legislation, embodied in its statutes and decrees, is voluminous; this in turn means that relatively minor changes in procedure require time-consuming revisions to formal legislation.

5.18 A second concern is that, despite the provision for motions noted above, procedures in Congregation do not in practice make it easy for bodies such as Council and the General Board, or indeed members of the University as a whole, to promote discussion in Congregation of important policy matters before decisions on particular recommendations have to be reached. We have therefore developed the following proposals to deal with these concerns.

Proposals for change

5.19 Our first proposals concern the legislative business which comes before Congregation. We have concluded that Congregation's approval for the repeal, enactment or amendment of statutes should still be required, since statutes should be regarded as embodying matters of fundamental importance to the University which its supreme governing body (Congregation) should approve. However, we also think that the volume of material which is enshrined in statute should be reduced and either included instead in decrees and regulations, or become the subject of prescription by a particular university body.

5.20 At present, material embodied in statutes is varied, ranging from basic aspects of the structure of the University and relationships between different bodies within it, to the detailed duties of some 200 individual academic posts (i.e. those currently known as statutory posts). While both the 1923 Oxford and Cambridge Act, and the law governing trusts, contain requirements which necessitate the enactment of statutes in certain cases, this does not apply to all the material currently embodied in statutes. We therefore propose that there should be a thorough review of the material currently embodied in the statutes so as to ensure that, as far as possible, the statutes define major matters and do not contain unnecessary detail whose amendment requires lengthy legislative process. In conducting such a review, we believe that the most important criterion to be used in determining whether a particular provision needs to be embodied in statute is whether it is a matter of broad and legitimate interest to all or a large proportion of members of the University. Thus while it might be thought reasonable that the composition and responsibilities of the University's central bodies should be determined by a statute requiring the formal approval of Congregation, it is less clear that there is a rationale for using statutes to establish individual academic posts, although a general statutory provision covering the composition of electoral boards might well be thought desirable.

Recommendation 5
We recommend that the Council should institute a thorough review of existing legislation with a view to reducing the volume of material embodied in statute. [79]

5.21 We have considered whether Congregation's existing procedures governing resolutions and motions could be simplified. As described above, there are three similar but different procedures, whose separate existence does not seem to have any obvious justification. An improvement would be to abandon the distinction between general and special resolutions on the one hand, and motions on the other, and merge the present three provisions into a single one. There would thus be one provision whereby either Council or a sufficient number of members of Congregation should be able to propose a resolution on any issue at any time.

Recommendation 6
We recommend that there should be a single provision for procedures in Congregation whereby any sufficient number of members, or the Council, may propose a resolution on any issue at any time.

5.22 We have also considered whether the present minimum number of members of Congregation required to launch a resolution should remain at its present level (12). It might be argued that the present limit of 12 is too low, on the grounds that it makes it too easy for a small number of members of Congregation, who may not in any way be representative of general opinion, to initiate a resolution. We have also noted the recommendation in the Coopers and Lybrand report[80] on governance that the present minimum limit should be raised to 100, in order to safeguard against the bringing forward of trivial resolutions or those of concern only to a small minority of members of Congregation.

5.23 We are not persuaded that, in practice, the problems identified in these arguments have arisen, and the case for major change on those grounds appears unfounded. However we have also noted that the Franks Report recommended in 1966 that the limit should be raised from 6 to 20, on the basis that this number would at that stage have reflected the rise in membership of Congregation since the then limit was set; in the event a compromise was agreed whereby the present number of 12 was introduced. Bearing in mind the original Franks recommendation, and taking into account the considerable increase in the size of Congregation since this number was set in the 1960s (it has since almost doubled), we see clear merit in maintaining the proportion of members of Congregation required to raise a motion or resolution at a more or less steady level, and this means that the present minimum of 12 should be increased.

Recommendation 7
We recommend that the minimum number of members of Congregation required to raise a general motion or resolution be raised from 12 to 20.

5.24 As noted earlier in this chapter, we have also examined how general discussion by members of the University of important matters might take place. Congregation appears to be the best forum for such discussion, but its current procedures do not encourage this. In considering whether alternative procedures might be introduced, we have examined the practice at Cambridge whereby the Regent House is regularly given the opportunity of holding a 'Discussion' on a particular matter, before any recommendation to proceed is formally put to it by the Council. Under these arrangements, every Report submitted to the University is brought for consideration by the Regent House at a Discussion, and additionally any ten members of the Regent House may request that a particular topic be brought forward for a Discussion. It is understood that this has sometimes proved a useful way of testing opinion and allowing issues to be aired before formal decisions are required.

5.25 We propose that a similar procedure should be adopted, at least on a trial basis, in Oxford. If used well it could prove to be an effective way of promoting discussion of important issues, and of meeting the objectives we set out in Chapter 4 for improved openness and better communication. We believe that the Cambridge requirement that every formal Report which is submitted to the University should also be submitted for Discussion is unnecessary: rather, Council should have the discretion to determine what matters are referred in this way, provided that members of Congregation also have the power to raise matters for discussion. Council would be required to have regard to the outcome of a general discussion, and to take account of the views expressed before formulating specific proposals.

Recommendation 8
We recommend the introduction of a procedure to enable the Council, or any 20 members of Congregation, to put forward subjects for discussion in Congregation, without the need for a formal resolution or motion, the Council being required to have regard to the outcome; and that the operation of this procedure should be reviewed by the Council after five years.

5.26 Another way of strengthening communication between the University's central bodies and members of Congregation might be for the Council to be required to report formally on a regular basis to Congregation. At present, Hebdomadal Council does not do this; the business it transacts is made known to Congregation (and hence to the University as a whole) largely through the promulgation of formal legislation or through the issuing of notices on specific topics. In addition, the Vice-Chancellor's annual Oration provides an opportunity for a general review of the University's business each year, but not specifically of the business of Council. We believe that further consideration should be given to whether the Council might be required to report annually, termly, or at some other interval, to Congregation.

Recommendation 9
We recommend that the Council consider whether it should submit to Congregation a regular report on the business it has conducted and, if so, whether this should be on a termly or annual basis.

5.27 A final question concerns the number of members of Congregation who are required to vote for a resolution for that vote to be effective. At present, at least 75 members must vote, and constitute a majority of those voting. This limit dates back to the 1960s, and was introduced at a time when Congregation was a much smaller body than it now is. We think that some increase is appropriate in order to reflect the increase in the size of Congregation's membership over the last thirty years and the further increase in membership proposed in this report, and we have concluded that the increase should be from 75 to 125 members.

Recommendation 10
We recommend that the number of members of Congregation who are required to vote in favour of a resolution for that vote to be binding should be increased from 75 to 125.

Congregation as an electorate

5.28 The bodies to which Congregation currently makes direct elections, leaving aside Council and the General Board, are: the Buildings Committee (4 members); the Equal Opportunities Committee (1 member); the Curators of the Botanic Garden (2 members); the Curators of the Examination Schools (3 members); the Libraries Committee (4 members); the Oxford and Cambridge Examinations and Assessment Council (2 members); the Curators of the University Parks (2 members); the Committee for the Scientific Collections (2 members); the Committee for the Nomination of Select Preachers (2 members); the Curators of the Sheldonian Theatre (2 members); the Nominating Committee for the Vice-Chancellorship (4 members); and the Visitatorial Board (12 panel members).

5.29 This is a fairly disparate group of bodies, its main unifying feature being that each one has some independent statutory basis, rather than being dependent on another statutory body. We do not consider that this is necessarily the most appropriate criterion for determining whether Congregation should directly elect the members of a particular body: much more relevant is the importance of the business conducted by the body to the University as a whole. We are also aware that, if the other changes proposed in this chapter are accepted, then it will be necessary to review the position.

Recommendation 11
We recommend that the Council should conduct a review of, and make recommendations on, which university bodies should have some or all of their membership directly elected by Congregation.

5.30 We have also considered the form which elections made by Congregation should take, and in particular whether (as is sometimes argued) there should be specific constituencies in elections to the Council made by Congregation, or whether a certain number of places on the Council should be restricted to certain categories of members of Congregation. Arrangements of this sort currently govern General Board elections, where half the elected places must be filled from amongst members of humanities and social science faculties, and half from science and medicine faculties. Another possibility would be to establish a specific college constituency, so that certain members of the Council would be elected to represent the colleges, perhaps elected by members of colleges rather than by all members of Congregation.

5.31 An argument against this approach is that elected members of the University's Council should not be encouraged to think of themselves as representing particular interest groups, and that there should therefore in essence be a single constituency, Congregation, which all members of the Council represent. If the result of elections on this basis meant that the balance of experience of members of Council was too uneven, then the proposed power to co-opt up to two additional members could be used to deal with the problem.

5.32 Having carefully weighed these arguments, we take the view that there is no general case for reserving a number of places on elected bodies for representatives of certain groups within the University, and that in the case (at least) of the Council elected members must view their responsibilities as being to Oxford in the widest sense. They should all continue to be elected at large by Congregation. There may be other bodies where a different approach is warranted, and we consider this possibility below in our discussion of the membership of the proposed new central bodies of the University.

5.33 We have also discussed the possibility that candidates for election to the Council should be able to provide descriptions of themselves on ballot papers, and/or canvass voters. We note that Hebdomadal Council recently decided to amend the nomination form for elections by Congregation, so as to enable candidates to provide details about themselves which could be printed in the University Gazette in connection with the relevant elections, and this procedure is now in operation. We welcome this change, and expect that it will improve the information available to members of Congregation about candidates for election to the central bodies. We do not support the general canvassing of votes.

Membership of Congregation

5.34 At present, Congregation has some 3,000 members. These essentially comprise individuals who qualify by virtue of the university office which they occupy (i.e. they are academic or senior established academic-related staff); and those who qualify because of their membership of a faculty, but who would not otherwise qualify.[81]

5.35 We have considered carefully the position of those employed by the University to undertake teaching and research in Oxford who are not eligible for membership of Congregation. These include research scientists employed in academic-related posts, many of whom also take part in teaching, and whose work has contributed to the University's successful acquisition of research funds. We discussed the composition and size of this group of staff in Chapter 2 (paragraph 2.33).

5.36 At present staff in this category, like other academic-related staff, become eligible for membership of Congregation only if they hold established posts in relatively senior grades (RSII and above), a condition which excludes the vast majority, who hold unestablished posts. Nor do such staff in general have a college association. Most research staff do not make a long-term career in Oxford (or if they do, they quickly move to other posts here), and for the most part their period in the University is short (three years or less). However, a minority of such staff do remain in Oxford for much longer, even if on a succession of fixed term contracts, making an important long-term contribution to the University's life. While we consider that it would be inappropriate to extend membership of Congregation to all research staff (given that most of them hold relatively junior positions and remain in Oxford for a relatively short time), we do wish to propose a modest extension in Congregation's membership to ensure that longer serving academic-related staff in non-established posts (primarily research staff) may become members of Congregation.

5.37 One possibility would be to extend membership to all academic-related staff with more than a certain qualifying period of continuous service with the University, perhaps (say) five or seven years. An alternative, which we prefer, is to give to academic-related staff in non-established posts the same rights as those holding established posts, which would extend the right to membership of Congregation to all those in grades ALC3 or RSII and above, a move which would, incidentally, reflect the increasingly blurred nature of the distinction between those in established and in non-established posts. Such a change would lead to an extension in the size of Congregation of some 200 people, or just under eight per cent of its current size.

5.38 This extension of Congregation's membership is, in our view, important because it would give due recognition to the part played in university life by academic-related staff who do not hold established posts, but who are nonetheless of some seniority and have often worked in the University for some time. Fears have been expressed that extending membership of Congregation in this way would open up the possibility that such staff might exercise disproportionate influence in Congregation. Particularly since the total numbers involved would constitute only a small proportion of Congregation's total membership, we do not think that such fears are well founded, and in any case they do not outweigh the arguments in favour of extending membership of Congregation to an important group of staff who, if they were in established posts, would automatically qualify under present arrangements.

Recommendation 12
We recommend that eligibility for membership of Congregation should be extended to all academic-related staff occupying non-established posts in grades RSII or ALC3 and above.

5.39 Turning to broader questions concerning the membership of Congregation, we have also considered whether it is desirable to move away from the present requirement that individuals should hold either an Oxford MA, or be granted MA status, before being able to become members of Congregation. Whilst there are perfectly understandable historic reasons for this requirement, it seems less and less appropriate at a time when only a minority of academic staff took a first degree from Oxford. One outcome of the present requirement is that in a majority of cases it is now necessary either for a new member of staff to be awarded an MA by special resolution, or to incorporate a Cambridge or Trinity College, Dublin MA. Academic-related staff who qualify for membership of Congregation but do not possess an Oxford MA are awarded MA status, but there are those who regard the award of MA status to academic-related staff in order to render them eligible for membership of Congregation as, being unnecessary.

5.40 In considering whether these arrangements should continue, or whether they might be simplified, we have noted that at Cambridge membership of the Regent House (the analogous body to Oxford's Congregation) is in essence conferred by office rather than by formal personal status as represented by a degree held. We propose that a similar practice be adopted in Oxford. This would mean that membership of Congregation would be enjoyed by all those currently eligible as a result of their office, but that they would no longer be required additionally to hold either an Oxford MA or be granted MA status in order to qualify. If this latter requirement were abandoned, then the rationale for awarding the MA or MA status to incoming staff who do not hold an Oxford MA would cease to exist; the practice of awarding MA status would also then cease and MAs by special resolution would become exceptional. The University would in effect be acknowledging degrees of other universities in their own right, and it would mean that members of the University attending Congregation but not holding the MA would (for example) be entitled to wear the appropriate gown of the institution which had awarded them their degree(s). We believe that such changes would properly acknowledge the varied academic and other backgrounds of members of Congregation.

Recommendation 13
We recommend that the requirement that an individual must hold either an MA or MA status as a condition of membership of Congregation should be ended and, subject to the preservation of vested interests, that the award of MA status should cease.

Chairmanship of Congregation

5.41 We have also considered whether the Chancellor should continue formally to preside over Congregation, given that in practice the Vice-Chancellor almost always takes the chair. One option would be to amend present arrangements so that at all 'non-ceremonial' meetings of Congregation the Vice-Chancellor was ex officio chairman, but to designate the Chancellor as chairman in the case of largely 'ceremonial' meetings, such as those called to confer honorary degrees or degrees by diploma. On balance we favour this option, and propose that it be incorporated into the legislation governing the new arrangements for Congregation's meetings.

Recommendation 14
We recommend that it should be provided that the Chancellor preside over Congregation only on 'ceremonial' occasions; and that otherwise the Vice-Chancellor should preside.

III: The University's central bodies

Introduction

5.42 In Chapter 4 we argued that changes were needed in the structure and operation of the University's central bodies, in order to improve the capacity of those bodies to serve Oxford effectively in a rapidly developing world. We now set out our detailed proposals for change, designed to meet the objectives discussed in the previous chapter. They involve replacing Hebdomadal Council, the General Board and their various sub-committees with a new structure. In place of the present Hebdomadal Council there would be a new Council, which would, under Congregation, have ultimate responsibility for managing the University and its resources, and for overseeing planning and resource allocation, including (at a broad strategic level) planning academic activity. Beneath the Council, in place of the present General Board, there would be three new academic boards which would have the main responsibility for the management and administration of academic activity within the University.

The University Council

The need for a new Council

5.43 In Chapter 4 we set out our concerns that the present Hebdomadal Council tends to operate reactively, rather than as a body which puts forward new policies for discussion and which exercises a strategic oversight of all aspects of the University's life and work. Partly because of this, it appears that many within the University are unclear about what it does; the Coopers & Lybrand report on governance drew attention to 'a general mystification within the University' about its role.

5.44 In our view there are two main reasons for this position. The first is that, as we argued in Chapter 4, Hebdomadal Council itself is not to any practical extent responsible for preparing overall plans for the University's development, or for its overall budget. In many ways, therefore, Council has not found a clear role in the University's administrative and decision-making processes.

5.45 The second reason arises from the present division of responsibility between Hebdomadal Council and the General Board. All important decisions on future academic strategy, and on the allocation of general funds for academic expenditure, are devolved to the General Board. Council has no significant input into most academic planning; this is a curious position for the University's principal executive and policy making body. In this context, it is worth noting that at Cambridge, where there is a similar division between the Council and the General Board, the Vice-Chancellor chairs both bodies, so that the University's principal executive officer is closely involved in helping to formulate decisions on academic matters and associated resource allocation. We believe that a new Council is required in Oxford, with a wider remit and with clear overall responsibility for academic as well as other policy.

Responsibilities and terms of reference

5.46 The new Council should be the principal executive and policy making body for the University. It should have responsibility under Congregation for the broad strategic management of the University, including academic development and the disposition of all the University's resources. It needs to be a body which can initiate discussion of new policies, review the pattern of development at a strategic level, and draw the attention of the University at large to important developments which are relevant to Oxford and on which it needs to take a view. It should assume overall financial responsibility and ensure that strategic plans (and their associated budgets) prepared elsewhere in the University are fully monitored. We propose that this new body should be called the Council.

5.47 We propose that the Council's responsibilities for academic development and the disposition of resources should focus on an annual planning and resource allocation cycle. Under such a cycle, the main spending sectors (which under the new structures would, as discussed below, be the three academic boards and the bodies responsible for academic services and for the central administration) would each year be required to submit updated strategic plans (which would look forward for, say, five years), together with annual operating statements. Taken together these would form the basis for the spending sectors' annual budget allocation. The plans and operating statements would be developed in consultation with all relevant interests, including the colleges. They would be expected to cover all aspects of work undertaken by the relevant sectors, and all resources being used in them, thus discouraging the fragmented approach to planning which we believe to be a serious weakness of the present system. This approach would also foster a clear link between the determination of academic aims and objectives, and the allocation of resources to give effect to these, including resources for support services.

5.48 It should be emphasised that there is a clear difference between a planning process and a bidding process. A plan is a statement of policy, not a shopping list. Once a plan has been accepted by the University's main executive body, spending decisions which are consistent with the plan and with the resources made available can then be made by spending bodies without reference to a higher authority. It will not always be possible to allocate sufficient resources to implement all elements in a strategic plan at one time: the purpose of the annual operating statement is to set out for a given year those elements in a longer-term plan which it is intended will be implemented during that year within the resources available. There will be a need for some earmarking of funds by the central bodies (and, as we indicate later, we believe that funds for capital projects should be centrally administered); but as far as possible resources should be allocated downwards as block grants, not as funding for a designated list of activities. This will encourage real delegation.

5.49 Once the Council had considered and approved each spending sector's plan and operating statement, and allocated resources accordingly, then the three academic boards and bodies responsible for support services would have full authority to act within the terms of those approved plans, and would not need to refer any but the most major or exceptional matters to the Council for further approval. This delegation within the terms of agreed plans reflects a principle which should govern decision-making under the new structure, namely that, within an approved framework, decisions should be taken and acted upon at an appropriate level, and only be reconsidered by a higher body in exceptional circumstances.

5.50 One implication of this delegation is that a prime function of the central bodies (and of the central administration) should be the monitoring of activity carried out by lower level bodies, so as to ensure that delegated authority is exercised appropriately. This will require more sophisticated management information systems and better communication than exist at present within the University, and we believe that high priority should be accorded to their development. Management information systems of this kind are already in existence and working well in some other institutions, and we recommend that priority be given to their further development in Oxford. This would provide an essential underpinning of the delegated authority which we propose should be enjoyed, under the new Council, by spending bodies. We consider these points further in Chapter 6.

5.51 In summary, therefore, the proposed new Council would have responsibility for oversight of the management of the University and its resources; for ensuring proper scrutiny, approval, and monitoring of strategic plans submitted by the main spending sectors; for approval of the University's annual budget, and the allocation of resources between the main spending sectors; and for oversight of the University's external relations, including relations with funding bodies. The new Council would also have responsibility for overseeing the University's fund-raising initiatives and alumni relations, in the same way as the present Hebdomadal Council does.

5.52 The differences between these proposed responsibilities and those exercised by the present Hebdomadal Council are significant. In particular, the new Council would have a direct (albeit strategic) involvement in academic planning and in the allocation of resources to meet academic objectives, in a way in which Hebdomadal Council currently does not. Thus it would also be more directly involved in academic policy than Council presently is, and would assume from the General Board responsibility for broad aspects of the academic administration of the University, including responsibility for educational standards, for the support of research, for general policy on academic appointments, and for policy on the balance of activity between different subject areas.

Frequency of meetings

5.53 We envisage that the full Council itself would meet two or at most three times a term. As well as overseeing the planning and resource allocation cycle outlined above, its main business would be to consider matters of importance to the University as a whole, and to initiate discussion of new policy developments. Its main sub-committees, which are discussed below, would of course need to meet at other times, to give preparatory consideration to most business so that the Council could focus on the key strategic issues, while also having time to initiate discussion of other issues which may not have been brought to it from below.

Membership

5.54 We propose that the Council should consist of 25 members. (This is the same total as the present Hebdomadal Council.) The Council should comprise: 12 members elected directly by Congregation; the four new Deputy Vice-Chancellors, whose appointment is proposed below, should be ex officio members, as should the Vice-Chancellor; there should be two members chosen from outside the University; and the two Proctors and the Assessor should continue, as at present, to be members. We also propose that there should be three junior members who would be full voting members of the Council, rather than observers as at present. There should be power to co-opt up to two further members.

5.55 The 12 members of the Council elected directly by Congregation should form a vital link between the University at large and the central bodies. We hope that by making clear the scope of the new Council's responsibilities and functions, it would be possible to attract on to the Council a wide diversity of individuals, capable of bringing their expertise to bear on the Council's work and to represent the range of opinion within Oxford. We propose that the term of office of these elected members should be four years, with the possibility of re-election once for a further four year period (regardless of whether it is consecutive to the first one or not). We propose a four year term of office (in contrast to the present six year term) in the belief that, whilst a degree of continuity is important and that individual members of the Council should serve long enough to enable them to build up a body of experience, a period of six years before they are required to resubmit themselves for election by Congregation is too long. We also propose that elections should be staggered, so that (once the new system was established) there would be an election each year for a quarter of the elected members of the Council, the aim being to ensure a degree of continuity, and also to avoid a situation in which all or a majority of the elected members at any particular time were new to the Council.

5.56 Clearly transitional arrangements will need to be considered once the University has been able to reach conclusions on our main recommendations. We have not considered these in detail, but one possibility would be for a proportion of those initially elected to serve for only, say, two years rather than the normal four year term, or for the initial period of office to be determined by the number of votes cast for those elected, with the top three serving for four years, the next three for three years, and so on.

5.57 At present, members of Hebdomadal Council are elected by the whole body of Congregation, and are not chosen to represent any particular constituency or interest group. Similarly, no places are reserved for representatives of particular groups within Congregation, or bodies within the University. There have, however, been concerns expressed to us that open elections of this sort might give insufficient weight to college interests on the new Council, and that representation of such interests could be safeguarded more effectively if a certain proportion of the elected places on the Council were reserved for members who were specifically chosen to represent college interests. In this context, we have noted the arrangements which govern elections to the Cambridge University Council: these provide four different 'classes' of elected member, four drawn from among the heads of colleges, four from among the professors and readers, eight from among other members of the Regent House, and three from among the students of the University. Members from the first three 'classes' are elected by the Regent House, and those in the fourth by the students.

5.58 We have considered whether a similar approach should be followed in Oxford, so that a fixed proportion of the elected membership would be drawn from different groups of members of Congregation. One possibility, for example, might be to reserve, say, three places for heads of house, and perhaps three places for professors, with the remaining six reserved for other members of Congregation. We are not, however, convinced that this change would bring any significant benefit. In 1996-7, for example, 9 of the 18 elected members[82] of Hebdomadal Council were heads of house, which hardly suggests that open elections have led to under-representation of what might be regarded as college interests; there were also four professors. Introducing fixed quotas from these groups would (unless the quotas were set very high) if anything diminish their representation, while at the same time discouraging the present culture in which each member of Council, no matter what his or her background, is meant to have in mind the interests of Oxford as a whole, not a particular constituency within it. For these reasons, we conclude that elections by Congregation to Council should remain constituted on their present basis, with all members of Congregation equally able to stand for each vacant place, and all members of Congregation eligible to vote for them.

5.59 We also propose that the four Deputy Vice-Chancellors (on whom see below, paragraphs 5.121 to 5.129) should be ex officio members of the Council, which would be an arrangement analogous to that under which the present chairman of the General Board is ex officio a member of Hebdomadal Council. We believe that the presence of these senior officers as members of the Council would be essential for its effective operation, as well as for theirs.

5.60 The two Proctors and the Assessor should also, we believe, continue to remain ex officio members of the Council, thus providing as at present a valuable independent input into the work of the Council and its committees from amongst members of colleges elected to serve for one year only, with the opportunity for fresh input annually.

5.61 We also propose two departures from present practice. The first is that there should be two members of the Council drawn from outside Oxford; and the second is that junior member representatives on the Council should be full members, rather than just observers.

5.62 External membership of university bodies already exists in a number of cases and it has proved very valuable. For example, the Curators of the University Chest include four (out of 15) members external to the University; the Investment Committee similarly contains external membership, as does the Audit Committee. Other bodies with some external membership include the Committee for Continuing Education, the Europaeum Committee, the Distinctions Committee, and the Distinctions Awards Committee, whilst there has also been considerable external involvement in the University's development activities. A number of other ad hoc committees, such as those which have considered the posts of Registrar and University Surveyor, the structure of university libraries, and IT policy, have included external members. Moreover electoral boards always contain at least two external members which ensures that there is external input into appointments to established professorships and readerships. In all these cases, external membership has provided a valuable perspective to the body or committee concerned. We believe that such a perspective is likely to be of great value to the new Council, and have hence concluded that it should contain some external membership.

5.63 We are convinced that Oxford has everything to gain and nothing to fear from this proposal. We also note that external membership of senior bodies is common in most other UK higher education institutions which, whilst they have arrangements for governance which differ from those at Oxford, have found it equally valuable. The second report of the Nolan Committee on local public spending bodies, which include higher education institutions, also makes the assumption that there will be at least some external representation on governing bodies, and we believe that the proposals which we are making will be seen to be very much in the spirit of the work of the Nolan Committee.[83]

5.64 It is important that our thinking about the types of individuals eligible for external membership of the Council, and the method of their appointment, is made clear. We do not propose that the Council should include individuals without knowledge of and sympathy for the University's aims and ethos, or that external members should in some way be 'representative' of particular external interests. Rather, we have in mind members who have experience of and interest in higher education in general and Oxford in particular, whose advice the Council would find it helpful to have. Such individuals might, for example, be drawn from other universities, or from the worlds of finance or industry. They might themselves have had direct experience of teaching and research at Oxford. It is also important that the external members should not have commitments which were such that it was difficult for them to play a reasonably full part in the work of the Council.

5.65 There remains the question of the method of selection of external members. One option would be that external members could simply be invited to serve by a nominating committee of the Council, and co-opted accordingly. Another would be that they should be elected by Congregation in essentially the same way as would be the majority of the Council members. We do not think that the first option sufficiently involves the University as a whole in the choice of external members, placing too much responsibility in Council's own hands. At the same time, the second option would almost certainly be unworkable, in that it is most unlikely that appropriately qualified and experienced individuals would be in a position to stand for election in the same way that internal candidates would. On balance, we favour an approach whereby the Council should nominate external members, and put their names to Congregation for approval. This would ensure Congregation's involvement in the process of selecting external members of the Council, but would also provide what we believe to be a workable approach to this issue.

5.66 The second change from present practice is our proposal that the new Council should include student members. At present, three junior members attend Hebdomadal Council as observers and are able to speak but not vote; they are excluded from consideration of reserved business, which is usually that relating to the position of individuals. We believe that it would now be appropriate to regard these junior member representatives as having the status of full members. Their number should continue to be three, comprising the President of the Oxford University Student Union, ex officio, together with one member elected by the Council of the Union, and one by its Graduate Committee. It should, however, be possible as at present for there to be items of 'reserved business' on the agenda of the Council for discussion of which the junior members would not attend.

Chairmanship

5.67 We propose that the Vice-Chancellor should be ex officio chairman of the Council, rather than the Chancellor (as is at present formally the case with Hebdomadal Council). This would appropriately reflect the realities of the present situation, where even on those very rare occasions when the Chancellor has chosen to attend meetings of Council, he has not taken the chair. As now, the Chancellor should continue to receive Council papers and minutes.

Recommendation 15
We recommend:

(a) that a new Council should be established as the University's principal executive and policy-making body, with responsibility extending over academic as well as non-academic affairs;

(b) that the Council should be responsible for managing an annual planning and resource allocation cycle, which would govern its relationships with bodies beneath it;

(c) that the Council should comprise 25 members, namely the Vice-Chancellor (chairman), four Deputy Vice-Chancellors, the Proctors and the Assessor, two external members, 12 members elected directly by Congregation from amongst its own membership, and three Junior Member representatives. The Council should have the power to co-opt up to two additional members.

The legislative powers of the Council

5.68 Under the University's present arrangements, formal legislation is of three kinds. Statutes, which tend to embody matters of central importance to the working of the University, are made by Congregation, and some require the approval of the Queen in Council both for their enactment and their amendment. Decrees, which embody matters of considerable importance but of a less fundamental nature, are promoted by Council but do not come into effect until 15 days after they have been published in the Gazette and thereby brought to the attention of Congregation. This gives members of Congregation the opportunity of submitting a motion to require Council to amend or annul the decree, should this be desired. Regulations, which usually embody detail which supplements a general provision in a decree, are made on the authority of the General Board and faculty boards; like decrees they do not come into effect until 15 days have elapsed from the time of their publication, so as to give members of Congregation the opportunity to request their amendment or annulment.

5.69 We wish to propose one change to these arrangements. This would involve decrees and regulations made by Council and by other bodies coming into immediate effect, rather than 15 days after publication in the Gazette . Legislation would still be published in the Gazette , but the process of enacting it would be quicker. This would not, of course, prevent members of Congregation subsequently tabling a resolution requiring Council or other body to amend or annul the legislation in those rare cases where there were serious objections.

5.70 We also believe that there is scope for reducing significantly the volume of material which is embodied in decrees and regulations, in the same way that the volume of material embodied in statute could also be reduced (see paragraph 5.20 above). In some cases, it may be possible to shorten existing legislation, removing obsolete material and making what remains clearer and more accessible to members of the University. In other cases, it may be possible to remove certain material from the scope of legislation altogether. An example of where this might be possible, and one which is already being considered, is the University's examination decrees and regulations. It is often observed, and has been by us, that there are very wide variations in the extent to which different faculty boards and sub-faculties specify in detail in legislation the requirements of a particular course of study, and we believe that there is scope for much greater harmonisation in practice here. We have concluded that the University should establish a committee specifically to review its existing decrees and regulations, bearing in mind the points set out above.

Recommendation 16
We recommend that:

(a) decrees and regulations enacted by the Council and other bodies should come into force with immediate effect from the time of their enactment;

(b) the Council should initiate a review of the University's decrees and regulations with a view to reducing the volume of material embodied in such legislation, to complement the review of statutes proposed in Recommendation 5.

Committees of the Council

5.71 It is clear, of course, that a great deal of the work of the new Council, and of the day-to-day running of the central business of the University, could not be undertaken by the Council itself meeting in formal session. The Council would need to establish a number of important committees, and we now consider these.

Planning and Resource Allocation Committee

5.72 We propose, first, that there should be a committee of the Council with responsibility for overseeing the annual planning and resource allocation cycle described above, and for making recommendations to the Council for the approval of plans and of an annual budget. This committee would be called the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee. It would receive from the main spending bodies their updated strategic plans for the forthcoming five-year period. Accompanying each plan would be a draft annual operating statement covering the work of each spending sector which would set out those elements in the strategic plan which it was proposed should be implemented in a given year, and also proposing how they were to be funded. These would form the basis for detailed consideration of each spending sector's annual budget. These budgets would be expected to take account of all income and expenditure, not merely that from the General Fund. We envisage the committee entering into close discussion with representatives of the main spending sectors when considering these matters, not least by meeting their members, so that both the committee and the spending sectors had a clear understanding of the matters at issue, and of the basis of the recommendations being made.

5.73 The work of the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee would clearly be of central importance to the administration of the University and would be particularly intensive at certain times of the year, most notably in the spring when the University's overall budget was being prepared. Once the annual round had been completed (which would normally be in Trinity Term, when budgets and plans for the forthcoming year would be settled), it would be the responsibility of the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee, working through its officers, to monitor the work of the main spending sectors against plans and against budget forecasts, and to draw to the attention of the Vice-Chancellor (and if necessary the Council) any unforeseen divergences from them. The committee would need to take clear action to resolve any problems which might arise. In this work, full, accurate, and flexible management information would be essential, and it would be the responsibility of the Registrar and the central administration to ensure that it was provided. (We consider this point more fully in Chapter 6.)

5.74 We believe that the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee should be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, and that the four Deputy Vice-Chancellors, three of whom we propose should chair the bodies responsible for the main spending sectors and the fourth of whom should have responsibility for academic services, should attend and take an active part in discussion, but not be able to vote. This is because, while we do not think that the Deputy Vice-Chancellors should have a formal role in making recommendations about the allocation of resources to the areas for which they are responsible, it is important that they should contribute to discussions about setting the budget, bringing their knowledge and expertise to bear on the issues at stake. The close knowledge that they would gain from attending the committee would also make it easier for them to communicate the reasons behind budget decisions to those working in their own subject areas.

5.75 We propose that the other members of the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee should comprise, in addition to the Vice-Chancellor, six members of the Council drawn from those directly elected by Congregation, together with the Proctors and Assessor, and one of the Council's external members. This would help to ensure a balanced representation, with a range of different views being brought to bear on these important planning and budgetary decisions.

Educational Policy and Standards Committee

5.76 A second principal committee of the Council would be responsible for monitoring academic standards and quality, and for initiating consideration of policy on broad educational matters, such as the structure and organisation of degree courses, teaching methods, and examination methods. We propose that it should be called the Educational Policy and Standards Committee.

5.77 We set out in Chapter 4 our view that a shortcoming in Oxford's present structure of governance is the lack of a single body with explicit responsibility for such matters, and we noted that the General Board has recently acknowledged this and begun discussion of possible changes within the present structure which might seek to address such concerns. We believe that it is essential that Oxford should establish a senior body with responsibilities such as we have outlined.

5.78 There are several reasons for this conclusion. First, it is important that a single body responsible for educational policy and standards should maintain an overall view on developments within the University in teaching and examining, degree structure, and related matters so that, if there are to be significant differences of approach between subject areas or if there are to be significant changes in practice, then they take place only after due consideration. We have ourselves devoted considerable attention to these questions, and our conclusions are described more fully in Chapter 8. In future, discussion of such matters should form an integral part of the University's regular business, and it should not be necessary to establish a self-standing Commission to consider them. Our proposal for an Educational Policy and Standards Committee is designed to meet this objective.

5.79 Secondly, such a committee would also clarify where responsibility lay for monitoring academic standards and quality, and what mechanisms were in place for discharging this responsibility. Hitherto arrangements for such oversight have been somewhat diffuse and have, at times, attracted criticism from external quality assessors. The details of the role we propose for the committee in this area are discussed in Chapter 8.

5.80 The committee's role would thus respond to a need for a body to take an overview of teaching policy in Oxford, to initiate discussion of possible new developments in teaching and learning methods and in examination practice, and pay regard to national developments in these fields, and consider whether and how they were relevant to Oxford. Because of the amount of detailed legislation that it has been required to examine, the General Board's Undergraduate Studies Committee has not been able to fulfil this role. It has operated in a largely reactive way, focusing on consideration of the details of legislation proposed by faculty boards and other bodies, and lacking time to stand back and assess the overall pattern of provision or to initiate discussion of policy. The General Board's Graduate Studies Committee has over the last decade adopted a somewhat more active role. In particular it has followed up the publication in 1987 of the Roberts Report on Graduate Provision, and dealt with the consequences of increasingly interventionist policies by bodies such as the research councils and the British Academy's Humanities Research Board, which provide public support for students on graduate courses. Even so, because its remit is limited and does not extend to consideration of the adequacy of resources provided to support graduate work, the Board's Graduate Studies Committee has had only limited success in championing the cause of graduate work within Oxford. The new committee of the Council which we propose would be expected to fill these gaps, as well as to take an analogous role for undergraduate provision.

5.81 The Educational Policy and Standards Committee would also be responsible for monitoring the development of the University's undergraduate and graduate studies courses, including their structure and their content, and the examination and teaching methods used (including the use of IT in teaching). The responsibilities of this committee would not extend to approving detailed arrangements for individual courses, nor to approving the establishment of those courses in the first place. If a particular faculty or department wished to establish a new degree course or modify the arrangements for an existing one, then such a proposal would normally be expected to be included in the annual plans put forward by the relevant academic board. If those plans were approved by the Council through the annual planning cycle described above, then no further reference would need to be made by the academic board to the Council or any of its committees: the academic boards would have the authority to proceed themselves. The role of the proposed Educational Policy and Standards Committee would be to keep a watching brief on these developments, not to intervene directly in the detailed business of the academic boards. We believe that by not giving this senior body detailed operational responsibilities, it will have the time to consider broader questions.

5.82 In addition, the committee would be required to consider whether adequate resources were being made available to support teaching and learning. If it judged that they were not, then it would be the responsibility of the committee to take the matter, in the first instance, to the relevant academic board; if an academic board failed to take appropriate account of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee's concern during the annual planning and resource allocation cycle, then the matter would be referred to the Council, which would be expected to use its authority to require reconsideration of plans and spending proposals and to ensure that adequate resources were made available or the plans were amended. There might thus be cases when there were tensions between the views of one of the academic boards about resource allocation, and those of this committee, but these would, we believe, be constructive and would work to the benefit of educational provision. In all this, as in other aspects of the work of the Council, a rigorous approach to the analysis of planning and resource issues would need to be underpinned by professional support from the central administration.

5.83 The membership of this committee will partly determine how successfully it can carry out its responsibilities. Although we believe that there should be some representation from the Council on this body, and that it should be chaired by a member of the Council, we also think that its membership should differ in two important respects from that of the other main committees of the Council. First, the Deputy Vice-Chancellors responsible for chairing the three proposed academic boards should not be members of the committee, nor attend as observers: since the work of the boards for which they have responsibility would to an extent be under scrutiny, the committee's membership needs a substantial degree of independence from the academic boards. The second point is that there should be significant direct college representation on this committee, to take account of the fact that responsibility for the organisation and support of teaching, and for all broad aspects of educational policy, is shared in Oxford between the University and the colleges. The Conference of Colleges, the Senior Tutors' Committee and the Committee of Tutors for Graduates should receive reports from the committee, on the same basis as would the Council, and should be expected to act upon them, although we do not propose that the committee should formally be a joint body.

5.84 We propose that membership of this committee should comprise six representatives of the University and six of the colleges. The former should include the Vice-Chancellor as chairman, and one other member of the Council, together with four members directly elected by Congregation. The selection of college representatives should follow procedures determined by the Conference of Colleges. We take the view that it would be important to ensure some input from the Senior Tutors' Committee and from the Committee of Tutors for Graduates. Overall, the committee would be expected to take a robust, audit-like view of the matters within its remit.

General Purposes Committee

5.85 The third main committee of the Council would be a General Purposes Committee. This committee would handle (at least in the first instance) most business which fell outside the province of the other two. It would be a forum for identifying and giving initial attention to many policy issues which the University needs to consider. Some of the items discussed would be business which the Vice-Chancellor, acting on advice, could then deal with directly on his or her own authority. Other business would involve prior consideration of items which would then be dealt with in consultation with other bodies, some of which might also need to be referred to the Council itself for final resolution.

5.86 Because of the likely volume of business, the General Purposes Committee would need to meet regularly, probably once a week during term and regularly during vacation. Its meetings would provide the opportunity for the Vice-Chancellor and his or her senior colleagues to discuss the pattern of forthcoming business; to report on matters in hand; and (for example) to report on major forthcoming engagements for the week, or on the outcome of recent external meetings. Reports to the Council arising from such discussion could be prepared. The committee would provide a forum for the Vice-Chancellor to obtain advice from colleagues, and to sound out proposals before they were put to other committees and to the Council or Congregation.

5.87 One question which arises is the extent to which the General Purposes Committee should be able to act and make decisions in its own right, without reference to the Council. We take a pragmatic view: formally speaking, both the General Purposes Committee and the Vice-Chancellor would enjoy such authority as is delegated to them by the Council and any action which they might undertake without direct reference to the Council as a whole would be undertaken on the basis of that delegated authority. In practice, it would be necessary for the expeditious conduct of the University's business for certain decisions to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor and the General Purposes Committee, but as at present it would be expected that any important matters of principle, or matters involving substantial strategic choices, would be discussed by the Council as a whole. Similarly, decisions made by the General Purposes Committee (other than routine ones) would be expected to be reported to the Council as a matter of course for information, in order to ensure proper accountability.

5.88 The membership of this committee needs be reasonably small, and yet also provide a reasonable cross-representation of appropriate interests. We propose that the committee should comprise the Vice-Chancellor as its chairman, the four Deputy Vice-Chancellors ex officio, together with the Proctors and the Assessor and two members of the Council from amongst those elected directly by Congregation.

Other committees of the Council

5.89 As well as the three principal committees discussed above, there will need to be other committees reporting directly to the Council, responsible for oversight of university business in particular areas. Broadly speaking, these would be expected to continue the work either of current joint committees of Council and the General Board, or of certain committees reporting to only one of those bodies. As a general rule, we envisage that these committees should, like the others, enjoy a high degree of delegated authority under terms of reference laid down by the Council. They should report either on a termly or in some cases on an annual basis to the Council about the work they have undertaken, and only refer particularly difficult or far-reaching matters to the Council for decision. Delegation of this sort will be necessary if the Council is to avoid agendas which are inordinately long and cluttered with detail.

Personnel matters

5.90 At present, responsibility for personnel matters in the University is divided in several ways. First, the General Board, working through its Appointments Committee, is responsible for policy relating to academic staff, and for making appointments to 1,000 or so established academic posts which fall under the General Board. It embodies responsibility both for policy in respect of academic personnel, and also for personnel administration in relation to academic staff. The General Board does not, however, control appointments to established professorships and readerships (i.e. those posts defined by statute), which are handled under the aegis of Hebdomadal Council by independent electoral boards.

