|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
1. This Notice describes the outcome of the General Board's consideration of the topics on which they were required by the Regent House to hold a consultative exercise and to report by the end of the Michaelmas Term 1997, viz. the introduction of promotional criteria which recognize in specific terms high quality teaching and (where appropriate) administration and research management, the possible introduction of an office of Senior Lecturer, the titles of senior academic offices, the criteria for promotion from Senior Lectureships (if introduced) to Professorships, and the number of annual promotions to senior academic offices. In their Notice dated 11 June 1997 (Reporter, 1996-97, p. 880) the General Board published an interim report on the progress that they had made in their consideration of these topics. A questionnaire containing a number of detailed questions, together with a copy of the Notice, was subsequently circulated to all University officers whose duties include teaching and research. The questionnaire also provided an opportunity for University officers to comment on the issues and to make suggestions. Faculty Boards and Councils of the Schools were also invited to consider the issues and to submit comments.
A detailed analysis of the results of the consultation and the comments received from Faculty Boards and Councils of the Schools is available for consultation by members of the Regent House in the General Board Office at the Old Schools.
4. There is an overwhelming consensus in favour of expecting the very highest academic standards in research in promoting University officers to personal Professorships and Readerships. There is also a clear consensus that the recently revised arrangements for the consideration of applications for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships should not be changed as a result of any new arrangements that may be adopted for the recognition of teaching and other forms of contribution; if there are to be new arrangements, these should recognize exceptional teaching and administrative contributions. The results indicate little enthusiasm for titular promotions which involve no increase in remuneration. There is a division of opinion with regard to the number of promotions, and in particular on the question whether, in any year in which there is a large number of outstanding candidates, the University should fund the requisite number of promotions, even if this has to be at the expense of funds for new needs, infrastructure, filling of vacant offices, etc. However, some Faculty Boards and Councils of the Schools have tended to take a cautious view on this question, and the General Board therefore remain of the view that financial considerations should not be wholly discounted when the number of promotions in any particular year is under discussion.
5. Of the four possible schemes outlined in the Board's Notice of 11 June 1997 and included in the questionnaire, Scheme 2 (extension of the University Lecturer scale beyond a bar at the current maximum of that scale, and introduction of the office of Senior Lecturer) has emerged as the scheme preferred by a clear majority of the respondents as a means of recognizing exceptional teaching and administrative contribution, together with its corollary, the phasing out of the discretionary awards scheme for University Lecturers.
7. In the account of Scheme 2 given in the Notice of 11 June 1997 it was stated that eligibility for consideration for promotion to a Senior Lectureship would be limited to those who had reached the top of the University Lecturer scale and who had completed at least three years in office before the date for the submission of applications. The questionnaire therefore did not ask whether eligibility for consideration should be restricted to University Lecturers who are at the top of the scale. The Board have given further consideration to this point and have now concluded that the arrangements introduced for recognizing teaching and administrative contribution should be open to all University Lecturers who have passed their probationary period, i.e. who have been reappointed to the retiring age. The Board would expect, however, that because the criteria require evidence of a sustained contribution both in teaching and in other activities, the great majority of successful candidates would be University Lecturers who are at or near the top of the scale.
8. The Board believe that Scheme 2 would benefit a larger number of University officers than any of the other schemes considered; it would be more effective in addressing the problems arising from the fact that a great majority of University Lecturers are at the top of the scale, and it would offer a good prospect of promotion to University Lecturers in the course of their University career.
|(a)||Sustained excellence in teaching (in contributions to the development of courses, and in at least one of lecturing, conducting seminars, and supervision of postgraduates).|
|(b)||Sustained supportiveness and efficiency in undertaking administrative and organizational tasks (including, where appropriate, the management of research groups).|
|(c)||Achievement in research/scholarship.|
|(1)||awaiting further evidence and/or the evaluation of recent or immediately forthcoming work;|
|(2)||reasonable doubt about the degree to which the candidate currently meets the relevant criterion;|
|(3)||satisfactory evidence in respect of the relevant criterion, but the case is not yet overwhelming;|
|(4)||proposal for promotion made on the grounds of very clear evidence being available in respect of the relevant criterion.|
The Board are aware of some concern that such an approach could degenerate into a mechanical assessment of cases, but they believe that sufficient flexibility can be built into the process to avoid this, particularly if emphasis is placed on the overriding importance of academic judgement being exercised collectively in order to reach decisions.
13. Although the results of the consultative exercise indicate majority support for the inclusion of a portfolio containing summaries of student questionnaires, comments received from individuals and from Faculty Boards and Councils of the Schools reveal considerable unease with regard to the use of such evidence in the assessment of cases for promotion. The Board have therefore taken the view that student questionnaires should not form part of the documentary evidence to be assessed.