5.91 Policy in respect of academic-related and non-academic staff is the province of the Staff Committee, a joint committee of Council and the General Board. Within policies established by the Staff Committee, the administration of personnel matters affecting such staff is however devolved to individual employing departments.

5.92 We think that it is now timely to revise these arrangements. We propose that there should be a single Personnel Committee, responsible to the Council, overseeing the development of policy affecting all university employees. Thus the present division of responsibility for such policy between the General Board and the Staff Committee would cease, enabling a common approach to be taken where appropriate. This would also provide the opportunity for a greater degree of professional input to policy formation in respect of academic staff, which is difficult under present arrangements because the Director of Personnel Services has no formal responsibility for them. Under our new proposals this officer would assume wider responsibilities in respect of all university employees.

5.93 The role of the new Personnel Committee would be to establish University-wide policies on all personnel matters. It would assume responsibility for defining the general terms and conditions of academic, academic-related and non-academic appointments; for dealing with joint committees with trade union and staff representatives; for pay negotiations and liaison with appropriate national negotiating bodies on behalf of the University; and for overseeing that section of the central administration providing professional personnel advice and support to employing departments and units within the University. Other committees - such as those responsible for equal opportunities and staff training - would report to it.

5.94 We do not envisage this committee approving individual appointments and reappointments (as the General Board's Appointments Committee currently does), nor that it should be involved in other case work relating to individual employees: for academic staff, such questions would be delegated to the proposed academic boards, which (like the present General Board) would be responsible for the day to day personnel matters concerning academic staff under their aegis. Responsibility for the day to day management of academic-related and non-academic staff would, as at present, be delegated to individual employing departments and faculties. The role of the Personnel Committee would be to establish common frameworks within which the academic boards and other individual employing departments could operate.

5.95 We propose that this committee should be chaired by a member of the Council. It would need to establish its own sub-committee structure, which should cover (amongst other things) those responsibilities currently discharged by the Committees on Higher Appointments and Academic Salaries, as well as responsibilities exercised by the General Board's Appointments Committee and the Staff Committee. The committee would also have responsibility for exercising a general oversight of the development of Oxford's joint appointments system (although operational responsibility for this would rest with the three academic boards); for this reason we believe that some college representation on this committee, or at least in an appropriate sub-committee, would be desirable.

Financial matters

5.96 Whilst we believe that more than one committee would be needed to cover financial matters, we have concluded that there is scope for some rationalisation of the present structure. In the first place, the functions of the Curators of the Chest themselves (although not of committees reporting to them) have now largely been taken over by other bodies, and meetings of the Curators rarely involve consideration of any substantive matters. We propose, therefore, that the Curators of the Chest should be dissolved as a body, and that their residual functions be formally transferred to the new Council.

5.97 If this approach is accepted, it would then be necessary for existing committees reporting to the Curators to be responsible directly to the Council, thus becoming committees of the Council. These would include the Audit Committee; the Investment Committee (to manage the University's investments and to provide advice on related questions); and the Press Accounts Committee, which should also remain in its present form.

5.98 We also recommend that the Council should consider whether it would be necessary for it to establish a Finance Committee specifically to deal with general financial matters and, in particular, to receive regular reports on the University's financial position and to deal with those financial matters which did not fall within the remit of the Planning and Resources Committee. Establishing a committee which could oversee the Council's financial responsibilities might be sensible given the general desirability of avoiding a situation in which too many committees reported directly to the Council. It would enable the three committees mentioned in paragraph 5.97 to report to the Council through the Finance Committee, save that the Audit Committee and its chairman would have right of direct access to the Vice-Chancellor and the Council. One possibility would be to extend the remit of the General Purposes Committee so that it became a Finance and General Purposes Committee.

Other committees

5.99 There are at present other statutory committees of Hebdomadal Council, and several joint statutory committees of Council and the General Board, whose functions would need to be discharged under our proposed new structure. We believe that there is some scope for reduction in the number of these committees, and that the functions of some of them could be subsumed within those of other bodies. Thus, for example, the work of the Committee on the Allocation of Professorships and the Appointment of Electors could be taken on by the Council's General Purposes Committee, as could those currently exercised by the Dispensation from the Residence Limits Committee, and the Honorary Degrees Committee. Other committees would, in our view, need to continue in existence, as committees of the Council. These would include the Accommodation Committee, the Child Care Committee, the City Questions Committee, the Health and Safety Committee, the University Security Committee, the Animal Care Committee, and the International Committee. Our principal concern is that these committees should operate with a high degree of delegated authority established by the Council; and that they should not expect to refer routine matters of business to the Council. Instead, they should submit annual reports to the Council, and only otherwise refer to it in cases where there were important matters of principle at issue.

5.100 We have not conducted a detailed review of the structure and the functions of all the committees noted above, but recommend that the new Council should institute a review of their functions, examine whether there was a case for their continued separate existence and, if so, should establish the lines of delegated authority under which they should operate.

University development programme

5.101 We have also considered how present arrangements for the development programme might fit into or be adapted to fit the proposed new structure. At present there is a Pro-Vice-Chancellor who devotes a substantial part of his time to the role of President of the Development Programme; and there is a Development Office under the general control of the Director which, although formally part of the central administration, is physically and operationally somewhat distinct from it. In some respects this arrangement is a further example of what might be characterised as ‘adaptation by complication', i.e. when a new initiative needs to be taken or a new problem solved, a new committee or body is added to the present structure, rather than by changing the present structure to reflect new requirements.

5.102 We believe that it is desirable to integrate the work of the Development Programme as fully as possible into the mainstream of academic planning and policy formation. This is not simply for reasons of administrative tidiness: rather, the aim should be to ensure that the identification of academic priorities and of fund-raising strategies and targets is, so far as is practicable, an integrated process.

5.103 We have noted that the present Resources Committee has already begun to take steps towards achieving these aims, through the establishment of its Planning and Resources Sub-committee, whose initial task is to review and prioritise the various fund-raising initiatives which are under way in the University, whether under the aegis of the Development Office or not. We have also noted the recommendations contained in the very recent Report of the Committee to Review Development Activity, which call for greater coordination of the work of the Development Office with that of the External Relations Office and the Research and Commercial Services Office, and for a review of the role of the various bodies which advise on development activity. We welcome these proposals and hope that they will be actively pursued.

Recommendation 17
We recommend:

(a) that the Council should establish a Planning and Resource Allocation Committee of the Council, responsible in particular for making proposals to the Council on the allocation of resources and the approval of plans submitted by spending bodies; the Planning and Resource Allocation Committee should be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, and in addition comprise six members of the Council drawn from those directly elected by Congregation, together with the Proctors and Assessor and one of the Council's external members; the four Deputy Vice-Chancellors should be able to attend and speak but not vote;

(b) that the Council should establish an Educational Policy and Standards Committee, responsible in particular for monitoring educational standards and quality, and for initiating consideration of policy on educational matters; and that this committee should be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, and comprise six representatives of the colleges, one representative nominated by the Council, and four members directly elected by Congregation;

(c) that there should be a General Purposes Committee of the Council, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and in addition comprising the four Deputy Vice-Chancellors, the Proctors and the Assessor, and two members of the Council drawn from amongst those directly elected by Congregation; and that the General Purposes Committee should be responsible, acting under delegated authority, for any items of business which the Vice-Chancellor or the Council might refer to it;

(d) that there should be a Personnel Committee of the Council, chaired by a member of the Council, to be responsible for all aspects of personnel policy in the University;

(e) that the Curators of the Chest should be dissolved, and their residual functions formally transferred to the Council;

(f) that the Council should establish other committees reporting to it to assist it in discharging its responsibilities for the management of the University's finances, and that these should include an Audit Committee, a Press Accounts Committee, and possibly a Finance Committee, final decisions thereon to be made by the new Council after further consideration;

(g) that the Council should consider the need for other committees reporting to it, and establish the lines of delegated authority under which they should operate.

IV: The proposed academic boards

5.104 We set out in Chapter 4 (paragraphs 4.67 to 4.73) our view about the difficulties faced by the General Board in operating as presently constituted. In order to deal with these, we propose that, beneath the Council, there should be three new academic boards, whose role would essentially replace that of the present General Board.

5.105 Each new board would cover a particular group of subjects. The aim is to make the volume of business to be handled by each of the new boards more manageable than is the case with the present General Board; and, by grouping together subjects in which the policy issues concerning teaching and research, funding, and other matters are broadly similar, to create boards which would be dealing with subject groupings whose interests and concerns were broadly similar.

5.106 Clearly, making any division between subject areas is difficult, and we discuss our particular proposals in more detail below. We would emphasise however that making the threefold division we propose for administrative, planning and financial purposes does not in any way preclude continuing strong academic links between subject groups which may be administered under different academic boards. Furthermore, we are firmly of the view that the advantages of making such a division in terms of improving the coherence and manageability of the three broad subject areas outweigh such advantages as might be gained from maintaining the present position whereby the General Board seeks to deal with all subject areas.

5.107 We believe that the changes which we propose would benefit all subject areas. They would enable each of the new boards to concentrate on those issues which were of central concern to those working in the subject areas under their aegis. They would enable the boards to operate in a style and using procedures which they saw as most fitting to their subject areas, and to have control over all the resources allocated to their own subject area by the Council. The arrangements would thus give the subject areas under each of the three boards a greater degree of freedom to operate in the way they wished than present arrangements allow, and would give them more direct control over the resources being provided for those subject areas.

5.108 Before turning to the details of these proposals, we wish to consider some of the concerns about them which have emerged from initial consultation with the General Board and with representatives of some subject areas (described in Chapter 1). In particular, fears have been expressed that the threefold division proposed by the Commission would jeopardise the academic and organisational coherence of the University, or that under the proposed division some subjects would receive less equitable treatment than others, their interests being outweighed by larger subject groupings.

5.109 We understand such concerns, but believe that our proposals would not give rise to such problems. We make three points. First, developments in the direction which we are proposing are already to an extent taking place: as we noted in Chapter 4, the Clinical Medicine Board now exercises a high degree of delegated authority, and pressure from the sciences for similar change is becoming intense. Maintaining the General Board's current position is unlikely to be feasible in the medium or long term, and some change is inevitable. Our proposal to establish a separate academic board for clinical medicine is little more than formal recognition of a development which has largely taken place already, and the proposal for separate boards for the sciences and for the humanities and social sciences represents what we believe to be a desirable and consistent extension of this approach.

5.110 Secondly, we emphasise that under our proposed new arrangements the Council would assume responsibility for overseeing the strategic direction of the University's academic work: at present Hebdomadal Council does not do this. Thus some of the broader strategic responsibilities currently held by the General Board would pass upwards to the new Council, and this would guard against any danger that the three academic boards would develop in radically different directions with no consistency or coherence.

5.111 Thirdly, the argument that under present arrangements the General Board is able to give equal weight to the needs and concerns of each subject area does not seem to us to be well founded. The Board faces enormous pressures from those subject areas requiring considerable investment in buildings and equipment (primarily the sciences and medicine) - often driven by research needs and by success in obtaining external research funds - which then make it difficult to give adequate weight to the far less costly but no less important requirements of those working in the humanities and social sciences. Under the proposed new arrangements, the budget for each of the three boards, once decided by the Council, would be protected.

The division of responsibility between the boards

5.112 We believe that three boards is the maximum number which can sensibly be accommodated, and that any greater degree of fragmentation would be inimical to a coherent approach to planning and resource allocation. If this argument is accepted, the critical question which arises is how subject areas should be grouped under each of the three boards. We recognise that no boundaries are entirely satisfactory (which is one further reason for wishing to keep the number of boards to a maximum of three). We have discussed various possibilities with the Committee of Heads of Science Departments, representatives of the Review Committee on the structure of the medical school, and the chairmen of the humanities and social science faculty boards, and acknowledge that there is a range of possible ways of making the division.

5.113 One important question is whether clinical and pre-clinical studies should be placed together under a single board, or whether pre-clinical subjects would be better placed with other sciences. On the one hand, there is clearly a need for the closest academic links between clinical and pre-clinical subjects, from the point of view of both teaching and of research. On the other hand, clinical subjects have a clear identity of their own, both because of the way they are organised and taught, and because of their relationship with the NHS. On balance we have concluded that for administrative and organisational reasons pre-clinical studies should be placed under the same board as sciences.

5.114 We propose that the three boards should cover:

• the humanities and social sciences (comprising the existing faculties of English Language and Literature, Law, Literae Humaniores, Medieval and Modern Languages, Modern History, Music, Oriental Studies, Social Studies and Theology);
• the physical and biological sciences (comprising the present faculties of Anthropology and Geography, Biological Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Physical Sciences, Physiological Sciences, and Psychological Studies);
• clinical medicine (comprising those subject areas covered by the present Clinical Medicine faculty board).

5.115 The size and structure of the subject groupings under each of these three boards would of course be very different. Figures 5.2-5.9 illustrate these points.

Figure 5.2: Academic staff as at 31.01.97

Figure 5.3: Research staff as at 31.01.97

Figure 5.4: Other staff as at 31.01.97

Figure 5.5: RAE Category A staff as at 31.03.96

Figure 5.6: General Board grant 1995-6

Figure 5.7: Research grant income 1995-96

Figure 5.8: Total student load 1995-6 (undergraduate and graduate students)

Figure 5.9: University space usage as at 04.03.97

5.116 As will be seen, the largest board in terms of established academic staff and student load would be the humanities and social sciences board, and the smallest by far would be clinical medicine. On the other hand, the clinical medicine board would be responsible for administering subjects in which there are very large amounts of external research grant and contract income, and correspondingly large numbers of research staff employed in posts supported by that income. It would also have to handle relationships with the NHS. In these respects, the Figures illustrate the very different structures of the three subject areas identified, underlining the distinct policy issues which face the three subject areas and hence (we believe) the desirability of dividing the responsibilities currently exercised by the General Board into three new groupings.

5.117 There are also important differences in the way in which the University's current joint appointments system operates in each of these subject areas. For example, under present arrangements, CUF lecturerships tend to predominate in humanities and social science subjects, whereas they are rare in other subject areas, where university lecturerships are much more common; differences in the balance of duties owed to the University and the colleges will persist even if our proposals for changes to the joint appointments system set out in Chapter 7 are implemented. This means that the issues facing those responsible for dealing with joint appointments in these different subject areas will continue to be somewhat different. Teaching is also organised on a different basis within each of these principal subject groupings. Departmentally based practical work, lectures and seminars are of considerable importance in the sciences and clinical medicine, whereas this is far less true in the work of those taking undergraduate degrees in the humanities and social sciences. There are also important differences in the facilities required for research, and in the relative importance of equipment and laboratory space, libraries and field work. Finally, there are also important differences between each of these subject areas in the extent to which those working in them need to liaise with outside funding bodies such as the research councils, charities, and industry. This bears directly on the administrative and financial support required in each of the areas, and on the research strategies developed in each case.

5.118 We have concluded that the establishment of the proposed three academic boards, under the new Council, would enable the differences in the nature and organisation of the work in the subject areas falling under them to be reflected in the structure and operation of the boards themselves, and in the priorities to be given to different questions.

Membership and size of the boards

5.119 We do not consider that the three academic boards need to be uniform in size, nor in the composition of their membership: within broad guidelines, variation should be possible to take account of the different patterns of work which each of the boards would have, and of the likely differences in the structures beneath each of them. In each case, there should be a combination of ex officio and elected members, although the balance might vary. Ultimately those working in each subject area should be able to determine for themselves the detailed composition of the boards. Initially, it would be necessary for the new Council to take responsibility for establishing the boards, consulting as appropriate. Transitional arrangements would need to be considered, and might include the creation of initial ‘steering boards' for each subject area, comprising (for example) existing members of the General Board representing the relevant subject group, and heads of department or chairmen of faculty boards. These ‘steering boards' could consider the composition of the boards in the first instance, and oversee initial elections.

5.120 The general guidelines which we propose should be adopted to govern the structure and composition of the boards are as follows:

• The boards should be kept to a manageable size, with a maximum of 22 members (this being the size of the present General Board), and they could well be smaller. Given that each board would be responsible for a narrower range of subjects than is the present General Board, this maximum size should give ample opportunity for proper representation of the various subject interests under the aegis of each board. Wider representation would of course be possible on each board's sub-committees.
• Elections to the boards could be conducted in one of several ways. It would almost certainly be appropriate for candidates for election to each of the boards to be drawn only from the faculties or departments for which those boards were responsible. Further questions include whether all members of Congregation should be eligible to vote for such candidates (as they are at present in General Board elections) or whether voters as well as candidates should be restricted to members of Congregation working in those subject areas for which each board was responsible. We favour the latter approach. We also believe that, once established, each board should be required to consider whether there should be any further elaboration of the electoral arrangements, so as (for example) to reserve a certain proportion of places for representatives of particular faculties or departments under the aegis of an academic board, or whether elections should be completely open.
• The Vice-Chancellor should not formally be a member of the academic boards, but he or she should have the right to attend any board meeting.
• The boards should have powers to co-opt up to two members at any one time, so as to ensure appropriate breadth of representation.
• The boards must ensure effective communication and cooperation between themselves in areas of common interest. To promote this there should be the opportunity for a limited degree of cross-representation on the boards. This might, for example, take the form of the chairman of one board attending meetings of another, or sending a deputy to represent him or her, and we propose that the boards should make provision for such cross-representation but should themselves consider how best this may be achieved.
• A board may wish to reserve a certain proportion of places for ex officio members -for example heads of departments or chairmen of faculty boards. We would see advantage, for instance, in chairmen of humanities or social science faculty boards, who are themselves elected by faculty boards, serving as ex officio members of their academic board; this would enable them to represent the interests of their particular faculty board, and communicate the academic board's thinking to it. We see no need to be prescriptive about this at this stage, and recommend that each subject area consider the matter for itself and make appropriate proposals as part of the transitional arrangements noted above.
• Each board would need adequate professional support from members of the central administration: its provision would be the responsibility of the Registrar, and we refer further to this in Chapter 6.

Chairmanship of the boards: the Deputy Vice-Chancellors

5.121 Chairing the three academic boards would be demanding and time consuming, particularly since each chairman would be expected to take part in the work of the Council and of some of its major committees as well as to carry responsibilities connected with his or her academic board. For these reasons we recommend that the posts should be full-time ones.

5.122 In recognition of the seniority of these posts, and in order to demonstrate this both within the University and to the outside world, we propose that the chairmen of each of the three boards should be called Deputy Vice-Chancellors. We also recommend that each should hold a five year appointment.

5.123 We also wish to make clear our thinking about the relationship between the Deputy Vice-Chancellors who would chair each of these three boards, and the boards themselves. Although the Deputy Vice-Chancellors would (as does the present Chairman of the General Board) have a responsibility to the University as a whole, expressed for example through their membership of the Council, they would also be the senior representative of the subject groupings covered by their boards, and the boards themselves would have an important role in the choice of their chairman. The Deputy Vice-Chancellors would act as representatives of the main academic subject groupings at the heart of the University's administration. They would speak for the subjects for which they were responsible, put those considerations in a University-wide perspective, and communicate that perspective to their boards.

5.124 In proposing the creation of Deputy Vice-Chancellors we do not envisage any major change to the present responsibilities of Pro-Vice-Chancellors, save in two respects. First, we propose that in the absence or incapacity of the Vice-Chancellor one of the Deputy Vice-Chancellors rather than a Pro-Vice-Chancellor should be nominated by Council to act in his or her stead, and secondly that a Deputy Vice-Chancellor rather than a Pro-Vice-Chancellor should normally chair an electoral board in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor (see also paragraph 5.141, below).

5.125 The way in which these three offices develop, and the method of working adopted by their holders, would depend to an extent on the views and the culture of each of the three subject areas in question, each of which may have different expectations of the role of a ‘chairman'. Those in the humanities and social sciences might prefer, for example, to think of ‘their' Deputy Vice-Chancellor as the ‘chairman of the general board of the humanities and social science faculties', reflecting the similarity of the function to that of the present Chairman of the General Board. Others might prefer to emphasise the potential role of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor as an executive chairman, more akin to the ‘deans' which are a feature of the organisational structures of many other higher education institutions. These questions should be resolved by the academic boards and their constituencies themselves, and (within certain broad guidelines) they should not be subject to a rigid or uniform pattern imposed from above.

5.126 The guidelines we propose to cover the position of the Deputy Vice-Chancellors are as follows. First, we believe that the present period of office of the Chairman of the General Board (one year, conventionally always renewed for a further one if the chairman is willing to serve) is too short to provide adequate continuity, or to enable the postholder to build up a sufficient degree of experience and momentum. We therefore propose that the Deputy Vice-Chancellors chairing each of the three academic boards should hold office for an initial period of five years, renewable for a further period of at most five years. We imagine that a renewal for the maximum period would not be common, but think that there should be sufficient flexibility in the system to allow for such a renewal if all those concerned wished it to take place.

5.127 Secondly, we believe that there should be a common procedure for appointing the Deputy Vice-Chancellors. We believe that responsibility for these appointments must rest with the new Council, but that it is essential that the relevant board, and indeed all those who work in the relevant subject areas, should have an input, so that their views are given full weight. It would be impossible for a Deputy Vice-Chancellor to discharge his or her responsibilities without the confidence of those working in the relevant subjects, and it would be intolerable for the latter if ‘their' Deputy Vice-Chancellor was unacceptable to them. We propose that the appointment of Deputy Vice-Chancellors should be handled by specially appointed committees chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, akin to electoral boards in their composition, so that they would comprise nominees of the new Council, of the relevant academic board, and of the faculties and departments for which that board is responsible; they would also include members external to Oxford. This committee would be expected to consult widely and to act as a ‘search committee'; in each case it would make a recommendation to the Council.

5.128 We do not think that it is necessary or desirable to be prescriptive about eligibility for appointments. If the appointing committee, after consulting those working in a particular subject area, wished to consider the appointment of someone who was not at the time working in Oxford, then they should be able to do so. We have applied the same principle to eligibility for the Vice-Chancellorship, and see no need to restrict the field of candidates for the posts of Deputy Vice-Chancellor to those currently working in Oxford, any more than in the case of appointments to other senior posts in the University.

5.129 We note finally that we regard the proposal for a Deputy Vice-Chancellor to chair the academic board for Clinical Medicine as overtaking the decision to appoint a Dean of the clinical school, given that the intention behind the two proposals is identical. We believe however that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Clinical Medicine should bear the joint title ‘Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Dean of Clinical Medicine', to indicate his or her status to those outside Oxford.

Responsibilities and terms of reference of the academic boards

5.130 We propose that the three academic boards should have full responsibility, under the Council, for the management and administration of the subject areas falling within their sphere of responsibility. It is essential to avoid a position where the Council and/or any of its committees have to approve individual decisions already considered by the academic boards within their general sphere of authority.

5.131 The Council's relationship with the boards would largely be governed by the annual planning and resource allocation cycle proposed above (see paragraphs 5.47 to 5.50). Once the plans submitted by the boards had been approved, and once resources had been allocated accordingly, the academic boards themselves would have full delegated authority to act. Thus subsequent decisions, provided that they fell within the broad terms of the plans, would be made by the academic boards. Moreover the boards themselves and their officers would be expected to deal directly with external funding agencies such as the research councils, the British Academy, and the medical charities. We are thus proposing that the boards should have a high degree of delegated authority within a structured planning process, with devolution of detailed decision-making to the boards coupled with effective monitoring of their work by the Council.

Resource allocation

5.132 Each of the boards should annually receive a block grant from the Council, determined with reference to the board's strategic plan and proposed operating statement. Within the broad terms of those plans, each board would be responsible for allocating funds amongst its constituent departments/faculties as it saw fit. Since the academic boards, in consultation with their constituent departments and faculties, would have been largely responsible for drawing up the draft plans for submission to the Council in the first place, this approach should give the academic boards a high degree of influence over the allocation of resources, and considerable autonomy in their deployment. We do not propose that grants to the academic boards made by the Council should distinguish between capital, equipment, and recurrent elements, nor should there be separate staff and non-staff elements. Moreover, whereas at present the resources allocated to departments and faculties by the General Board usually cover expenditure only on non-academic staff and non-staff items, the grants made to the academic boards by the Council should cover all expenditure, including that on academic staff.

5.133 This delegation of responsibility for financial matters would have considerable implications. Two in particular should be noted, since they would necessitate changes in the nature of the administrative and professional support required both by the Council and by the academic boards. To take the Council first, we noted above that it would be essential that accurate and timely management information should be available to the Council and its officers to enable them to monitor the finances of the three academic boards and departments and faculties beneath them. This would be necessary in order to ensure that the boards and bodies beneath them had worked within the terms of their strategic plans and within operating statements approved by the Council as the basis for the budget allocation, and to ensure that any divergences of significance from those plans could be noted at an early stage and, if necessary, taken up by the Council and its officers. Monitoring of this sort on behalf of central bodies is a common feature in a number of the other universities whose structures of governance we have studied,[84] and we see no reason why Oxford should not benefit similarly from such a practice. We propose that formal responsibility for monitoring of this kind should rest with the Council's Planning and Resource Allocation Committee, which should receive monthly reports.

5.134 The second point is that the three academic boards themselves will need access to appropriate professional expertise and administrative support in order to discharge their functions for spending and accounting for funds appropriately. Thus the expertise currently available to the General Board would need to be made available to each of the three new boards, and this would have major implications for the role of the University's administrative service. We take this point up in Chapter 6, and propose that the Registrar should consider these matters, and make recommendations to the new Council to ensure that there is adequate support for the three boards.

Academic planning and quality

5.135 The academic boards themselves would be expected to take responsibility for making proposals for the development of their subject areas, covering both teaching and research. They would also be responsible in the first instance for ensuring the maintenance of educational quality and standards. The role of the Council and its committees in these respects would be two-fold. First, if (for example) an academic board wished to establish a new degree course, it would be expected to make proposals for this, covering both academic and resource questions, through the annual planning round. Provided approval was given by the Council, it would then be a matter for the individual academic board on its own authority to establish the detailed regulations governing the course.

5.136 The second point concerns the relationship between the academic boards and the Educational Policy and Standards Committee of the Council. That committee would not have to approve regulations or other proposals made by the boards, but would be kept informed of the development of educational provision by the board and would intervene only exceptionally in cases where it was not satisfied that arrangements were satisfactory, as we stressed earlier. The role of the Council's committee would be one of quality assurance and audit, i.e. to review processes and monitor their effectiveness.

Academic appointments

5.137 The academic boards would have academic staff resources delegated to them and so should have authority to make appointments to all academic posts currently classified as non-statutory (i.e. all those which are not established professorships or readerships) without reference to the Council. The academic boards' administration of academic appointments would take place within the overall framework of personnel policy determined by the Council's Personnel Committee but, within the terms of those policies, the boards would be free to act as they saw fit. This would mean that the boards themselves, rather than the Council, would be responsible for liaison with colleges in respect of joint appointments, a task currently undertaken by the General Board through the Joint Committee for the Regulation of University/College Appointments.

5.138 We are aware of some concern amongst colleges that this proposal would require them to deal with three separate bodies, whereas currently they deal with one. In practice, however, colleges at present deal with individual faculty boards and departments, and only rarely directly with the Joint Committee, and we believe that any potential disadvantages arising from the proposed change will be small. There will also be significant benefits for colleges in that, as noted above, the issues surrounding joint appointments in the humanities and social sciences, in the sciences and in medicine are often significantly different, given (for example) the current prevalence of CUF posts in the first subject group, the current prevalence of university lecturerships in the second, and the relatively small number of joint appointments in the third. Dealing with a separate board in each case may well simplify matters, and we believe that this benefit would outweigh any difficulties which might arise.

Established professorships and readerships

5.139 We have considered whether appointments to established professorships and readerships should become the responsibility of the academic boards and integrated into the procedures for making other academic appointments. At present the establishment of these posts is governed by individual statutes (hence they are called ‘statutory posts'), and there are over 200 such posts. Appointments to them currently are made by independent electoral boards and not by the General Board or Council.

5.140 It is clearly important that appointments to these posts should reflect the policies which have been developed by each of the academic boards, given that they are held by individuals who are expected to provide academic leadership in the University. At the same time, there is a broad University-wide interest in making sure that particular subject-based interests at a given moment do not entirely dominate in making such appointments.

5.141 We think that there should be both an external and a broadly based internal input into making key appointments of this kind. We therefore favour continuation of the practice whereby independent electoral boards have the power to make such appointments, but believe it is important that the work of those electoral boards should have substantial input from the relevant academic board. This is necessary to ensure that any negotiations with invitees to posts did not cut across the policies and plans of the relevant academic boards which would have had the responsibility for laying down clear academic criteria for the filling of such posts. The electoral boards would exercise the role, which they already increasingly fulfil, of search committees, and would include (for example) nominees of the Council and of the relevant academic boards; they might be chaired either by the Vice-Chancellor or by the appropriate Deputy Vice-Chancellor. In other respects, electoral boards would be constituted as at present; most importantly, they would always include external members.

5.142 The aim of these arrangements is to ensure a balance between the involvement of the subject area concerned on the one hand, and the need on the other to ensure the retention of a rigorous appointing system with an input into decision-making which is independent of those working in the particular subject area in Oxford.

Student numbers, graduate admissions and examinations

5.143 Each of the three boards would inherit the responsibilities for graduate admissions and for graduate examinations currently exercised by the General Board, and like the Board the new academic boards would work through their constituent departments and faculties in discharging these responsibilities. It is also important that, in the annual planning and resource allocation cycle, the academic boards should take responsibility for liaison with colleges and with the Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee (JUAC) for planning and monitoring undergraduate student numbers in the light both of developing government policy and of the objectives of the University and the colleges.

Sub-committees of the academic boards

5.144 In discharging all these responsibilities, each of the three academic boards would need to consider its own sub-committee structure. We have not prescribed this structure, believing that it would be most appropriate for each of the boards to consider the matter in the light of the needs and methods of operation appropriate for their own subject areas. However, we are firmly of the view that the number of sub-committees beneath the academic boards should be kept small, that as far as possible they should enjoy delegated authority to act within their terms of reference; and that, in order to ensure consistency and coherence, they should in general be chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor who chairs the main academic board.

Recommendation 18
We recommend:

(a) that three new academic boards should be established beneath the new Council, inheriting from the General Board such responsibilities as are not assumed by the new Council;

(b) that one board should cover clinical medicine, a second biological and physical sciences, and a third humanities and social sciences;

(c) that each board should have its own full-time chairman, designated as a Deputy Vice-Chancellor, to serve in the first instance for five years;

(d) that the appointment of the Deputy Vice-Chancellors should be the responsibility of the new Council, acting on the advice of an appointing committee chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and comprising representatives of the Council, the relevant academic board, its constituent departments and faculties, and external members;

(e) that the duties of existing Pro-Vice-Chancellors should remain as at present, save that in the absence or incapacity of the Vice-Chancellor one of the Deputy Vice-Chancellors, rather than a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, should be designated by the Council to act in his or her stead, and should deputise on other occasions as required;

(f) that each board should have a maximum of 22 members, and should comprise both ex officio and elected members, with up to two co-opted members; that each board should consider how cross-representation between boards might best be provided; and that the Vice-Chancellor should be free to attend such meetings of each of the boards as he or she saw fit;

(g) that the academic boards should each have full responsibility, under the Council, for the management and administration of the subject areas within their sphere of responsibility. This would include in particular responsibility for submitting annually to the Council an updated long-term strategic plan and an annual operating statement; this plan, should be approved by the Council each year and should provide the framework for each academic board's work during that year;

(h) that the boards should be responsible for managing the detailed allocation of resources, for strategic planning and for quality assurance of the educational provision made under their aegis. They should have authority to make academic appointments without reference to the Council; except that they should not have responsibility for making appointments to established professorships and readerships which should continue to be the responsibility of independent electoral boards;

(i) that each of the boards should consider its own sub-committee structure once it is established;

(j) that administrative support for the boards should be provided by the central administration, under the Registrar.

Continuing education

5.145 Earlier in this report (see paragraphs 3.52-3.55) we drew attention to the scale and achievements of the University's work in the field of continuing education, most of which is centred on the Department for Continuing Education and Kellogg College. This is an important area of the University's work, and one which we expect to continue to develop in the future. Under present arrangements, the University's continuing education work is overseen by a committee of the General Board, and is also supported by an Advisory Council on Continuing Education, which includes substantial external representation. Oversight of this activity must be accommodated within our proposed new structure of governance.

5.146 There are several options for accommodating responsibility for continuing education under the proposed new structure. One might be to allocate responsibility for overseeing continuing education to the three academic boards, each of them taking responsibility for work in their own subject area. This would have the advantage of locating responsibility for such work alongside other academic work. However, it would also have the disadvantage of fragmenting responsibility for what is clearly a coherent body of educational activity, which has hitherto benefited from being administered in a unified way. For this reason, we have concluded that it would be more appropriate if a separate, self-standing Committee for Continuing Education, reporting directly to the new Council, were to be established to take responsibility for continuing education within the University, and for advising on and monitoring plans in the field put forward, primarily, by the Department for Continuing Education. This committee would also have oversight of that department's budget, which would be determined by the Council or its relevant committees. We would envisage the Advisory Council on Continuing Education as being appointed and as operating in much the same way as now.

Recommendation 19
We recommend that responsibility for overseeing the University's continuing education work, and for proposing the allocation of funds to the Department for Continuing Education, should rest with the Committee for Continuing Education, which should report to the new Council.

Inter-faculty and other committees

5.147 We have considered how a number of other academic subject-related committees, currently operating largely under the aegis of the General Board, would fit into the proposed new structure. In many cases, the committees would fall clearly under one of the three new proposed academic boards, and it would be for those boards to consider how they should operate or whether their continuing existence was warranted. Thus, for example, the Committee for the History of Art, the Inter-faculty Committee for Japanese Studies and the Committee for the School of Management Studies would most sensibly report directly to the humanities and social studies board; and the Advisory Committee for Forestry and the Advisory Council for Ornithology would fall under the sciences board. Where joint or inter-faculty committees span the interests of more than one academic board (as for example with the Standing Committee for Engineering, Economics and Management and Related Schools), it would be necessary for such committees to report jointly to both boards.

Recommendation 20
We recommend that the Council, in conjunction with the three academic boards, should review all existing academic standing committees with a view to determining whether there is a continuing need for their existence, and if so to which of the three academic boards either severally or jointly they should report.

The Committee for Educational Studies

5.148 We have considered the position of the Committee for Educational Studies under the proposed new structure. At present, this committee comprises a number of ex officio members (including the professor and reader in educational studies), seven members appointed by the General Board, six members from amongst the staff of the Department of Educational Studies, and several other members. The interests of this committee span a very wide range of academic subjects, but the unifying factor is that the focus is on training students to teach such subjects, primarily at secondary school level, and on research into such teaching - rather than on specific academic subject areas. We have concluded, on balance, that it would be most appropriate for the Committee for Educational Studies to come under the aegis of the proposed academic board for humanities and social sciences.

Recommendation 21
We recommend that the Committee for Educational Studies should come under the aegis of the academic board for humanities and social sciences. The committee should be responsible for advising on the allocation of resources and on all other aspects of the work of the Department of Educational Studies.

Academic support services

5.149 We indicated earlier that most of the academic responsibilities of the General Board should be transferred to the three new academic boards. We do not however think that this necessarily applies to the management and administration of academic support services under the new structure. These services are indispensable for teaching, scholarship and research within the University. They include libraries, information technology, telecommunications, museums, and administration.

5.150 It is important that the planning and management of these support services and the allocation of resources to them should be integrated into academic planning, so that the development of academic provision goes hand in hand with proper consideration of the provision made for support services. Responsibility for these matters should be clearly defined, so that users of the services know who is accountable for them. It is equally important that users understand that there are practical constraints involved in managing and providing support services, and that they are aware of the resources required to pay for them.

5.151 The need to secure effective delivery of these services is underlined by the concerns that there have been about the adequacy of provision in the University's library services, and in particular in the Bodleian. We have noted the strength of feeling arising from the responses to our Hilary Term 1996 staff surveys about university library provision, which has underlined the need for substantial change. We welcome the recent appointment of the Director of University Library Services and Bodley's Librarian, and believe that he and his colleagues should cooperate closely with the proposed three academic boards in ensuring that changes and improvements being introduced to library provision reflect their priorities and needs.[85]

5.152 There are distinctive issues and distinctive professional skills associated with the management of each of the different support services noted above, and for this reason we believe it appropriate that each should be overseen by a separate body. We therefore recommend that the Buildings Committee (responsible for estates matters), the Information Technology Committee (responsible for all aspects of information technology provision within the University), and the Libraries Committee should remain in existence. We also believe that there should be a single committee covering the University's museum services, responsible for defining the services which the University's museums should deliver and ensuring that they do so.

5.153 The remit of these committees should be to exercise general oversight of the provision of services in their areas, and to oversee the management and administration of the services that were not directly funded through the academic boards; to consider and initiate policies governing the future development of those services within the University, taking account of the needs of users and of relevant developments in national policy, in technology, and of new professional skills; and, in close liaison with the academic boards, to prepare plans and proposed operating statements, for submission to the Council as part of the annual planning and resource allocation cycle. We would emphasise that each of these committees would have a high degree of delegated authority and would not be expected to refer to the Council save on matters of major strategy.

5.154 This last element in the proposed remit of these bodies means that each would hold their own budgets which would cover the costs of the centrally (as opposed to departmentally) provided services in their areas. We did consider the possibility that resources for academic support services should, instead, be held by the three academic boards, which would then be expected to 'buy' services from providers. This model is followed to a greater or lesser extent in some other universities, and by other organisations. We have, however, rejected it on the basis that in Oxford its likely benefits in terms of improving the effectiveness and accountability of services would not outweigh the high administrative costs in what is already a complex institution.

5.155 At the same time, the arrangements proposed must ensure that the needs of users are properly catered for and that they are fully reflected in the plans and priorities developed by the bodies responsible for these services. There must be effective liaison with the three academic boards. It is also important that, where there are common or overlapping policy and resource questions concerning more than one of these services (as for example might be the case with IT and library provision), there is then a coherent approach to dealing with them. In addition, we think that consideration should be given to developing service level agreements to govern the relationships between providers of services and the academic boards.

5.156 In order to achieve these varied objectives in relation to academic support services, we propose that there should be a fourth Deputy Vice-Chancellor whose responsibility would be to chair the different bodies concerned with the provision of these academic services, to ensure coordination between them and the academic boards, and to oversee the delivery and development of these services within the University. This Deputy Vice-Chancellor for academic services would have a somewhat different remit from that of the other three subject-related Deputy Vice-Chancellors. The postholder would be expected to represent the interests of users in dealing with providers of services, and to ensure proper communication between users and providers. It would be important that the postholder not be too closely identified with service providers, but clearly he or she must have their confidence and be able to communicate their views and explain them to users. This fourth Deputy Vice-Chancellor would also be expected to bring to the attention of the academic boards the importance of new or potential developments in academic services, and to consider whether the resources to deliver such services were adequate, and to make the case for additional funds if it were judged that they were not.

5.157 We propose that the terms and method of appointment of this Deputy Vice-Chancellor should be the same as that for the other three, namely that the appointment should be full-time and for five years, renewable, and that an appointing committee for the post, including some external membership, should be established by the Council, and that it should include significant user representation.

5.158 Successful delivery of academic services depends to a great extent on the work of professionals in each field. They include the Director of Library Services and Bodley's Librarian, the Director of Computing Services, and the directors of the various museums within the University. We expect such professionals to exercise a high degree of initiative in developing the services for which they are responsible and in ensuring their effective management. We have concluded that these professionals should report, through the bodies overseeing their work, to the new fourth Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

5.159 Finally, we believe that, whilst the committees to oversee different academic services, and the fourth Deputy Vice-Chancellor, would ultimately be responsible to the Council, it would also be sensible to establish a committee of the Council to oversee all academic services and to act on the Council's behalf on all but the most substantial questions. This committee would be particularly important in advising the Council and its Planning and Resources Committee during the course of the annual planning and resource allocation cycle. The committee should be chaired by the fourth Deputy Vice-Chancellor and should also include the chairmen of the committees overseeing the main academic services; two members appointed by the Council; and representatives of the three academic boards.

Recommendation 22
We recommend that there should be a Deputy Vice-Chancellor, for academic support services. The terms and method of appointment to this post should be similar to those of the three Deputy Vice-Chancellors chairing the academic boards. This fourth Deputy Vice-Chancellor would be responsible for overseeing the provision of academic support services, including libraries, computing, buildings, museums, and administrative services. Each of these areas should also be overseen by a committee; and there should be a further committee of the Council which would oversee all academic services and provide advice to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

Structures below the three academic boards: faculties, sub-faculties and departments

5.160 The structures below the three main academic boards would clearly need detailed consideration in due course and would influence the way in which the boards themselves operate. The structures beneath the present General Board are varied. In the sciences and medicine they include faculty boards and faculties, sub-faculties, and departments of varying sizes. In the humanities and social sciences there are faculties, faculty boards, sub-faculties and some departments, as well as inter-faculty and other discipline based committees for subjects such as Management Studies.

5.161 We do not wish to make detailed or prescriptive recommendations about these structures. One of the first tasks which should be undertaken by each of the three new academic boards once they are established would be to consider the academic structures below them for themselves, consulting where appropriate with those working in the relevant subject areas. We believe that there may be scope for rationalisation of the present faculty, sub-faculty, department and sub-departmental structures and, where it is thought desirable, for reducing the number of tiers beneath the three academic boards. We also offer the following additional comments.

5.162 In the case of clinical medicine , the new academic board would, in practice, largely replace the present faculty board of clinical medicine. The departmental structures beneath it would be a question for the new board, bearing in mind in particular that there is one very large department (the Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine) and a large number of much smaller units.

5.163 We suggest that the new science board must consider how far the existing faculty, sub-faculty and departmental structures should continue, or whether there is scope for rationalisation. In particular, we see scope for streamlining the existing administrative structures and for clarifying the respective roles of the various bodies. At present, the General Board discusses departmental grants directly with departments, but deals with academic posts through faculty boards. Departmental heads direct the teaching duties of university lecturers, and provide facilities for practical work, but the responsibility for the organisation of teaching and for syllabus content lies with the faculty boards and their faculties or sub-faculties, which control the lecture lists and the regulations published in the Examination Decrees.

5.164 In recent years, this structure has proved inadequate to cope with all the different ways in which the work of departments has to be coordinated; and various other bodies have played an increasingly important role, notably the Committee of Heads of Science Departments, and the Bioscience Research Board. There has also been a move to combine departments into larger units, first with the creation of the Department of Physics in 1990, and more recently with the amalgamation of the chemistry departments. Furthermore, the areas covered by some sub-faculties coincide more or less exactly with those of departments (as for example in chemistry and physics), but in other cases sub-faculties co-ordinate the teaching activity of several departments, or individual departments contribute to the work of more than one faculty.

5.165 We believe that these structures which currently exist in the sciences are too complicated to function effectively. The present groupings of subjects under faculty boards are haphazard, and it is not clear that they are the most useful ones for all purposes. In some cases, the area covered by a board is very broad (e.g. Physical Sciences); in others, rather less so (e.g. Psychological Studies). Moreover a department may have different partners in undergraduate teaching and in research, and structures that are designed to co-ordinate undergraduate teaching may actually create artificial difficulties at other levels (for example, where the research area of a post falls between boards).

5.166 We envisage that the new science board should bring together the planning of teaching and research activity, and the corresponding decisions on the distribution of resources. This would only be possible if the board were to tackle as one of its first tasks the rationalisation of the structures beneath it. While we do not make detailed recommendations on how this should be done, we offer the following general observations on the change that is needed. The mechanism for dealing with resource allocation from the science board to the bodies below it must deal with posts and other resources together. Thus either the science board must deal directly with departments on questions concerning academic posts as well as departmental grants, or it should channel all departmental resources through two or three intermediate bodies covering broad subject groupings. We have recommended elsewhere (in Chapter 10) that departments in the sciences should be given formal responsibility for the delivery of graduate education (much of the responsibility in this area is in any case clearly delegated to departments). Although we can see a continued need for sub-faculties, to provide a forum for those involved in teaching in a particular area to meet and co-ordinate their activities, we believe that responsibility for the delivery of the university component of undergraduate teaching might also with benefit be transferred to the departments, given that the departments are already responsible for directing the teaching by lecturers and for planning future deployment of resources.

5.167 The practical effect of this would be to replace sub-faculty committees by departmental or inter-departmental committees working in consultation with sub-faculties. Other functions of faculty boards could also be transferred: formal regulatory functions should wherever possible be passed to appropriately constituted sub-committees of the science board, and organisational responsibilities to departments. The Committee of Heads of Science Departments would be likely to have a more formal role in the new structure, and to take on much of the work of coordination between departments. It is possible that such changes would remove the need for a formal administrative layer (e.g. faculty board or sub-faculties) between the science board and the departments. The board might wish to consider whether the present structure is best suited for promoting interdisciplinarity and for carrying out the various tasks necessary in administering the work of different subject areas.

5.168 In the humanities and social sciences, we believe that the new academic board should review the structures below it. It might be thought possible for this board to continue with the present sub-structure of faculty boards, inter-faculty committees, etc. Were that to be the conclusion, it is also clear that the demands made of such faculty boards would be considerably greater than they are at present, since they would acquire responsibilities for the development of strategic and operational plans and for the administration of budgets. This may well point to the need for chairmen of faculty boards to be relieved of a substantial part of their other responsibilities.

Recommendation 23
We recommend that the academic boards should consider the structures which should be established beneath them, having regard to the discussion of this issue in this report.

V: The position of Convocation

5.169 We noted in Chapter 4 that Convocation is one of the two ancient assemblies of the University of Oxford. Its powers are potentially wide, including any which 'are or shall be assigned to it by the statutes or by decrees',[86] but they are now very limited, being restricted to the election of the Chancellor and of the Professor of Poetry. Participation in the elections requires voting in person. Convocation's membership comprises all the holders of the Oxford degrees (other than honorary degrees) of Doctor of Divinity, Doctor of Civil Law, Doctor of Medicine and Master of Arts, together with those who hold the status of Master of Arts. The holders of other degrees (except the BA) are also eligible to become members of Convocation in or after the 21st term from their matriculation.

5.170 The existence of Convocation as an assembly comprising all those who have received an Oxford education provides a means whereby all graduates of the University have an opportunity for some continued formal involvement in the life of the University, supplementing in a modest way the links that colleges develop with their old members. Convocation's powers may be very limited, and the opportunity for involvement minimal, but it is nonetheless symbolically important. Convocation also provides an expression of the fact that those with Oxford degrees remain members of the University after they have left Oxford.

5.171 We see no reason to change the powers which Convocation currently exercises. It is appropriate that all members of the University should have the opportunity of participating in electing the Chancellor of the University, and in this we can do no more than repeat the statement in the Franks Report that '[in the election of the Chancellor], which concerns high ceremonial honour, the whole body of those who have received a full Oxford education, whether living inside or outside the walls, should have the opportunity to express their view'.[87] Although the power to elect the Professor of Poetry every five years may be something of an oddity, we also see no reason to remove that power from Convocation.

5.172 We believe however that the powers of Convocation should be limited by statute to these and these alone, rather than that as at present the statute should allow for the possibility that wider powers could be accorded to Convocation by statute or decree.

5.173 As regards membership of Convocation, we have concluded that this should be extended to cover the holder of any degree of the University, regardless of the degree held or the time which has elapsed since matriculation. This would simplify the criteria for membership and one of its main effects would be to open up membership of Convocation to those holding the BA who have not chosen to proceed to the MA. We do not believe that those who have not chosen to proceed to the MA should be excluded from participation in Convocation's limited activity, nor do we think that those who hold 'advanced' degrees but have no MA should have to wait seven years for membership, and then have to pay a fee as they are currently required to. We also propose that membership of Congregation should itself automatically entitle an individual to membership of Convocation in those relatively few cases when such individuals do not otherwise qualify. This would also cover the position of those who, under the arrangements which we have proposed for membership of Congregation, would no longer be granted an MA by Special Resolution.

Recommendation 24
We recommend that the statute governing Convocation's powers (Title III) should be amended so as to read that 'the functions of Convocation shall be to elect the Chancellor and the Professor of Poetry'; and membership of Convocation should include all members of Congregation and should be extended to all those holding a degree of the University, irrespective of the degree and the length of time which has elapsed since it was awarded.

VI: Individual office holders

The office of Chancellor

5.174 We have considered the office of Chancellor of the University, and whether any changes should be made to present arrangements. The present Chancellor, like his predecessor, has undertaken a significant range of responsibilities for the University. These include not only ceremonial functions and active involvement in the University's external relations, but also providing informal advice to the Vice-Chancellor on many matters. The Chancellor has, moreover, been very active in supporting the colleges, both generally and as Visitor to several of them. The Chancellor has also chaired the nominating committee for the Vice-Chancellorship. We have concluded that the office of Chancellor is currently functioning entirely successfully, and do not wish to propose any changes, save those in paragraphs 5.41 and 5.67. As indicated above in para 5.171, we also believe that Convocation should continue to have the right of electing the Chancellor.

The office of Vice-Chancellor

5.175 Since the time of the Franks Report (when the present arrangements governing the office of Vice-Chancellor were introduced) there has been a great increase in the range of responsibilities imposed on the Vice-Chancellor. We noted in Chapter 4 that the role of the Vice-Chancellor in representing the University externally has grown substantially: this is the result in part of the growth in importance of fund-raising and the maintenance of strong and effective alumni relations, but stems also in part from greater demands imposed by funding bodies, public or private. Major changes have been brought about by new requirements for accountability imposed by government and other agencies, and the Vice-Chancellor has acquired added responsibilities as the University's 'accounting officer'. The burden on the Vice-Chancellor has also increased because of developments within the University itself. Oxford is now a much more complex institution than in the past, and the volume of business involved in its administration and management has grown.

5.176 In the light of these developments we wish to propose a number of changes to the office of Vice-Chancellor. The first is that the present four year period of office should be increased to five in the first instance, with the possibility of an extension to seven years. We have noted that this is now the practice adopted by the University of Cambridge, and believe that it provides a more appropriate balance between the need, on the one hand, to enable the Vice-Chancellor to build up experience and to bring a degree of continuity to the management of the University, with, on the other, the need to ensure the injection of 'new blood' at appropriate intervals.

5.177 Secondly, we believe that the University should widen the field of those eligible to hold the office of Vice-Chancellor. At present, eligibility is restricted to those who are members of Congregation at the time of their appointment. We think that this is an unnecessary and undesirable restriction, and that the field of eligibility should be extended so as to allow the possibility of an 'external' appointment. In making this recommendation, we are not seeking to open the way for the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor with little or no experience of the University of Oxford or of collegiate universities. Rather, the proposal is meant (for example) to make it possible for individuals who have had considerable relevant experience, but who at the time of the election to the Vice-Chancellorship were working elsewhere, to be eligible for election.

5.178 We also think that the present age qualifications for the post, whereby the Vice-Chancellor must have completed his or her period of office before reaching the age of 65, can be removed, although in practice we consider it to be most unlikely that any Vice-Chancellor would be appointed who would not complete his or her period of office before or by the normal date of retirement. Consideration would need to be given to the nature of the post, if any, to which an outgoing Vice-Chancellor might be appointed if he or she demitted office before the normal retirement age.

5.179 Next, we propose that the present arrangements for a formal two year 'run-out' period for former Vice-Chancellors, and a formal two year 'run-in' period for incoming Vice-Chancellors should be abandoned. Under these arrangements an incoming Vice-Chancellor becomes an ex officio member of Council for two years before taking up office, and a former Vice-Chancellor likewise remains a member of Council for two years after demitting office. In effect these provisions require a Vice-Chancellor to be closely involved in university affairs for eight years, and we think that, however valuable this may be in some circumstances, the present provisions are unnecessarily inflexible and prescriptive. We believe that there is no need for any formal 'run-out' period at all, and that arrangements for a 'run-in' period can be dealt with on an ad hoc basis by the Council, in particular by ensuring that an incoming Vice-Chancellor is elected a reasonable time before taking up appointment. We can also see considerable merit in the period of office starting earlier, say on 1 September rather than shortly before the beginning of full term in October, as at present.

Recommendation 25
We recommend that the period of office of the Vice-Chancellor should be increased to five years, with the possibility of renewal for a further two; that eligibility for election to the Vice-Chancellorship should no longer be restricted to members of Congregation; that no age restriction should be attached to eligibility; and that there should no longer be a formal 'run in' or 'run out' periods before and after to the period of office.

5.180 Responsibility for nominating the Vice-Chancellor currently rests with an independent statutory committee chaired by the Chancellor, and comprising four members appointed by Congregation, four members appointed by Council, and four members appointed by the colleges. A nomination made by this committee is subject to formal approval by Congregation, but otherwise the committee acts independently of other bodies.

5.181 We believe that this arrangement for appointment by an independent standing committee would not be appropriate where the term of office would be five to seven years. The procedure should be modified so that nomination would be made by a specially constituted committee of the new Council. Such a committee should make a recommendation to the Council, which should have the power to approve a nomination without further reference to Congregation. We propose that this nominating committee should comprise seven members and be chaired by an external member of the Council; that the three academic boards should each nominate a member; that the chairman of the Conference of Colleges should be a member; and that two further members should be directly elected by Congregation. This membership of what is in effect a 'search committee' for the Vice-Chancellorship would ensure a broad spread of experience yet be compact enough to enable it to function efficiently.

Recommendation 26
We recommend that nomination of the Vice-Chancellor should be the responsibility of a committee of the Council, whose membership should consist of an external member of the Council (in the chair), two members elected directly by Congregation, the Chairman of the Conference of Colleges and one person appointed by each of the three academic boards. The committee should not be a standing committee but be appointed each time a vacancy in the office arises and should make a recommendation to the Council, which should have power to make an appointment.

The Proctors and the Assessor

5.182 The two Proctors are elected to serve for one year by the fellows of a college, in practice from amongst their own number; the colleges making the two elections in any given year are determined by a cycle prescribed by statute. The Proctors combine specific duties for enforcing discipline, investigating complaints, and overseeing the conduct of examinations, with a general duty to involve themselves in university business. This latter role customarily requires them to attend all meetings of Council and of the General Board, as well as meetings of many of their more important sub-committees, and of other university bodies. Their contribution is especially valuable in that it provides an opportunity for members of colleges who may hitherto have had little or no direct contact with the University's central bodies to become closely involved with their work during their year of office.

5.183 The Assessor is elected in the same way as the Proctors, and likewise serves for one year. He or she shares with the Proctors a general duty to become involved in university business, and attends Council and the General Board in the same way as they do. The Assessor has also developed a particular responsibility for matters concerning the welfare of junior members of the University.

5.184 We believe that, as far as possible, these arrangements should continue in their current form under the new structure of governance which we have proposed in this chapter. We think that the Proctors and Assessor would continue to have a valuable role to play on the new Council, and that they could play a particularly important part in the work of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee of the Council, because of their interest in examinations practice and policy. We are aware that there is some concern that our proposal for three academic boards would make it difficult for current practice whereby the Proctors and Assessor attend meetings of the General Board to be adapted to the new structure, because of the increase in the number of meetings. How far this proves to be a problem in practice would depend on the frequency with which the academic boards met, but we believe that part of the answer to any such difficulty would be for the Proctors and Assessor to share the work of attending board meetings, so that one only attended each board.

VII: The implications for the colleges of changes in governance

5.185 Our proposals on governance would clearly have wide ranging implications for the colleges and for their relationship with the University. We have emphasised throughout this report that it is essential for there to be close and effective cooperation between the University and the colleges in the many areas of joint concern. In Chapter 3, for example, we argued that there should be closer cooperation between the University and the colleges in developing future strategy for the use of space and sites. We argued earlier in this chapter that the academic boards should ensure that they worked closely with the colleges in developing the plans they submitted to the Council in the annual planning and resource allocation exercise, where cooperation would be particularly important in determining plans for future student numbers and the organisation and support of teaching. In Chapter 11 we will argue that the vital role of the colleges in supporting much of the University's research effort should be reflected in closer liaison between faculties and departments on the one hand and the colleges on the other, particularly over the appointment by colleges of junior research fellows.

5.186 Achieving these objectives would require effective cooperation between university bodies on the one hand (whose members are of course also, in most cases, fellows of colleges) and representative college bodies on the other. In one case we have proposed specific college representation on a university body, namely the Educational Policy and Standards Committee discussed earlier in this chapter. Because of the nature of its responsibilities and the importance of the colleges' contribution to teaching, we believe that this committee should have half its membership drawn specifically from the colleges. However, as a general rule we do not favour the approach of identifying a 'college constituency' of membership of committees. We believe that the best way forward is to build on existing models of cooperation between university and college bodies.

5.187 A good example of where this currently works well is the Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee (JUAC), a college body of which the Chairman of the General Board is also a member. As we have noted elsewhere in this report, the JUAC has been highly effective in ensuring that the colleges' admissions policies enable Oxford to meet the targets for maximum aggregate student numbers (MASNs) which have been set by HEFCE. We have also noted that the Secretary of the Chest now regularly attends meetings of the Estates Bursars' Committee and its Standing Committee, fostering liaison between the University Chest and college interests, while officers of the University attend the Senior Tutors' Committee and the Committee of Tutors for Graduates. Effective liaison can thus be achieved through a member or officer of a particular university committee attending meetings of relevant college committees, and vice versa. We believe that models of this sort should be built on, and in particular that representative college bodies should consider whether they wish to invite officers or members of relevant university bodies to attend certain meetings as a way of improving communication and fostering liaison between them.

Recommendation 27
We recommend that bodies representative of the colleges should consider whether to invite officers or chairmen of appropriate university committees to attend their meetings, in order to foster liaison and communication between college and university bodies.

5.188 As we noted in Chapter 4, we have also considered whether to recommend any changes to current arrangements for the collective representation of colleges. At present, as well as meeting in bodies such as the Senior Tutors' Committee and the Estates Bursars' Committee, colleges are all represented in the termly meetings of the Conference of Colleges. We have discussed whether to pursue the recommendation made in the Franks Report that there should be a Council of Colleges, able through majority voting to impose binding decisions on each individual college.[88] Our consultation with colleges revealed[89] little or no support for such a measure, and we do not believe that it is a workable proposal.

5.189 At the same time, there are clear advantages in colleges developing a common approach to issues where there are common concerns, both in cases which involve dealing with university bodies and in others. The Conference of Colleges is playing an increasingly important and successful role in this respect, and we believe that the role of the Conference should be further developed in the future. We have noted in particular that the role of the Standing Committee of the Conference has become increasingly important in recent years, and we think that the Conference as a whole should consider channelling more business through the Standing Committee, which might mean that the Standing Committee needed to meet more often than at present.

5.190 It is important that there is an effective means of consulting colleges and ascertaining their collective view on matters of policy. This is often necessary to enable the central university bodies - and in particular the Council and the Vice-Chancellor - to speak for Oxford as a whole on matters which are of common concern to both the colleges and the University. A good example of where this has been required recently is in respect of negotiations with HEFCE and the government on the future of college fees. In such circumstances there needs to be a means to ensure swift and effective communication between the Council and the Vice-Chancellor on the one hand, and bodies representative of the colleges on the other. Given the relatively infrequent meetings of the full Conference, we believe that the Conference of Colleges should give further consideration to how far its Standing Committee can provide this mechanism.

Recommendation 28
We recommend that, in the light of the discussion in this report, the Conference of Colleges should consider its future role and in particular the possibility of developing further the responsibilities of its Standing Committee.

5.191 Our remit did not extend to questions concerning the internal governance of colleges. We are, however, concerned at the extent to which those responding to the survey of teaching and research staff which we conducted in Hilary Term 1996 were unhappy with the burdens placed on them by the demands of college administration. There is a real chance that, because of this, an increasing number of fellows of colleges may become disenchanted with their collegiate links.

5.192 Clearly, the active involvement of fellows in the running of a college is an important element in collegiality, and there are limits to how far it can be reduced. On the other hand, we believe that there would be advantage in college governing bodies re-examining the procedures through which they operate, in order to see whether more effective use could be made of the time of senior members. One possibility would be to delegate more responsibility from full meetings of governing bodies towards a smaller group, perhaps a sub-committee of the governing body. We have noted that Cambridge colleges often have a college council, responsible to the governing body, but comprising only a small proportion of it, which handles most regular business, and which reports to the full governing body only once a year. We also understand that a number of Oxford colleges have statutory power to establish an Executive Committee which would perform a similar role to that of a college council in Cambridge, though we are not aware that any Oxford college has established such a body. Adoption or adaptation of an approach of this sort could help to reduce the administrative burdens imposed by colleges on their fellows, which would help meet much of the dissatisfaction which was revealed in the responses to our survey. We are clear that steps need to be taken to address this issue and believe that the Conference of Colleges, perhaps through a collegiate working party, would have an important role to play.

Recommendation 29
We recommend that the Conference of Colleges and college governing bodies should consider ways of reducing the administrative burdens which are imposed on the senior members of colleges.

VIII: Costs of the Commission's proposals on governance

5.193 One of the criteria against which our proposals will be judged is their cost, and in particular whether they are likely to lead to overall savings in the resources which the University has to devote to management and administration. Providing an accurate assessment of costs is not straightforward: as far as we are aware, no costings have ever been undertaken of Oxford's present structure of governance, and the single most important component in such costs is almost certainly the time spent by academic staff in such activities.

5.194 The costs of our proposals would immediately give rise to direct additional expenditure in respect of the proposed four Deputy Vice-Chancellors against which would need to be offset the salary of the present chairman of the General Board. It is also possible that our proposals would lead to additional direct expenditure on administrative staff. However, we believe that increases in direct costs of this sort must be set against the very substantial savings which would arise from the reduction in academic staff time which currently needs to be spent on administrative tasks, and that on balance our proposals would lead to savings rather than additional costs. We refer to this point in more detail in paragraph 7.6 to 7.7.

I: Introduction

6.1 The changes to governance discussed in Chapter 5 will have substantial implications for the University's administrative service. As well as playing a major part in the implementation of the changes we propose, the administrative service - and above all the central administration - will be fundamental to ensuring that the new structures work effectively once they have been established. Professional administrative support and sophisticated management information will be essential to enable the new Council and its committees, and the academic boards and their committees, to operate effectively. Good management information will be particularly important to support the planning and resource allocation cycle which we have proposed, and to underpin the monitoring of the work of the academic boards on behalf of the Council, which we believe to be an essential counterpart of a greater degree of delegation of responsibility under the new system. It is also likely that bodies beneath the academic boards, such as faculty boards, will need a higher level of administrative support than they receive at present.

6.2 We have noted that the University is currently in the process of appointing a new Registrar, responsible for the management and development of the University's administrative service, who can be expected to take up office in the first half of 1998. The new appointee will have a key role to play in considering the implications of our proposals for the University's administration, and in ensuring that effective support is provided to the new bodies. We have noted that this point is reflected in the further particulars for the post which have been approved by Council, which state that a new Registrar will be required to review the operation and structure of the University's administration.

6.3 We have not ourselves considered in detail the issues which a new Registrar will need to address in the light of our report. However, we wish to comment on three matters which will be relevant to the review which the new appointee will be asked to undertake: the first is the need for a unitary administration; the second concerns the role to be expected of the Registrar and his or her senior administrative colleagues; and the third is the implications of our proposed changes for requirements for financial and other types of management information.

II: The need for a unitary central administration

6.4 The present arrangements for Oxford's administrative services were put in place following the Franks Report, which made various recommendations for change. In particular, the Registrar became the head of a unitary administration, with the heads of the main divisions in the central administration (the Chest or Finance Division, the Academic Division, the General Administrative Division, and the Surveyor's Office) henceforth all reporting directly to the Registrar. These arrangements have worked well in fostering a common approach in all branches of the administrative service, and in encouraging communication between different sections and an overall coherence. We also note in passing that the University of Cambridge has recently implemented a similar structure for its administrative services, following recommendations made in the Wass Report.[90]

6.5 We believe that it is very important that Oxford should continue to enjoy the benefits of a unitary administrative service. We note that the committee established by Council in 1997 to review the post of Registrar prior to the appointment of a successor to Dr Dorey reached the same conclusion and that its views were endorsed by Council.[91] We would add that we believe that it would be vital, under the new structures which we have proposed in the previous chapter, for the Registrar and his or her colleagues to be responsible for providing administrative support both to the new Council and its committees, and to the three academic boards and their committees. The alternative -whereby each of the three boards employed their own administrators to support them - would in our view create serious problems. It would undermine coherence in the administration of the University, and would make it much more difficult to achieve consistency of approach between the three boards where this was required. In many areas each board would need to take account of a university-wide policy, and it would be the job of the administration to advise on this and to foster a common approach.

6.6 One example of where a common approach is essential would be that of personnel policy, and another the administration of outside grants. In this latter case, for instance, whilst we have argued that the proposed three new Deputy Vice-Chancellors chairing academic boards should have responsibility for strategic liaison with external funders of research, this responsibility would need to be underpinned by the work of that section of the University's administration responsible for handling research grants and for providing liaison with external funding bodies sponsoring research. It would be the role of the central administration to offer advice and support to the Deputy Vice-Chancellors in their execution of their responsibilities, to ensure a consistent approach to matters such as the recovery of overheads on external research grants and contracts, intellectual property policy, and contractual issues arising from research contract negotiations. We also believe that communication and cooperation between the three boards would be greatly facilitated if they were provided with administrative support by a single administrative service; and that the provision of consistent and coherent management information requires a unitary administration.

6.7 It is for these reasons that we made our recommendation in Chapter 5 that the academic boards should be supported by the University's central administration.

III: The role of administrators

6.8 Our second point concerns the role which should be expected of administrators under the new structure. We believe that university bodies and academic officers should encourage administrators to play a much more active part in the conduct of business than has sometimes been the case in Oxford in the past. Professional administrators have a key role in offering advice to committees and their chairmen and, if necessary, in arguing for a particular line which they believe to be consistent with other aspects of university policy. Their arguments may not win the day, but they should be heard. Administrators should also be expected to take the initiative in bringing forward to university bodies matters which they believe ought to be considered. They should initiate discussion of policy choices where these need to be faced, rather than waiting for others to raise them, and they should be expected to take a lead in anticipating problems and issues which university bodies will need to address.

6.9 We also believe that administrators should be given responsibility for taking certain decisions themselves, provided these fall within a clearly established policy framework which has been developed by appropriate university bodies. This would mean that, within such a framework, more routine matters could be delegated to officials rather than be considered by committees. Such delegation would help to free time for university committees to discuss more substantial matters, and also reduce the extent to which academic staff have to involve themselves in detailed and routine business. It should be the responsibility of the new Registrar to implement these proposals.

6.10 We note that these recommendations about the role of administrators echo similar arguments advanced by the Franks Commission. The Franks Report commented: 'Officials ... should be expected to inform and to advise in the course of the meetings they attend. But they should not vote: nor is the responsibility for decision theirs. We are also certain that some of the business which at present goes for decision to committees should not go there at all. We would think it proper for committees to decide what rules they want to have, for instance, for sabbatical leave or for the payment of non-academic staff; but we think that the decision of where a particular case fits under such schemes should not go to a committee but should be decided by officials. In the case of doubt the official would be expected to consult the chairman of his [or her] committee, who, unless the case falls outside the rules, should decide, reporting his [or her] decision, if of sufficient importance, at the next meeting of the committee. The secretary of a committee, supported by his [or her] chairman, can usually deal with most of the detail, thereby saving academics from acting as clerks; they waste less time because at their meetings they can address themselves to important points.'[92] We strongly endorse these views.

Recommendation 30
We recommend that the Registrar should consider the implications for the central administration of the proposals on governance in Chapter 5 and make recommendations to the Council. In so doing, he or she should bear in mind the importance of maintaining a unitary structure for the central administration, whereby a single integrated administrative service is responsible for providing support both to the Council and to the academic boards, as well as to their committees, and of the value of administrators exercising a greater degree of initiative and responsibility in their work.

6.11 Our discussion hitherto has focused on the work of the central administration, and its role in supporting the Council, the academic boards, and the various bodies which would be responsible to them. We also believe that there is a case for examining whether the Registrar should become responsible for the management and professional development of all administrative staff within the University - including departmental administrators and faculty administrators. We believe that fostering greater mobility of administrators between the central administration and departments would both enhance the effectiveness of the administrative service, and contribute to the improved professional development of administrators.

Recommendation 31
We recommend that the Council should consider making the Registrar formally responsible for the management and professional development of departmental administrative staff, as well as of those within the central administration; and that both groups of staff should be regarded as belonging to a single administrative service.

IV: Management information in Oxford

Introduction

6.12 We wish to comment on the need for improvements in the scope of management information available in Oxford. Such improvements, whilst important in their own right, would be fundamental to the effective operation of the new structure of governance which we have proposed in Chapter 5. They would underpin the proposed planning and resource allocation cycle which we advocate, which would operate on the basis of costed proposals which sought to integrate all aspects of income and expenditure with other management information.

A proposed review of management information in Oxford

6.13 There will always be aspects of Oxford's structure which mean that producing consistent management information will be less straightforward than in many other organisations. Methods of working have developed at different times in different parts of the University in response to quite different needs. Oxford's collegiate structure, and the financial autonomy of colleges, also substantially complicate the position. But the complexity and diversity of Oxford's structures make it all the more important that its management information systems should be effective. Faculties and departments need clear information upon which to base their actions, while central bodies must be properly informed about the implications - financial and otherwise - of particular policy decisions. Good information will also help to ensure that Oxford uses scarce resources as efficiently and effectively as possible. This is all the more important given the demands now increasingly made on Oxford by external funding bodies to account clearly for the way in which resources are used.

6.14 We have already suggested some ways in which present arrangements could be improved. As we noted in Chapter 4, the University rarely takes an integrated view of all its income and expenditure, such as would enable an overall picture of its finances to be built up. At present, this only happens after the end of the financial year, when the University's annual financial statements are being prepared for submission to HEFCE and for consideration by the external auditors. As a result, it is usually difficult to gain a comprehensive picture of the costs of a particular activity or proposed development and of the income it will generate. An example of where better information would be helpful might be in the development of a new course or a new research project, which is to be funded in part from 'new' income generated specifically by the activities associated with the proposal, and partly by the use of existing resources. At present it is usually relatively easy to identify the former source of income, but much less easy to be specific about the latter.

6.15 We also believe that there would be advantages in considering the overall activity of Oxford - i.e. the University and the colleges - as a whole. At present there are no systems or procedures which provide an integrated picture of income and expenditure across the collegiate University in general. (It is understood that some attempts to do this over the years have been made by the Chest, but the results have never been disseminated.) This makes it difficult to gain an overall picture of, for example, the total resources being devoted to a particular academic subject within Oxford, or to a particular type of activity. Inability to answer such questions in turn makes it difficult to assess whether the distribution of responsibilities between different departments and faculties, or between, say, the University and colleges, is matched to the distribution of resources. Current negotiations with HEFCE and the government over the future public support for college fees have illustrated the desirability of being able to deal more effectively with such questions.

6.16 Inability to cost proposals accurately can put Oxford at a disadvantage in dealing with external funders, for example when trying to negotiate a particular level of overhead cost recovery. Such negotiations need to be backed up by firm data to demonstrate how estimates of indirect or overhead costs were arrived at. Although in the case of commercially sponsored research the emphasis may be shifting from the concept of covering costs to that of charging a price, the setting of a price needs to be based on a full knowledge of the costs, and knowledge of costs will remain of fundamental importance to the University.

6.17 As in most universities, financial and management information systems have developed gradually within Oxford. At present many systems are not integrated. For example, student databases are not integrated with financial systems for collecting and analysing fee income. The use of separate independent financial and management information systems and databases makes it more difficult to achieve consistency and reliability, and the cost of using such varied systems in terms of time and lost efficiency is significant. Nor are departmental and college information systems sufficiently well integrated with or compatible with those used by much of the central administration: we do not think that the latter's needs should simply be imposed on the former, but it is in the interests of all users that compatibility be achieved.

6.18 As we have emphasised, improved information systems covering both financial and other matters are all the more important given the recommendations we make in Chapter 5 for greater devolution in decision-making and management. Our general approach has been to argue that, wherever possible, responsibility for decisions and their implementation should be delegated. However, the more this is done, the more those with delegated responsibility require effective and consistent information systems, and the more important it becomes for those at the centre of the University, and ultimately for the Council itself, to have access to good and timely information about how delegated responsibility is being exercised. The 'centre' must be able to monitor effectively if it is to fulfil its proper responsibilities.

6.19 The need for improvements of the sort outlined above has already been recognised within the University and attempts to deal with these points form a major part of the work of the Administrative Information Systems Committee and its officers. Sustained attempts to deal with many of the points noted above have however sometimes been undermined by lack of resources in the central administration in Wellington Square, which has in turn undermined the confidence of departments that the centre will be able to provide the services required.

6.20 In part in recognition of such difficulties, Council recently agreed to a recommendation from the Curators of the Chest that the University should institute a thorough-going review of its financial systems and procedures. This proposal originated from discussions with the University's external auditors, and can be expected to lead to improvements in the contribution made by Oxford's financial information systems to the effective administration of the University. We believe that the institution of this review is an immensely valuable step, but that more needs to be done. In particular, financial systems have to be considered alongside other management information needs, including staff records and student records; and the needs of the colleges as well as of the University need to be taken into account. It is also important that Oxford should develop the capacity to consider financial and other management information questions at the level of the institution as a whole - i.e. covering both the University and the colleges. This raises much broader questions than those being addressed by the current review of the University's financial systems and procedures, and, as far as we know, has not hitherto been considered within Oxford.

6.21 We therefore propose that there should be a thorough-going review of Oxford's administrative information requirements. This would need to be initiated at the highest level, by the Council; and commitment to the objectives of a review by the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar, as well as by the University's central bodies, would be essential. It would also be important from the first to obtain the active involvement of colleges in addition to that of the University in the narrow sense. In some of the discussions which have led to this recommendation, we have benefitted from the advice and co-operation of members of the Estates Bursars' Committee, and we would hope that cooperation of this sort could be built into the review which we propose. Such a review would need to go wider than purely financial management systems, and would need to take into account the current development of the University's payroll and personnel management system, and of the proposed development of a new student records system.

6.22 As a starting point the review would need to make an assessment of the nature of Oxford's needs for management information, including determining the kinds of questions which university and college bodies wish to ask, and the uses to which they wish to put such information. This would require the active involvement of all users of management information. Only when such fundamental objectives have been addressed would it be possible to ascertain how far existing systems could be adapted to meet them, and how far the development of new systems would be necessary. We recognise the breadth and scope of the task involved here, but believe it to be fundamental to the future prosperity of Oxford, as well as to the openness and clarity of its policy-making and decision-taking systems.

Recommendation 32
We recommend that the Council, in consultation with the Conference of Colleges, should initiate a wide ranging review of all aspects of Oxford's requirements for management information.

KPMG work on financial modelling

6.23 As a contribution to the work which would be required as part of this review, and in order to illustrate some of the issues which it would need to cover, in more detail, we engaged the consultants KPMG (who also act as the University's external auditors), in co-operation with Clark Whitehill (a company with experience of college accounts), to develop a financial model which could be used as a tool to illustrate the likely impact of a range of different policy options. We have already referred to this model in Chapter 3, where we included examples of the uses to which such a model can be put.

6.24 The model has been especially helpful to us in two respects. First, it has provided an analysis of income and expenditure by activity (e.g. undergraduate teaching, graduate teaching, sponsored research, etc.), as well as by subject area (department, faculty, etc). Secondly, the model takes Oxford as a whole, i.e. the University and the colleges together, in order to provide information about the total sum of activity in each of the areas identified.

6.25 As with all models of this sort, the quality of the results it produces depends to a considerable extent on the quality of the data which has been used to construct it, and the assumptions which have necessarily been made in doing so. It became clear during our work with KPMG that severe limitations on the creation of a sound model are imposed by the data currently available, and that for the University to develop this approach considerable further work would be required. In part, this stems from the fact that analysis by activity requires information on the way in which staff time is spent. The model developed for us derives its information on this point from the responses to the questionnaire which we distributed during Hilary Term 1996 to staff engaged in teaching and research.[93] The questionnaire was not however specifically designed for the purpose of constructing the model. As a result, some of the data on this point may not be entirely robust, and it would be necessary, if the University agreed to develop further the approach being outlined here, to consider mounting a specific diary exercise which would provide more reliable data. Other institutions have taken this course, and we believe that the University should give consideration to doing so.

6.26 On the college side, historical financial data was taken from the statement IV of the published college accounts[94] (education and research account), but again this material was not originally compiled with the construction of a model of this sort in mind, and would need to be revisited to improve its reliability. The data in the college accounts was supplemented by the results of a survey of college bursars undertaken during 1996, which provided valuable information on the attribution of costs for subject areas.

6.27 We believe that the model which was devised for us provides a good illustration of the value of this sort of approach to financial planning. It helps to clarify the implications of various policy options, and provides a framework within which policy discussions can take place. As well as the further references to it in Chapter 3, we have also provided further details of the model and of some of the outcomes it illustrates in the report prepared by KPMG, which is contained in the supplementary volume to this main report. For the future we propose that the model should be developed further, and the data and assumptions within it reviewed and refined, by the University's central administration.

Recommendation 33
We recommend that the financial model developed for the Commission by KPMG should be reviewed and further refined by the University's administration, with a view to its future use in supporting discussion of policy development.

7.1 Consideration of the position of academic staff[95] in Oxford has been a key feature of our work, because of the central role they have in both of the basic activities of Oxford - teaching and research. Two of the most serious concerns which have been expressed during our consultation exercises have been the overburdening of academic staff with a combination of research, teaching and administrative duties and the unsatisfactory operation of the joint appointments system for CUF[96] and university lecturers. We now discuss each of these areas in turn.

I: The workload of academic staff

7.2 The overburdening of academic staff is a problem which is by no means unique to Oxford. A survey carried out by the Association of University Teachers in 1994[97] revealed that the average working week of academic staff in UK higher education institutions was 53.5 hours.[98] This situation is the consequence of a combination of factors, including the rise in student numbers, the greater pressure to publish research, and the reduction in the real value of public funding per student in higher education. Because it is unacceptable that students should bear the brunt of these changes, the workload of academic staff has inevitably risen.

7.3 Figure 7.1 illustrates the increase in workload of various categories of academic staff in Oxford between 1964 and 1996, from information obtained from the Franks Commission's staff survey and our own survey in 1996. Whilst the hours are only estimates in both cases, and strict comparisons are difficult to make,[99] it is clear that the increase has been significant across the board. Although comparison between the surveys cannot give a full picture, they appear to indicate that whilst there has been a drop in the average number of undergraduate lectures and tutorials that an academic staff member gives each week, the number of classes and seminars has grown, and all types of graduate teaching have increased. It is also clear from our consultation that staff are concerned about the increasing amount of time taken up with preparing for teaching (for instance essay-marking and preparing hand-outs for lectures) because of the changed expectations on the part of students; about the increase in examining duties; and about the growing burden of administration associated, for example, with applying for research funds and running a research group.

Figure 7.1 : Estimated hours of work per week: comparison between data from the Franks Commission's survey of academic staff in 1964 and our survey in 1996

7.4 The ideal solution to the problems created by the increase in workload, clearly, would be to engage more academic staff, in order to spread the work more widely. Realistically, however, there is no reasonable prospect of the University being in a financial position to do this in the foreseeable future. Another, more feasible, measure would be to obtain more undergraduate teaching at a lower cost, for example by having a significant proportion of teaching carried out by graduate 'teaching assistants', as occurs in a number of distinguished North American universities. Although we argue later (paragraph 10.68) that some increase in the amount of teaching undertaken by graduate students would be desirable for a number of reasons, we nevertheless remain firmly opposed to any proposal which would significantly reduce the proportion of teaching which undergraduates receive from leading academics in their field. It is partly on this principle that Oxford's reputation for excellent undergraduate teaching rests, and we cannot allow it to be diluted to any significant degree.

7.5 Given that the solution cannot be to increase the number of staff, the University must identify measures to achieve some reduction in the overall workload of academic staff, even if such measures can offer only partial solutions. Elsewhere in this report, we make a number of proposals which, as we now indicate, will in our view have a beneficial impact in this area.

Revised governance and administrative structures

7.6 Although the establishment of the three academic boards in the place of the General Board would be likely to increase the number of bodies on which academic staff would be asked to serve, we believe that for a number of reasons the system of governance recommended would nevertheless decrease the overall burden of administration now expected of academic staff. First, committees would be encouraged to allow decisions to be made at as low a level as possible, with the result that there would be much less repetitious referral of issues up and down the committee structure. Secondly, we have suggested that in appropriate circumstances more decisions should be made by individuals, whether academic or administrative staff (see paragraph 6.9), rather than by committees, thus reducing to a considerable degree the unnecessary burden currently placed on committee members. This would also reduce the workload of the administrators servicing the committees, who would thus be available to perform other tasks. The appointment of the four full-time Deputy Vice-Chancellors (see paragraphs 5.121 to 5.129) would be of particular benefit in this respect. Thirdly, improved management information systems (see Chapter 6) would make the tasks of information gathering and retrieval much quicker and easier, and would demand less involvement from academic staff.

7.7 However, whilst much can be done on the part of the University to reduce the burden of administration and of attendance at meetings, it is also incumbent upon colleges to review their structures of governance and administration. It was clear that a number of respondents to our staff questionnaire felt that the burden of college offices and participation in college committees was even more of an imposition and hindrance to academic work than were university duties. We discuss this point in paragraphs 5.191 to 5.192.

More effective use of a variety of teaching methods for undergraduates

7.8 In Chapter 9 we argue that there should be a thorough review of the use made of different undergraduate teaching methods, such as tutorials, lectures, seminars and IT-based learning, in order to ensure that teaching time is used in the most effective way possible for both academic staff and students (see paragraphs 9.29 to 9.34). Whilst there is much that faculties and departments can do, especially in reviewing the use of lectures and of new technologies, we believe that the greatest responsibility in this area lies with the colleges, who are in a position to examine whether any of the teaching given in tutorials could be better delivered in a different form, for example in seminars. Over-extensive use of the tutorial puts an intense pressure on both tutors and students and was the subject of a number of complaints from academic staff. Whilst we have a strong conviction that the tutorial system remains the best foundation for undergraduate degree courses, we nevertheless believe that it could be strengthened, not weakened, by ensuring that tutorial teaching is used in circumstances where it is most appropriate and effective. If our recommendations on this issue in Chapter 9 are adopted, a significant reduction in both the teaching load of, and the frustration experienced by, some academic staff might be achieved.

Revised planning and resource allocation procedures

7.9 One feature of the new planning and resource allocation procedures which we have proposed in Chapter 5 is a requirement on faculties and departments to undertake a rigorous assessment of the availability of staff to provide the teaching which the faculty or department wishes to offer. At present, particularly in graduate studies, there is a tendency to develop a new taught course without identifying who will take over the other teaching for which the course tutor was previously responsible. There has also been a failure in several faculties to observe the norms and maxima set for the number of research students who may be allocated to each supervisor. Both these tendencies, whilst prompted by good motives, contribute to the overburdening of academic staff and must be countered by more careful planning and closer adherence to plans.

7.10 A further feature of our proposals is that the budgets set by each academic unit would include both academic staff costs and other costs. As a result, there would be more freedom than at present for departments and faculties to decide how to maximise the availability of academic staff time. Some might, for example, see benefit in not refilling a vacant academic post, in order to have the funds available to take on additional clerical or administrative support for existing academic staff. In such a case, liaison with colleges would be particularly important to ensure adequate provision of college teaching.

Recommendation 34
We recommend that the University and colleges should give a high priority to identifying and implementing measures to reduce the overall workload of academic staff, taking account in particular of the opportunities presented in this area by our proposals to introduce more effective systems of governance and administration, greater variety in undergraduate teaching methods, more rigorous planning procedures and more flexible allocation of resources.

7.11 Whilst the above measures would go some way to alleviating the burdens on academic staff, we cannot claim that they would solve the whole problem. However, overwork is not the only problem affecting the morale of academic staff. Many of those who are employed jointly by the University and a college are frustrated by a number of aspects of the joint appointments system, including inequitable conditions of employment between different colleges and the obligation to carry out duties to which they may no longer be well suited. As these problems often exacerbate the other pressures on academic staff, these are issues which it is equally important to address.