14. A clear majority of respondents were opposed to the inclusion of evidence in relation to College teaching in the documentation required for the assessment of cases for promotion. However, it is evident from the replies received from a number of Faculty Boards and Councils of the Schools that there is concern at the possible exclusion of all aspects of teaching provided by Colleges, particularly where the provision of College teaching involves some contribution on the part of the Faculty or Department in co-ordinating arrangements or ensuring liaison with Directors of Studies. The Board are therefore inclined to allow officers whose Faculty or Departmental duties include responsibilities concerning College teaching to put forward those responsibilities in support of their case for promotion. However, because College teaching itself is rewarded by Colleges, the Board do not think that it would be appropriate for College teaching undertaken by University officers on behalf of a College to be taken into account as part of the evidence.
16. With regard to the membership of these Committees, the Board have agreed that a University Lecturer who is a member of an Appointments Committee and who intends to apply for promotion to a Senior Lectureship in a particular year should be replaced for the purpose of the exercise by an officer who is not eligible or who is not applying.
19. The introduction of a scheme along the lines of Scheme 2 would provide an opportunity to make adjustments in the Cambridge academic structure by addressing aspects of that structure which compare unfavourably with the national structure. To that end, the Board have agreed to propose:
I. That the Cambridge Readership stipend (currently £34,942) should be aligned with the top discretionary point of the national scale for Senior Lecturers (£35,893). The recurrent annual cost of this adjustment, at current rates, would be of the order of £175,000.
II. That the scale of stipends for the Cambridge Senior Lectureship should be aligned as far as possible with the top points of the national Senior Lecturer scale (excluding the discretionary points). The model that the Board have particularly in mind is a three-point scale, the first point of which would be the present maximum of the Cambridge University Lecturer scale (£29,875) with the addition of a sum equal to the present value of a discretionary payment (£1,738), the next two points being equivalent to the top two points of the national Senior Lecturer scale (£32,238 and £33,202). There would be automatic incremental progression up the scale. This proposal, and its relation to the national scale, are shown in the following table:
|Lecturer B (maximum)||27,985|
|Senior Lecturer||29,380||University Lecturer (maximum)||29,875|
|32,238||Proposed Senior Lecturer||31,613|
20. The Board recognize that a number of variants are possible if the national scale is to be used as a basis for determining what the Cambridge scale should be, and they will give further thought to these possibilities. However, they are of the view that there should be a significant differential between the top of the Senior Lecturer scale and the Readership stipend, especially in view of the fact that Readers are more heavily restricted than University Lecturers in the amount of additional remuneration that they may earn from College teaching.
21. The Board also have under review the arrangements for remunerating officers whose stipends are at professorial level and above. In the course of that review they will take into account the effect on differentials, in relation to both academic and academic-related offices, of the introduction of Senior Lectureships in the Cambridge structure, if the latter is approved by the Regent House.
23. The Board have also considered whether access to Senior Lectureships should be possible only through internal promotion, as is the case with personal Readerships. The Board accept that there is an argument for establishing Senior Lectureships on the same basis as University Lectureships to facilitate, for example, recruitment from senior academic posts at other institutions, or to allow necessary adjustments to be made from time to time to the balance of academic establishments of particular institutions, which would not be possible if Senior Lectureships were accessible through promotion alone. The Board intend to give further thought to this aspect of the matter.
24. The present UEF-funded academic establishment at Cambridge is as follows: Professors 20 per cent; Readers 16 per cent; University Lecturers, University Assistant Lecturers, and Assistant Directors of Research 64 per cent. The General Board have taken account of the position at other institutions belonging to the Russell Group, these being large research-oriented pre-1992 universities.1 On the basis of information extracted from HESA Resources of HE Institutions, 1995-96, the average of the academic establishments comprising institutionally funded posts at these institutions is: Professors 21 per cent; Senior Lecturers and Senior Researchers 32 per cent; Lecturers 47 per cent. University College London has the most favourable balance in favour of senior posts: Professors 28 per cent; Senior Lecturers and Senior Researchers 35 per cent, and Lecturers 37 per cent. (These figures exclude the Universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, which are not included in HESA data, and Oxford. The Oxford position following the recent titles exercise is as follows: Professors 27 per cent; Readers 12 per cent; University Lecturers 61 per cent.) The General Board would expect that if arrangements such as those described above are approved and implemented, the number of applications meeting the criteria would enable the University in the first exercise to achieve a balance in its academic establishment no less favourable than the average for Russell Group institutions indicated above.
25. In addition to the above proposals, the Board would wish to maintain their present policy relating to the number of annual promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships, and would expect the annual rate of promotions to continue to be of the order of ten Professors and thirty Readers. Hence, over the medium term, the Board would expect the University to move to a position where the proportion of senior academic offices was comparable with that of institutions such as University College London, which is in the top quartile of Russell Group institutions. The effect of the annual number of promotions approved each year on the overall academic establishment of the University would be monitored and reported to the University from time to time.