II: The Joint Appointments System

Introduction

7.12 Given that Oxford is a collegiate university, the arrangements for employing academic staff have evolved in ways which aim to serve, as far as possible, the objectives of both the colleges and the University. However, during this century, it has become more and more difficult to reconcile the needs of the two employers because, whilst the colleges' predominant role has continued to be the provision of tutorial teaching and pastoral support to the undergraduates whom they have admitted, the academic responsibilities of the University have considerably broadened, as a result of which the relationship between the University and the colleges, and the roles which academic staff are expected to fulfil, have changed significantly.

7.13 There have been four principal causes of this change. First, the growth of the sciences, with their need for centrally organised facilities and teaching, has led to the University's greater involvement in undergraduate teaching. This is also true, to a lesser extent, in some of the minority humanities and social science subjects, in which there is sometimes insufficient demand to sustain college-organised teaching. Secondly, the increase in the number of graduate students, for whom the faculties have primary academic responsibility, has given the University a new reason to call on the time of academic staff, including, most significantly, the time of those whose primary employer is a college. Thirdly, the growing importance of research as an academic activity, the income from which accrue mainly to the University, presents another conflict with the demands of tutorial teaching in colleges. Fourthly, the growth of public funding and regulation of higher education has advanced the University's position in terms both of income and of its administrative authority: whilst in 1920, the University's income was little more than a third of that of the colleges collectively,[101] in 1995/6 the colleges' overall income was equivalent to only 43 per cent of the University's (see paragraph 12.1).

The development of the joint appointments system

7.14 Whilst these changes were occurring there was also a significant shift in the pattern of employment of academic staff, leading to the current situation in which nearly all academic staff are appointed jointly by the University and a college. At the beginning of this century, most academic appointments were made by colleges. However, because of the trends outlined above, the University needed increasingly to engage academic staff to fulfil its own distinct responsibilities; these were staff who could give classes and lectures, often in very specialised options, to both undergraduate and graduate students and who could carry out highly specialised research. As a result, there came to be a growing number of professors, readers and university lecturers in Oxford who were not in general invited to hold college fellowships, because the colleges still required a body of fellows willing and able to give undergraduate tutorials in mainstream subjects. This gave rise to a concern that an increasing number of academics in Oxford, particularly in the sciences and minority subjects, were excluded from the academic, financial and social benefits of college fellowship.

7.15 The means by which Oxford has sought to resolve this problem has been through the principle of 'entitlement', whereby all those who are appointed to an established academic post by the University (except the very few who hold part-time, temporary or some junior posts) are entitled also to be appointed to a college fellowship. The first major move towards entitlement was made in the 1920s when the Asquith Commission, appointed to review the University (see paragraph 1.24), ensured the automatic provision of college fellowships for new professors by having each chair allocated to a college. In the 1960s the University put forward a number of possible solutions to the problem of the continued exclusion of an increasing proportion of its academic staff from college life: that existing colleges should absorb those most likely to fit in with their needs; that new colleges, founded specifically for the purpose, should absorb the rest; and that all future academic appointments should be made jointly between the University and the colleges. Although progress was slow, these proposals have now all been implemented. Thus all professorships, readerships and university lecturerships now have a college fellowship associated with them. Most, though not all, of the university lecturers have tutorial duties, and in these cases the college pays about 16 per cent of the joint salary, usually together with some additional benefits such as housing allowance, which range from about £2,000 to about £8,000. In general the colleges make very little financial contribution to their non-tutorial fellows, such as professors, and such staff are rarely expected to undertake teaching duties for the college.

7.16 Whilst some of the pressure for a system of joint appointments arose because of the benefits which college association brings to the University's academic staff, one important form of joint appointment, the CUF lecturership, arose for different reasons. Originally, CUF lecturers were amongst a group of college teaching fellows whose lectures, although given on behalf of their college, were open to all members of the University. Until the 1950s, CUF lecturerships were entirely college-funded, but part of the funding was derived from the 'Common University Fund' (funded by a system of college contributions) rather than their being entirely paid for by individual colleges. In the 1950s however, the Universities' Grants Committee (UGC) began to promote and fund nationwide increases in academic salaries which even the wealthier colleges could not meet. Consequently the University itself funded the salary increases for CUF lecturers by applying some of its additional funding from the UGC to this purpose. From this beginning, the situation gradually came about that the salaries of all established college teaching fellows were funded jointly by their college and the University; in consequence, whilst the major part of their duties continued to be college teaching, a formal requirement to carry out some lecturing for the University was established and the University eventually became more involved in the selection process.[102] Now CUF lecturers (who mainly work in the humanities and social sciences) may also be required to give classes, supervise graduate students and to examine for the University. Thus, from being a post entirely funded and controlled by a college, the CUF lecturership has gradually evolved into what is now termed a joint appointment, with a number of responsibilities which may well conflict with the continuing primary obligation to the college. However, under the current joint appointments system, CUF lecturers still perform the vast majority of their teaching for their college, which pays about 60 per cent of the joint salary, together with allowances.

Problems in the current system

7.17 From the consultation exercise which we undertook in February 1996, it was clear that there was widespread support amongst academic staff in Oxford for the continuation of some form of joint appointments system, which was seen as a good way to build on the strengths of the college system. Academic staff benefit intellectually and socially from fellowship of a college, and undergraduates benefit from being taught predominantly by tutors who are personally known to them in their college and who are also likely to be active in research. However, the way in which the joint appointments system actually operates is giving rise to serious discontent amongst academic staff, especially CUF and university lecturers, and the system is proving increasingly unable to answer the needs of colleges and faculties. There are a number of reasons for this:

• The inability of the current system to reconcile the tensions between the different duties which staff are expected to perform by their college and their faculty board or department. In the context of the heavy workloads which academic staff bear, this situation is becoming increasingly intolerable for some.
• The inflexibility of the terms of the joint appointment, which fixes a minimum number of hours for tutorial teaching and university lectures at the beginning of an individual's career and offers no mechanisms for varying that balance except by temporary measures such as sabbatical leave, special lecturerships and 'trade-offs' (on which see the point below). From the individual's point of view, this is an obstacle to long-term career development. From the broader perspective of the University and the colleges, the current form of the joint appointments contract inhibits the efficient use of resources for teaching, research and administration by fixing minima for some duties whilst the talents of a particular individual might be better deployed with a different balance of duties.
• The limitations of the existing 'trade-off' and special lecturership schemes, aimed at promoting flexibility between college and university duties. Under these schemes, temporary remission from part of an individual's college teaching obligation can be agreed in exchange for compensatory financial adjustments between the University and the college. However, in practice the extent to which the University can buy out an individual's 'college' time to fulfil a need for university teaching, research or administration is severely restricted, because the rate at which the University is permitted to 'buy out' staff hours allocated to college teaching is very high (£1,882 per annualised hour for 1997/8) and because the number of hours which may be bought out per week is limited to three or four. Colleges are similarly restricted by current systems which only allow them to buy out a fellow's university hours by individual and highly exceptional arrangements.
• The inequality of emoluments and conditions of work as between different members of the University's academic staff in equivalent posts, resulting from the varying provision made by different colleges for their tutorial fellows.
• The position of university lecturers with non-tutorial fellowships ('ULNTFs'), whose total maximum potential salary is less than that for lecturers with tutorial fellowships, and most of whom are not usually eligible for additional benefits from their college, such as housing allowances.
• The dominance of teaching requirements in core topics, largely for undergraduates, which may unduly restrict a faculty's ability to meet a need for specialist undergraduate or graduate teaching, or for research.

7.18 In recent years, a number of bodies have attempted to address particular aspects of these difficulties. The General Board, for example, has been trying to alleviate the problems of overburdening, mostly through temporary variations of contractual duties. It has introduced some modest but helpful changes to standard contracts with regard to the maximum levels of college teaching that some categories of new appointees may undertake, and has dedicated considerable funds to 'trade-off' and special lecturership schemes. However, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the scope of such measures has been limited and further progress has been hampered by continued difficulties in balancing the needs of the University and the colleges in a climate of increasing workloads.

7.19 Recently there has been something of a breakthrough, with the establishment of a joint working party which includes representatives of the General Board, the Senior Tutors' Committee and the Estates Bursars' Committee. This group has taken forward proposals to introduce a 'common contract', which would aim to describe accurately how university and college duties interrelate within a flexible and co-operative framework agreed by the individual and both employers. The working party has proposed a reformulation of the current obligations of those university lecturers who work in the sciences and of all CUF lecturers, within a joint 'generalised duty' whereby the individual would be required by both the University and the college to perform university and college duties.

7.20 Given the real problems in this area, and the difficulty in making progress in tackling them, we particularly welcome the working party's progress on the principle of commonality of contractual obligation, as this provides the essential co-operative framework within which reform has to be pursued. Nonetheless, we believe that the current proposals of the working party, and those which the General Board has developed for the broad continuation of current schemes for temporary remission, are not in themselves adequate. There are three reasons. First, by continuing to maintain a fixed number of college teaching hours, and by preserving the high buy-out rate for college teaching under the trade-offs and special lecturership schemes, the existing proposals still inhibit the ability of the University to balance the needs of undergraduate teaching with those for graduate teaching and research. Secondly, they do not offer an effective mechanism for enabling staff to vary their duties in the long-term. Thirdly, they are not designed to deal with inequalities in total remuneration between holders of similar posts at different colleges (nor with inequalities of resources between colleges). These are all issues which we intend to address in the proposals which we set out later in this chapter and in chapter 12.

7.21 In addition to the attempts to reduce overall burdens on academic staff, and to introduce more flexibility into the contracts of those holding joint appointments, the University has also seen a need to address the concerns of some university lecturers with non-tutorial fellowships ('ULNTFs'), who were dissatisfied that their total maximum potential salary was less than that for lecturers with tutorial fellowships and that in most cases their colleges (mostly graduate colleges) did not offer them housing allowances or other benefits. Whilst some ULNTFs were content with their position, because it meant that they did not have to take on the additional duties associated with a tutorial fellowship, it was recognised to be unsatisfactory that ULNTFs were in general denied the opportunity to earn the higher salary and benefits of tutorial fellows, because of the type of college post with which their university appointment happened to be associated. In 1995 Hebdomadal Council and the General Board accordingly set up a working party to consider the position of ULNTFs. The working party, whose recommendations were adopted by Congregation in 1996, took into account the overall workload and pay of lecturers without tutorial fellowships in comparison with lecturers with such fellowships and with senior lecturers in other universities. It concluded that, in return for the acceptance of an additional duty to give three hours of tutorial teaching or special tuition, ULNTFs could be paid at a salary point £3,227 above the top of the scale for other university lecturers. This point is the top of the national senior lecturer scale but is £2,552 below the joint maximum for university lecturers with tutorial fellowships (most of whom also receive college allowances). The proposals of the working party were generally accepted and have been implemented. The working party recognised, however, that the solution which it proposed was only a temporary measure and it expressed the wish that its reports be made available to us, in the expectation that we would be in a position to propose a more appropriate long-term solution on the issue of the salary and contractual position of ULNTFs.

Our proposals for reform

Introduction

7.22 In the light of the real difficulties in the way in which the joint appointments system is currently operated, we initially explored the option of abandoning a joint appointments system altogether. We considered whether there would be advantages in moving to the system operating at Cambridge, in which university academic appointments and college fellowships are not linked, although a very high proportion of staff hold both. In that system, the university unilaterally appoints an individual to a university academic post; if the individual so wishes, he or she may also seek a fellowship at a college. If it is a teaching fellowship, the individual earns a stipend from the college of around £3,500, in addition to the university salary. For the university, this can be perceived as having the advantage that the college plays no part in the selection of the postholder and consequently a compromise does not need to be reached between the university's and the college's needs. In addition, the whole system is considerably simpler than that in Oxford. However, there are also disadvantages, in that the lack of regulation of college association by the university can lead to an uneven distribution of university staff between colleges and, furthermore, some university staff may (and do) decide not to take up a college teaching post in order to concentrate on their university work. We are concerned that both these factors might tend to weaken the link between research and undergraduate teaching which is one of the strengths of the joint appointments system in Oxford. They might also weaken the links between colleges and the University centrally. Furthermore, the Cambridge system does not offer the increase in flexibility between college and university duties which we seek. For these varied reasons we have concluded that we should not recommend abandonment of the joint appointments system, but that rather we should seek to improve it.

Recommendation 35
We recommend that Oxford should retain, but reform, its system of joint appointments.

7.23 The reforms which we are proposing are aimed at strengthening the joint appointments system by making it more flexible and more equitable; we believe that this will make the work of academic staff more manageable and variable and will enable them to serve both the colleges and the University more effectively. Our recommendations build upon the valuable work already done by the joint working party (see paragraph 7.19) in attaining wide support for the principle of the common contract, and do so by proposing a new form of contract which would offer more radical solutions to the wider problems which the working party was not in a position to address, including those of ULNTFs.

7.24 In broad terms, we propose the abolition (for new appointments) of the current CUF and university lecturerships and their replacement with a single form of university lecturership under a new contract (here referred to as the 'joint contract'), under which the apportionment of each appointee's teaching duties (within a range of hours) would be fixed at the time of appointment by negotiation between the relevant college and faculty or department, according to their respective needs. In the humanities and much of the social sciences, clearly, the major part of the duties would still be owed to the college for undergraduate tutorial teaching, whilst in the sciences the department's requirements would still predominate. The apportionment would then be subject to review at five yearly intervals, again through negotiation between the faculty or department and the college, but also taking into account, as far as possible, the individual's own aspirations, which would be explored as part of the appraisal process. In the following paragraphs, we describe in more detail how our proposals would work in practice from an organisational point of view; in Chapter 12 and Appendix C, we describe the financial arrangements which would need to be introduced.

Recommendation 36
We recommend the abolition (for new appointments) of the current CUF and university lecturerships and their replacement with a new single form of university lecturership under which the apportionment of teaching duties would be negotiated between the University and the relevant college(s) on an individual basis at the beginning of the appointment and periodically thereafter.

Comparability of teaching units

7.25 The proper comparison of work carried out for a college and that carried out for the University would depend on the introduction of a system of measuring units of teaching which gave appropriate weight to the different activities involved. We suggest that initially, at least, the University should adopt the weighting system devised by the joint working party i.e. under which one unit equals one hour of undergraduate tutorial teaching for the college (as defined by collective agreement between the colleges), or one hour of special tuition at the taught graduate level, or the supervision of one research student, or one-third of a lecture, or one seminar or class (but subject to variation depending on the particular type of seminar or class) or one hour of demonstrating. However, it may be appropriate to develop a more refined system of weighting over time which distinguishes between the different nature of these activities in different subject areas.

Recommendation 37
We recommend that, in introducing the new form of university lecturership, the academic boards and the appropriate college bodies should initially adopt the system of weighting units of teaching devised by the General Board's and Senior Tutors' Committee's joint working party on the common contract, but that consideration should be given to means of refining these measures in due course.

Graduate supervision

7.26 A very important feature of the working party's proposals, which we fully endorse, is the inclusion of graduate supervision in the calculation of the teaching units owed to the University. This would be a change from the present arrangements, under which time spent on graduate supervision is an addition to the basic number of teaching hours owed to the University, and for which a supervision fee of £30 per student per term is paid to the supervisor. As we discuss in paragraph 10.16, we believe that such a change from the present arrangements is essential, both in order to give formal recognition to the fact that graduate supervision is entirely within the mainstream of academic duties, and in order to avoid academic staff being overburdened by a combination of their fixed undergraduate and graduate teaching duties and their 'additional' duties as supervisors.

Recommendation 38
We recommend that:

(a) graduate supervision should be included in the calculation of teaching units owed to the University under the contracts for the new form of university lecturership, rather than being an additional duty as at present; and

(b) the payment of fees to joint appointees for acting as supervisor should cease.

The position of ULNTFs

7.27 University lecturers with non-tutorial fellowships (ULNTFs) would participate fully and equally in the proposed new arrangements. They would receive the same total salary as tutorial fellows, and would be contracted to undertake the same number of units of teaching, but the University would retain control of all the units and would therefore be responsible for the total salary. The relevant faculty or department would be able to use these hours for lectures, seminars, classes and graduate supervision, but could also make some of them available to undergraduate colleges for tutorial teaching, either on a long-term basis (in which case the fellow would also hold a lecturership at an undergraduate college), or on a casual basis. The faculty or department would thus hold a pool of tutorial hours which would be available to support minority options, or to replace the college teaching of those whose hours the faculty or department wanted to buy out. The faculty or department would be able to add to this pool some of the teaching hours of fellows of undergraduate colleges if that were thought appropriate, either because not all the normal share of hours was needed at the undergraduate colleges, or because the fellow's teaching interests were too specialised. This aspect of our proposals would have the added advantage that it would enable undergraduate colleges to appoint some non-tutorial fellows whose interests fell outside the mainstream requirements of the undergraduate courses.

Flexibility under the joint contract

7.28 One of the primary aims of our proposal for the joint contract scheme is to promote flexibility for individuals, colleges and the University, in both the short and long term. The mechanisms for achieving the different types of flexibility are described below. Although the different mechanisms are discussed separately, they do of course interact, and may in some cases have conflicting objectives on which compromise would be needed.

7.29 First, we believe that it is important to give individuals some freedom to arrange their own teaching, often at short notice, so that they can meet their core obligations to the college and the University without becoming over-burdened. At present, it is difficult for them to exercise this freedom with flexibility between university and college teaching, because they owe a fixed minimum number of teaching hours to the college. To overcome this, the joint contract would set out an overall maximum number of teaching units per week, for all lecturers, within which a maximum and minimum number of units would be owed to the college and a maximum and minimum owed to the faculty or department. We propose that initially the overall maximum be set at 18 units, the figure recognised by the joint working party (see paragraph 7.19) as codifying current average levels of teaching, but a long-term aim must be to reduce this when the University's financial position allows. The division of teaching units between the college and the department/faculty would have been set by agreement between them at the beginning of the appointment or subsequently varied by agreement. Within the defined ranges, individual academic staff members would be free to decide how many units to teach on each side, without consulting either their college or their faculty, but would have to arrange replacement teaching and to report at the end of each year on how they had used those units. The range would be quite small, probably two units at most per week, but this would allow an individual, for example, to agree to supervise an additional graduate student at the beginning of term instead of taking on a series of undergraduate tutorials. It would not be necessary to set the ranges of university and college teaching identically in every faculty; for example, the range would be likely to be quite restricted in smaller faculties, as their scope for redistributing teaching to other staff would be limited. Similarly, the range might vary even between individuals in the same faculty, according to circumstances.

Recommendation 39
We recommend that the contract for the new form of university lecturership which we propose should, within an overall maximum number of teaching units, express a postholder's teaching obligations to the University and the college in terms of ranges of hours rather than fixed numbers of units, in order to permit individual postholders flexibility to undertake small amounts of short-term teaching for either the University or a college at their discretion (subject to an obligation to arrange replacement teaching for the other institution, where necessary).

7.30 Secondly, we wish through our proposals to offer more prospect for long-term changes of duties than is at present possible. The scope for career development of Oxford academic staff who are appointed early in their careers (say in their late twenties or early thirties) as a lecturer and a college fellow is fairly restricted. If they wish to stay working in Oxford, and do not aspire to or succeed in obtaining a statutory professorship or readership, there is very little opportunity for changing their duties over the next thirty or more years, apart from the possibility of taking on a more administrative role in the University or their college. The high minima set for undergraduate teaching hours, especially for CUF lecturers, do not allow for the adoption by a lecturer of a significant bias in favour of research or graduate teaching. Equally, the current pressure on all academic staff to publish research regularly has reduced the possibilities for concentrating predominantly on teaching in the later stages of a career. Views expressed in appraisals and in our staff survey in 1996 have suggested that this lack of opportunity for career development can lead to frustration and staleness, and can result in the loss of valuable staff to other institutions. We believe that a welcome consequence of the enhanced planning mechanisms which we propose would be an easier acceptance by the University and the colleges of the wish of individual staff members to change the focus of their career whilst staying in the same post, as the wishes of individuals would be simply another factor to consider in the planning of human resources. The long-term flexibility desirable for an individual's career development can only be achieved through a regular, planned process of career review involving the individual and their own faculty or department and college, to consider how the balance of duties might be varied from time to time to meet with individual aspirations and departmental or faculty and college needs. The introduction of the joint contract scheme would provide the mechanism for achieving such variation.

7.31 The process would ideally be driven by a more refined and effective version of the current appraisal process for academic staff, in which the appraiser would have an initial responsibility for discussing with the appraisee whether it would be desirable from the individual's point of view to alter his or her balance of duties by changing the terms of the contract for the ensuing period. The appraiser would then make an appropriate recommendation to the faculty or department and the college concerned. By continuing the current five-yearly appraisal process, about one-fifth of posts would be reviewed each year, which would not, in our view, be expected to cause undue difficulty. Requests for change could also be triggered by specific requirements relating to university or college teaching or administration, by a particular research opportunity or by a reassessment of priorities at the end of an individual's probationary period. The faculty/department and the college would then consider in the context of their planning cycles whether in the individual case the balance of duties should change, taking into account the effects on their teaching resources and any other relevant considerations.

7.32 It may of course be argued that, in an academic climate in which it might be said that the majority of staff is likely to prefer to spend more time on graduate work and research than on undergraduate teaching, it would be impracticable to offer such flexibility because colleges would have difficulty in finding tutors for all the tutorial hours which they need to provide. There is already pressure from undergraduates for more tutorial teaching, and individual colleges, with small numbers of staff in each subject, have very little scope for redeployment compared with a faculty or department. However, we believe that there are answers to these concerns:

• There is a large group of people in Oxford who believe that a prime responsibility is to teach and to do so very effectively.
• The academic boards would be required to compensate colleges financially if their reasonable and agreed teaching needs were not met.
• Unlike the position under the current contracts, the new contract would not require a minimum number of lectures to be given for the University each year; this would avoid the present situation in which individuals sometimes deliver unnecessary lectures in order to fulfil their lecture 'stint', and would thus release extra hours which might be used for college teaching.
• The use of a greater variety of undergraduate teaching methods (which we advocate in paragraphs 9.29 to 9.34) is likely to lead to an overall reduction in the number of hours of undergraduate teaching which staff are required to undertake.

7.33 Clearly, the degree of flexibility available to the individual must be subject to the actual teaching requirements of the colleges and of the University, and must enhance rather than impede the planning processes of both sides. Faculties, departments and colleges must be in a position to look ahead over a period of a few years and to plan how to keep supply and demand for teaching in balance. It would therefore be essential, under our joint contract scheme, for any proposed shifts in the balance of duties to be discussed by both the college and the faculty or department well in advance, and both sides would be able to decline to accept a change in the balance of duties which was not consistent with their medium- or long-term plans.

7.34 However, it would quite often be the case that changes of duty requested by individual academic staff members would actually reflect the changing teaching needs of the college or the University, resulting, for example, from the introduction of a new option for undergraduates or a new graduate taught course, or from the phasing out of an existing course. Current trends make it more likely that such shifts would favour the plans of the University rather than of the college, and so we believe it important that the academic boards should be required to liaise with the Senior Tutors' Committee to identify the minimum provision needed in each subject; the academic boards would then be responsible for ensuring that faculties and departments met those minimum requirements. In addition, measures would need to be introduced for compensating whichever side might be disadvantaged by a loss of teaching hours arising from a shift of teaching duties. These measures might include an adjustment in the terms of other posts that fell vacant during the planning period to take account of a need for replacement teaching, or provision of replacement college teaching from the 'pool' of tutorial hours under a faculty's or department's control (see paragraph 7.27).

Recommendation 40
We recommend that the academic boards, in consultation with the colleges, should institute a rolling programme of five yearly reviews of the distribution of teaching duties to individual lecturers, with a view to giving the opportunity to individuals to elect to alter the balance of their duties between University and college, in so far as such alterations are compatible with the academic plans of the relevant faculty or department and college.

Selection of joint appointees

7.35 Under the present system, both the University and the relevant college participate in the selection of joint appointees, but the extent of their involvement depends on which type of post is on offer. For statutory professors and readers, for example, the selection is made by an electoral board which is usually made up of seven university representatives and two college representatives and which makes a collective decision on the appointment. This arrangement works well in our view, and the balance of membership of the appointing body reflects in an appropriate way the balance of interests of the University and the college. We therefore propose no change. For CUF and university lecturerships, the 'minor' employer has two representatives and the 'major' employer normally at least five (although practice varies considerably between different colleges and faculties, to the extent of some colleges involving their whole governing body in the selection). However, in effect, the appointing process is not truly joint, as the major employer makes a selection and the other side has only a right to veto. We believe that this is undesirable, as it can lead to the needs of one employer inappropriately dominating the other. We have concluded that there is a good case for changing the procedures for making joint appointments, whether the college or the University is perceived as the 'major' employer.

7.36 Under the new joint appointments system which we propose, each lecturer would be selected by a unified selection committee whose membership would consist of equal numbers of representatives from the college and the university (normally three or four each) and, in addition, a chairman from whichever employer had a greater interest in the post, in terms of the number of units' teaching agreed for the start of the appointment. For example, if an appointee's initial contractual obligation was 12 units for the college and six for the University, the chairman would be a college representative. Representatives of either side could, as now, include external members to ensure that the selection panel had sufficient expertise in the subject area being discussed. The selection panel would consider the merits of each candidate in the light of an assessment of the combined needs of both employers. Whilst it should be possible in many cases for the panel to reach consensus, if there were disagreement priority would be given to the interests of the side with the predominant teaching requirement through the chairman's vote. The selection panel would then recommend a single candidate to both the college and the relevant faculty board/department and only in the event of a veto by either of those bodies would the selection panel have to reconsider. Thus, whilst the interests of both the college and the University would be preserved by an ultimate veto, it is intended that the use of a joint selection panel would enable each partner to have a better appreciation of the other's needs and to recognise their legitimate concerns, thus supporting a consensual approach to selection which we believe would obviate the need for the exercise of a veto in all but a very small number of cases.

Recommendation 41
We recommend that the selection process for making joint appointments at the lecturer level should be on the basis of:

(a) appointing to selection panels equal numbers of representatives of the faculty board and the relevant college(s), together with a chairman drawn from whichever partner had the greater interest in the post in terms of the number of teaching units required of the person appointed;

(b) having selection panels make a single recommendation for an appointment, rather than a list of preferences, to both the college and the faculty board/department.

I: Introduction

8.1 Oxford is a thriving and attractive teaching institution, with a reputation for excellence in both undergraduate and graduate education. For the reasons which we set out in paragraphs 3.4 to 3.7, we are of the firm view that Oxford should continue to give prime importance to this role and to pursue excellence in teaching and learning. In so doing, we believe that Oxford must have the following objectives:

• to provide academically rigorous, coherent but flexible courses, capable of stretching the abilities of the most intellectually able students;
• to attract staff and students of the highest intellectual calibre, drawing students from an increasingly broad range of backgrounds, and meeting the challenges posed by the growing diversity of pre-university education;
• to create an environment for teaching and learning which makes best use of the talents and abilities of staff and students within the resources available - in particular by ensuring effective planning and coordination, by reducing pressures on academic and other teaching staff, by identifying and adopting the most effective methods for teaching and learning and by providing adequate infrastructure and support;
• to foster a climate in which teaching is highly valued and in which pedagogic issues, such as the development of teaching and assessment methods, are the subject of regular, well-informed debate;
• to monitor, maintain and strive to raise the standards of Oxford's teaching provision, in order to ensure that its students are consistently offered the highest quality of education;
• to provide an environment in which students can develop personally as well as academically, by offering them the opportunity to acquire a broad range of skills and to benefit from social interaction with academic staff and fellow students;
• to support students in both their academic and personal life by providing effective measures for monitoring and for pastoral care;
• to provide students and their future employers with an accurate reflection of their capabilities and attainments through the use of fair and comprehensive methods of assessment.

8.2 In this and the following two chapters, we explain how we believe these objectives can be achieved, both by building on Oxford's existing strengths and advantages, and by effecting changes in structure or ethos where we consider these necessary to maintain the high standards and reputation which Oxford currently enjoys. In this chapter we discuss quality assurance in respect of both undergraduate and graduate teaching. In chapters 9 and 10, we consider a variety of matters relating specifically to undergraduate and graduate education respectively. Measures to improve the planning and coordination of teaching were considered in Chapter 5.

II: Quality assurance systems

8.3 The University and colleges have addressed quality assurance for their teaching provision in a variety of ways, and the widespread acknowledgement given to the high standards of Oxford's teaching is evidence of their effectiveness. However, we believe that various factors, such as the increased size of the University, the greater diversity of courses and the variety of teaching and assessment methods, mean that Oxford must now adopt a more systematic and coordinated approach to quality assurance than has been needed in the past. As well as this being to Oxford's own benefit, it is also notable that the University has had difficulty in demonstrating to the outside world that its internal mechanisms for quality assessment and audit are adequate to ensure that quality is monitored and maintained; though external teaching quality assessors have praised the high quality of teaching in the University and colleges, they have from time to time expressed concern that Oxford lacks systematic mechanisms for quality control. In an era of increasingly rigorous and transparent systems of accountability for public money, this is not a position which the University can or should be willing to tolerate. In addition, as higher education in the UK moves towards a concept of a notional or real contractual relationship between an institution and individual 'learners', it is becoming increasingly important that both the University and individual students should know in advance the amount and quality of teaching expected, and be able to monitor whether or not those expectations have been met. We believe, therefore, that there is a need for Oxford to give further consideration to its quality assurance arrangements, to ensure that effective systems are in place for the setting of qualitative and quantitative standards, the monitoring of quality and the raising of standards.

Setting standards

8.4 There are concerns that the quality of education in Oxford is more variable than it should be in an institution which aims for excellence across the board. The comment sheets[103] received from undergraduate and graduate students in response to our surveys suggested that, whilst the best teaching is very good, there is considerable variation in the standard of teaching in lectures, tutorials and research supervision, and a number of respondents expressed concern at the element of chance in being allocated a good tutor or supervisor. Whilst some of this criticism may be exaggerated, it is nevertheless an indication of the need for Oxford to ensure that the quality of education which it offers is consistent for all students. The first stage in this process is for standards of quality to be set, against which teaching provision can be judged. We are fully aware that both the setting and assessment of standards of teaching are notoriously difficult (as HEFCE's inability to link teaching funding to quality demonstrates) and we do not propose to make recommendations in this area which are unrealistic. It is, nevertheless, the case that there are some practices already adopted in some parts of the University and elsewhere which could usefully be extended to all departments and faculties, including the setting of minimum levels of training in teaching methods for staff and targets for outputs such as student evaluation forms and examination grades (or other forms of assessment).

Recommendation 42
We recommend that the Educational Policy and Standards Committee and the academic boards should identify best practice in setting standards for teaching and ensure that those practices are adopted in all subjects.

8.5 As well as ensuring the quality of the teaching sessions which a student attends, it is also important to ensure that the right number of teaching sessions, of the appropriate type, are provided, that these are consistently available to all students and that the expected levels of provision are made explicit to both staff and students. Of course, what constitutes the appropriate amount and type of teaching varies markedly between subjects and between years of study, and it should therefore be for each faculty or department to specify 'norms' for teaching provision, which would be set out in faculty handbooks and prospectuses. These would include such matters as the normal number of tutorials, lectures and classes an undergraduate or graduate student on a taught course could expect to receive (and be expected to attend) over a term or a year, and should also indicate an upper limit for the proportion of tutorial teaching to be given to undergraduates by graduate students, in order to ensure that teaching is delivered by individuals with an appropriate level of experience and expertise. Whilst such norms should not be seen as being totally inflexible, they should provide a strong guide to the appropriate amount and type of teaching for each subject, and deviation from them should be discouraged. It is axiomatic that once these norms have been approved by the relevant academic board, the board must be bound to make adequate provision in its financial plans to ensure that they can be met.

Recommendation 43
We recommend that the faculties and departments responsible for organising teaching provision in each subject area should publish norms for the amounts and types of teaching to be provided.

8.6 It should be noted that this recommendation is not intended merely to ensure that students receive the appropriate amount of teaching, but it is also intended to encourage faculties and departments to consider what type of teaching is most appropriate for each part of a course. It will also assist in their planning process, and should help to avoid 'overteaching' by academic staff (an issue which we discuss at greater length in paragraphs 9.30 to 9.33).

Monitoring standards

8.7 Our key proposal in respect of the monitoring of standards is the establishment of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee, the role and composition of which was outlined in Chapter 5 (paragraphs 5.76 to 5.84). This committee will have overarching responsibility for monitoring the quality of all undergraduate and graduate teaching in Oxford. At a more detailed level, teaching provision would be routinely monitored against quality standards and norms by faculty boards or departments and by senior tutors in colleges, and performance would be reported to the Educational Policy and Standards Committee. In cases of persistent failure to meet norms of provision, the committee would have the power to recommend remedial action to be taken by the appropriate body. However, it is intended that one of the principal benefits of such a system would be that it would encourage the setting and following of norms which became established practice in the planning and delivery of teaching.

Recommendation 44
We recommend that the responsibilities of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee in respect of monitoring should include:

(a) ensuring that mechanisms are in place for regular scrutiny by faculties or departments of indicators of teaching quality, such as examination grades, external examiners' reports, teaching assessment reports and student evaluation of teaching;

(b) initiation of its own programme of periodic reviews of faculties and departments, focusing on the provision of undergraduate and graduate education therein;

(c) consideration of specific ad hoc problems brought to its attention by faculties, departments, academic boards or college representatives such as senior tutors.

Raising standards

8.8 In addition to the Educational Policy and Standards Committee's role in monitoring the quality of teaching, the committee should also play a very active role in raising standards of education. As we have recommended (Recommendation 17(b)), the committee would be responsible for initiating discussion of, and where necessary research into, issues of educational policy and practice, and for facilitating the spread of best practice throughout Oxford. It would also monitor and report on trends from outside Oxford which have an impact on teaching practice, such as policies initiated by the government and the research councils, and developments in secondary education.

8.9 In this respect, it would work closely with the Academic Staff Development Committee, which already fulfils an important function in this area by developing the professional skills of those teaching in the University and promoting an interest within the University in learning and teaching practices in higher education.

Undergraduate teaching - university and college responsibilities

8.10 In the context of undergraduate teaching, one factor which has implications for Oxford's ability to adopt systematic methods of quality assurance and to maintain consistent standards is the division of responsibility for the organisation of undergraduate teaching between the University and the colleges. Whilst an undergraduate's college is responsible for providing all tutorial teaching and some classes, the University is responsible for the organisation of lectures, other classes and practicals. Under present arrangements, although the college tutor is responsible for monitoring an individual student's academic progress, neither the college nor the University has any formal means of being assured of the standard of education which the other is providing. To a certain extent, the lack of formal means of monitoring between the University and colleges is compensated for by the practical effects of the joint appointments system, in which many staff teach for both institutions, but this is a somewhat weak measure so long as no one is given specific responsibility for monitoring standards.

8.11 A further consideration for the University, in the narrow sense, is the high number of non-university employees who carry out undergraduate teaching. As has been noted, our staff survey shows that nearly a third (over a thousand) of Oxford's teachers and researchers are non-university employees, and this group carries out 39 per cent of all undergraduate teaching, predominantly in tutorials and college-based seminars and classes. Whilst 27 per cent of this group are college fellows and 26 per cent are college lecturers, the remainder (over 500 individuals) are neither fellows nor lecturers of any college nor employees of the University, and are therefore even further removed from any attempt at systematic monitoring. Of course, the proportions vary between faculties for specific reasons, and the absence of formal links certainly does not imply a lack of commitment to teaching of a high quality; for example teaching in the Theology faculty is strengthened by the active participation of staff from the theological colleges. However, the overall situation is unsatisfactory, in that the University has no formal way of knowing who is teaching its undergraduates and, therefore, of ensuring the proper standard of that teaching.

8.12 In order to strengthen accountability for teaching provision on the college side, we propose that each undergraduate should be assigned by his or her college to a 'director of studies', who would normally be the college fellow most closely involved in teaching the student. This proposal builds on the principles of current tutorial responsibilities, but clarifies and extends them in order to provide a single, identifiable individual who is expressly accountable for all the teaching provided by the college for each of the undergraduates under his or her care. This means that a director of studies would have responsibility not only for the teaching which he or she delivers personally, but also for monitoring the quality of all the teaching which the student received from the college. Crucially, this would include responsibility for monitoring the tutorial and class teaching provided on behalf of the college by those who were not college fellows or lecturers, such as graduate students and external tutors. The appointment of directors of studies would also substantially enhance the provision made for those reading for joint schools, where it would be helpful to have a single individual to take an overview of the separate parts of the course, and the undergraduates' progress in them. (See paragraph 9.8 for further discussion of issues relating to joint schools.)

8.13 Each director of studies should be accountable to the college's senior tutor, and thence to its governing body. If a faculty had concerns about the quality of teaching offered in a particular college, the faculty should be able to raise this directly with the senior tutor, to be taken up with the appropriate director of studies. Conversely, directors of studies would have a duty to draw their college's attention to any instances in which the teaching provided by a faculty or department fell short of the standards expected, and the college authorities would then have a right to express their concern to the relevant faculty or department, and, if necessary, to the Educational Policy and Standards Committee. There would thus be suitable mechanisms in place for colleges and faculties to raise concerns about the provision which the other was making for undergraduates, soundly based on the personal responsibility which a director of studies would have for monitoring all aspects of the academic provision made for each of the undergraduates under his or her care.

Recommendation 45
We recommend that the University and the colleges should work together to devise a scheme for assigning each undergraduate to a director of studies in his or her college, who would take overall responsibility for monitoring all aspects of the undergraduate's education.

8.14 A further consequence of the loose associations between the colleges and some tutors is that the tutors are not always well informed of what is expected of them. A number of such tutors, and in particular college lecturers and graduate students, expressed concern on their comment sheets in our staff survey that they were marginalised and were given little or no guidance on matters such as how to mark students' work, the content of the syllabus and the format of examination papers. This can clearly lead to very different standards of provision for undergraduates, whatever the teaching ability of the individuals concerned. We welcome the fact that some faculties and departments already produce handbooks for tutors and we believe that this practice should be adopted by all faculties and departments. Such handbooks should contain information on syllabuses and examinations, and give clear guidance on what is expected of the tutor, in terms of the aims of a tutorial in a particular subject and the amount and type of feedback which undergraduates should be given. Colleges should ensure that these are distributed to all tutors, including those not directly connected with the college; a director of studies who appoints a particular outside tutor should be responsible for ensuring that the tutor had received and understood the contents of the handbook, and be available for advice and further information. The information presented in the tutors' handbook should to a large extent mirror that given to undergraduates in their faculty prospectus, so that both students and tutors would have similar, realistic expectations.

Recommendation 46
We recommend that all faculties and departments should publish tutors' handbooks. These should contain factual information on standard marking practices, syllabuses, examinations and norms for numbers of tutorials, and should give guidance on the aims of a tutorial and the role of the tutor. Colleges should be responsible for ensuring that these are regularly distributed to all tutors including those not formally associated with the college.

III. Raising esteem for teaching

8.15 In the context of our consideration of the quality of education in Oxford, we have been concerned by signs of declining esteem for both undergraduate and graduate teaching in Oxford itself and nationally. One of the prime reasons for this is that HEFCE's block-grant funding for research is driven by the Research Assessment Exercise, which exerts pressure on academics to be 'research active' and to publish frequently, whilst the level of public funding for teaching is not related to quality assessment (except in cases of very poor performance). At the same time, a culture has developed in which academic prestige and reputation are more closely related to research than to teaching, for example through invitations to international conferences and awards of research grant income. These factors have consequences within the University. Research performance is in practice given greater weight than teaching ability in the criteria for the appointment of academic staff to retiring age, in the distinctions exercise and in determining other promotions; there is pressure from many academic staff to have more time for research, as opposed to teaching; and the teaching of mainstream undergraduate and graduate courses is becoming less attractive as many academics seek to teach topics more closely related to their field of research.

8.16 Two of the recommendations already discussed in this report, namely the establishment of the three academic boards and of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee, are intended to have a significant effect in counteracting these trends. The academic boards would have a specific remit to give active consideration to pedagogic issues within their own subject areas, whilst the work of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee would be devoted to the monitoring and raising of standards of teaching in the collegiate University and to the development of policies relating to both teaching and assessment methods. A natural consequence of this continuous process of self-examination would be to re-emphasise the value of teaching as an academic activity.

8.17 In addition, we believe that teaching ability should be given greater recognition at the level of the individual. This would naturally necessitate some form of assessment of individuals' teaching performance, a process which in general the University has so far avoided, partly because of the unreliability of the assessment methods currently available. In addition, there is a particular difficulty in the highly personal environment of tutorials, where the presence of an assessor might well be intrusive and distort the normal process of teaching and learning. However, the use of teaching evaluation forms submitted by students and routinely monitored by senior tutors and the appropriate individual or body in departments or faculties would go some way to overcoming this problem. One of the tasks of the Educational Policy and Standards Committee should be to identify and promote other appropriate methods of individual teaching assessment. The University should ensure that due competence in teaching is a sine qua non of all appointments to retiring age, of substantive and titular promotions and of the making of distinction awards.

Recommendation 47
We recommend that the University should foster a culture in which high quality teaching is demanded and rewarded by:

(a) assigning explicit responsibility for considering broad pedagogic issues to the academic boards and the Educational Policy and Standards Committee;

(b) introducing assessment of individuals' teaching performance;

(c) establishing teaching ability more firmly as a criterion for reappointments to retiring age, promotions and the making of distinction awards.

8.18 In order further to emphasise the importance and value of teaching, we also propose that the University should consider the establishment of an annual teaching award scheme, by which individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to teaching in the University may be rewarded and given recognition. A number of universities, including Cambridge, have introduced schemes of this kind, and Oxford's own medical school already makes a 'golden stethoscope' award each year to the teacher thought most effective by the most students. Although some might argue that such a scheme runs contrary to Oxford's ethos, which is founded on a principle that all academic staff are of equally high ability in all areas of their work, we believe that it is realistic and proper to acknowledge that some staff will have greater enthusiasm and skills in teaching-related activities and that these are as much worthy of recognition as is excellence in research.

8.19 The criteria for making teaching awards might be based on an evaluation both of the excellence of an individual's own teaching and of his or her contribution to the dissemination of good practice in the University, such as the development of new course materials, the introduction of successful new teaching or assessment methods, or contributions to the Academic Staff Development Committee's teaching seminars. The awards might be given annually to one or two members of academic staff in each of the broad subject groupings of humanities and social sciences, science and medicine.

Recommendation 48
We recommend that the University should consider the desirability and feasibility of establishing a teaching award scheme in Oxford.

I: The structure of the undergraduate degree

Introduction

9.1 As we pointed out in Chapter 3, the Oxford undergraduate degree is now unusual in offering predominantly three or four years of continuous residential study, in a non-modular format. We have endorsed the continuation of this basic model but for a number of reasons have thought it appropriate to question whether some adaptation to changing circumstances is desirable.

9.2 First, whilst it is evident that Oxford continues to attract very high quality applicants for its undergraduate degree courses, a complacent assumption that Oxford can maintain its position cannot be justified. The expansion and increased diversity of the higher education system in the UK presents potential students with a wide choice of institutions, many of which attract highly qualified applicants by offering more flexible courses and opportunities to study less traditional subjects; it can therefore no longer be assumed that Oxford and Cambridge will be the first choice of a very high proportion of the most able students.

9.3 Secondly, as we have discussed in Chapter 3, we believe strongly that Oxford must take active steps to attract undergraduates from a broader range of backgrounds. However, a corollary to that view is a recognition of the fact that students drawn from a wider social base are likely to come with different expectations and with a more diverse range of attainment and skills than could until recently have been assumed, and this must be taken into account in considering the structure of undergraduate degree courses.

9.4 More generally, the University also needs to respond systematically to the impact of the changing nature of secondary education on undergraduate teaching needs. Significant changes include the increasing diversity of A level syllabuses in different schools and colleges (and the small but growing use of European and International Baccalaureates instead of A levels), the increasing use of project work instead of essay-writing in humanities subjects and a move towards modular A level courses. There is also a move away from specialisation at A level, a process which has been supported and encouraged by Sir Ron Dearing's 'Review of Qualifications for 16-19 Year Olds';[104] and on which the government is currently undertaking consultation.[105] The result of these trends is that a growing number of first year undergraduates come to Oxford unprepared in terms of both skills and knowledge for the intensive, focused nature of the Oxford undergraduate degree course, its emphasis on independent, self-directed study, the high volume of essay-writing and its examination system. The University must therefore consider how to bridge the gap between the skills and knowledge its undergraduates have learnt at school or college and the preparation they need to gain maximum academic benefit from their time at Oxford.

9.5 There are a number of ways in which Oxford's degree courses could be adapted to take account of the above considerations, and in particular to make Oxford's courses more attractive by allowing more scope for interdisciplinary study. We now consider some of the possibilities.

A modular system?

9.6 Oxford's non-modular system for its residential undergraduate courses now makes it an exception in UK higher education - a recent survey indicated that over 90 per cent of institutions in the UK now have modular courses or plan to introduce them. [106] Although there is a variety of structures for modularisation, the common features are that undergraduates are taught and assessed on discrete topics in modules of a term's or a semester's duration and have the opportunity to choose from a broad range of modules in a wide variety of combinations. A modular system in some cases also allows students to take breaks in their studies and to accumulate credits over a period of time, either at a single institution or, increasingly, at more than one institution by means of credit transfer. It is clear that a modular system holds a number of attractions for students, such as the opportunity to study a broad and diverse range of topics, assessment in small, self-contained units evenly spread across the whole course, and the ability to space out study periods to fit in with other demands, which may be particularly attractive for part-time and mature students. We acknowledge the value of these features, and also note that our staff survey indicated that a substantial minority of Oxford's teaching staff (22 per cent overall, with a higher proportion amongst scientists and younger staff) favoured a modular system.[107] However, given that Oxford's aim is still to attract students predominantly in the 18-21 age group, for three or four years of continuous study, there are strong academic arguments for continuing to offer a range of intensive, coherent courses covering a limited number of subjects and for assessing students' attainments in a range of topics at the end of the second and third (or fourth) years. We believe that this approach offers a number of advantages:

• undergraduates are encouraged by the end of year assessments to recognise the inter-relations between topics, and thus their understanding of the subject as a whole is enhanced;
• the intensive study of only one, two or three subjects over three or four years allows time for each topic to be studied in considerable depth, giving maximum potential for the undergraduate to know, understand and analyse the subject thoroughly;
• degree grades based on assessment at the end of two or three years do more justice to the candidate, in that they are assessed on their intellectual skills, which may have developed over the years, whilst first year assessments tend to reflect a student's pre-university education.

Recommendation 49
We recommend that the University should maintain the current non-modular nature of its full-time undergraduate degree courses.

Interdisciplinary study

9.7 Notwithstanding our arguments against modularisation, we believe that some scope for interdisciplinary studies is academically desirable because it encourages cross-fertilisation between subjects. We consider that, in general, Oxford degree courses are unnecessarily inflexible in this respect, and that they could be enhanced by making more provision for interdisciplinary study, without lowering academic standards. Below we explore three means for achieving this: the existing system of joint honour schools; sequential transfers between courses; and the incorporation of options from other courses.

Joint honour schools

9.8 A significant proportion of Oxford's undergraduates choose to study a combination of two or three subjects by reading for joint honour schools (i.e. degree courses combining subjects from more than one faculty). In 1995-6, approximately one fifth of undergraduates were reading for such degrees, in 17 different subject combinations.[108] We are fully supportive of the principle of joint honour schools, as they combine the rigour of long-term intensive study of a single discipline with the academic benefits of cross-fertilisation between subjects. However, we consider that the actual operation of some joint degree courses has significant shortcomings, owing to a failure by both faculty boards and colleges to plan and control them adequately. Problems particularly arise with the joint schools which are created from two halves of existing honour schools, where difficulty has been experienced in creating a genuinely interdisciplinary course, and in assessing the appropriate overall workload of joint schools candidates. A number of joint honour school candidates commented in our survey of undergraduate students that there was a need for more explicit links to be made between the subjects studied, and also that they had more tutorials, lectures and classes to attend than single honour school candidates (although this latter point was not in general supported by the quantitative data in our survey). Another difficulty which appears to occur from time to time is a lack of coordination of their studies at college level, and an unwillingness on the part of some tutors to take responsibility for their overall progress.

Recommendation 50
We recommend the imposition of more effective controls on both the organisation of existing joint honour schools and the development of new ones, by:

(a) giving the academic boards responsibility for the planning and organisation of joint schools;

(b) giving the Educational Policy and Standards Committee responsibility for monitoring the progress of the academic boards in this regard;

(c) appointing a single college-based director of studies for each undergraduate on a joint honour school course, with the express responsibility of overseeing the whole of the student's course.[109]

Transfers between courses

9.9 Our undergraduate survey showed that about 5 per cent of all undergraduates had changed their degree course since coming up to Oxford. A further 3 per cent responded that they had wanted to transfer, but had not done so for a variety of reasons. [110] Statistics from Cambridge show a somewhat higher rate of transfer under the 'Tripos' System: nearly 5 per cent between years 1 and 2 and nearly 7 per cent between years 2 and 3.[111] Although there are few explicit obstacles to changing degree course between the first and second public examination in Oxford (except for the need to have taken papers in certain core topics), there is no formal structure to facilitate such transfers as there is in Cambridge. We believe that this is a shortcoming in the Oxford system, in that it does not encourage students to consider the possibility of studying two disciplines sequentially, either because they wish to develop their skills in more than one discipline, but outside the joint school model, or because their initial choice of degree subject was unsuitable.

Recommendation 51
We recommend that the Educational Policy and Standards Committee should consider the introduction of a more structured system of transfers between courses, giving particular attention to the system already operating in Cambridge.

Science courses

9.10 In the context of transfers between courses, we have noted that at Cambridge the Natural Sciences Tripos begins with a broadly based course in the first year, covering four different subjects in either biological or physical sciences, and does not permit narrower specialisation until the second year. We believe that this arrangement has considerable academic merit, as it ensures that science students build up a broad base of scientific knowledge before specialising in their chosen field, and, furthermore, it gives the opportunity to avoid misguided subject choices in the first year based on experience at school. We note that some attempts have already been made in this direction in Oxford, but that they have not succeeded, and we consider that the academic board for the sciences, with its overarching responsibility for these subjects, should initiate a new approach to this issue.

Recommendation 52
We recommend that the academic board for the sciences should re-examine fully the value and feasibility of adopting a broadly-based structure for undergraduate science degree courses similar to that in place at Cambridge.

Options from other courses

9.11 For those undergraduates who do not choose to take a joint degree course or to transfer between courses, the opportunity to enhance the study of their own discipline with a smaller element of study of another subject would often be beneficial. Although there are already some opportunities for taking individual options from another degree course, these are quite limited. In some cases, the limitation is for clear academic reasons, but in others the opportunity is not there simply because of the different patterns of assessment in different degree courses, affecting the timing of examinations and the weight given to particular papers therein. Whilst some subjects have preliminary examinations in Hilary Term or in Trinity Term of the first year, others do not have any preliminary examinations but have moderations or honour moderations as their first examination, mostly, but not exclusively, in Trinity Term of year one - some being in Hilary Term or Trinity Term of year two. Although it may be argued that, in some subjects, there are sound academic reasons for the chosen timing, we believe that in several cases the timing is the result of historical factors which are not relevant today. In the absence of an effective university-wide system for planning and coordination, inconsistencies may have been overlooked and have led to an unnecessarily fragmented framework for examining and other forms of assessment. We therefore consider that it would be helpful to address this issue in the context of our proposals for an overall reform of the framework for undergraduate assessment, to which we now turn.

II: Assessment of undergraduates

9.12 For a number of reasons, we have thought it appropriate to review the arrangements for making formal assessments of undergraduates' attainments in Oxford. First, as we explained above, it would be desirable for the structure of courses and the timing of examinations to be coordinated in such a way that it would be easier than at present for undergraduates to study related topics from degree courses other than their own. Secondly, given the University's commitment to drawing undergraduates from a broader range of schools and colleges it is important to recognise the limitations of assessment at the end of the first year of a degree course, which tends to reflect a student's educational background as much as his or her achievements at university. Thirdly, it is desirable to consider whether proper use is made of the variety of assessment methods available, investigating in particular whether these are fair to all undergraduates and whether they offer opportunities for undergraduates to develop and be tested on a wide range of skills.

9.13 We therefore propose out below a number of university-wide reforms to Oxford's arrangements for assessment which take the above points into account. The core features of our proposals are that:

• the first classified assessment should take place only at the end of the second year of study;
• there should be an equal number of examination papers (or equivalent forms of assessment) in each year of each degree course, and these should be of equal 'weight'; and
• encouragement should be given for the use of non-examination-based forms of assessment, particularly in the third (and, where applicable, fourth) year.

The framework for assessment

9.14 The framework for assessment which we propose is summarised in Figure 9.1 below.

Figure 9.1: The proposed framework for assessment

9.15 The explanation of this structure is as follows:

End of year 1: The chief function of these examinations would be to reassure the University, the college and the undergraduates themselves that they were academically capable of taking the degree they had chosen. We believe that this is particularly important because of the phasing out of Oxford's entrance examination and because of the increasing diversity of pre-university levels of attainment. Usually, failure in these first year examinations would indicate that a particular undergraduate was not up to the standards required and he or she should be asked to leave the University; however, as now, there would be limited opportunities for retaking failed papers. The year 1 examinations would also be useful in giving undergraduates experience in the style of Oxford examinations. However, because of the limitations of first year examinations, these should not be classified. Given the function of these preliminary examinations, we do not propose that every topic studied in the first year should be examined then; we suggest that in general only three papers need be set for each honour school in year 1, in order to limit the burden of examining. To avoid pressure on space, examinations could be held in colleges and departments as well as in the Examination Schools.

End of year 2: The purpose of honour moderations would be to test the acquisition of core facts and skills by covering the central topics of the degree course. It would therefore be appropriate for honour moderations to be mainly, but not exclusively, in the form of traditional three hour examinations; limited use of some other methods of assessment may be desirable as well, as discussed in paragraphs 9.17 to 9.21. Subjects already examined in the preliminary examinations could be examined again, to prevent the degrading of first year subjects. These examinations would be classified, with the classification counting towards the final degree grade.

End of year 3 (or year 4, in four year courses where the final year is not devoted to a research project): The subjects taken in the final year of the degree course should be more specialised than in earlier years, as at present, and only those topics not examined at the end of the second year should be assessed at this stage. The final degree grade would therefore have to reflect both the second year and final year grades.

9.16 The above proposals for adjustments to the framework of assessment may give rise to fears that the already heavy burden of examining faced by university staff would increase. Although it is true that university examinations would become more frequent, it is not expected that our reforms would result in a significantly greater burden on staff. First, it is proposed that the first year examinations should not be double-marked, except in borderline cases. Secondly, as the final year examinations would cover only subjects taught in the third (and, where applicable, fourth) year, the examining load would be split between the second and final year. Thirdly, it is anticipated that the amount of other examining would be reduced: the entrance examination has already been abolished and it is expected that there would be less need for college examinations if university examinations became more frequent.

Methods of assessment

9.17 At present, much of the formal assessment of undergraduates in the humanities and social sciences in Oxford is achieved through written unseen examinations, although a number of honour schools have a compulsory or optional thesis (or extended essay or dissertation) instead of one or more examination papers. In the sciences, on the other hand, submission of some other form of work for assessment is frequently compulsory, and there tends to be more variety in the types of work assessed, such as notes of practical work undertaken during the year, dissertations and extended essays, team projects and small research theses. We welcome the moves towards more diversity in assessment methods, but consider that further attention needs to be given to the value of different assessment methods and, in particular, to the use of written examinations.

9.18 Written examinations have a number of strengths as an assessment method:

• they assess attainment of knowledge and the use of problem-solving and analytical skills;
• revision for examinations encourages the review of a whole year's or two years' work;
• examinations help students to develop the ability to work effectively under intense pressure;
• in some respects, examinations ensure that equal conditions are applied to all those being assessed (e.g. same choices of questions, same length of time to answer, no access to outside help);
• invigilated examinations remove the opportunity for plagiarism, an increasing problem with the availability of 'model' essays on the Internet.

9.19 However, there are also a number of disadvantages to a heavy reliance on written examinations:

• they are not conducive to the development and assessment of other important skills, such as the ability to sustain and evaluate a long-term project, to present detailed arguments and supporting evidence coherently, to present information orally and to work in collaboration with others;
• they are highly susceptible to favouring those who have mastered 'exam technique' over those who may have a more thorough understanding of their subject;
• they can be discriminatory against certain groups of students, for example those who do not work well under pressure, or whose schooling has not prepared them adequately for intensive examinations;
• they impose an intense pressure on the academic staff responsible for setting and marking examinations.

9.20 Some consideration has already been given by the University to these and related issues. For example, the Equal Opportunities Committee has commissioned research into the possible reasons for the disparity between men's and women's results in finals, a suggestion being that written examinations, or at least the questions which are now asked in them, are unfavourable to women as an assessment method. Similarly, the Dyslexia Working Party is addressing a number of issues relating to the obstacles faced by students with dyslexia, including the examination system. We welcome investigation of these issues and encourage the examination of the possible use of alternative methods of assessment to overcome these and other such problems.

9.21 In addition to our concerns about unwitting discrimination through the examination system, we also consider that over-reliance on written examinations deprives the University of an opportunity for developing students' wider skills through use of other methods of assessment. We explore the whole issue of 'transferable skills' more fully in paragraphs 9.39 to 9.41. At this stage we wish to draw attention to the opportunities offered, for example, by extended essays or mini-theses to foster skills in structuring and developing well-reasoned arguments and in conducting research; similarly, assessment of a formal oral presentation of work to a group of assessors encourages students to develop skills in oral argument and presentation. We therefore believe that it would be beneficial for the University to use a wider variety of assessment methods, whilst continuing to use traditional examinations as one element of the assessment process.

Recommendation 53
We recommend that the academic boards, in conjunction with the Educational Policy and Standards Committee, should develop a university-wide structure for undergraduate assessment incorporating the following features:

(a) classified assessment first taking place at the end of the second year of study;

(b) an equal number of examination papers (or equivalent forms of assessment) of equal weight, in each year of each degree course;

(c) increased use of non-examination-based forms of assessment, particularly in the third (and, where applicable, fourth) year.

III: The tutorial system

Introduction

9.22 The tutorial system, which is a distinctive feature of undergraduate education at both Oxford and Cambridge, makes a significant contribution to maintaining Oxford's standard of excellence in teaching and has consistently attracted commendation from external teaching quality assessors. Although the nature of tutorials varies considerably between subjects and in particular between humanities and sciences, there are certain common elements which give the tutorial system its value.

9.23 First, it is in the nature of tutorial teaching that it is conducted by the tutor with an individual student or only a very small group of students. Our survey of undergraduates indicated that the most common number of students in a tutorial was one or two, and only a small proportion had four or more students attending.[112] This small size enables the tutor to set work appropriate to the level of knowledge and understanding of each student and to give undergraduates a high degree of individual attention.

9.24 Secondly, an important aspect of the tutorial system is the significant amount of work which the student is expected to do in advance of a tutorial, for example by way of background reading followed by essay-writing, or by preparing answers to problem sheets. As Figure 9.2, below, illustrates, undergraduates in the humanities and social sciences reported in our survey that they spent on average 14 to 15 hours in preparation for each tutorial; in the sciences the figure was nine hours - somewhat less, but still considerable, given the significant amount of time also spent in practicals. We consider this preparation to be an important part of an undergraduate's education, as it encourages the student to take an active rather than passive role in learning and develops skills in self-directed study and working independently, as well as analytical and critical skills.

Figure 9.2: Mean hours of preparation per tutorial - Hilary Term 1996

Source: Commission of Inquiry Survey of Undergraduate Students

9.25 Thirdly, the tutorial itself gives the undergraduate the opportunity to discuss particular topics in considerable detail with the tutor, who may well be a leading expert in the subject or a young active researcher at the forefront of the discipline, and to gain experience in debating and defending arguments when the student's preparatory work is discussed. This method of learning also encourages undergraduates to develop effective oral communications skills.

9.26 Finally, it is a principle of the tutorial system in Oxford that a significant proportion of the tutorials which an undergraduate attends are given by an individual recognised to be the undergraduate's own tutor. Although it is often entirely appropriate for a student to be sent to a tutor in another college for a particular topic, because of the tutor's special expertise, the principle remains valid that the tutor who is responsible for monitoring the progress and directing the studies of an individual student is also regularly involved in teaching that student through tutorials, especially in the first year of an undergraduate's course when the topics studied are not so specialised. The results of our undergraduate survey showed that 48 per cent of all tutorials were given by the undergraduate's own tutor. We believe that this approach is right, as it encourages an effective relationship to form between the tutor and each individual student; this assists monitoring of the student's progress, fosters strong commitment on both sides and can make an undergraduate more confident about approaching the tutor in case of problems.

9.27 Our surveys of staff and undergraduates support a view that most tutorials meet these aims most of the time. Reports by external teaching quality assessors also indicate the value and quality of tutorial teaching, as the following examples indicate:

'Tutorials clearly emerge as central to history teaching at Oxford...Assessors were struck by the obvious intellectual vigour in a teaching environment which is challenging and demanding for both staff and students'.[113]

'Among the characteristics of the tutorials judged to be excellent were clear aims and objectives; high expectations and a challenging and critical approach to the subject, matched to the individual needs and differing abilities of students; well prepared students, well structured sessions, with good management of time; fast but suitable pace; good rapport between tutors and students; and a common sense of seriousness of purpose and intellectual excitement'.[114]

9.28 Nevertheless, there are concerns about two aspects of the tutorial system which should be addressed; these relate to the frequency of tutorials, with the consequent heavy workload for both tutors and students, and the nature of feedback given to undergraduates on their written work. We believe that at the root of both these concerns is a degree of uncertainty about the role of the tutorial in the undergraduate course as a whole.

Role of the tutorial

9.29 Because of the natural differences between tutorials in different subjects, it is difficult to give a general definition of tutorial teaching. Tutorials in the humanities and social sciences tend to be focused on discussion with the tutor of a long essay, produced after consideration of relevant background material identified by the tutor in a reading list. In the sciences, on the other hand, fewer essays are required and tutorials are often used to go through worksheets and other exercises. Figures 9.2, above, and 9.3, below, show the considerable variation between subjects and years of study in the amount of time spent preparing for each tutorial and in the number of tutorials received. Nevertheless, despite the differences, the aim of the tutorial as a teaching method is the same: to encourage the undergraduate to explore a particular aspect of a subject in depth and to give an opportunity for the undergraduate to put forward his or her own ideas and present a critical analysis of a particular problem or proposition; it should not primarily be a vehicle for the tutor to teach the 'right answer' nor to impart factual information which could be better obtained through background reading, lectures or technology-based learning.

Figure 9.3: Mean number of tutorials per fortnight by subject type and year Hilary Term 1996

Source: Commission of Inquiry Survey of Undergraduate Students

9.30 The Franks Commission in 1966 had concerns that the expansion of syllabuses at that time was leading to a tendency for tutorials to be treated as an opportunity for tutors to convey additional information to undergraduates. As a consequence that Commission recommended that as a general rule no undergraduate should have more than one tutorial a week (or should write more than one essay a week); it was believed that this approach would restore the tutorial to its proper role which was 'to teach the pupil how to think'.[115] The Franks Commission's recommendation on the number of tutorials was, however, rejected by the University and, as Figure 9.3 shows, has not been followed in practice. It will be seen that the overall average number of tutorials attended by each undergraduate is about three in a fortnight. Whilst we do not think that it is appropriate for a body such as ourselves to recommend a universally applicable norm for the number of tutorials to be set, as the variations between subjects are so great, we share the Franks Commission's concern that the tutorial is sometimes misused and consequently overused. We believe that there are a number of reasons for this.

9.31 One reason is the increasing emphasis on undergraduates' examination performance. As tutorials are commonly perceived as being the best way to improve an undergraduate's examination performance, both undergraduates and tutors have an incentive to increase their frequency. From the undergraduate's point of view, the growing importance of a good class of degree in finding employment means that frequent tutorials are attractive, whilst tutors have an understandable personal interest in maximising their students' potential in examinations and in contributing to their college's academic reputation.

9.32 However, we believe that this examination-led teaching represents a misconception of the role of the tutorial and that a continued increase in the number of tutorials received by undergraduates is unsustainable in terms of the pressure which it puts on both teaching staff and undergraduates. Indeed, in some subjects maintenance of the current frequency of tutorials may well be thought undesirable. Tutors who are employed by both the University and a college are expected to give lectures, teach and supervise graduate students, carry out high quality research and undertake administrative duties, as well as to give tutorials. Unless a conscious effort is made to resist pressure to give more tutorials, academic staff will either have to work even longer hours or have to reduce the time spent on the other activities, some of which present less immediate and personal demands but are equally part of their role in the operation of Oxford as a whole. In addition, for many undergraduates pressure of work is a real concern, which was forcefully expressed in the comment sheets submitted as part of our undergraduate survey. Moreover, it is interesting to note that 80 per cent of the teaching staff who approved of the proposition in our staff survey that there should be only one tutorial a week for each undergraduate did so because they thought that this step would encourage a better quality of work from undergraduates.

9.33 A further factor in the increase in the number of tutorials is the changing nature of secondary school education, which we described in paragraph 9.4. Tutorials are increasingly being used, especially in the first year, to bring students up to a common level of attainment of skills and knowledge to enable them adequately to approach the rest of their degree course. Although this development is superficially attractive, because it encourages the tutor to respond to the needs of each individual student, it is wasteful of both staff and student time and demonstrates a need for better planning and coordination on the part of the University. Part of the regular planning process of the academic boards should be to identify the specific areas in which secondary school education commonly leaves some groups of undergraduates ill-prepared for a particular degree course and to identify the most appropriate medium, for example classes, for imparting the necessary skills or information to undergraduates. This could significantly reduce the number of tutorials given, especially in the first year, without any academic disadvantage to undergraduates. It is expected that the improved planning mechanisms which we propose, with a more flexible joint appointments system in place (on which see Chapter 7), would result in such subject-wide arrangements being much easier to implement than at present.

Recommendation 54
We recommend that the academic boards for the sciences and for the humanities and social sciences should:

(a) review the use made of different teaching methods in their subjects;

(b) particularly in the humanities and social sciences, emphasise to tutors and students that the role of a series of tutorials is not to cover all the topics in a syllabus, nor are tutorials to be regarded as substitutes for lectures, classes and personal background reading, which must be established as the prime vehicles for imparting factual information;

(c) promote greater cohesion between lecture courses, classes and tutorials; and

(d) consider to what extent lectures, classes and technology-based learning can be used, particularly in the first year, to bring undergraduates up to a broadly equal, appropriate standard for their course.

9.34 In addition to the above, it is important to note that our recommendation on the setting of norms for the amount of teaching to be provided (Recommendation 43) would naturally include norms for numbers of tutorials per term. Such norms would encourage undergraduates to have realistic expectations about the number of tutorials they were likely to receive and would reduce the pressure on tutors to give additional tutorials.

Feedback in tutorials

9.35 A common complaint from the undergraduates who returned comment sheets as part of our survey was that tutors did not provide enough feedback on essays, either by giving an overall grade for an essay or by making specific comments on the content of the essay. This was felt to lead to a number of problems: undergraduates could not use their essays for revision, because they did not know which parts were reliable; they could not try to improve their arguments, preparation or writing techniques because they could not identify their weaknesses; finally, they did not know how much they needed to improve in order to obtain a satisfactory grade in finals. A number said that their confidence was being undermined by the lack of encouragement from their tutors.

9.36 Although we appreciate undergraduates' strength of feeling on this issue, we believe that these views arise mainly from a mistaken perception of the purpose of a tutorial. The central part of the business in a tutorial should be active, two-way discussion of the student's work; the pressure for comments to be made in writing on the work in advance is part of a general trend towards 'pre-packaging', with marks being used as a measure of the efficiency with which information has been absorbed. It is a move away from a system in which the student defends his or her work and ideas, towards one in which the work is graded outside the tutorial and the meeting itself is used as a private lesson in which the tutor explains the 'right answer'. Such a shift towards passive learning would represent the loss of a key aspect of Oxford's tutorial system, and should, in our view, be resisted.

9.37 Nevertheless, undergraduates have a legitimate desire to know how they are progressing and whether their work is consistent and of a satisfactory standard. It is important for Oxford to respond to undergraduates' concerns on this point, by making it clear to tutors that undergraduates are entitled to effective and helpful written comments on their work. We note, however, that marking with grades is not always appropriate, as the standards expected at different stages of a course may vary and grades may therefore not be comparable. These practices and the rationale behind them should be explained to tutors in a faculty or departmental handbook (see Recommendation 46) and to undergraduates in each faculty prospectus.

Recommendation 55
We recommend that faculties and departments should ensure that their undergraduates are informed of their policies on commenting on and grading tutorial work, by setting these out explicitly in the student prospectus for each course.

9.38 We have noted that, in addition, opportunities for undergraduates to receive a constructive evaluation of their progress should be available through college examinations and termly meetings with tutors and others. It is incumbent on colleges to ensure that their monitoring and reporting procedures are such that undergraduates will feel assured that they have adequate feedback on their academic work, albeit not necessarily through the grading of tutorial work.

IV: Transferable skills

9.39 In the context of our recommendations on teaching and assessment methods, we have recognised that employers of graduates increasingly are assessing applicants on the evidence of broader skills relevant to the workplace (such as numeracy, command of languages, computer-literacy and leadership) as well as of academic achievement. In consequence, many undergraduates now wish their degree course to impart some element of these 'transferable skills'. The Dearing Committee has also recognised the role which higher education can play in developing students' 'key skills', in conjunction with a traditional academic training.[116] In contrast, most Oxford degree courses have been designed with purely academic objectives in mind. They continue to provide undergraduates with a highly respected academic training, which is valuable in its own right and which also develops analytical and communications skills relevant to most careers. However, it might be argued that Oxford is failing to meet an important educational need, and may eventually discourage potential students, if it does not incorporate into its degree courses more opportunities for undergraduates to acquire a broader range of skills applicable to the workplace.

9.40 Responses to our undergraduate survey confirm that there is an awareness on the part of current undergraduates that they lack opportunities to acquire such skills, and a desire for this to change. Figure 9.4 show clearly the areas in which the lack of opportunity is most keenly felt, and that these sometimes vary between subject groups. It is clear that there is a particular concern about IT skills and foreign languages, and some scientists perceive that they have only limited scope for developing either oral or written communication skills. We believe that this issue is one which needs to be considered in depth by the academic boards. In that context, the results from this part of our survey will provide a useful source of information.

Figure 9.4: Opportunities to develop 'transferable skills'
(Percentage of undergraduates responding to 1996 Survey of Undergraduate Students)

9.41 Because the scope and means for incorporating transferable skills will vary considerably between subjects, and particularly between the humanities, social sciences and sciences, it is not appropriate for us to make detailed recommendations on how such incorporation should be achieved. However, there are a few key points which we wish to make:

• The opportunity for acquiring transferable skills should be made an integral part of each course, rather than being added as a separate element in a way which did not allow the student to develop them in a practical context and might lead to this element being marginalised by both teachers and students. Both teaching and assessment methods should be reviewed, with the aim of using a range of methods which would extend the variety of skills which might be developed. In teaching, for instance, more computer-based learning could be introduced to develop IT skills, and undergraduates could be asked more regularly to present papers in classes, to promote presentation skills. Group projects could be introduced to encourage teamwork and leadership. In paragraphs 9.17 to 9.21, we have already discussed how assessment could move away from the dominance of traditional three hour examinations.
• The training provided in such transferable skills must be appropriate to an undergraduate's needs; for example, tests to ascertain existing levels of attainment in such areas as languages and computer skills should be introduced, and exemptions from courses given if, for example, relevant A levels are held.
• We welcome the developments which have already taken place, such as the introduction of a modern languages option in physics, in engineering and in metallurgy and science of materials.
• It should be recognised that undergraduates at Oxford have the benefit of the tutorial system, which already provides students with the opportunity to develop the ability to work under pressure, to work alone, to express themselves concisely and to analyse large amounts of information. That this is the case was borne out, for example, by a recent Teaching Quality Assessment report:
  'The promotion of transferable skills seemed well in evidence here. Individual students commented to the assessors on the value of the tutorial system, and of its demands for analysis and oral presentation in particular. They also commented on the very useful training which working under pressure to demanding requirements provided for post-university life and work.'[117]
• Although Oxford's degree courses do not in general provide scope at present for developing social skills such as leadership and teamwork, the nature of Oxford student life as a whole, with its proliferation of societies and activities based in colleges as well as in the University, gives an unusual amount of opportunity for individuals to acquire such skills through participation in the running of committees, sports teams, cultural activities and the like. This is well evidenced by the responses to our undergraduate survey, where 63 per cent of respondents considered that they were acquiring such skills through extra-curricular activities at Oxford. Undergraduates, and through them employers, should be encouraged to give appropriate value and recognition to this aspect of undergraduate life at Oxford.

Recommendation 56
We recommend that the academic boards and the Educational Policy and Standards Committee, in consultation with the University Careers Service, should consider how teaching and assessment methods might be utilised in order to develop a broader range of skills in Oxford's students.

I: Introduction

10.1 Since the early 1960s, there has been a huge increase, both in Oxford and nationally, in the number of students on graduate courses.[118] This expansion of graduate education has occurred in both taught and research degree courses and has arisen in response to a variety of impulses from the government, employers, graduates and the academic community:

• the government policy of the 1960s, the early 1980s and the early 1990s to expand overall student numbers;
• the increasing need for those wishing to pursue an academic career to have a doctorate;
• the expansion of scientific research in industry, with its need for highly qualified laboratory workers;
• an increase in the number of specialist careers in industry and government requiring graduate study;
• the perceived advantage of a graduate qualification in a highly competitive graduate job market;
• the increasingly frequent requirement from funding bodies that graduate students should undertake a taught course before embarking on a research degree;
• in universities, the development of the essential role of graduate researchers in scientific research, the beneficial cross-fertilisation between some graduate teaching and academics' own research, and the financial benefit of the income from graduate student fees (especially from overseas students).

10.2 As was recognised by the Franks Commission,[119] Oxford has been well-placed to respond to the increased demand for graduate education, as it has much to offer graduate students : a strong research base and the opportunity to be supervised by leading researchers; an extensive library system, with many unique special collections; opportunities to be involved in scientific projects in well-equipped laboratories and at the leading edge of strategic research; and participation in a highly talented, international student body. The provision of advanced level taught courses and research degrees is a coherent and logical development of Oxford's traditional teaching role, aimed as it is at extending knowledge, stretching the capabilities of the most academically able and developing a range of analytical and research skills applicable to many careers. In return, graduate students offer other members of Oxford's academic community a valuable stimulus and fresh approach to their own study and research. Research students also support the work of leading academics, especially in the natural sciences.

10.3 Oxford has therefore planned and experienced a marked increase in its number of graduate students, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of overall student numbers in the University. This development is illustrated in Figure 10.1. These changes have had a significant impact on the pattern of the University's activities. Our survey of academic staff in Hilary Term 1996 revealed that 75 per cent of academic staff were supervising graduate students and that, on average, each had 4.8 supervisees. In comparison, the Franks Commission's survey of staff in 1964 indicated that 67 per cent of academic staff were supervising graduate students, but that each had an average of only 2.5 supervisees. Furthermore, Figure 10.1 demonstrates not only that there has been overall growth, but also that the growth has been most pronounced in the sciences and medicine, and in taught courses. This shift of emphasis has been significant both because of the amount of academic staff time demanded by taught courses and because of the equipment and space required to support research students in the sciences and medicine.

Figure 10.1: Numbers of graduate students: Oxford University: 1965-6 and 1995-6

10.4 In Oxford as elsewhere, this rapid change in the composition of the student body has necessitated a number of adaptations to a system which had evolved primarily to accommodate undergraduate teaching and research. The changing requirements led to a number of national reviews of the position of graduate students, chief amongst which was the Review of Postgraduate Education (the 'Harris Report') published in 1996. The main concerns of that report were the nature of the funding regime for graduate taught and research courses, the impact of graduate expansion on undergraduate funding, the need for clarification and standardisation of graduate qualifications, and the standards of teaching and facilities for graduate students. National bodies such as the Higher Education Quality Council, the research councils and the British Academy have attempted to identify the academic and other needs specific to graduate students, and the funding of institutions which provide graduate courses is increasingly contingent on their ability to answer those needs. Both nationally and in Oxford these changes have led to increased attention to issues such as training for graduate students, the availability of library, computing and laboratory facilities, admissions procedures and the organisational structures most appropriate for graduate education.

10.5 These issues have particular significance in Oxford for a number of reasons. First, Oxford has a relatively high proportion of graduate students: 30 per cent of its total student body as opposed to 14 per cent nationally. Secondly, nearly all Oxford's graduate students study on a full-time, residential basis, and therefore have high expectations of full academic and social integration into the University, of the quality and intensity provided for undergraduates. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, the collegiate nature of the University has given an added dimension to all these issues, and in particular has raised the question of the extent to which colleges can and should be involved in academic provision for graduate students. Oxford itself has therefore undertaken a number of reviews of its own provision for graduate students, the principal ones of which may be summarised as follows.

10.6 The Franks Report.[123] As we noted in paragraph 1.24, ^C publication, in 1963, of the Franks Commission was set up shortly after the Robbins Report on higher education in the UK. It recognised that Oxford was in a particularly good position to contribute to the considerable expansion in graduate student numbers recommended in the Robbins Report, and predicted and endorsed an increase in Oxford's graduate student numbers to between 3,500 and 4,000 by 1985, which would represent 30 per cent of the total student body. This prediction proved fairly accurate, and more or less reflects the current position.

10.7 To ensure that this increasing number of graduate students was well-provided for in Oxford and to ensure that graduate students could be fully incorporated into the collegiate University, Franks made a number of recommendations, which included:

• parity of esteem for graduate and undergraduate education, which were to be provided by the same academic staff;
• the establishment of faculty centres for all the major humanities and social sciences faculties;
• more systematic and consistent training for graduate students by way of seminars, background lectures etc;
• the provision of private funding to encourage more graduates from other UK and overseas universities to come to Oxford;
• the rationalisation of degree nomenclature;
• measures to ensure standards and the quality of examining;
• the continuation of compulsory college membership for graduate students, with a corresponding obligation on colleges to take on some academic responsibility (chiefly through the provision of a college adviser, on which see paragraphs 10.38 to 10.40) and a recognition that graduate students had as much claim on college facilities as undergraduates had;
• changes in the University's governance and administration aimed at bringing graduate studies into a more prominent position in the University's thinking.

10.8 The Franks' recommendations were endorsed by the University, but their implementation was partial and slow. This lack of consistent progress prompted the University to undertake three further reviews, which we outline below.

10.9 The 'Roberts Report' (The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Provision for Graduate Students - 1987). The Roberts Report was entirely concerned with graduate education, and was able to go into many issues in more depth than Franks. Its recommendations covered many aspects of graduate education, prompted by a recognition that Oxford had still not adapted sufficiently to take account of the increased role of graduate studies, especially in the humanities and social sciences. Amongst the issues covered were:

• The admissions system - Roberts made recommendations intended to reduce the delays inherent in the admissions system for graduate students, to make it easier to compare applicants with one another in a 'gathered field', and to improve the information given to applicants about the choice of colleges.
• Induction and training - Roberts recommended that Oxford should give more attention to the induction of graduate students, training in research methods, and teaching to enable them to maintain a broad knowledge of their subject.
• The role of the colleges in graduate provision - Roberts, like Franks, believed that it was beneficial to graduate students, and crucial for Oxford, that colleges play an academic role in the education of their graduate students, as well as providing a variety of social facilities.
• Supervision - The report drew attention to significant concern in some subjects about the system for allocating applicants to supervisors, the performance of supervisors and the monitoring of supervision. One reason for the concern which the report identified was 'a lack of agreement, because of a lack of knowledge, of what the supervisors' duties should be'.[124] The report therefore set out the responsibilities of a supervisor in the form of draft guidelines, which are now embodied in the Memorandum for Supervisors and Research Students issued by the General Board.[125] The Roberts Report also considered that the distribution of the responsibilities of supervision amongst members of academic staff was too uneven, so that some staff were overloaded and unable to give adequate attention to each supervisee. The report recommended that faculties should set norms and maxima for the number of supervisees for each member of staff.

10.10 The 'Southwood Report' (the report of the Working Party on Graduate Provision - 1990) and The Graduate Studies Committee's follow-up to the Working Party on Graduate Provision (1994). Both these reports sought to clarify what type of academic provision colleges were best able to make, and to assess the extent to which colleges had enhanced their provision in line with earlier recommendations. Amongst their conclusions were a clarification of the roles of the tutor for graduates and the college adviser, encouragement to colleges to hold 'graduate collections' (i.e. progress meetings with graduate students) and the identification of a minimum set of facilities which colleges should provide for their graduate students.

10.11 As a result of these reviews, Oxford has now added greatly to its provision for graduate students, and is widely acknowledged as providing a very high quality of graduate education, in terms of both teaching and facilities. However, the process of bringing graduate work fully into the mainstream of academic activity in all subjects in Oxford has not yet been completed, and we have formed the impression during our consideration of this issue that the success of Oxford's graduate courses sometimes still depends too heavily on the goodwill of particular academic and other staff, rather than on sound organisational structure. We are aware, from both our own surveys and from other sources, that implementation of the recommendations of earlier reports is not complete either on the college or on the university side. It is also clear to us that these reports did not address certain broader management issues, such as quality control systems, planning and resource allocation mechanisms and the position of graduate teaching in the joint appointments system. In the following discussion and in our recommendations we have worked on the basis that the recommendations made in the Roberts Report and in subsequent reports are still desirable and should be implemented wherever this has not yet occurred. We have seen our primary task in this area as that of seeing how the overall framework for graduate education could be improved. We begin by considering whether it would be beneficial for Oxford to abandon its existing structures for graduate provision altogether, and replace them with a 'graduate school'.

II: A graduate school for Oxford?

10.12 The graduate school, whilst well-established in a number of North American universities, is a relatively new concept in the United Kingdom, but has been developed by various institutions in response to the expansion in graduate student numbers. There are already several different models in operation or under consideration, which range from institution-wide research and graduate schools, to individual, programme-based graduate schools, with faculty-wide graduate schools between these two extremes. In its 1995 publication, 'Graduate Schools', the UK Council for Graduate Education identified a number of key roles which graduate schools could play to the benefit of the institution and of graduate education: championing the cause of graduate education; pooling expertise and allowing economies of scale in administration, research training etc; delivering quality assurance and control; managing research; providing an interface with the outside world (i.e. potential students, funders and industry); and facilitating new forms of academic collaboration.

10.13 Whilst we see some potential for setting up small graduate schools to foster teaching and research in interdisciplinary subjects, we do not believe that the establishment in Oxford of a single university-wide graduate school would be either helpful or desirable. There are a number of reasons for this conclusion. First, Oxford, as one of the pre-eminent research institutions in the world, can already offer many of the perceived advantages of a graduate school system. Strong links with industry and other funders already exist because of the University's research activities. In many subjects, departments provide a strong research-orientated, academic environment and social focus for graduate students grouped by discipline, whilst college membership offers graduate students the opportunity to mix with staff and students from a broad range of subjects. To the extent that university-wide coordination and administration of graduate studies is desirable, the Graduate Studies Office within the central administration exists to provide them. Secondly, the establishment of a graduate school might further harden the line between undergraduate and graduate courses and isolate undergraduates from the research side of the University's work, at a time when some faculties, especially in the sciences, see value in bringing a research element into undergraduate courses (for example the four year courses in materials, biochemistry and chemistry). Thirdly, the development of a graduate school would introduce another layer of administration into an institution which is already administratively complex because of its collegiate structure. Fourthly, it might lead to a separation of academic staff between those who do research and graduate teaching and those who do undergraduate teaching, as happens in several institutions in North America. Such a separation would violate a fundamental principle of Oxford that undergraduates as well as graduate students should benefit from receiving the bulk of their teaching from members of staff who are active in research.

III: Academic appointments and governance in the context of graduate provision

10.14 Having argued above that graduate provision should be kept within the mainstream of Oxford academic life, we now consider whether, and if so what, reforms of existing structures are necessary. Later in this chapter, we suggest some reforms which relate specifically to the organisation of graduate teaching and support. However, it is also important to note that some of our broader proposals on the joint appointments system (see Chapter 7) and on the University's governance structure (Chapter 5) would have a significant and beneficial impact on graduate provision and we therefore wish to highlight these here.

The joint appointments system

10.15 Whilst graduate teaching now occupies a significant proportion of most academic staff members' time, the organisation of the current joint appointments system for CUF lecturers and, to a lesser extent, university lecturers, is still shaped by the needs of undergraduate teaching. This situation, together with the fact that the demands of regular undergraduate teaching and administration tend to be more urgent and visible than those of graduate teaching, results in a potential for the latter to be marginalised, although the goodwill of academic staff in general ensures that this is not the case. We have therefore proposed a number of reforms to the joint appointments system which are intended to ensure that the organisational arrangements reflect the reality of the position of graduate teaching in Oxford.

10.16 First, we regard it as an out-dated anomaly that time spent on graduate supervision is not included in the university 'stint' of holders of joint appointments but is treated as an additional duty for which a fee of £30 per student per term is paid by the University to the supervisor. This is a prime example of reliance being placed on the willingness of academic staff to accept additional burdens and to give them equal priority to their other responsibilities. Whilst for the most part the system works well and research students receive high quality supervision, some of the graduate students who responded to our survey felt that undergraduate teaching, administration and research took priority over graduate teaching in Oxford; some research students complained that they either were unable to see their supervisor as often as they needed to, or that they felt inhibited from doing so, because of the pressures of the supervisor's other work. What is needed is formal recognition of the fact that graduate supervision is now one of the core duties of the majority of academic staff. We have therefore recommended (Recommendation 38) that time spent supervising graduate students should be explicitly counted in the university teaching 'stint'. Where, for example, a lecturer is contracted to undertake six units' teaching per week for the faculty or department and 12 for the college, an hour's graduate supervision would be counted against those six units rather than being an additional duty. Furthermore, separate supervision fees would cease to be payable.

10.17 Secondly, we have responded to concerns amongst members of academic staff that the contractual obligations laid down for joint appointees are unnecessarily inflexible in terms of the scope given to staff to alter the balance of their teaching duties in either the short- or long-term, for example in order to undertake more graduate teaching. Although any flexibility must of course be subject to the constraints of the overall requirements of the University and the colleges, we have proposed a number of financial and contractual reforms to the joint appointments system, with the aim of giving those staff who seek a somewhat greater degree of flexibility the opportunity to alter the balance of their teaching duties (see paragraphs 7.28 to 7.34 and Appendix C).

10.18 Thirdly, we have noted concerns that the selection procedures for CUF lecturers tend to give priority to the academic needs of undergraduate teaching (i.e. the ability to teach across a broad subject base), and may fail to provide for more specialist graduate subjects. We accept the force of these concerns and we have recommended a revision of the selection system for joint appointees (see paragraphs 7.35 to 7.36), so that, even for posts which carry predominantly college (i.e. undergraduate) teaching responsibilities, the needs of the University and of the college would have to be balanced in making the choice of appointee.

Planning and resource allocation

10.19 In Chapter 5, we have proposed the introduction of planning and resource allocation procedures which we believe would have particular advantages for graduate studies. First, they would make it easier to ensure that new taught courses were set up only when there were sufficient staff and other resources available, such as extra funding for libraries, and training in languages or other specialised skills. Secondly, the new procedures would provide a clearer framework within which faculties could plan and control numbers of graduate admissions, ensure that supervision duties were properly distributed and allow staff sufficient time not only to meet their students at appropriate intervals to discuss their work but also to fulfil related administrative tasks, such as report writing.

The establishment of the three academic boards

10.20 Our proposal for the division of academic planning and administration under three academic boards (see paragraphs 5.104 to 5.144) has, amongst other advantages, the benefit of reflecting the significant differences between graduate studies in the humanities and social sciences, the sciences and medicine. In medicine, for example, graduate education includes clinical training for doctors. In the sciences, there are relatively few graduate students on taught courses, and most research degrees are conducted as part of a team project under an academic project leader. In the humanities and social sciences, a considerable number of taught courses as well as research degrees are offered, and research students usually work independently rather than as part of a team. Moreover, the facilities, such as libraries, laboratories, archives and museums needed by students in each subject group also differ. The procedures for admissions also vary, dictated as they are by the policies and schedules of the appropriate grant-making bodies (primarily the research councils and the British Academy). For all these reasons, it would be logical for many strategic decisions relating to graduate provision to be taken at the level of the academic board.

10.21 In addition, the academic boards should play an important role in promoting interdisciplinary studies, a feature of graduate work and research which a number of staff and students have complained is inhibited by rigid faculty and departmental structures. Members of the boards would be in a position to take an overview of all subjects under their board, to assess where there was scope for interdisciplinary or collaborative work, and to promote structures which would support this, over-arching existing departments or faculties but under the aegis of the board. Cross-board interdisciplinarity could, as now, be dealt with at the inter-faculty level, but academic boards, and in particular their graduate studies committees, should be responsible for ensuring that the division between boards did not prevent graduate students from benefitting from this sort of academic cross-fertilisation.

Recommendation 57
We recommend that the academic boards should be given explicit responsibility for developing effective frameworks for interdisciplinary graduate studies, both within and across the boards.

IV: The organisational framework for graduate education

Faculties and departments

10.22 On the university side, a faculty, through its faculty board, has formal responsibility for all academic matters relating to its graduate students. These include admissions, the appointment of supervisors, the consideration of supervisors' progress reports, the approval of applications for transfer of status and the appointment of examiners for research degrees. Most of the routine aspects of these functions are in practice delegated to the graduate studies committee of the faculty board, and this is chaired by the director of graduate studies, who deals with day to day matters. In those faculties which have sub-faculties, there is a parallel structure to deal with graduate studies at the sub-faculty level, and routine matters are delegated to the sub-faculty's graduate studies committee. In those faculties which do not have a departmental structure, the faculty board or sub-faculty board is also responsible for ensuring that students have access to adequate facilities and that relevant training and background instruction is provided.

10.23 In departmentally organised subjects (most of which are in the sciences and medicine), the department is the main focus of a graduate student's work and many academic matters, such as the provisional admission of graduate students, the appointment of supervisors and the provision of research training, are in practice delegated by the faculty board to the head of department. The department is also expected to take overall responsibility for each student's education by ensuring that there is an effective network of academic support to supplement the supervisor's role and that students are given the opportunity to develop a broad knowledge of their subject. In addition, the department is responsible both formally and in practice for the physical plant, facilities and support staff needed to carry out research. Only the most formal of procedures, such as applications for transfers of status, extensions of time and appointment of examiners, together with formal responsibility for monitoring students' progress and receiving supervisors' reports, remain in the hands of the faculty board (and its graduate studies committee).

10.24 Although within this dual structure of faculty and department the University generally achieves a high standard of provision for graduate students, we believe that there is a danger in a few subjects that the focus of responsibility for the overall education of each student might be unclear, and that there might not be a well-defined structure for dealing with those problems which do occur from time to time, such as a breakdown in a relationship with a supervisor, a serious sense of isolation or very delayed completion of a thesis. In order to achieve clarification of where such responsibilities lie, it is important to recognise the different ways in which graduate studies are handled in departmental and non-departmental subjects.

10.25 Departments, with their clear physical location and well-structured internal organisation, are well placed to deal with all day to day aspects of graduate education, and we believe that the formal role of the faculty board, and sub-faculty, in graduate education in departmentally organised subjects makes the system unnecessarily complex and disperses responsibility. We therefore propose that in all departmentally organised subjects the department should carry primary responsibility for graduate provision. Nearly all the formal roles of the faculty board should explicitly be given to the department, a change which, for the most part, would only reflect and institutionalise current practice. Thus heads of department should be given full responsibility for admitting applicants, appointing supervisors etc. and should be given a more direct and effective role in monitoring the progress of graduate students by a requirement that supervisors' reports were to be sent direct to the department's director of graduate studies (who would be responsible for ensuring that reports were completed on time and were sufficiently informative). The functions of the body immediately above the department, whether it be a faculty board or an academic board, would be restricted to a broad supervisory and regulatory role, for example setting criteria for admissions, drawing up regulations for transfers of status, appointing examiners and dealing with serious complaints.

Recommendation 58
We recommend that, in departmentally organised subjects, formal responsibility for the organisation and delivery of graduate education should be transferred from faculties or sub-faculties to heads of department.

10.26 For a number of reasons, the organisation of graduate provision in faculty-based subjects (i.e. most of the humanities and social sciences) is less straightforward. In faculties without a physical base, supervisors and other members of academic staff may well not come into regular contact either with research students or with each other, and tend to divide their work and time between faculty and college. In some cases, these factors can make it difficult to identify who, or what body, is responsible for particular tasks, such as following up unsatisfactory progress reports or ensuring that graduate students have adequate opportunities to meet other members of academic staff. Whilst we do not believe that a structural change is essential to achieve greater clarity (although it might be desirable), we do think that it is important to identify clearly where responsibility for graduate education lies in each of the non-departmentally organised faculties, mirroring as far as possible the clarity which is inherent in the departmental structure.

Recommendation 59
We recommend that the academic board for humanities and social sciences should ensure that there is a clear focus of responsibility for graduate education in each of the faculties under its aegis.

Research supervision

10.27 A particularly important aspect of a faculty's or department's role is the provision of a supervisor for research students. The relationship between a research student and the supervisor is a crucial element both in the success of the student's academic work and, even more, in the student's feelings about his or her overall experience of graduate work. Whilst most supervision works well, when the relationship fails it can have particularly serious consequences for the student, because of the heavy dependence which many students have to place on a single individual for academic guidance throughout the three or more years of their studies.

10.28 The University has already recognised the potential problems that research students may face if supervision is not adequate and has clarified the responsibilities of supervisors by publication of the Memorandum for the Guidance of Supervisors and Research Students (issued by the General Board following recommendations in the Roberts Report.)[126] We fully endorse the provisions of the Memorandum, but have noted that it appears that not all supervisors are familiar with its contents. One reason may be that it is not given sufficient prominence. The Memorandum is not distributed separately as a matter of course to all new supervisors, but is contained in an insignificant section of the Examinations Decrees and is included as an appendix to faculties' graduate handbooks, where it is prefaced by a statement of students' and supervisors' responsibilities with regard to health and safety: these are very important, but should be issued separately from guidance on academic matters.

Recommendation 60
We recommend that the Memorandum of Guidance for Supervisors and Research Students should be published as a separate document and distributed by the Graduate Studies Office to all newly appointed supervisors.

10.29 There is also clearly a need to ensure that supervisors are not simply overburdened by the amount of supervision required of them. As was recommended in the Roberts Report, faculties have already been asked by the General Board to set norms for supervisors in terms of the numbers of graduate students that they should be asked to supervise, but our inquiries have indicated that some faculties either have not set norms or do not observe them. However, we welcome the fact that some other faculties are already rigorous in refusing to admit an applicant if the appropriate supervisor is overloaded.

Recommendation 61
We recommend that the academic boards should review the practice of the faculties or departments under their aegis with regard to the setting of and compliance with norms for the numbers of supervisees allocated to a supervisor, and ensure that faculties or departments are rigorous in enforcing them.

Other sources of academic support and monitoring in the University

10.30 Even when the relationship between graduate student and supervisor is working well, a heavy reliance on an individual supervisor is not ideal. First, the opportunity to have contact with other leading researchers in one's field and to explore different points of view should be one of the key attractions of Oxford for graduate students. However, our graduate survey indicated that only 18 per cent of research students thought that their opportunities for contact with academics in their field were very good, whilst 48 per cent thought that they were adequate, and 33 per cent that they were poor (the views of science students were only slightly more favourable than those in the humanities and social sciences). In the light of these results, we wish to endorse the points already set out in the Memorandum of Guidance for Supervisors, that

'the supervisor is expected to identify (in conjunction with the director of graduate studies for the faculty, sub-faculty, or department) two colleagues where possible, but if not, one colleague, for limited consultation by the student during his/her first year of research'[127] and that 'the supervisor should arrange for students to have the opportunity to discuss his/her work with other staff and students in the subject area.' [128]

10.31 A related but separate point is the importance of ensuring that there is a sense of collective responsibility for individual graduate students in each faculty or department, to support both supervisor and supervisee, and to ensure that the student's progress is effectively monitored. Some faculties and departments have already established clearly defined intermediate structures, between the level of the supervisor and the graduate studies committee, for supporting and monitoring individual students' academic progress. These structures vary from faculty to faculty, depending on the types of graduate courses offered and on whether or not there is a departmental structure. For example, in some subjects, such as modern history and economics, each student is allocated to an 'interviewer', who is a member of the faculty's or sub-faculty's graduate studies committee but who is not the supervisor; the interviewer provides a direct link with the graduate studies committee and is available for advice, for example if a student's relationship with the supervisor breaks down. In biochemistry, in addition to a supervisor, each student is assigned to a departmental adviser and to a group of four 'senior teaching associates' (senior postdoctoral staff), who are closely involved in the assessment of graduate students and are generally available to provide support when required.

10.32 Whilst we do not wish to be prescriptive about particular mechanisms, we believe that it would be beneficial for all faculties and department to examine what they do in this area to ensure that it conforms with best practice.

Recommendation 62
We recommend that the academic boards should consider the effectiveness of the mechanisms which each faculty board or department under their aegis has for supporting and monitoring the progress of graduate students, and should ensure that these conform with best practice.

10.33 We recognise that in some humanities and social sciences subjects a lack of opportunity to mix in an academic or social context with fellow research students or academics in their own discipline is exacerbated by the absence of a departmental focus. Although it has to be recognised that, for many such students, research is bound to involve fairly isolated work in archives and specialist libraries, nevertheless to a considerable extent the root of the problem lies in the nature of the faculty buildings. Many of these were designed to house only a library and administrative offices and not to promote human interaction, which might be achieved by providing more space for academic staff and graduate students to work there, and by improving social facilities such as common rooms. Moves are gradually being made in the direction of developing faculty centres and providing more facilities in faculty buildings, but progress is slow, not least because of financial and space constraints. As we discuss in paragraphs 11.24 to 11.28, in the context of staff engaged in research, we believe that further development of faculty centres is to be encouraged. This should include specific provision for graduate students.

Recommendation 63
We recommend that in its long-term plans the University should aim to ensure that each of the humanities and social sciences faculties can make at least the following minimum provision:

• a working space for each graduate student, with a desk and a place to leave papers and personal belongings, usually in a library or a shared office in the relevant faculty centre or department;
• computing facilities for graduate students appropriate to the nature of the work within that faculty;
• attractive common room facilities, open to both academic staff and graduate students.

10.34 There remain two further issues which we wish to address, both of which relate to the subject of the monitoring by the University of the progress of graduate students.

10.35 First, we consider that a system of self-reporting by graduate students can be useful. Although this has been advocated in the past, it has not become systematic. For example, in Trinity Term 1997, the General Board's Graduate Studies Committee announced the establishment of a centrally administered self-reporting scheme for all graduate students, but it is not compulsory for faculty boards to adopt this scheme, and the report forms are not issued to students until their sixth term. We welcome the principle behind this move, but believe that the provisions could and should be more far-reaching.

Recommendation 64
We recommend that all faculty boards and departments should be required to adopt a self-reporting scheme for graduate students and that all graduate students should receive self-reporting forms every Trinity Term, so that students in each year, including the first year, of their graduate work would have the opportunity to comment on their progress and on their experiences of Oxford.

10.36 Secondly, even with thorough and effective monitoring procedures in place, research students are sometimes allowed to continue working on their theses long after the due time for completion. Whilst this delay is often the result of a sympathetic approach by supervisors and the relevant graduate studies committee, it must be recognised that it is often not in a student's best interests in the long term and represents a considerable waste of staff time and resources. It also leads to difficulties in meeting submission rate targets laid down by the research councils and the British Academy.

Recommendation 65
We recommend that faculty boards and departments should adopt clear guidelines for determining the circumstances under which research students can be required to give up their studies on academic grounds (subject to an appropriate appeals procedure).

The colleges' role in graduate education

10.37 Having explored various aspects of the University's responsibilities for graduate teaching, we now turn to the colleges' role in graduate provision. College membership is mandatory for all graduate students, a position which we strongly endorse. On the social and pastoral side, the colleges have and discharge a significant role in providing opportunities for social contact with staff and students outside academic boundaries, and they provide many graduate students with accommodation for one or more years. With regard to academic provision, there is considerable variation in what colleges offer, and less agreement on the role which the college should play. This is because the specialised nature of graduate students' work can make it difficult for colleges to make a significant contribution to the studies of every graduate student therein, through the provision of teaching, supervision or academic facilities. We have concluded that further attention needs to be paid to these matters.

College advisers and tutors for graduates

10.38 An important academic function of the college is to allocate each graduate student to a 'college adviser', who would normally not be the student's supervisor, and whose role was set out in the Southwood Report of 1990:

'First, the adviser should be in a position to discuss the student's academic work, which presupposes a certain knowledge of the subject area in which the student is working but normally should not necessarily require the student and adviser to be working in the same department or faculty. He or she would be expected to monitor a student's progress; to hold at least one meeting a term with the student to discuss the supervisor's report; and to be available at other times for consultation on academic or other matters which a student felt could not be taken to a supervisor. It should be emphasised that the adviser would not in any way be expected to replace a supervisor or to act in his or her stead, and would not therefore be expected to give the same detailed guidance and direction.'

10.39 In addition, all 'mixed' (i.e. undergraduate/graduate) colleges are expected to appoint a tutor for graduates, who allocates college advisers to individual students, ensures proper liaison between the college and the faculty, sub-faculty, or department, and receives the college copies of the supervisors' reports. The tutor for graduates organises discussions with students on their progress, and is available to give students pastoral advice.

10.40 We place a high value on the role of the tutor for graduates and of the college adviser in monitoring graduate students' progress and in being available to give advice and support on academic matters. It is a particular strength of the collegiate system that graduate students have access to such support outside the formal structures of their own faculty or department. We are therefore concerned that 14 per cent of respondents to our graduate survey said either that they did not have a college adviser or did not know if they had one, and that of those graduate students who had a college adviser, only 57 per cent expected to see their adviser at all in the term in question. We urge colleges to ensure that all their graduate students are allocated to a college adviser, and that both the students and the college advisers understand what the role of the adviser is, in terms both of monitoring and of being available to give advice. We believe that it is important to emphasise to students the accessibility of their college adviser; the corollary to that is that the colleges must ensure that college advisers are not so burdened with other college duties that they cannot devote adequate time to this role. We also endorse the recommendations, made in the earlier reports on graduate studies, that regular meetings ('collections') should be arranged at which the student can discuss his or her report with the college adviser and/or tutor for graduates, and that tutors for graduates should have a high status within their colleges.[129]

Recommendation 66
We recommend that colleges should, as a matter of urgency, give renewed attention to ensuring that there is in place a system of college advisers and 'collections' for graduate students and that the effectiveness of this system is monitored.

Provision of academic facilities

10.41 We support the conclusions of the earlier reports on graduate studies that it is right in a collegiate university to expect colleges, as well as faculties and departments, to play a significant role in providing graduate students with access to certain academic facilities, such as libraries, computer equipment and photocopying. This is particularly important where there is no departmental structure, and in any case can help to integrate students into college life, with the social and intellectual benefits that this can bring for both the student and the college. Division of responsibility between University and college can, of course, lead to gaps in provision, if it is unclear which body is responsible for providing a particular facility, and the comments received in our graduate survey indicated that this is sometimes the case. It is therefore essential that, within our proposed planning and resource allocation procedures, each faculty or department should be expected both to specify the level of facilities to which graduate students in a particular subject should have access and to agree with the colleges collectively as to the particular facilities which each side should provide.

Recommendation 67
We recommend that:

(a) each faculty or, where applicable, department should draw up a schedule of the academic facilities which are to be made available to graduate students in each particular subject, and decide in consultation with the Committee of Tutors for Graduates whether these are to be provided by the faculty/department or college;

(b) the academic boards should monitor whether the agreed levels of provision are being maintained for graduate students in the subjects for which they are responsible;

(c) faculties should inform graduate students at the beginning of their course what facilities they can expect, and whether these will be provided by the faculty or the college.

Specialised colleges and college research centres

10.42 The graduate colleges which specialise in particular subject areas make a very valuable contribution to the academic and social life of their students. Although we do not consider it to be desirable for all colleges to specialise in their graduate intake (and this is especially so in the case of colleges which also admit undergraduates, because of the consequences for the composition of the fellowship and the effect on the undergraduate body), we do consider that specialisation in some graduate colleges is fully to be supported. In addition, as we discuss in Chapter 11, we would encourage the development of discipline-specific research centres in colleges, whether graduate only or 'mixed', as such centres provide a positive role for the colleges in academic graduate provision, provide a focus for research students in particular disciplines and often foster interdisciplinary research outside the confines of the faculty structure.

V: Graduate taught courses

10.43 During the post-war period, the number of students on taught masters' courses, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, has risen markedly (see Figure 10.1 on p. 174). In 1996-7, 30 M.Phil/B.Phil courses and a wide range of one year masters' courses were on offer. The latter include 38 M.Sts., 25 taught course M.Scs., the Master of Business Administration, the M.Juris. and the M.Theol courses. There are also the longer-established BCL course and a number of other graduate taught courses. Many of these courses can be used as stepping stones to D. Phil work, as can the two year M. Phil courses (with the important consequence that students can count the fees paid for the taught course towards their three years' total of fees for a D. Phil.).

10.44 There are various reasons why the number of graduate students on taught courses has risen and is likely to continue to do so. In the humanities and social sciences, the trend has largely been driven by the policies of the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), which are the principal sources of public funding for British graduate students in these subjects. Both these bodies regard the methodological training provided in graduate taught courses as very important, and have made it clear that they will be more likely to fund research students if they have taken taught courses first. In the academic year 1996-7 the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy made 484 awards to candidates wanting to read for research degrees, and of these only nine were offered to candidates who had not already had 'graduate experience', which in practice means a master's degree. The ESRC, for its part, allocates a proportion of its awards for specific masters' courses.

10.45 From the students' point of view also, taught courses hold a number of attractions. Many self-funded graduate students see the advantage of a 'building block' approach to graduate work which enables them to attain at least a master's degree if their finances run out or if they feel that their careers would be better served by leaving before completing a research degree. Increasingly, too, masters' courses are an end in themselves, as many graduates seek a second qualification in order to help them gain access to specialist careers in industry, international organisations, international banks, business consultancies, and the civil service. For example, in the sciences there is an increasing demand for graduate taught courses (such as Oxford's recently introduced M.Sc. in Neuroscience) which teach subjects not usually offered at an undergraduate level or which cross traditional subject boundaries. Such qualifications can give access to careers to which the subject matter of the course is directly relevant, without the need for a research degree.

10.46 In the light of these developments, it is important that the University's procedures for quality control and planning take account of the significant but distinct demands of graduate taught courses. There is a need to ensure that in all the faculties and departments which offer taught courses it is clear where responsibility for a particular course lies, and also that attention is given to identifying the most appropriate teaching methods and the proper mechanisms for monitoring students' progress on taught courses.

Recommendation 68
We recommend that the academic boards, in conjunction with the Educational Policy and Standards Committee, should give specific attention to the teaching and administrative arrangements for taught graduate courses, and ensure that best practice is disseminated and observed.

VI: Graduate admissions and studentships

10.47 Concerns have been expressed to us about the related issues of the graduate admissions process and the shortage of funding even for the best candidates. These concerns are not felt equally across all subjects, and predominate in the humanities and social sciences, although concerns about a lack of funding are acute in some science departments as well. The current admissions procedure does not always make it easy for faculties to select the best out of the range of applicants and that the University's inability to offer a wide range of studentships of its own may well handicap the University in attracting the best possible candidates in the face of international competition. Above all, it is a source of concern that a shortage of funding is preventing some very strong candidates from both the UK and overseas from taking up graduate places at Oxford. In the following paragraphs, therefore, we propose revisions to the admissions system for graduate students, and recommend the establishment of a university scheme for graduate studentships.

The admissions system

10.48 Amongst some members of the humanities and social sciences faculties, there is a sense of frustration that the University has not yet succeeded in establishing a system for considering all applications for a particular course together in a 'gathered field' after a set deadline for receipt of applications, rather than assessing each individual application as it arrives against an abstract set of standards, as often happens at present. This issue does not arise so acutely in the sciences, as decisions on graduate admissions have to be made in quite a short space of time in the late spring as soon as the departmental quota grants for research council studentships for the coming year are known. The following points therefore apply only to the humanities and social sciences.

10.49 The desirability of operating a 'gathered field' has already been considered on a number of occasions, for example in the Roberts Report in 1987 and most recently by the Committee of Tutors for Graduates and the Graduate Studies Committee in 1995 and 1996. As the Roberts Report succinctly put it:

'The argument for such a procedure is not only one of administrative neatness but is also partly academic: it would allow comparison amongst applicants so that no one is admitted in February who might not be admitted in July.'[130]

10.50 Despite this cogent reasoning, a uniform deadline was seen as impracticable. One difficulty is that some of the universities in the UK and overseas with which Oxford is competing for graduate students do not operate a gathered field system; it is therefore argued that Oxford might be disadvantaged in trying to recruit the best applicants if it could not offer them assured places until after a deadline of, say, 31 January, when other universities might be offering good applicants places in the preceding November or December. It has also been argued that Oxford would put itself at a disadvantage by setting too early a deadline, as under current practice undergraduates often do not decide to go on to graduate study until fairly late in their final year, and sometimes only after their final examination grades are known.

10.51 We recognise the continuing force of these arguments, but we want to emphasise our belief that, if the University wishes to select the most highly talented graduate students, the gathered field system is preferable to that currently operated in most humanities and social science faculties, provided that it is operated with some flexibility to enable exceptional candidates to be accepted outside the normal time limits. We believe that there should be continuing moves towards such a system and that, if necessary, additional resources should be committed to faculties or the Graduate Studies Office to enable such a system to be adopted.

Recommendation 69
We recommend that the academic board for the humanities and social sciences should encourage the faculties and departments under its aegis to adopt a 'gathered field' system for graduate admissions.

10.52 One factor which we believe would facilitate the operation of a gathered field system is the linking of eligibility for graduate studentships offered by the University (which we discuss below) with a fixed deadline for applications. We also believe that a number of administrative measures could and should be taken to speed up the processing of applications and thus the notification to applicants of the outcome of their applications. It has been suggested, for example, that it might be helpful to require candidates to send in their references in sealed envelopes at the same time as their application form and other documents.

Recommendation 70
We recommend that the University should undertake a review of the administration of graduate applications in both the University and the colleges, with a view to enabling applicants to be informed of the outcome of their applications as swiftly as possible.

The funding of graduate education

10.53 There are now very serious concerns in a number of subjects about the availability of funding for graduate students. Many such students depend chiefly on publicly funded studentships from the research councils (in the sciences and social sciences) or the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy (in the humanities). However, the availability of such funding varies considerably from subject to subject, and the numbers of studentships on offer in some subjects have either fallen or failed to keep pace with the growing number of well qualified applicants.

10.54 In the social sciences, the problem is particularly acute. Changes in policy at the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) have caused the number of studentships for advanced (i.e. taught) courses at Oxford to fall from 47 in 1992 to 24 in 1997. There is also some evidence of a decline in the number of research studentships available.

10.55 In the sciences, the situation is much more varied. Most research council studentships are funded through quota grants to individual departments. This has the advantage of allowing departments themselves to determine which students should receive support. However, whilst in some subject areas the quota fairly accurately reflects the level of demand, in others the research councils have imposed reductions in quotas which have meant that some departments' capacity to take on new graduate students has been quite restricted. Furthermore, the situation can vary even between subjects within one research council; for example, whilst the number of engineering research studentships at Oxford provided by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has fallen from 17 in 1993 to 10 in 1997, the physics department has not suffered any overall decline in the number of studentships from the same research council over that period.

10.56 In the humanities, whilst Oxford has not experienced an overall reduction in the number of studentships available from the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy, either numerically or as a percentage of the total number awarded in the UK, there is nevertheless a real concern that the overall number of studentships available has not been increased although the number of high quality applicants wishing to pursue graduate studies in the humanities has grown markedly. For example, for the 1996 masters' courses competition run by the Humanities Research Board (competition A), the overall success rate in the UK was 19 per cent. 94 per cent of those chosen had first class degrees, but 55 per cent of applicants with first class degrees were turned down. Even this understates the problem, because after the first competition there is a second (competition B) for the remaining three year study grants. In 1996, only 22 per cent of those applying were successful, of whom 98 per cent had graduate experience (ie had done a master's degree) and 81 per cent had originally graduated with first class honours. As this illustrates, the chances of even a first class candidate emerging with enough public funding to complete a research degree are slender.

10.57 There is also some frustration that the Humanities Research Board, unlike the research councils, does not make quota grants for studentships to particular faculties or departments but considers each application individually. As the conditions on which these awards are made are somewhat different from those applied by faculties and departments for admission to Oxford, this means that the acceptance rate for places offered can be quite unpredictable. Consequently, allocating appropriate numbers of supervisees to members of staff and achieving the desired number of students on particular taught courses is difficult.

10.58 From this combination of experiences there emerges a university-wide conclusion that Oxford must take action to ensure that the unavailability or unpredictability of public funding for graduate students does not result in a situation in which either faculties or departments have to place inappropriate restrictions on the number of graduate students they recruit, or less able, but privately-funded, applicants are admitted because some of the most highly qualified candidates have to turn down a place for lack of funding.

10.59 We share these concerns, and believe that it is essential that the University itself should offer a substantial number of full studentships to support outstanding applicants wishing to embark on masters' or research degree courses. Oxford must recognise that the market for recruiting graduate students is highly competitive both within the UK and internationally, and that Oxford is in strong contention with the leading North American universities. As an increasing number of these competitor institutions offer well-funded graduate studentships and teaching assistantships, we regard the establishment of a number of such studentships at Oxford as a matter for the University to tackle with urgency. If needs be, funds should be provided from the University's existing resources, notwithstanding that this will mean some economies elsewhere. However, it must be recognised that the shortage of publicly funded studentships is much more acute in some subjects than others. Therefore, given that the University, even supported by fund-raising efforts, cannot hope to provide funding for all the studentships it would ideally like to offer, its own studentships must be carefully targeted at the areas of greatest need.

10.60 The Graduate Studies Committee of the General Board has recently considered the means of establishing a studentship scheme and has consulted with faculties and colleges. The committee's approach has been endorsed by the General Board and further thought is currently being given to the practical, and in particular the financial, issues involved. We fully endorse the position taken by the Graduate Studies Committee and the General Board on this and we wish to add our support to moves in this direction.

Recommendation 71
We recommend that the University should establish a graduate studentship scheme.

10.61 We would also encourage more colleges to consider offering scholarships to graduate students. It would be important, however, to ensure that these were used to increase the chances of attracting graduate students who would not otherwise be able to fund their studies, and were not just aimed at attracting graduate students from one college to another, as has sometimes happened in the past.

VII: Teaching by graduate students

10.62 A question which often arises in the context of graduate education is the extent to which universities such as Oxford should employ their graduate students to undertake undergraduate teaching. In many North American universities, including Harvard and Stanford, this is common practice, and is often formalised in a teaching assistantship scheme, in which graduate students are contracted to undertake a certain amount of teaching (usually between a quarter and a half of the working week) in return for a payment which goes towards their fees.

10.63 In Oxford, also, graduate students have for many years taught undergraduates. In the Franks Commission's survey of graduate students, 37 per cent of respondents (not including those in their first year of graduate study, who presumably did less) were doing some teaching in the term in question. Our graduate survey[131] (which included first year graduate students) revealed that just over a quarter of graduate students had taught for either the University or a college at some stage in their course, with the highest proportion in the sciences (34 per cent), compared with 24 per cent in the humanities and 25 per cent in the social sciences. Most of those who taught were research students. The teaching which they carried out chiefly consisted of tutorials and (in the sciences) demonstrating. Undergraduates reported that, on average, 10 per cent of their tutorials were given by graduate students (13 per cent in the sciences and 8 per cent in the humanities).[132] However, the arrangements for teaching by graduate students are not systematic or formalised. Training is available, but not compulsory; selection is by informal processes; and arrangements tend to be quite short-term.

10.64 In addition there is some ambivalence about the whole concept of teaching by graduate students. On the one hand, it is recognised as a useful means to relieve the pressures on academic staff. It is also popular amongst graduate students. When those graduate students who had not done any teaching were asked in our survey whether they would like the opportunity to teach, 66 per cent said that they would. (Of these, 84 per cent gave as their reason the wish to gain teaching experience; a large proportion of these intended to pursue an academic career.) On the other hand, there are concerns as to whether the quality of teaching which graduate students can give is sufficiently high and about the effect of doing such teaching on the graduate student's own work. A number of comments on this topic were received in our staff, graduate and undergraduate surveys. We therefore thought it right to give fresh thought to this issue.

10.65 For graduate students, the opportunity to teach:

• encourages them to maintain a broad knowledge of their subject;
• gives the opportunity to acquire work experience, and of a sort which is particularly relevant to those planning on an academic career;
• helps to relieve financial problems.

However, teaching obviously takes a student away from his/her academic work and, therefore, can impair academic work or delay completion of a thesis. It might be noted that the research councils set a maximum of six hours teaching per week for those students funded by their awards.

10.66 For undergraduates, being taught by a graduate student:

• can offer the opportunity to enjoy a fresh approach to teaching and to their subject;
• can give an informal insight into the world of research;
• can give them the opportunity to discuss their academic concerns informally with someone close to them in age and experience.

On the other hand, there is always a concern that Oxford cannot continue to lay claim to excellence in undergraduate teaching if too large a proportion of it is carried out by graduate students whose knowledge of their subject may be insufficiently broad, who may not have any previous teaching experience and who may be unfamiliar with such matters as the requisite course content and styles of teaching.

10.67 Finally, for both the University and the colleges, the use of graduate students as teaching staff can provide a cost-effective means of relieving burdens on academic staff, who thus have more time available for research, for more specialised teaching and for essential administrative and decision-making roles.

10.68 We have weighed these arguments carefully. Our conclusion is that, on balance, it would be beneficial if more graduate students were given the opportunity to teach undergraduates, provided that the hours worked by each graduate student, including preparation time, were not too onerous and that proper support and monitoring were provided. We believe that this experience would prove a positive benefit to graduate students in terms of acquiring new skills. We believe that the concerns about quality can be answered by embedding such teaching in the overall quality control framework which we propose in Chapter 8. For example, it should be compulsory for all graduate students who wish to teach to attend the appropriate training sessions run by the Academic Staff Development Committee (unless they have already received relevant training elsewhere). This would not only help to assure the University of the quality of their teaching, but would also give a valuable training to the graduate students which might prove an asset in their future careers. Graduate students' teaching should be overseen by the relevant college director of studies (see paragraphs 8.12 to 8.13) or the appropriate person in the faculty or department. We also believe that the issuing by faculties of tutors' handbooks would help to keep graduate students who are giving tutorials informed of syllabuses, examination schedules etc, and would help to standardise practice where appropriate. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that undergraduates continue to benefit to a substantial degree from the wider knowledge and greater experience of full-time academic staff, we propose that each faculty should specify a maximum number of hours for which any undergraduate could be taught by graduate students (see paragraph 8.5). This could vary between years of study and between courses, and might include tutorials, demonstrations, classes, seminars and, in some cases, lectures, as appropriate for each subject. It would be the responsibility of an undergraduate's director of studies to ensure that the maximum was not exceeded. The Educational Policy and Standards Committee of the Council would be responsible for monitoring the resultant quality of education which undergraduates receive and might find it appropriate to set an overall university-wide maximum number of hours' teaching to be done by graduate students.

Recommendation 72
We recommend that all faculties, departments and colleges should:

(a) consider increasing the amount of undergraduate teaching delivered by graduate students;

(b) set appropriate norms and maxima for teaching by graduate students in respect of each course and year, bearing in mind the needs of undergraduates, and the abilities of and time constraints on graduate students;

(c) ensure that such teaching is fully supported by compulsory training of the graduate students, effective dissemination of information and good quality control systems.

10.69 One noteworthy point which emerged from the comments returned by respondents to our graduate survey was that there was perceived to be a strong bias in favour of those who had a first degree from Oxford when teaching opportunities were being offered to graduate students. Despite the existence in many faculties and departments of a register of all those graduate students who wish to teach, it appears that there is indeed such a bias. Our survey revealed that 43 per cent of Oxford graduates had done some teaching, whereas only 26 per cent of other UK students and 21 per cent of overseas students had taught. It is not wholly surprising that this is the case, as it is likely that tutors invite students whom they already know to teach their undergraduates. It is, however, an understandable source of grievance for non-Oxford graduates if they are excluded from teaching opportunities in this way. Any concerns that such graduates would not be as good at teaching because they were not familiar with the 'Oxford style', especially in tutorials, could be reduced by the compulsory attendance at training courses. We believe that taking active steps to give more non-Oxford graduates the opportunity to teach is not only a matter of fairness for graduate students, but should also provide a positive benefit for undergraduates, by giving them the opportunity to view their subject from a broader range of perspectives.

Recommendation 73
We recommend that directors of studies and those organising teaching in faculties and departments should, as a matter of course, consult the appropriate register of graduate students wishing to teach before allocating teaching time to graduate students, rather than relying simply on personal contacts.

I: The position of research in Oxford

Oxford's record of achievement

11.1 Oxford has a long standing record of achievement in research. In successive Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs) conducted by the national funding councils, Oxford has consistently achieved high ratings. In the 1996 RAE, 75 per cent of the University's research active staff were assessed as working in departments graded 5*, indicating that the majority of their research was judged to be of the highest international standards, and a further 17 per cent were assessed as working in grade 5 departments, denoting international quality in many areas.

11.2 Oxford has been successful in developing its arrangements for promoting technology transfer and exploiting intellectual property rights, and in establishing 'spin-off' companies whose work is based on research undertaken in the University. One recognition of success in this area has been the University's achievement in winning a Queen's Anniversary Prize for Higher Education in both of the first two rounds of the prize competition (1995 and 1997), in both cases for work arising from the exploitation of the University's research base. All these developments make a major contribution to the University's international reputation, and underline the contribution it makes to the economic, social, and cultural life both of the UK and of the world as a whole.

Sources of funding for research

11.3 Most funding to support research at Oxford is channelled through the University. It comes from a range of sources. First, almost two thirds of the block grant provided to the University by HEFCE is now based on the University's performance in the Research Assessment Exercise.[133] This funding fulfils various purposes. It is the principal source of support for fundamental research in all subjects, and helps to provide the salaries of established staff and to cover the costs of buildings and other research infrastructure (such as equipment, libraries and some support staff). It is also the main source of funding for research in the humanities and social sciences. HEFCE funding in addition provides one pillar of the 'dual support' system, complementing the public funding which is channelled through the research councils and other bodies for particular programmes and projects.

11.4 In 1995-6 the University received a total of £41.8 million from the research councils. A further £31 million was received in the form of research grants and contracts awarded by charities, and a similar amount was received from other sources, including industry and commerce. Total research grant income was thus over £104 million in 1995-6.

11.5 The colleges also receive over £2 million a year in the form of research grant and contract income, and also devote substantial additional resources to the support of research; we consider their contribution more fully later in this chapter.

11.6 Under the dual support system, research council and certain other grants are intended to cover only a proportion of the costs of the research which they support. The remainder (the costs of premises and of the time of established academic staff) is expected to be covered by the general research funding received from HEFCE. It has also usually been assumed that general HEFCE research funding will cover the indirect costs associated with research income from charities, even if this is becoming less and less possible in practice.

Current funding issues

11.7 Two particular difficulties have arisen in recent years in the operation of the dual support system. The first has resulted from the shift in 1992 of some £87 million in research funding from the funding councils to the research councils.[134] The impact of this transfer has been the subject of several recent reviews.[135] The shift in funding involved resources being transferred to the research councils so that they could support a higher proportion of the indirect costs associated with projects and programmes which they fund, leaving the HEFCE research funding to cover the costs of established academic staff and premises (including laboratories) used by such projects. There is a widespread view, recently summarised in the Dearing Report (Chapter 11), that the outcome of the transfer of resources has been to increase the volume of project work being supported by the research councils, at the expense of support for basic infrastructure in universities. Thus, it is argued, academic staff are finding it necessary to work longer hours and to devote more time to research (sometimes at the expense of teaching); there is under-investment in new equipment; and a 'funding gap' has developed with total resources available through the dual support system inadequate to cover the full costs of all the research for which grants have been made. The Dearing Report gives an annual estimated figure of £110 million for the total size of this gap.[136] This problem is felt throughout higher education, but is particularly significant for Oxford because of the scale of the income it receives from the research councils.

11.8 The second difficulty stems, perhaps paradoxically, from the fact that, in recent years, Oxford has secured an increasingly large volume of grants from charities, most notably to support research in medicine and the biosciences. These grants have made a major contribution to the University's research effort, but have also brought attendant difficulties because they do not in general cover the full costs of research. The rate of increase in securing these grants has been considerable: in 1992-3 Oxford received some £19.5 million in research grants from UK charities, but by 1996-7 this had almost doubled to £34.7 million. Many charities have taken the view that the funding they provide to universities to support specific research projects falls within the terms of the dual support system, and that indirect costs can therefore reasonably be expected to be met by the University, drawing on general funding provided by HEFCE. However, HEFCE funding has not grown at the same rate as the income from charities. This has meant that additional support costs have had to be found from within the University's own resources. This problem is particularly significant in Oxford because of the large volume of research income received from charities. Although in some cases charities have provided generous grants to contribute to the costs of buildings, there remains a significant shortfall in funding.

11.9 The increasing strain on resources caused by the two developments described above needs to be addressed. There must ultimately be limits on the volume of external research grant income which can be accepted if it does not carry with it full payment for indirect costs.

11.10 The present rate of indirect cost recovery on research grants and contracts which fall wholly outside the dual support system also creates problems. Most such grants and contracts come from industry and commerce and from government and the EU. Recent data[137] shows that, in general, Oxford's overhead recovery rates from such sources are at or above the mean for the HE sector as a whole, but they are certainly still too low to cover all the indirect costs associated with such grants and contracts. The problem of inadequate recovery rates is thus not unique to Oxford, but given the volume of funds involved it is of considerable importance here.

11.11 We conclude that despite Oxford's success in attracting increasing amounts of external research grant and contract income in the last decade, and its success in the 1996 Research Assessment Exercise, the growth in research funding which does not fully cover the costs of the work involved has created problems in Oxford because it puts strains on resource allocation within the University. The University must develop more systematic mechanisms for weighing the financial implications of accepting external funds of this sort. We believe that the planning and resource allocation cycle proposed as part of our recommendations on governance in Chapter 5 and our proposals for a thorough review of Oxford's management information systems, in Chapter 6, provide the means of doing so.

The implications of growth in research funding for Oxford

11.12 Growth in external research grant income has funded the large number of academic-related research staff now employed in the University. Most of them are employed on short term contracts (sometimes on a succession of contracts) because most funding is project based. In 1996 there were over 2,000 such postholders; as noted earlier they now outnumber established academic staff. The position of this group was briefly described in Chapter 2. The size of the group and the significance of their work is important for the overall shape and structure of the University and for the balance of its work. Because of this, we think that there is a need to integrate such staff more effectively into the life of the University. We consider how this might be done later in this chapter.

11.13 Oxford's research has also been affected by the changing policies and attitudes of those bodies which provide funding. The advent of quadrennial Research Assessment Exercises organised by the national funding councils has put pressure on individual members of staff and on departments and faculties to concentrate on their research so as to maintain and enhance the quality ratings received by the University and thereby to maximise its income. There are mixed views on the impact of the Research Assessment Exercises, but most would accept that it has increased pressure to publish at regular (and for some subjects too frequent) intervals; that the pressure on individual members of staff to produce 'research output' to fit in with the timetables of Research Assessment Exercises rather than with the rhythms of their own work is intense; and that the high profile given to the ratings awarded by the funding councils (and their consequent financial implications) often focuses attention on research at the expense of other activities, and in particular of teaching.

11.14 The availability of external research grant income varies considerably from one subject area to another. This has affected the size and shape of the University. Such funding is more readily available in medicine, the life sciences, and certain other physical sciences than in many humanities and social science subjects. In part - but only in part - this reflects the relative costs of research in different subjects. Growth in external research grant income has in turn affected financial and organisational structures in different subject areas, and the balance between teaching and research within them. These issues are not confined to Oxford, but particular concerns have been expressed to us about the relationship between teaching and research in different subject areas, and about the need not to allow research to obscure the importance of teaching within Oxford.

11.15 We do not believe that it is sensible to prescribe an appropriate 'balance' between teaching and research across the University as a whole. The proper balance rightly varies from one subject area to another, since the relationship between teaching and research itself varies. In some areas, research has a more immediate impact on teaching than in others: for example equipment primarily intended for research purposes may also be used in teaching in some subjects. In almost all cases there are considerable advantages both for undergraduate and for graduate students in being able to study at an institution with a high level of research activity, since it enables students to gain an appreciation of the nature and methods of research and to be taught by those who are doing research. The importance of ensuring that graduate students are taught at institutions with a strong research base was emphasised by the recent Harris report on Postgraduate Education,[138] which considered the advantages of ensuring that research students in particular work in successful research departments. We believe that the point also holds for undergraduate work. It is possible in a research university to expose students to the culture, methods, and materials of research at a much earlier stage in their academic career than would otherwise be the case and for them to use advanced equipment or have access to many specialist journals. Since almost all those who teach in Oxford also do research they can communicate the critical methods and approaches of research to their students.

11.16 Thus one of Oxford's strengths is that its teaching and research support and stimulate each other. The key challenge for Oxford is to find modes of governance which bring this elementary point to bear on decisions, and so link academic priorities effectively to the allocation of resources. The proposals on governance set out in Chapter 5 offer a means of achieving this. One of the most important responsibilities of the proposed academic boards should be to keep under review questions about the balance between teaching and research, and to take explicit account of this balance in the annual planning cycle. In this way, the respective needs of teaching and research, and the balances to be struck between them in particular areas, can be addressed more systematically than at present.

Recommendation 74
We recommend that the academic boards should keep under review the balance of teaching and research in the subject areas under their aegis, as part of their long term planning responsibilities.

II: The organisation and support of research in Oxford

Organisational structures

11.17 Research within Oxford is supported both by the University and by the colleges. All university lecturers, readers and professors are expected to teach and to undertake research. As we have noted, a further important contribution is made by academic-related research staff, employed by the University, who are expected to devote all or most of their time to research. Many college employed staff also do research, even if some of them are not contractually required to do so. The organisational framework in which research is undertaken varies considerably from one subject area to another. For example, the pattern of research in equipment-intensive and departmentally organised science subjects is very different from research in many humanities disciplines, which may lack a departmental focus, which depend heavily on library and archival resources, and where research is often undertaken and supported by colleges.

11.18 Oxford also has a number of centres or institutes which are focused primarily or solely on research. One example of an innovative approach to the support of research is the Institute of Molecular Medicine, which has been established since the mid-1980s as part of the Clinical Medical School to foster research in molecular and cell biology. The Institute is jointly funded by the University, the MRC and several charities; it houses thirteen independent research groups, most of them linked to one of the University's clinical departments. The benefits of the arrangement are that the Institute fosters close integration of the work of basic and clinical scientists and has created a critical mass of scientific expertise and facilities which no individual department could support. Other examples of special arrangements to support research in Oxford include the Institute of Health Sciences, the Oxford Centre for Molecular Sciences the Centre for Criminological Research, and the European Humanities Research Centre.

11.19 Whilst their organisational structures vary, such centres provide a focal point which brings together researchers in different disciplines from different departments. They can also more readily support the cost of expensive research equipment than can individual departments. Some of these centres have been established by the University with the specific aim of fostering interdisciplinary research across existing departmental or faculty boundaries. Others are organised through colleges; our consultation showed that eight colleges supported identifiable research centres of one kind or another, and that there was a total of 18 such collegiate centres in Oxford. They include eight centres for regional studies based at St Antony's and four management related research centres at Templeton. Six colleges supported a single centre.

11.20 There are other institutes which are neither part of the University nor of a college, but which have some association with the University and foster research in Oxford. One example is the Institute of Virology, which focuses exclusively on research; others are the Centres for Hebrew Studies and for Islamic Studies which undertake both teaching and research. There is also a range of other research-based activity in and around Oxford, which benefits from links with the University. Examples include the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, and 'spin-off' companies established in the local area which are based on university expertise.

11.21 We have considered whether Oxford might benefit from encouraging the development of research institutes which lie outside established departmental structures, in particular to support interdisciplinary work. While noting the considerable success of some self standing research institutes both within the University and associated with it, we do not believe that there is any general case for the expansion of this model. Successful research institutes most commonly draw their strength from their links with relevant university departments, with colleges, or with members of faculties working in related fields. Without such close relationships, research institutes outside existing structures will have less chance of success and it is unlikely that they would make the most of what Oxford has to offer. Moreover, research conducted in universities draws on a number of distinct advantages. These include the relatively swift turnover of postdoctoral staff, and of research students who bring a valuable freshness of approach. Relationships with other departments are also often important for long term research success. In considering any proposals for the establishment of free standing research institutes the loss of these advantages would have to be weighed. On balance we believe that there are strong arguments in favour of research being conducted in a university environment, and moreover within faculties and departments which also undertake teaching.

11.22 This conclusion is reinforced by considering other aspects of fostering interdisciplinary research. Boundaries between different disciplines are always shifting and overlapping, and it is difficult to foresee what linkages may be most valuable except in the short term. Hence it is important that organisational structures should not inhibit interdisciplinarity. The University must have in place an administrative structure which enables departmental or faculty boundaries to be crossed or modified when this is appropriate, along with resource allocation methods which are flexible enough to allow transfers of funds when this is desirable on academic grounds. The best safeguard of interdisciplinarity is to set research within a university environment where departments and faculties covering many different disciplines work in close proximity, and where there is sufficient information and contact between those working in different disciplines. Oxford has particular advantages in this respect because the colleges can provide additional and systematic opportunities for academic staff and graduate students to meet others working in different subject areas. The colleges should, in our view, ensure that the most is made of these opportunities.

11.23 Interdisciplinary work also needs formal institutional support. We believe that the bodies best placed to ensure that the University links research in different areas are the three academic boards whose establishment is proposed in Chapter 5. One of their key roles would be to encourage interdepartmental and inter-faculty liaison, and to remove any artificial institutional boundaries which inhibit the development of research. The responsibilities we propose for the academic boards have been chosen with this objective in mind.

Recommendation 75
We recommend that the academic boards should assume responsibility for promoting inter-departmental and inter-faculty liaison in the development of research.

The humanities and social sciences

11.24 We have specifically considered the organisation of research in the humanities and social science subjects in Oxford. At present, patterns of support on the University side are varied, and the colleges often play a particularly important role. The University has recently supported several research initiatives in the humanities and social sciences; these include the development of the European Humanities Research Centre, the Institute of American Studies, and the Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents. These provide examples of how new organisational structures are developing to support research in the humanities and social sciences in order to supplement existing provision. The contribution of the colleges is also of great significance. For example both Nuffield and St Antony's Colleges were to a considerable extent established to foster research in the social sciences. As noted above, a number of other colleges have also established their own research centres in particular subjects.

11.25 Some of these developments may reflect a desire on the part of those working in the humanities and social sciences for a single physical base for their subjects. The University is moving towards providing new facilities to support research in the humanities and social sciences: examples include developments on the Ashmolean site in order to support provision in Classics; moves to locate all Social Studies facilities on the St Cross site; and plans to develop further facilities there for Law. Other facilities include the Philosophy centre, the Modern Languages faculty centre, and the centres for Theology, Music, and the History of Art.

11.26 Nonetheless, there remain gaps in the provision of facilities to underpin research in the humanities, most notably for the faculties of English and Modern History, two of the largest in the University. Each has a faculty library, but lacks adequate supplementary facilities such as office space, seminar rooms or social facilities. The lack of common space particularly inhibits the development of collaborative projects in these disciplines. This is important given that the British Academy's Humanities Research Board earmarks a proportion of its research funds for collaborative projects, and Oxford risks being at a serious disadvantage in competing for them.

11.27 We therefore believe that the University should develop faculty centres and analogous facilities to support these two subjects. Faculty centres which provide seminar rooms, offices, library space and other facilities support academic and social contact between those working in a particular subject area; they supplement and complement support currently provided by colleges. We see no grounds for thinking that such developments would in any way undermine the role of the colleges: there is no evidence for example that this has occurred in those subject areas in the humanities and social sciences where faculty centres already exist. There was strong support for such developments from most of those working in relevant subjects who responded to the staff survey which we conducted in Hilary Term 1996.[139]

11.28 We have noted that the Working Party on University Sites, which was chaired by the present Vice-Chancellor, and whose report was submitted to Council in July 1997 (and discussed in Chapter 3), has made a recommendation along the lines of the approach adopted in the previous paragraph. We endorse this recommendation, and urge that high priority be given to further development of faculty centres and analogous provision to support subjects in the humanities and social sciences, and in particular to address the needs of the faculties of English and Modern History.

Recommendation 76
We recommend that the Council and the academic board for humanities and social sciences should give high priority to the further development of faculty centres to support the humanities and social sciences, and especially to the improvement of facilities for researchers in the faculties of English and Modern History.

11.29 Finally, we are aware of the importance of library resources for research in the humanities. Oxford has in the Bodleian Library one of the richest collections of material available anywhere in the world. However, in recent years the organisation of the Bodleian's services has caused problems and the attractiveness of Oxford for researchers in the humanities has been questioned. We are aware of the plans of the recently appointed Director of University Library Services and Bodley's Librarian to improve the position and urge that progress be formally reviewed by the Council in 18 months time.

III: Planning and resource allocation in support of research

Current arrangements

11.30 Thirty years ago, the Franks Report recommended[140] that the General Board should establish a committee on research, which, as well as administering research and equipment funds, would also deal with research planning and research policy, and would oversee liaison with external bodies which fund research. The General Board now has a Research and Equipment Committee, but in practice it has rarely undertaken such a wide ranging role. For example, in its report to the Board on 6 June 1995, the committee noted that the broader aspects of its remit were rarely fulfilled. It noted that the first item of its terms of reference read:

'to identify and bring to the attention of the General Board with recommendations where appropriate:

• long term trends in research which should influence University policy;
• specific areas of promise which justified particular attention;
• changes in research council policy and other matters likely to have a significant effect on support for research;
• changes in the overall balance between teaching and research in the University'.

11.31 The committee further noted that 'this item [of our terms of reference] is hardly ever considered, in part because of the lack of flow of such information to the committee, but also because its business is dominated by the management of the equipment and research budgets'. In our view, the committee has been right to draw attention to these shortcomings, and is equally right in its suggestion that steps should be taken to remedy them.

11.32 Similar concerns were reflected in the report (submitted to Council in 1996) of the Review Committee on Technology Transfer Arrangements, prepared under the chairmanship of the President of Wolfson College. Section IX of that report noted that the review committee 'has frequently referred...to the perceived absence of mechanisms for determining strategic policy in matters relating to research. While such questions may have been considered ad hoc by relevant University bodies, we hope that the Commission of Inquiry will consider whether the University needs a more integrated and coherent approach to its various activities relevant to research'.

11.33 We consulted all faculty board chairmen and heads of department about these concerns. There was a division of opinion in the responses received between those who regarded it as vital that the University develop more coherent and explicit strategies governing the future direction of research and the consequent allocation of resources, and those who had fewer immediate concerns about competition for resources (perhaps because their research needed few additional resources), and who placed much higher emphasis on preserving what they saw as their individual or departmental autonomy.

11.34 The former view was expressed most strongly by many of those working in clinical medicine, the life sciences, and the physical sciences. It was argued that, given the increasing competition for resources, the University must find better ways of determining its priorities, and that failure to do so would make it more difficult for the University to develop new areas of research or to wind down others. The view was expressed that some central involvement in settling academic priorities and allocating resources was essential to prevent fossilisation, as well as to encourage new areas of research and interdisciplinary approaches, which might not be promoted by individual departments and faculties.

11.35 Similar points were also often forcefully expressed by those external funding bodies we consulted. One chief executive of an external body commented:

'In my two years as a chief executive all the top research universities in which my organisation has a substantial investment have engaged me in high level discussions concerning their strategy for the future. There is one exception: Oxford. I do not know whether or not Oxford has a vision for its future in my field, but if such a vision exists it has not been communicated to me.'

A new approach to research strategy

11.36 We suggested in Chapters 4 and 5 that the University should develop a more effective approach to planning and resource allocation in support of research. Lacking an overall long term strategic view of the desired direction of future developments in research, the University has often found it difficult to reach decisions on the allocation of resources to support particular proposals, and has frequently had to react to proposals from outside instead of being in a position to develop its own and to influence the policies of external bodies.

11.37 Planning research at the strategic level which we advocate would not interfere with the ability of faculties, departments, and individual academic staff to determine the direction and focus of their own research. Our consultation within the University revealed a widely held view that the initiative in determining research priorities should not be subjected to a cumbersome or bureaucratic planning regime. This is not what we have in mind. What we are proposing is a process which would enable those involved in research (whether individuals, departments, faculties, or colleges), to contribute to the development of long term strategies for research in their subjects, and linking these strategies to more immediate decisions on resource allocation.

11.38 We therefore think that the University's central bodies need to take a more coherent approach to establishing and supporting strategic priorities for research. They need to exercise a greater degree of initiative in establishing policy priorities in matters affecting research, and to link these more closely to procedures for allocating resources.

11.39 These responsibilities would most effectively be exercised through the proposed annual planning and resource allocation cycle which we discussed in Chapter 5. The cycle proposed requires the three academic boards to submit to the Council rolling five year plans and annual operating statements. These would contain within them costed plans for the development of research activity, against which resources could be allocated. This would then enable the Council's Planning and Resource Allocation Committee to make recommendations which took full account of the priorities of those working in different subject areas and of the anticipated costs of the proposals. Since all such proposals would then be considered side by side, rather than individually as they arose, it is more likely that the criteria applied to decision-making would be consistent, and that the overall pattern which emerged from individual decisions would reflect an agreed policy.

Recommendation 77
We recommend that the University should develop a long-term strategic policy for the development of research in all subject areas. This would in turn influence the allocation of resources for the support of research. Responsibility for overseeing the development of a strategic policy for the support of research should rest with the Council, drawing on costed proposals made by the academic boards through the annual planning cycle, with boards in turn being responsible for consulting their own constituent departments and faculties, and for liaising with colleges.

Resource allocation in support of research

11.40 Most of the money available to the University for allocation, at its own discretion, to support research is at present distributed to the General Board, and thence to faculties and departments through the main annual resource allocation exercise. It supports established academic postholders, certain departmental research posts, the provision of space and equipment, and other support facilities such as libraries and computing facilities. We have concluded that, under the proposed new planning and resource allocation cycle discussed in Chapter 5, this approach should continue. This would mean that the bulk of the general funds available to the University to support research would be allocated by the Council to the three academic boards. We also believe that as high as possible a proportion of the direct and indirect costs of research should be borne by the boards, thus making the full costs of research more transparent.

11.41 There are also a number of other routes whereby funding in support of research is currently distributed within the University. In particular, the General Board's Research and Equipment Committee provides three kinds of grants outside the main resource allocation methods. They are:

• Non-recurrent equipment grants: these support the acquisition of equipment the purchase of which is unlikely to be eligible for funding from other sources, or which will be in part funded externally, but which requires some matching funding from the University.
• The special research grant scheme: this provides three sorts of awards: pump-priming research grants intended to support promising new developments at an early stage; emergency research grants, intended to help support promising research projects which fall into serious short term difficulties; and special short term dual support grants for the humanities where funds are not obtainable from any of the research councils.
• A bridging support scheme: this supports the employment of members of academic-related contract research staff where there is a gap between the ending of one research contract and the start of the next.

11.42 These schemes have all proved extremely valuable, notwithstanding the recent pressure on resources available to support them as a result of the substantial reductions in HEFCE equipment funding in 1995-7.[141] Our view is that responsibility for administering these schemes (and for the resources which support them) should be devolved to the three academic boards discussed in Chapter 5. The needs of those working in the principal subject areas covered by the boards vary, and differing schemes may be appropriate for different subjects - a point already recognised to some extent by the General Board's Research and Equipment Committee in its schemes. Each of the three boards would be able to review the present schemes in the light of the needs and priorities of their own subject areas; to tailor them or develop them as appropriate; and to consider whether to expand present schemes and develop wholly new ones. The boards would also themselves be able to balance the case for diverting resources to special schemes of this sort, or for allocating funds for other purposes.

Recommendation 78
We recommend that responsibility for administering the special research grant schemes, bridging support schemes, and other research grant schemes currently administered by the General Board should be devolved to the three academic boards, which should be required to review present practice and consider how it might best be developed.

11.43 We also believe that there is a strong case for the establishment of a research development fund, held at the centre under the aegis of the Council's Planning and Resource Allocation Committee, to which faculties and departments could apply if they wished to undertake new developments which could not otherwise be funded. This would be used to encourage new initiatives and interdisciplinary work which could not readily be funded from within the three academic boards' budgets.

11.44 The details of how such a fund would operate, and of its size, would need further consideration by the Council and the academic boards. The criteria for the award of grants, methods of application to the fund, and the types of expenditure which grants would be expected to cover would also need to be worked out. We have not addressed these detailed points ourselves, but believe that there is a sound general case for such a fund which should be recognised.

Recommendation 79
We recommend that the Council should establish a university research development fund, to fund new initiatives proposed by departments and faculties for which funding would not otherwise be available.

IV: Relationships with outside funding agencies

11.45 The allocation to the Council and the academic boards of responsibility for developing long term strategic policies to support research would represent a substantial improvement in present arrangements. An equally important element in their work would be maintenance of good relationships with external funders of research at Oxford (such as the research councils, charities, industry and commerce, government departments, the EU, etc).

11.46 This need to maintain good relationships reflects both the size of the sums of money now being attracted from such bodies (£104 million in 1995-6) and the way in which external funding agencies themselves are seeking to conduct their relationships with universities. Charities and research councils, and to some extent industrial and commercial sponsors, are increasingly seeking to develop their relationships with universities at a strategic level, and decisions whether to support individual research projects may depend on that broader strategic relationship. Funding bodies often expect universities to have in place strategic policies for research, and may regard the development of such policies as a pre-requisite of funding.

11.47 Oxford's researchers in general maintain excellent relationships with external bodies supporting their research, but it is less clear that Oxford has been as successful in developing effective relationships at an institutional level, which would enable it to discuss the strategic direction which its research might take. One of the strongest messages which we received from those outside Oxford whom we consulted was that the University needed to devote more attention to managing its relations with external bodies which fund research, and that this would be essential if it wished to maintain research funding at present levels and to make the most of new opportunities.

11.48 Criticism of Oxford's present approach was not unanimous: industrial companies whose dealings were with specific departments or individuals within the University, with whom they had developed good direct relationships, were usually content with Oxford's present approach. Dissatisfaction tended to be expressed by the larger scale funders, who argued that Oxford lacked clear leadership in research at institutional level, and tended not to provide an overall strategic framework for the management and organisation of research. A particular concern was that it was not always easy to know who could speak authoritatively on behalf of the University on these questions, nor with whom to engage in strategic discussion.

11.49 A number of internal respondents to consultation, particularly those working in clinical medicine and the life sciences, argued that the University should appoint a senior figure who had the time and authority to liaise directly with major external funding agencies. At present, only the Vice-Chancellor carries this role, but this is but one of many demands upon his time. It was suggested that the University needs another senior figure or figures to act in this capacity if it is to gain maximum benefit from external funders.

11.50 These varied arguments need to be set against the background of the University's considerable successes in attracting research funding from external agencies. As we have noted, the volume of external research grant income received by Oxford is higher than that at any other UK university, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of total income.[142] Nor do we wish to suggest that the University should simply adapt its own practices to meet the demands of external agencies, regardless of what they may be. Nonetheless, we have concluded that a new approach is needed: it is in the University's own interest to develop mechanisms to deal as effectively as possible with external funding agencies, to promote its interests in dialogue with them, and to ensure that opportunities for obtaining funding to support work which fits the University's own strategic priorities are grasped.

11.51 In our view the changes to the University's structure of governance proposed in Chapter 5 provide the key to meeting these objectives. Through the planning and resource allocation process which we propose, different parts of the University will have established the policies and priorities which will then form the basis for discussions with external agencies. Furthermore, the lead in managing relationships with external agencies would fall to the Deputy Vice-Chancellors whom we propose should chair each of the three academic boards. They would assume responsibility for liaising with external agencies at the highest level, engaging them in strategic discussions, setting out the University's own agreed policies and priorities; they would (where appropriate and in consultation with their boards) be able to make commitments on behalf the University. In cases where the work of a single external body straddled the interests of more than one academic board, it would be necessary to identify a 'lead board' which took responsibility for coordinating liaison.

Recommendation 80
We recommend that the academic boards should be given primary responsibility for developing relationships with external funding agencies; and particular responsibility for conducting such relationships should rest with the Deputy Vice-Chancellors chairing each of the three boards, who should regard this as an important part of their duties.

V: The role of the colleges in research

11.52 The important (if often underestimated) role of the colleges in fostering research has been mentioned at several points in this chapter. In this section we draw attention to the distinctive contribution to research made by the colleges. College support for research complements that provided by University departments and faculties, and represents one of the strengths of Oxford's research effort.

11.53 One of the most significant contributions made by colleges in support of research comes through their provision of a high proportion of the salaries of academic staff holding joint appointments as well as the full costs of certain staff engaged in research. A survey of colleges which we undertook in 1996 also gave further details of other ways in which colleges support research. For example, almost all colleges provide direct financial support for the research of senior members, research fellows, and graduate research students. Such support varies in scale, but may include some form of academic allowance for senior members, book allowances and contributions to research expenses and attendance at conferences. Colleges also commonly provide grants to senior members for computer purchase, and most provide computing support for their senior members and graduate research students. This may include networked computing facilities and specialist computing rooms, and sometimes a full-time computing officer.

11.54 Colleges also make an important contribution to research in Oxford through the provision of junior research fellowships and other research fellowships. Our survey of colleges suggested that at any one time colleges collectively support some 110 stipendiary junior research fellowships, and over 100 non-stipendiary junior research fellowships, as well as over 60 other stipendiary and 80 other non-stipendiary research fellowships.

11.55 We have noted that many colleges liaise closely with relevant departments or faculties in considering the appointment of a junior research fellow in a particular subject. Especially in the experimental sciences, where departmental facilities may be needed by a research fellow, we believe that this cooperation should be encouraged, and that all colleges should liaise with the relevant department or faculty in the selection of junior research fellows, not least to ensure that the facilities required will be available. Such cooperation can also be valuable in other disciplines where there may be no immediate call upon departmental or faculty facilities.

Recommendation 81
We recommend that colleges and departments or faculty boards, as appropriate, should liaise closely in the selection of junior research fellows and in ensuring that the necessary resources and facilities are available to support them.

11.56 We have surveyed the extent of colleges' external research grant and contract income. During the year 1996, a total of over £2 million was reported by colleges collectively as external research grant and contract income. Although far less than the sums administered through the University, this is still a significant amount.

11.57 We have seen earlier in this chapter that a number of colleges support specialist research centres, there being 18 such centres in all. These make a major contribution to the research environment in Oxford. They provide both additional resources for work in particular subjects, and also a collegiate base for researchers working in those areas. We welcome this collegiate contribution to the research activity of the University; indeed in a number of instances, the college centre is effectively the only research centre in the discipline in Oxford. Anxiety has, however, been expressed to us over the development of both University and college (even intercollegiate) centres in closely related disciplines. Such duplication of activity might imply less than optimal use of Oxford's resources. The problem is the greater when a new centre is established without adequate liaison with an existing research centre, whether college or University based.

11.58 Thus while we believe that the establishment of research centres in colleges should be welcomed. However we also think that the best way forward lies in ensuring proper liaison between the college and the University department, or indeed between colleges. We believe that, when colleges develop centres of this sort, it is important that they should do so in close cooperation with the relevant faculty or department, so as to ensure that resources are not duplicated, and to avoid the possibility of conflicts of interests developing.

Recommendation 82
We recommend that colleges should ensure that they liaise closely with appropriate faculties and departments in developing plans for college-based research centres.

VI: Staffing issues

Introduction

11.59 We have already, in Chapter 2, drawn attention to the substantial increase over the last 30 years in the number of academic-related research staff in Oxford, commonly known as 'contract research staff'. Such staff are employed on academic-related terms and conditions in order to undertake and support research in the University. We have seen that their total number is over 2,000 (making them the largest single group of staff in Oxford), and the vast majority of them (some 90 per cent) are employed on fixed-term contracts in posts which are usually supported from outside grants. Almost 500 of these staff were submitted as 'research active' in the 1996 RAE. Their work has thus contributed directly to the University's success in that exercise. We have also noted that 25 senior academic-related research staff have been awarded the title of professor or reader in the University's recent distinctions exercises.

11.60 The position of 'contract research staff' has been under discussion for some time. Concerns have been expressed about their status, and about whether the contribution they make to Oxford's work is sufficiently well recognised. One question is whether they are properly integrated into faculty and departmental life. Another arises from Oxford's collegiate structure: most research staff have no college membership, let alone a fellowship, and do not have access to the academic, social and other facilities which colleges can provide. There is also particular concern that research staff employed on a succession of fixed-term contracts lack security of employment and an appropriate career path. The Oxford AUT has produced a survey of the position of contract research staff employed by the University which drew attention to many of these points, and which was submitted to us in June 1996.

11.61 In considering these points we have noted, first, that academic-related research staff are not a uniform group. At one end of the spectrum are senior and often very distinguished researchers, perhaps holding prestigious awards allocated to them (usually on a personal basis) by bodies such as the Royal Society, or the British Academy or research councils. Individuals in this category, who may have professorial status, are usually employed on the highest of the research grades (RSIV or above). They number about 45. A second group are the holders of outside grant funded fixed-term posts in the senior grades (RSII, RSIIX and RSIII) who are often themselves well established researchers, perhaps acting as principal investigators holding research grants in their own right, and managing research teams. There are about 300 individuals in this group.

11.62 The third and largest group of academic-related research staff, totalling about 1,400, are those employed as postdoctoral research workers, usually in grade RSIA and working as part of a research team. Some of those in this group may in practice be long-term University employees, working on a succession of fixed-term contracts but with little prospect of career progression within Oxford. Others may be in the immediate postdoctoral phase of their careers, intending to undertake one period of employment in such a post before either moving on to a more permanent academic appointment or leaving higher education altogether. Those in the postdoctoral phase may include very able young researchers who will in due course go on to lead their profession.

11.63 Concerns associated with the position of each of these groups - and especially that of the immediate postdoctoral contract research staff - are by no means confined to Oxford. They affect all leading research universities. Recognition of this led to the formulation of a 'Concordat to Provide a Framework for the Career Management of Contract Research Staff in Universities and Colleges', which was developed in 1995-6 by the CVCP (renamed Universities UK from 1.12.2000) in conjunction with the research councils, the Royal Society and the British Academy. The Concordat has been welcomed by the University, which has gone on to develop its own Oxford 'Code of Practice for the Employment and Career Management of Contract Research Staff'. This was approved by Council and the General Board during 1996.[143]

Proposals for new initiatives

11.64 We have nonetheless concluded that further steps are needed to address concerns about the position of contract research staff. First, the University has already committed itself to arranging a college association for all holders British Academy postdoctoral research fellowships, with colleges in each case agreeing to provide appropriate facilities for the fellow. We believe that a similar approach should be extended to other holders of analogous postdoctoral posts including Royal Society research fellows, Wellcome Trust principal fellows, British Heart Foundation fellows, and holders of research council advanced fellowships. The total additional number of individuals involved at any one time would be of the order of 30-40, which whilst not inconsiderable represents a number which colleges collectively should be able to absorb.

Recommendation 83
We recommend that the academic boards should, through the Conference of Colleges or otherwise, seek to arrange college association for holders of Royal Society research fellowships and analogous awards.

11.65 Secondly, we have noted that the University's decrees have recently been amended so that research staff in non-established posts are eligible for membership of departmental committees.[144] We welcome this modest but important step in involving such staff more closely with the work of their department, enabling them to contribute more effectively to its running. In our view further steps should be taken in this direction, including steps to permit membership of faculties to be available to such research staff. At present there appear to be no clear criteria governing whether research staff are elected into faculty membership, and the extent to which they are varies between faculties. We believe that, in those cases where research staff are engaged in teaching (and our survey of Hilary Term 1996 suggested that this was fairly common), such staff should be considered for election to faculties.

Recommendation 84
We recommend that academic-related research staff who undertake teaching for the University or for a college should be considered for election to faculty membership.

11.66 Thirdly, we have considered the range of social and sporting facilities available to contract research staff. Some colleges already invite a limited number of postdoctoral researchers into membership of either their senior common rooms or middle common rooms, opening up a range of facilities to them. In other cases, some facilities (usually a common room with refreshments available throughout the day) are provided by individual departments, although smaller departments may lack suitable accommodation. The University also supports the University Club, whose primary purpose is to provide facilities for non-academic staff. This club represents a merger of the facilities provided by Halifax House and the former Mansfield Road Club. It functions as a social centre open to all University staff, aiming to provide some of the facilities available to the members of senior common rooms of colleges. These include cafeteria meals, special lunches and dinners on certain days, common rooms (with newspapers, periodicals and television), a games room and guest bedrooms. Guest night dinners and other social events are held frequently. Sporting and social facilities for all staff of the University, including lunches and bar facilities, are provided on the Mansfield Road sports ground.

11.67 In recent years there has been considerable discussion about the further development of the University Club, and various schemes have been proposed. No further development has, however, yet taken place. We understand the present position to be that the need is clearly recognised but that planning, both financial and architectural, is at an early stage.

11.68 In considering how improvements might be made in the provision of social and other facilities available for academic-related research staff within the University, we have examined a number of options. These are:

(i) The development of further departmental social facilities.

(ii) Encouraging colleges to elect more contract research staff into membership of senior and middle common rooms.

(iii) Additional development of the University Club.

11.69 We do not think that there is much scope for tackling the problem through the first option of the further development of facilities on a departmental basis. Those departments which can provide common room facilities for their staff already do so; and if each individual department sought to develop further such facilities there would be unnecessary duplication of effort. Nor is it practicable to expect smaller departments to allocate the space or resources required to support them.

11.70 In the case of the second option (election of more contract research staff to college membership), we believe that more could be done once there is a greater realisation of the nature of the problem. However we also recognise that the costs of such an approach, and the practical constraints on space which affect the capacity of membership of most common rooms, will limit how far it is possible to follow this route. Nonetheless, we would encourage colleges to look sympathetically at the possibility of electing contract research staff into membership of their senior common or middle common rooms as appropriate, depending on the status, age, and contribution to teaching and research of the individuals in question. We believe that the Conference of Colleges can play an important role in assessing how far progress can be made here, in consultation in particular with science and medicine departments.

Recommendation 85
We recommend that the Conference of Colleges, the Committee of Heads of Science Departments and the academic boards should establish a joint working party to consider how far contract research staff could be brought more fully into contact with college life.

11.71 Whilst useful progress may be made through these first two options, we are clear that the third one (further development of central facilities by the University) must also be pursued. We have concluded that a high priority now needs to be given to developing the social and sporting facilities available for academic-related and non-academic staff. Centralised facilities of this sort are likely to prove the most financially viable way of providing substantial social and sporting facilities for contract research staff as well as for those other staff groups who currently use them.

Recommendation 86
We recommend that the Council should give high priority to the re-development of facilities for academic-related and non-academic staff currently provided through the University Club.

11.72 Finally, we believe that a rather more radical and broader-based approach to the position of contract research staff also needs to be considered. Twice in the post war period Oxford has addressed similar questions relating to disadvantaged groups of staff - in both cases academic staff without college fellowships. The first solution, in the 1960s, was the establishment of new societies such as St Cross College and Wolfson College (originally Iffley College). The second development, in the 1980s, was to ensure election to college fellowships of academic staff entitled to, but without, such fellowships. The solution here was, primarily, achieved by the colleges' willingness to elect into fellowships all those eligible.

11.73 Another approach to a similar question has been the creation of a new society, Kellogg College (formerly Rewley House), where the college closely complements the functions of a University department, in this case Continuing Education. Templeton College might be regarded as exemplifying a variant on this approach: it has recently developed into full collegiate status, having for many years combined the roles of providing post-experience management education with that of a developing collegiate society encompassing academic staff and others. Whilst we doubt the practicality of providing membership of existing colleges for all the contract research staff who have no current college membership, we do believe that the approach of developing new collegiate societies warrants careful consideration.

11.74 We therefore propose that the University should consider the establishment of new collegiate communities specifically aimed at postdoctoral research staff. We believe that there is scope for developing this model for some subjects in the same way as it has been developed through Kellogg College or Templeton College, respectively, for Continuing Education and Management Studies. The aim would be to provide a social as well as an academic base for those working in particular fields.

Recommendation 87
We recommend that the Council should consider developing new collegiate communities to provide a social and academic base for academic-related research staff, and should establish a working party to address this issue.

I: Introduction

12.1 Taking the University and the colleges together, Oxford's total income in 1995-6 was £391.5 million, comprising £272.3 million received by the University and £119.2 million by the colleges.[146] As outlined in Chapter 2, these totals are made up of income derived from various sources. University income in 1995-6 included £84.6 million in grants from HEFCE; some £35 million in fees; £104.5 million in external research grants and contracts; £17 million from endowments and other investments; and just over £31 million from other sources. College income comprised some £38 million in fees; about £34.5 million in charges for accommodation and board; £42.7 million in income from endowments; and about £4 million from grants and donations.

12.2 Several points should be noted about these figures. First, income from endowments forms a relatively modest proportion of the total: for the collegiate University as a whole it comprised some 14.8 per cent of all income. For the colleges the proportion is higher (34 per cent on average, although the proportion varies from one college to another), while for the University it is much lower (about 3.7 per cent). Income from endowments is thus of importance, but it does not free Oxford from the kind of financial pressures which face higher education as a whole.

12.3 Secondly, the use to which some of the income from endowments in the totals quoted above can be put is restricted. Over 20 per cent of the endowment income identified in the college accounts arises from trust funds which can be used only for specific purposes. Over half the income from the University's endowments is also similarly restricted. Most of this restricted income is applied to academic activities in the narrow sense, although there are some trusts whose purposes are also of considerable historic and cultural importance, such as trust funds reserved to support college chapels or other buildings.

12.4 Thirdly, Oxford's endowments are modest compared with those of North American universities with which it is in many respects in competition. For example, as at 30 June 1996, the capital value of Yale University's endowments was estimated to be $4.8 billion (£3 billion), and it has recently announced the success of a campaign to raise a further $1.6 billion; the capital value of Princeton's endowments was $4.5 billion ((£2.7 billion); and that of Harvard $8.8 billion (£5.4 billion).[147] The capital value of Oxford's endowments, taking the University and the colleges together, was approximately £1.5 billion.[148] We also note that the rate of return on investments being obtained by Oxford is, if anything, higher than that on the investments of the North American universities we have mentioned: Oxford received income from college endowments at a rate of 4.59 per cent in 1995-6, compared with rates of between 4.1 and 4.3 per cent per annum for the North American universities.[149] In any case, rates of return on investments of even the latter order are high. In present economic circumstances, and given the long term nature of Oxford's liabilities, we are clearly of the view that Oxford's current rate of return could not reasonably be increased without incurring significant danger of eroding the capital value of assets.

12.5 Our general conclusion is that, while Oxford is fortunate by comparison with many UK universities in that it enjoys a relatively diverse range of income, including substantial income from endowments, its financial position must be considered in comparison with those other major international universities with which it competes for staff, for research funding, and increasingly for students (especially able graduates). Moreover, in comparison with many North American universities Oxford is seeking to maintain excellence across a very wide range of activity: its teaching and research spans most academic subjects, and it seeks to combine research and advanced graduate teaching with a large, high quality and often labour intensive undergraduate programme, with undergraduates being taught by those at the forefront of research in their fields. In these circumstances its total income per student is low compared with that of North American institutions. The existence of a wide range of scholarship schemes in the USA increases average fee levels because, in effect, those paying full fees help to subsidise those who do not. Thus, tuition fees for undergraduates at Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Chicago are, for example, all currently over £13,000 per annum, compared with the average income from public funds to support the education of an Oxford undergraduate (i.e. tuition fees plus HEFCE teaching grant) of about £6,000 per annum.

II: The Dearing Report and the future funding of Oxford

12.6 The Dearing Report has reviewed the present state of higher education funding in the UK and has made several potentially far-reaching recommendations.[150] First, it acknowledges the need for additional spending on higher education, and argues that any significant further erosion in the level of funding for students across the system as a whole will damage quality. Secondly, the Report recommends that the UK higher education system should remain one which is supported from public funds, and recommends that public funding for higher education should increase with the growth of Gross Domestic Product. Thirdly, the Report also recommends that graduates in work should make a greater contribution to the costs of higher education in future, and proposes an income contingent mechanism to enable those who have graduated to contribute to the payment of a proportion of their tuition costs. Thus the current mix of public and private funding of higher education in the UK may change.

12.7 The government's broad response to the Dearing recommendations has been to accept the need for a direct contribution from students towards tuition fees, currently fixed at a level of £1,000 per annum (see paragraph 2.21 above); this will be means-tested. The government has also decided that student maintenance grants will be phased out, to be replaced by loans. Loans to students are to be repaid on an income contingent basis. Whilst, at the time of writing, these are known to be the broad lines of the government's approach, much of the detail remains to be confirmed, notwithstanding the fact that the new arrangements are planned to come into effect next academic year. Nor has any guarantee been given that the funds generated by the new fee to be paid by students will, in fact, provide an equivalent increase in the funding of universities. We are clear that, in terms of both equity and need, the fees should be used for the purpose of providing such additional higher education funding, and that the sooner the detailed arrangements for the new fee system are announced the better for universities, students and their parents.

12.8 Although Oxford shares the concerns of all other universities over the current uncertainties relating to the funding of higher education, there is one issue stemming from the Dearing Report which particularly affects the funding of Oxford (along with that of Cambridge). This is the question whether the fees charged by colleges to students will, in the case of Home/EU students, continue to be paid from public funds. Recommendation 74 of the Dearing Report states:

'We recommend to the Government that variations in the level of public funding for teaching, outside modest margins, should occur only where:

• there is an approved difference in the provision;
• society, through the Secretary of State or his or her agent, concludes, after examining an exceptionally high level of funding, that in relation to other funding needs in higher education, it represents a good use of resources.'

The Report continues: 'the college fees in Oxford and Cambridge represent a substantial addition to the standard funding for institutions of higher education. We propose that the Government reviews them against the two principles we have proposed'. [151]

12.9 The Government has accepted this proposal and has asked HEFCE to conduct such a review and provide advice. Both Oxford and Cambridge have responded to invitations to address a range of issues relating to college fees, and have done so on lines which, we believe, indicate that both of the Dearing criteria can adequately be met. However at the time of writing this report we do not know the outcome of this review.

12.10 The clear message from all this uncertainty is that, for the future, Oxford must be in a position to react flexibly to changing funding arrangements. In due course, it may need to consider broadening still further the base from which it obtains its resources, and be prepared to modify its methods of operation and the assumptions which lie behind them. We have not sought to forecast all the new circumstances to which the University is likely to have to react; nor have we looked specifically at possible alternative sources of income to those which exist at present, or at possible revised resource allocation methods. It is almost inevitable that detailed prescription in these areas would rapidly become outdated. Oxford requires mechanisms which will enable it to react to particular circumstances quickly, to adapt to new conditions and to make the most of new opportunities. Our proposals on governance in Chapter 5 (especially those on planning and costing) are intended to form the basis for establishing such mechanisms, and their importance from the point of view of the raising and spending of income is thus fundamental.

12.11 In the remainder of this chapter, we focus on two issues which, regardless of the outcome of the present review of colleges fees and of decisions on the funding of higher education as a whole, will be central to future policy on the use of resources within Oxford. The first is how far Oxford should seek to rely on public funds; and the second concerns the effects of present variations in levels of resources available to different Oxford colleges.

III: Public funding in Oxford

12.12 It is only relatively recently in its history that Oxford has received substantial public funding to support its work. For example, permanent state support for Oxford developed only in the 1920s, following the report of the Asquith Commission; [152] while universal and mandatory public support for college fees dates back only to 1977s (although college fees had been charged for centuries before then).

12.13 However, Oxford as a whole now receives some £188 million a year from public funds. As we noted in paragraph 12.1, this includes £84.6 million HEFCE grant. The rest is made up from about £31.5 million in public support of the income for college tuition fees; almost £42 million in grants for research from the research councils; and about £30 million in public support for university tuition fees.[153]

12.14 Despite the extent of this public support, Oxford, like other universities, is not a public sector body in the conventional sense. It is a private institution but it receives a large proportion of income from public sources on a basis whereby public and private sources of funding complement each other in a funding partnership. In recent years several developments have taken place which have led some to question whether Oxford should continue to rely so heavily - or indeed at all - on public funds. These developments include:

(i) increasing attempts by public funding bodies to attach conditions to funding which in the view of many go beyond what may reasonably be required to secure proper accountability for the use of public funds;

(ii) erosion in the real value of public funding per student, which means that it is less and less likely that the funding needs faced by Oxford (either capital or recurrent) will be met by government;

(iii) the imposition of severe restrictions on the pay rises which may be offered to university staff as a condition of public funding, as well as other interference in the terms and conditions of their employment;

(iv) the possibility - a real one at the time of writing - that a substantial proportion of public funding will in any case be lost if public funding for college fees is ended or sharply reduced.

12.15 It is not always clear what 'going private' means when such a course is advocated. At one extreme it might involve eschewing any public funding at all. But this situation does not apply even in the case of the University of Buckingham, which was established as the only 'private' university in the UK. Home and EU undergraduates at Buckingham have for some years been eligible for some public support for their maintenance. Similarly 'private' North American universities receive substantial amounts of public funding, for example through research grants. It is clear that Oxford would have much to lose from declining to accept publicly supported research grants as a matter of principle, especially given the high proportion of basic and strategic research in the UK which is publicly funded and the relative paucity of alternative funding sources in many subject areas.

12.16 When the idea of Oxford 'going private' is discussed, the focus is usually on whether it should cease to receive funding council (HEFCE) grants. At present Oxford receives £84.6 million a year in recurrent grants from HEFCE, and enjoys a high degree of discretion in deciding how to deploy this funding. In order to replace even this part of the recurrent income stream which currently comes from public funds, a substantial unrestricted capital endowment of the order of £2 billion would need to be raised, which we believe to be an unrealistic target in present circumstances. In particular, there continues to be a strong cultural expectation in the UK that the bulk of recurrent funding for higher education will come from the public purse, and the tradition of philanthropic funding of higher education which exists in North America has not been matched in the UK. For Oxford suddenly to change this position would be impossible notwithstanding the fundraising successes of the last decade. Much the greater part of the funds raised so far has been for specific research projects, particular building needs, or the endowment of identified posts. To raise the endowment sums needed fully to 'go private' would, on the experience of the last decade, take about 100 years.

12.17 Moreover, we believe that there are strong, positive reasons for Oxford seeking to remain, if at all possible, part of a publicly funded system of higher education. Oxford's policies to encourage wider access to its degree courses for all who have the potential to benefit from them (discussed in Chapter 3) would not be helped if public funds allocated to the University by HEFCE were no longer available to support students. It is also, we believe, important that Oxford should continue to take part in discussion and debate about government policies towards higher education as a whole, and being part of a publicly funded system of higher education along with other UK universities facilitates and legitimises this.

12.18 There is, of course, a real difference between a wholly 'private' system and a 'mixed' (part private and part public) one. The government's decision to introduce a means tested fee to be paid by students will edge the system more towards the private end of the spectrum. It has, of course, long been the case that many mature, part-time and graduate students have had to pay their tuition fees for themselves, as do many overseas students. Our conclusion is, however, that Oxford should seek to remain part of a national system of higher education in receipt of significant amounts of public funds. We hope that Oxford will not find it necessary substantially to shift further towards reliance on private funding, as might be required if the financial survival of Oxford and its collegiate system were threatened.

Recommendation 88
We recommend that Oxford should aim to remain part of the UK's publicly funded system of higher education, supported on the basis of a partnership of both public and private funds.

IV: Differences in the levels of resources available to different colleges

Introduction

12.19 Over time, there have been a number of significant shifts in the balance of funding in Oxford between the University and the colleges.[154] This balance may continue to change in the future and Oxford will need to ensure that it is able to manage such changes effectively. Even so, there remains the separate issue of differences in resources between colleges, and we now address this.

12.20 Concerns arising from differences in the levels of resources available to different colleges have been the subject of much discussion in Oxford in recent years. The main concern is how far such differences lead to unacceptable variations in levels of provision between colleges, both in terms of educational provision and in terms of the conditions of service for academic staff employed under the joint appointments system (i.e. jointly employed by the University on the one hand and a college on the other).

12.21 The structure of Oxford as a collegiate university is reflected in the independence and autonomy of its 39 colleges and 6 permanent private halls. These societies were founded separately at various times over the last 700 years or so. The colleges are legally independent self-governing institutions each with their own statutes approved by the Privy Council: they are not departments of the University.[155] Their independence is reflected in their financial autonomy. As was indicated earlier, all colleges have a number of different sources of income. Broadly speaking, these are tuition fee income; income from catering and accommodation charges levied on students; income from grants and donations; income from summer schools and conference activity; and finally income arising from endowments. The fees that are levied by colleges are not 'top up' fees in the way the term has been used in recent years: they have been charged for many centuries. As we noted above, only relatively recently have fees on behalf of Home/EU students come to be paid out of public funds.

12.22 The proportion of their income which different colleges derive from different sources varies considerably. Colleges differ in size: for example Keble has 606 students (445 undergraduates) but Corpus Christi has 309 (227 undergraduates). Some colleges are smaller still. College fees charged to students, however, vary by only 5 per cent of the weighted average for all colleges. College charges for accommodation also vary but again are clustered within ten per cent of the average. The principal cause of variation in income received from accommodation charges is the number of students who can be accommodated in college or college owned buildings. Differences in the quality, age and design of college buildings (for example, whether they have private bathrooms) have considerable effects upon the colleges' conference income. The composition of the student body also affects colleges' ability to raise income through conferences: rooms used by graduate students are generally not available to accommodate conference visitors because such students tend to stay in Oxford for almost the whole academic year. Graduate colleges are obviously most at a disadvantage here.

12.23 However, the main area where there are substantial differences in levels of college income is that of endowment income. This is illustrated in Figure 12.1, which shows the distribution of college endowment income using data taken from the published Accounts of the Colleges for 1995-6.

Figure 12.1: Distribution of College Endowment Income 1995-6 

12.24 Since the colleges are autonomous and independent, some variations in the level of their endowments and in the overall level of resources available to them are inevitable and acceptable. However, it has long been realised that there are limitations on how far it is sensible to accept too great a degree of variation within a single university community, and measures to support the financial position of less well endowed colleges by drawing on the resources of the wealthier have been in place for over thirty years.

12.25 The original college contributions scheme, established in 1877-82, was designed 'to secure an income for an inadequately endowed University from the colleges, which were relatively wealthy'.[156] In the mid-1960s, the Franks Commission proposed a major overhaul of the scheme, so that its purpose became instead the transfer of resources from the wealthier colleges to the poorer colleges. Franks' aim was to build up the endowment of the poorer colleges 'to the point at which they become economically viable and independent'.[157]

12.26 Since the mid-1960s the college contributions scheme has gone through three phases. The first was the scheme stemming from the Franks Report, designed to bring the endowments of poorer colleges fully up to a target level, which was defined as an endowment capable of producing a statutory endowment income of £40k at 1965-6 prices. A second scheme ran alongside the first phase from 1978-9 to 1987-8, which was designed to establish an appropriate endowment for Linacre College and St Cross College, which had been established by the University and were not initially independent of it.[158] A third phase began in 1987-8, and was designed to bring seven colleges (Keble, Lady Margaret Hall, St Anne's, St Catherine's, St Edmund Hall, St Hilda's and St Peter's) half way from their base position towards a desired target endowment of some £11 million in July 1993 prices.[159] Pembroke was later also admitted to this scheme.[160]

12.27 Over the years these successive schemes have achieved a great deal. It has been estimated that the total funds transferred to the recipient colleges under the schemes are over £70 million at 1995-6 prices.[161] This is a substantial redistribution. Moreover, four of the colleges which were supported in the initial 'Franks' scheme were no longer in need of support by the time of the second scheme, while five other recipient colleges have since then also seen their endowments lifted to the point where they are no longer eligible for further support on the basis of the criteria applying to the third scheme.

12.28 The expiry of the third phase scheme prompted a review, which was conducted by the College Contributions Committee in 1995 and submitted to Hebdomadal Council in Michaelmas Term that year. The outcome of the review was a recommendation that the contribution scheme should continue, although with a number of changes to the details of its operation. It was also proposed that there should be closer scrutiny of the recipient colleges' financial position and of the uses to which income received under the scheme was put.

12.29 Two further points were also agreed. The first was that the longer term future of the scheme, and the possibility of more radical changes to present arrangements, should be reconsidered by Council once the Commission of Inquiry had reported, in the light of any recommendations which might be made. The second point was that the position of those colleges currently outside the scheme (namely Green, Harris Manchester, Kellogg, Mansfield and Templeton) should be referred to the Commission of Inquiry: each of these five colleges has, for various reasons, been excluded from participation in the contribution scheme hitherto, and it was felt that their position should be reviewed in the broader context of the overall future of any college contribution scheme.

12.30 It is clear from this brief summary of successive schemes over the last thirty years that they have made an important contribution to the position of the poorer colleges. However, the ultimate conclusion must be that they have certainly not succeeded in 'solving the problem' of the poorer colleges. Disparities in levels of resources and concerns about their effects continue to exist. We have therefore considered two broad issues. The first is the nature of the impact of differences in levels of resources available to different colleges in Oxford. The second is whether a redistribution scheme along the lines of the present one should continue and, if so, with what objectives; or alternatively whether it should be replaced by or supplemented with an additional scheme or schemes.

The Commission's consultation

12.31 As a first step in reviewing these questions, we undertook a range of consultation. During Trinity Term 1996, a consultative letter was issued on behalf of the Commission to the heads of all colleges seeking views about differences in the resources available to different colleges, and on the nature and extent of the problems (perceived or actual) which might arise from this. Responses were received from 31 colleges.

12.32 Broadly speaking, these responses fell into three categories. First, there were those colleges which believed that inequalities in the resources available to individual colleges were causing Oxford as a whole serious difficulties, affecting the work of both junior and senior members. A second group, which formed the majority, believed that inequalities in resources did cause difficulties which should be tackled by Oxford as a whole, but in general they did not consider that the problems were as serious as did some of those in the first group. Within this second category, there were differences of opinion as to how substantial or significant the problems identified were, and about the steps that might be taken to deal with them. A third group - comprising only a small number of colleges - expressed a greater degree of scepticism about the argument that differences in the levels of resources available to colleges were causing or might cause any serious problems for Oxford as a whole. It was pointed out by colleges in this group that even the least well provided Oxford college could, in general, offer a high standard of provision for both senior and junior members; and it was also argued that differences in income and wealth between colleges did not have purely negative consequences in the sense that they allowed some colleges to make relatively generous provision in areas such as junior research fellowships which might not otherwise be possible. To that extent, it was argued that some colleges were in a position to make a contribution to the well being of the Oxford academic community in general, and that this contribution needed to be recognised.

12.33 A fuller summary of the results of this consultation appears in the supplementary volume to this report. We have taken careful account of all the points which were made in reaching our conclusions.

Improving information about college finances

12.34 In seeking to assess the impact of differences in levels of resources available to different colleges, the first conclusion which we have reached is that clear information, compiled on a consistent basis, is lacking. We believe that Oxford as a whole would benefit from improved information about differences in the levels of resources available to colleges, since this would enable a better understanding to be built up about what is the most important issue, namely the impact of such differences on the educational provision made by colleges and on other aspects of the lives of their members.

12.35 The most obvious way of assessing the impact of such variations might be to assemble evidence of levels of spending on different activities, from which one could infer differences in the level of provision. Although this is possible in certain respects, it became clear to us during the course of our discussions that hard evidence which would enable us clearly to answer questions about the levels of spending in colleges on different types of provision is very difficult to come by.

12.36 In part, this situation arises because the present format of the published college accounts does not easily lend itself to a systematic analysis of this kind. This format (as noted above) is determined by the University's statutes,[162] the relevant statute having been passed following the Franks Report, the accounts being known as 'the Franks accounts'. It is now, however, some thirty years since the current statute was enacted, and, especially because the format of the Franks accounts was largely framed to enable assessment to be made of endowment income for the purposes of establishing liability to contribute to the college contributions funds, or to receive payments from such funds, it is perhaps inevitable that the Franks accounts do not reflect recent thinking on the most helpful ways of presenting financial information. The problem is not that colleges are in some way trying to hide information; rather the format in which they are currently required to prepare accounts for publication, and the kind of information which they keep for other purposes, needs to be reviewed and updated so that a clearer picture of college finances can be made generally available.

12.37 We believe that lack of clear information about the way in which colleges use their resources can lead to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Both within Oxford and externally, a somewhat unhealthy mystique attaches to the way in which colleges spend their income, which we believe to be both undesirable and unnecessary. Greater openness in the way in which these questions are dealt with within Oxford would dispel much of the misunderstanding, and would blunt criticisms which are sometimes levelled at Oxford.

12.38 Our conclusion is thus that there needs to be a review of the present format of published college accounts. There are several points which we believe should be taken into account in the review which we propose. First, there is the desirability of presenting financial information on how colleges spend their resources in a way which provides a more informative picture of their activities. We have in mind, above all, the advantages which would stem from being able to determine overall spending on particular broad subject areas, or on particular activities such as teaching, research and administration. At present, information on college spending on these activities is difficult to obtain. Better information here would not only enable a clearer picture to be built up of Oxford's overall use of resources, but would also help to answer some of the questions raised above about the nature of the differences in levels of resources available to different colleges.

12.39 The new format of accounts which might emerge from the review which we propose should not merely facilitate the production of more informative published accounts. We note that the current Franks format is not one which many colleges themselves use for the detailed management of their own business. One of the aims of a new form of published accounts should be to enable colleges themselves to relate published accounts more closely and more easily to the more detailed accounts which they will themselves produce for their own internal management purposes.

12.40 We have also considered whether university and college accounts ought to be presented in a common format. The University's practice in this regard is now governed by the requirements of the Statement of Recommended Practice (SORP) for higher education institutions (and there is also a separate SORP for charities which may be of relevance to colleges). Whilst it is not clear whether the terms of the SORP for higher education in fact cover colleges, as opposed to the University, there may nonetheless be considerable benefit in presenting college accounts within the SORP format. For example, to do so would mean that both university and college accounts were produced on a similar basis, and this would enable consistent comparisons to be made between them, and would facilitate the assembly of integrated information about overall spending within Oxford. Such an approach would also make it easier to address some of the general difficulties about the production of financial and management information within Oxford which we discussed in Chapter 6.

12.41 Our broad conclusion is that adoption of a common SORP format would make a contribution to the improvements we seek. We have concluded, however, that Oxford needs to go further. Although the SORP is helpful both in providing a common framework and in requiring a statement of total assets, it requires relatively little detail to be published. The SORP guidelines could be taken further within Oxford by considering aspects of the presentation of accounts which are particular to the University and to the colleges, and which would be helpful to both.

12.42 Finally, the review of college accounts would need to consider the way in which endowment income should be treated. We recommend later in this chapter that the present college contributions scheme should continue, and this would necessitate ensuring that a proper basis exists for assessing liability to contribute. Assuming that the present basis for calculating contributions is maintained, then any new format of college accounts would still have to provide for statutory endowment income to be shown on a basis similar to that in the Franks accounts.

Recommendation 89
We recommend that the Council and the Conference of Colleges should jointly establish a review of the current format of the published college accounts, with a view in particular to enabling both university and college accounts to be produced on a comparable basis, bearing in mind the terms of the SORPs for higher education institutions and, if appropriate, for charities, and the need to supplement these.

The impact of differences in wealth between colleges

12.43 Notwithstanding the lack of reliable data in some areas, we have carefully reviewed the information available to us about the impact of differences of wealth and resources between colleges. We have benefitted from the willingness of colleges to provide information where it is available, and we have also drawn on the results of the surveys of staff and students which we conducted in Hilary Term 1996.[163] We have sought to address two sets of points in particular. The first is the impact on the provision which colleges can make for undergraduate and graduate students, in terms of educational and other provision, and the second is the impact on college fellows, in terms both of their remuneration and of the conditions under which they are able to undertake teaching and research.

12.44 With regard to undergraduates, it has often been observed that the Norrington Table[164] results suggest that, over the years, there is a broad correlation between college wealth and academic performance, even though no causal link has been made. We ourselves have focused on the evidence available from our survey of undergraduate students from Hilary Term 1996 about the impact of differences in college wealth on undergraduate provision. This did not suggest that there were any major variations in basic teaching provision which could be attributed to the different wealth of colleges. For example, there was very little correlation between college wealth and the average number of tutorials received by undergraduates, and college wealth appeared to make little difference to the number of students in each tutorial. Students in poorer colleges tended to receive fewer one to one tutorials, but this may reflect differences in subject mix between colleges, and the fact that humanities students (who generally tend to receive tutorials in smaller groups) are more numerous in the wealthier colleges.

12.45 College wealth did appear to make a significant difference in respect of the types of tutors who taught undergraduates; students in the wealthier group of colleges had a better chance of being taught by a fellow or lecturer of their own college than did students at poorer colleges. This does not in itself, however, indicate any variation in the quality or quantity of teaching received.

12.46 Finally, although the survey revealed that there was considerable variation between colleges in the method and frequency of monitoring students' progress, the variation did not appear to bear any relation to college wealth.

12.47 Variations in levels of wealth between colleges did, however, appear to make a difference to the level of what might be termed academic support facilities available to undergraduates. For example, being a member of a wealthier college seemed to help considerably in obtaining financial assistance for the purchase of books. A higher percentage of students at wealthier colleges received financial assistance for book purchases, and the average amount of financial help received was significantly higher at wealthier colleges. A larger proportion of students at wealthier colleges made regular use of their college libraries, especially for borrowing purposes.

12.48 Although there was no evidence that any colleges had a policy of giving financial assistance for the purchase of an undergraduate's computer, the computing facilities provided within colleges clearly was significantly affected by wealth. This is evidenced both by the higher proportion of undergraduates at wealthier colleges who used college computing facilities and by the degree of satisfaction with college computing facilities expressed by those at wealthier colleges as compared with others.

12.49 The area where there was perhaps the clearest overall variation in the experience of undergraduates at different colleges was in the extent of their opportunity to live in college owned accommodation in their second year. Thus whilst it appears that almost all first and third year students who so wished could live in college owned accommodation irrespective of the wealth of the college, there were substantial variations in how far those in their second year could do so. Almost 80 per cent of second year undergraduates in the wealthier colleges were able to live in college accommodation, as compared with only 44 per cent for those studying at the poorer colleges. There was also some variation in the availability of college owned accommodation for third year undergraduates, but this was much less marked.

12.50 Recent changes in Oxford's undergraduate admissions systems have made these variations in undergraduates' experiences between colleges all the more significant. Many students now make no choice of college themselves, and are allocated to a college automatically by computer as part of the admission process. Similarly, all applicants now have no control over the selection of their second and lower choice colleges. These points make the differences in provision which students may experience the more arbitrary.

12.51 As regards graduate students, our survey of graduate students provided some evidence which suggests that there is a correlation between college wealth and the nature of provision made by colleges for their graduate students, although the relationships between different factors are by no means straightforward. For example, there appears to be no relationship between college wealth and whether or not graduate students undertook paid teaching. College wealth was clearly associated with the level of book grants, travel grants and conference expenses available to graduate students, and those outside wealthier colleges apparently stood little chance of receiving any financial assistance of this kind, although the levels of such support available to graduate students at any college were very modest. In general, the analysis in the graduate survey of college facilities available to Oxford graduate students does not suggest any major correlation between satisfaction with facilities in college and levels of wealth, although more respondents from wealthier colleges rated pastoral support very good or adequate than did those in the middle band or in poorer colleges.

12.52 In considering the effects of differences in the resources available to colleges on their fellows, a number of distinct issues need to be addressed. The first is that of the total level of remuneration (salary and allowances paid as part of salary) enjoyed by fellows; the second is that of differences in basic workloads; the third concerns differences in the levels of professional support costs which are available to fellows (e.g. basic research support, travel grants and conference expenses, and other allowances against expenditure); and the fourth is that of differences which might exist in the extent to which individual colleges are able to support fellows in other ways (for example by recruiting substitute teaching for those on sabbatical leave or holding college administrative offices).

12.53 The evidence available to us shows that the total remuneration paid as salary enjoyed by the fellows of different colleges can vary significantly, and does so because of several different factors. One is the rate at which fellows at different colleges proceed to the current joint maximum (i.e. the agreed maximum joint university/college salary payable to joint appointees). The evidence suggests that although variations in this factor are not dramatic, they are in some cases significant. A much more important factor in causing variation is the value of the housing allowances (if any) which fellows at different colleges may at present receive, and also the criteria for determining which fellows of a college are eligible for such allowances. Another important factor in this context is whether or not individuals hold tutorial fellowships.

12.54 The payment of housing allowances to fellows who do not live in college accommodation originated in the period after the second world war, when colleges developed a wide variety of housing benefits in order to recruit and retain staff of high calibre in a university city in which housing costs were rising rapidly.[165] Gradually, over the last 20 years or so, variations in the level of housing allowances paid by different colleges appear to have increased, as those colleges which have been able to do so have offered increases in housing allowances in order to compensate for the continuing erosion in the real value of basic academic salaries, and as a means of seeking to ensure that Oxford can continue to attract the best academic staff.

12.55 The outcome of this development is that many holders of joint appointments - and especially those with tutorial fellowships - receive a significant addition to their pensionable salaries through housing allowances. The total levels of remuneration which result are, however, still modest when compared with salaries available to those pursuing analogous professional careers within the UK. Nonetheless, variations in the rate at which housing allowances are now paid have in our view become too great, with (as we noted in Chapter 7) a range from about £2,000 per annum to as high as £8,000 per annum. In effect, this means that at least a proportion of the fellows of one college can receive a salary for doing the same type of job at the same level which can vary by as much as £5,000 or £6,000 a year in comparison with those at other colleges. Moreover, not all categories of holders of joint appointments are eligible to receive housing allowances: in particular, university lecturers with non-tutorial fellowships (ULNTFs) tend not to be. In addition some colleges - notably graduate colleges and those most recently established - do not find themselves able to pay any housing allowances at all.

12.56 We have concluded that the present extent of the variation in total salaried remuneration which arises from variations in housing allowances is unacceptable, since in effect it means that individuals at different colleges are receiving different levels of pay for essentially similar work. We believe that, on grounds of equity, steps need to be taken to equalise the total pensionable salaries payable to fellows of different colleges who are undertaking similar levels of duties. We note that this was also a conclusion reached by the Franks Commission in the mid-1960s, which recommended '...that housing allowances should be continued...but that the aim should be to standardise these at a moderate figure...'.[166]

12.57 We have also considered other ways in which variations in the resources available to different colleges might affect the conditions of employment of their academic staff. We considered first of all the question of workload, drawing on evidence provided by the survey of academic staff which we conducted in Hilary Term 1996. The evidence here did not suggest that there was any great variation in the hours worked as between members of wealthier colleges and poorer colleges. There was some indication that the average working week was slightly lower for those who were fellows of wealthier colleges (50.9 hours), as compared with those in the least wealthy colleges (where 52 hours was recorded), but these differences are very small and we do not judge that any great weight can be placed upon them. Moreover, the pattern of variation between different colleges did not necessarily hold within each faculty, so that for example in Social Studies and Music the length of the average working week appeared to increase in proportion to the relative wealth of a college, rather than vice versa. Nor did we find any significant differences in the amount of annual leave taken by fellows of different colleges. Our overall conclusion is that the results of the staff survey do not indicate that variations in the levels of resources available to colleges have any significant bearing on fellows' workloads.

12.58 There are, however, variations in other benefits enjoyed by fellows of different colleges. For example, many colleges are able to provide some assistance to certain categories of fellow with house purchase, either in the form of a subsidised loan or a capital sharing scheme. Another point of variation is how far and in what form colleges are able to make available to their fellows professional support in other ways - for example through payment to assist book purchase, travel to conferences or to undertake research, and allowances for entertaining students. In some cases, allowances of this sort are payable against cost, whereas in other cases they are paid as a standard allowance and sometimes integrated, in effect, into salary payments. There are also significant variations in the levels at which these elements of support costs are available.

12.59 Finally, we may note that the additional stipends paid by colleges for holding college office (e.g. that of Senior Tutor) also vary quite considerably, as does the extent to which (if at all) any remission from other duties is granted. Some colleges also buy out teaching time to enable their fellows to spend more time on research.

12.60 The broad picture which emerges from the evidence available to us is that there are significant variations in total levels of remuneration, including both stipend and the various allowances, enjoyed by tutorial fellows at different colleges for undertaking broadly comparable duties. Moreover not all categories of fellow are eligible to receive allowances. Within a single university community the existence of these variations in levels of total remuneration is inequitable in itself, and cannot be justified in the face of the conventional prohibition on sideways moves between similar posts at different colleges. The variations are particularly unacceptable in cases in which several joint appointments in the same subject are advertised together, with the successful applicants at the different colleges in effect being appointed on different terms and conditions of employment. It is our view that measures must be taken to reduce the extent of the variations which exist in the total remuneration available to fellows at different colleges under the joint appointments scheme.

Conclusions and recommendations

12.61 Our arguments thus far may be summarised as follows. First, despite the achievements of successive college contributions schemes in redistributing resources from wealthier colleges to poorer colleges, significant variations continue to exist in the levels of resources which are available to different colleges in Oxford. These variations arise for a number of reasons, but the most important is that different colleges have access to different levels of endowment income.

12.62 Variations of this sort are not in themselves a problem. They reflect the independence and autonomy of individual colleges, and enable many of them to support work which is of benefit to Oxford as a whole and to the wider academic community. Two rather different examples are the employment of junior research fellows across a wide range of subjects, and the maintenance of important specialised library holdings.

12.63 The important question concerns the impact of the variations in resources between colleges, and we have concluded that there are some problems in this area. In the case of graduate and undergraduate students, we have seen that the evidence from our Hilary Term 1996 surveys suggests that there was some relationship between college wealth on the one hand and, on the other, levels of academic support available to students in terms, for example, of IT provision and libraries. There is, however, no clear evidence that basic academic provision - for example the amount of tutorial teaching available to undergraduates - was significantly affected. Perhaps the single most important correlation between college wealth and the student experience concerned the availability of college accommodation for second year undergraduates: it appears that, in the poorer colleges, a much lower proportion of second year undergraduate students are able to live in college-owned accommodation. We have concluded that, although the differences in provision for students are not as great as some have claimed, they are of significance. It is, in our view, important to continue with measures which will enable the poorer colleges to tackle such differences.

12.64 As regards the position of college fellows, we have noted that there are variations in the levels of remuneration for those holding college administrative offices, and in the extent of remission of duties available to individuals whilst holding such offices. We think that some variation in these respects between different colleges is legitimate, especially when it is a function of conscious policy choices made by autonomous college governing bodies. We do not, therefore, wish to make specific proposals to address such variations. Nor have we found any clear evidence that differences in wealth between colleges lead to significant variations in the workload of academic staff.

12.65 The main issue which we have considered in this context is that of the variations in the additions to basic academic salaries which different colleges make, and in the different levels of professional support available to college fellows. We have concluded that the current considerable variation in levels of total remuneration which arise from payment of housing allowances at different rates is not acceptable, particularly given that such allowances are not currently payable to all fellows of colleges undertaking similar duties at the same level of performance. Like the Franks Commission, we believe that measures should be taken to equalise levels of salary payments made by colleges. We also believe that there should be a broad equalisation in the levels of professional support available to fellows at different colleges, and in particular in the academic and research allowances which are paid to them.

12.66 We do not think that the poorer colleges will be able to achieve the objectives set out above in relation to students and in relation to staff, without additional financial support. In order to meet these objectives, therefore, we wish to make two sets of recommendations which will provide for financial support for the poorer colleges from the wealthier. The first proposals concern the existing college contributions scheme, which we believe should continue. The second proposal is for a new redistributive mechanism to operate through the joint appointments scheme; this has the aim of enabling the poorer colleges to meet the additional costs to them of the equalisation of salaries and other support which we are proposing. The mechanism would involve some redistribution of income from the wealthier colleges to the poorer (although there would be no net additional costs to colleges as a whole, other than transitional costs), and some reallocation of existing university funds in order to meet the costs of bringing those fellows who do not currently receive supplementary salary payments within the overall scheme which we propose.

12.67 Our first proposal is that the present college contributions scheme should continue. We think that, for the time being, the scheme should be envisaged as having as its primary purpose that of increasing the permanent endowment of the less well endowed colleges, although it should be possible for support to continue to be made available to allow borrowing to build student accommodation,[167] coupled with the continued possibility of making income grants in certain circumstances.

12.68 Given that we propose below an additional redistributive mechanism to supplement the present college contributions scheme, we do not believe that, as long as the present arrangements for funding colleges remain largely unchanged, there is currently a case for increasing the rate at which contributing colleges transfer resources into the present contributions scheme. In terms of the operation of the scheme, we agree with the recommendation made by the College Contributions Committee when it reviewed the scheme in 1995[168] that there should be more detailed and regular scrutiny both of the general financial position of a college seeking support from the college contributions fund, and of the use subsequently made of grants provided.

12.69 We see our recommendation for the continuation of the present college contributions scheme as aimed primarily at enabling poorer colleges to make improvements in provision for undergraduate and graduate students, especially in terms of IT and other academic support, and of accommodation for students. It is in these areas in particular that we believe that the present scheme can make its most effective contribution in terms of the redistribution of resources to the less well endowed colleges. One further possibility which we believe should be considered by the College Contributions Committee would be to make grants to poorer colleges clearly conditional upon their use for these purposes.

Recommendation 90
We recommend that the current college contributions scheme should continue on the basis recommended by the report of the College Contributions Committee to Hebdomadal Council, in Michaelmas Term 1995, and with the prime objective of enabling the poorer colleges to improve their provision for undergraduate and graduate students. The College Contributions Committee should also consider making grants conditional on their use for these or other specified purposes.

12.70 We should stress that our recommendations are framed on the assumption that the resources available to Oxford through college fees continue to be available. The position would need to be reconsidered if changes in public funding meant that certain resources flowed into Oxford through the University rather than via the colleges. In such circumstances it would be necessary for the University to increase its financial support for joint appointments, and we would expect such support to be applied differentially between colleges, so as to reflect differences in college endowments rather than merely reflecting previous patterns of college fee income.

12.71 We have also considered the position of the five colleges currently ineligible to participate in the college contributions scheme.[169] Whilst we understand the circumstances in which these colleges were originally excluded from the scheme, we do not think it any longer practicable or reasonable to prevent them from enjoying its benefits and bearing its responsibilities. Nor do we think that in future the University should agree to the establishment of new colleges without at the same time including them in any college contributions scheme.

Recommendation 91
We recommend that:

• (a) the five colleges currently ineligible to participate in the college contributions scheme (namely Green, Harris Manchester, Kellogg, Mansfield and Templeton) should be brought within it; and
• (b) in future the University should not agree to the establishment of any new college without its immediately becoming eligible to participate in the scheme.

12.72 The second set of recommendations which we wish to make relate primarily to addressing the differences in the total remuneration and other academic support enjoyed by fellows of colleges and the way in which the costs of the changes we propose can be met. We indicated earlier our view that the present position is unsatisfactory, and we believe that the principle of equal reward for work of equal value should be applied to all holders of joint appointments.[170] Application of this principle should take account of the total duties owed by fellows to their college and to the University together, and of their total salaried remuneration from both sources (i.e. basic salary plus pensionable allowances). This approach complements our recommendation in Chapter 7 for the introduction of a new form of joint contract.

12.73 Our first proposal is that housing allowances currently paid to those fellows who do not live in college accommodation should be abolished. They should be replaced by a new joint maximum salary, higher than the present one, which would apply to the salaries of all joint appointees. Any other additions to salary should be discontinued in their present form. The figure at which the new joint maximum should be set would need to be considered, but as an initial proposal we suggest the addition to the joint maximum of a sum equivalent to the weighted average of the present range of housing allowances, which would be approximately £3,650 a year. This additional element would not be payable to those fellows who continue to live in college accommodation (of whatever type) who would be regarded as receiving payment in kind.

12.74 We have concluded that this new joint maximum should be payable (at a standard age point) to the holders of all joint appointments, including university lecturers with non-tutorial fellowships (ULNTFs). We also think that, in the light of this conclusion and of our recommendations in Chapter 7 on a new joint contract, the present interim scheme to supplement the salaries of ULNTFs which was agreed by Congregation in 1996 should be phased out. New appointments should be made on the basis of the arrangements which we now propose, and any existing ULNTF who wishes to do so should be able to hold his or her appointment on the basis of the new arrangements.

12.75 Clearly, it will not be possible to move immediately to the structure which we believe appropriate, and transitional arrangements will need to be put in place. We hope that it would be possible to make arrangements whereby all new appointees were appointed on the proposed new terms, so that staff turnover would contribute towards progress towards the new situation which we seek.

12.76 In proposing that any addition to salary currently paid to assist research or book purchase, or support entertainment costs, should be discontinued, we do not wish to argue that professional support costs of this kind should not continue to be available to academic staff. Support costs such as contributions to research expenses, book purchases, entertainment, and other allowances against actual expenditure should continue to be available in addition to salary, but they should be paid quite separately and be clearly distinguishable from salary. It is also important that academic staff in the same subject at different colleges have broadly the same access to grants for conference attendance and similar support.

Recommendation 92
We recommend that housing allowances currently paid to those fellows of colleges who do not live in college accommodation should be abolished, and that any other additions to salary should be discontinued in their present form. Instead, there should be a new joint maximum salary set at a higher rate than the present one, and we propose that the increase should be a sum equivalent to the weighted average of the present range of housing allowances. This new joint maximum should be payable to the holders of all joint appointments not living in college accommodation, including university lecturers with non-tutorial fellowships (ULNTFs), and the present interim scheme to supplement the salaries of ULNTFs which was agreed by Congregation in 1996 should be phased out.

12.77 We recognise of course that establishing a detailed scheme to put into effect the proposals made above will require considerable further work. Our proposals will also create some additional costs, but we propose that these should be met by redistributing existing resources so that there is no net requirement for any additional funds to pay for our scheme.

12.78 The costs which need to be met are essentially of two kinds. The first are the costs of bringing those joint appointees who do not currently receive housing allowances within the scheme which we propose, and we estimate this cost to be of the order of £1 million recurrent. We propose that these costs should be met by the University, which is appropriate since the majority of those involved are ULNTFs and owe almost all their duties to the University. We propose that the resources be found by reallocating to this purpose the funds currently used to fund the 'trade-offs' scheme operated by the General Board, and those used for supervision payments, both of which we have proposed (in Chapter 7) should be abolished under the new system of joint appointments set out in that chapter.

12.79 The second set of costs are those which would arise for some colleges as a result of the increase in net salary we propose in cases where a college currently pays below the average housing allowance. Our proposals for a new joint maximum salary should not lead to any net additional costs to the college system as a whole, nor (in the longer term) to any individual college, since the increase we propose is equivalent to the average of current housing allowances. Additional costs would only fall on those colleges which currently pay below the average, while those which pay above it would, once any transitional arrangements have been phased out, make savings through paying lower net salaries. There would, however, be transitional costs.

12.80 We propose that the additional costs of the new arrangements which would be faced by the former group of colleges should, in cases where a college did not have sufficient endowment income to meet such costs from its own resources, be met through a recurrent redistribution of income from the wealthier colleges to the poorer. We also propose that eligibility to receive income support under this scheme, and liability to pay into the new fund which would support it, would depend on the amount of endowment income per student received by each college. Of course a different formula, not based on student numbers, would be needed to address the position of All Souls College.

12.81 We estimate that the extent of recurrent income redistribution which would be required would be of the order of £750k a year, although this estimate would need to be confirmed. We also propose that agreement by a college to participate in this new income redistribution scheme should be a prerequisite for eligibility to participate with the University in the joint appointments scheme.

12.82 We have developed in Appendix C to this report a more detailed exposition of how the approach which we envisage could operate. This sets out more fully the broad principles behind our recommendations, and the financial arrangements which would need to underpin them. It also provides estimated costings, and explains how the arrangements which we have in mind are flexible enough to accommodate any significant redistribution towards the University of recurrent income at present paid to colleges through publicly supported tuition fees. It should be noted that the appendix does not cover the question of support costs, which should be divided between the University and the relevant college on the basis of three broad principles. First, the arrangements should be equitable between individuals, so that, for example, lecturers in the same subject at different colleges should have broadly the same access to grants for conference attendance etc. Secondly, the respective obligations of the employers to provide support should be made clear at the time of appointment. Thirdly, the University's contribution should be used differentially to complement that which can reasonably be expected from each college given the resources available to it. The detailed arrangements for the payment of support costs in the light of these principles would be a matter for discussion between the Council and the relevant inter-college committees.

12.83 We should add that the mechanism which we have proposed in Appendix C to enable redistribution of resources between colleges could, if necessary, be adapted or extended to meet objectives other than the specific one which we have considered. For example, it is, we believe, robust enough to be adapted to circumstances in which changes in the way public funds reach Oxford meant that the University might be required to meet a higher proportion of the costs of joint appointments, and to do so in a way which would not necessarily affect the balance of duties owed by individuals to the University or a college.

Recommendation 93
We recommend that the costs of the proposals summarised in Recommendation 92 should be met (a) by the redeployment of funds currently used by the University to pay for the General Board's scheme to relieve holders of joint appointments of college teaching responsibilities ('trade-offs'), and funds currently used to make payments to Oxford academic staff to undertake graduate supervision; and (b) by establishing a new mechanism for redistributing income from the wealthier to the poorer colleges, in order to cover the costs to the latter of equalising total remuneration received by joint appointees on the basis of a new joint maximum.

12.84 Subject to acceptance of the principles which we have sought to establish in this chapter, it would be necessary for the University's central bodies to discuss with the colleges the details of the arrangements which we propose and to consider how they might best be implemented. Any change in the level of the joint maximum for university lecturers which might be agreed would also require reconsideration of the salaries of professors and readers.

The nature of the University and its principal aims

The University's long-term aims are:

(a) To ensure that the University, as a self-governing academic community, maintains and enhances its standing as a university of international standing in both teaching and research.

(b) To identify new areas of study and research for development and enhancement, responding to contemporary developments in both the intellectual and national environment.

(c) To maintain the health of the college system, which allows the University to combine the economies of scale and special facilities of a large university with a close-knit and responsive working environment for teaching and the exchange of ideas in a democratic community of scholars.

(d) To provide education and training of excellent quality at undergraduate and postgraduate level.

(e) To strengthen the research base of the University and, if necessary, adjust the balance of time accorded by members of academic staff to teaching, research, and administration.

(f) To raise the profile of graduate studies in the University over the next decade.

(g) To encourage applications from students of the highest calibre from overseas and facilitate appropriate international experience for its own staff and students.

(h) To be more widely accessible, both by broadening recruitment to its degree courses, and, by expansion of opportunities for life-long learning including high-quality post-experience vocational courses and other part-time courses leading to awards, and by preserving the important provision of non-award bearing courses.

(i) To conserve, enhance, and utilise fully its special resources including its libraries, museums and scientific collections.

(j) To maintain close collaboration with industry and the professions in pursuing research and to ensure that the fruits of that research are made available to outside bodies both for commercial exploitation and more generally for the benefit of society.

Given these long-term aims, the University's general objectives in the period 1997-2001 are:

(k) To continue to attract high-quality students and staff, who are essential for the maintenance of the University's academic standing.

(l) To provide appropriate facilities for the support of research across all subjects areas when the University is active, and to build on the excellent results obtained in the 1996 RAE.

(m) To continue to exploit to the full the advantages of the collegiate system.

(n) To strengthen further the links within the collegiate University and in particular through the work of the Commission of Inquiry (see Strategic Plan below) to review the operation and structure of the collegiate University and its decision-making machinery and its strategic objectives.

(o) Continuously to review teaching and research and monitor academic standards in each.

(p) To reappraise and rationalise the allocation of space in the light of present and anticipated needs.

(q) To develop further an Information Strategy whose goals are to ensure that information of all kinds is made accessible effectively and efficiently to all sectors of the University, in accordance with needs, to improve effective communication throughout the university community, and to make the necessary structural changes to library and information services in the furtherance of these ends.

(r) To develop further both teaching and research links with the European Community and other countries and to facilitate entry by the highest quality students on a world-wide basis.

(s) To encourage access to the University by a wider range of applicants and significantly to expand its contribution to vocational and non-vocational Continuing Education.

(t) To continue to develop flexible policies and procedures to encourage the funding of research from a wide variety of outside sources and to further income-generation by the exploitation of intellectual property.

(u) To further its ability to provide for the needs of a major international university by securing additional resources through its Development Programme.

AUT: Association of University Teachers

CATs: Colleges of Advanced Technology

CIPFA: Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

COSHEP: Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals

CUF: Common University Fund

CVCP: Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (renamed Universities UK from 1.12.2000)

DENI: Department of Educational for Northern Ireland

DfEE: Department for Education and Employment

ESRC: Economic and Social Research Council

EU: European Union

HEFCE: Higher Education Funding Council for England

HESA: Higher Education Statistics Agency

JRF: Junior Research Fellow

JUAC: Joint Undergraduate Admissions Committee

MASN: Maximum Aggregate Student Number

MRC: Medical Research Council

OLIS: Oxford Libraries Information Service

OST: Office of Science and Technology

OUP: Oxford University Press

p/g: Postgraduate

PGCE: Postgraduate Certificate in Education

PPH: Permanent Private Hall

RAE: Research Assessment Exercise

RSL: Radcliffe Science Library

SCOP: Standing Conference of Principals

SORP: Statement of Recommended Practice

UCAS: Universities' and Colleges' Admissions Service

UCCA: Universities' Central Council on Admissions

u/g: Undergraduate

UFC: Universities' Funding Council

UGC: University Grants Committee

ULNTF: University lecturer with a non-tutorial fellowship

Content unavailable