26. The problem facing the University is to identify funds to meet the steep initial cost of introducing Senior Lectureships in the first year or years at a level necessary to reach a steady state as soon as possible. The Board believe that it is essential to achieve such a steady state quickly, since it is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of University Lecturers deserve recognition in respect of the excellence of their contribution in teaching, administration, and research. The additional recurrent cost of achieving a proportion of senior academic offices on a par with the Russell Group average, on the assumption that 40 per cent of University Lecturers would be promoted of whom a substantial majority are at the top of the scale, would be of the order of £750,000 a year. This cost would be offset by savings accruing from the gradual phasing out of the discretionary payments for University Lecturers, the annual level of which would be of the order of £150,000.
1 The Russell Group comprises Birmingham, Bristol, Imperial College, Leeds, Liverpool, the London School of Economics, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield, Southampton, University College London, and Warwick.
|Question 1:||Should the University continue to expect the very highest academic standards in research in promoting University teaching officers to Readerships and Professorships?|
|Question 2:||Should the title of Reader be abolished and those currently Readers become Professors (Class 1) with no additional stipend or change of duties?|
|Question 3:||If in any one year there is a large number of outstanding candidates, should the University fund the requisite number of promotions, even if this means less money for new needs, infrastructure, filling of vacant posts, etc.?|
|Question 4:||Should the University continue to fund promotions at the current level (if that is possible) but introduce in addition:|
|(i)||a new titular Professorship?|
|(ii)||a new titular Readership?|
|(i)||One view is that those holding titular Professorships and Readerships should be able to apply for personal Professorships and Readerships. Do you agree?|
|(ii)||If yes, should the recently agreed criteria and procedures for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships apply in the case of titular Professors and Readers applying for personal Professorships and Readerships?|
|(iii)||Another view is that those holding titular Professorships and Readerships should be debarred from applying for personal Professorships and Readerships? Do you agree?|
|Question 6:||If you are in favour of titular schemes, please indicate the one you prefer. If you are happy with more than one of these schemes, please rank them in order of preference: The 'Cambridge' approach, the North American approach, the Oxford approach.|
|No Reply/No Preference Shown:||343|
|Question 1:||Should the present arrangements for promotion to Professorships and Readerships remain unchanged?|
|Question 2:||Should there be new arrangements to recognize exceptional teaching and administrative contributions? If YES:|
|(i)||Should the new arrangements introduce a title?|
|(ii)||Should the title be Senior Lecturer?|
|Question 3:||Please indicate which scheme you would prefer (and which would be your second preference):|
|Scheme 1 (Senior Lectureship, equivalent to Readership, limited numbers)|
|Scheme 2 (Senior Lectureship, one increment above the top of the University Lectureship scale, most Lecturers would aspire to this)|
|Scheme 3 (no Senior Lecturer title, current Discretionary Payments Scheme continues)|
|Scheme 4 (Senior Lectureship, no stipend implications, criteria and procedures as under Scheme 1 or Scheme 2)|
|First Choice:||SCHEME 2||271|
|Second Choice:||SCHEME 4||69|
|* NB: Many respondents did not indicate their second preference.|
|Question 4:||If you prefer Scheme 1, should Senior Lecturers, promoted under such a scheme, be eligible to apply for Professorships, even in the absence of outstanding performance in research? (cf. your answer to A1)|
|Question 5:||If you prefer Scheme 2, would you agree that the current Discretionary Payments Scheme should be phased out, to (partly) fund the scheme? (This assumes that those currently paid a discretionary payment will continue to receive it for the full five-year period of their award.)|
|Question 6:||If you prefer Scheme 2, should formal rewards for teaching/contribution take the form of an enhanced scheme of prizes for outstanding performance in these areas?|
|Question 1:||Should this be by application?|
|(i)||There is a view that College teaching should be excluded from the assessment. Do you agree?|
|(ii)||If yes, would the reason for this be because College teaching is accessible to and rewarded by the College and is not a duty that can be required by the University's contract of employment?|
|Question 1:||The present arrangements for considering applications for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships require that applications be considered first by a Faculty Promotions Committee and then by a central Committee, the General Board's Committee on personal Professorships and Readerships.|
|(i)||Should applications be dealt with by Faculty Promotions Committees in the first instance?|
|(ii)||and then by a central Promotions Committee?|
|Question 2:||Should the criteria include:|
|(i)||outstanding achievement in teaching (in innovative teaching, in lecturing, and in postgraduate supervision - i.e. outstanding contribution across-the-board)?|
|(ii)||outstanding achievement in administrative and organizational tasks (imaginative, exceptionally efficient, supportive of others)?|
|(iii)||some achievement in research/scholarship?|
|Question 3:||Should the evidence in support of these achievements (which should be equivalent to the lists of books and articles submitted in support of a Readership application) include:|
|(i)||a portfolio containing summaries of student questionnaires over a period of three years?|
|(ii)||a record of all courses taught during the previous three years, including course descriptions, summaries of individual lectures, seminars and classes, hand-outs, bibliographies, and other relevant material?|
|(iii)||details of course development, innovative teaching materials and new materials?|
|(iv)||a list of postgraduates supervised, with their results, over the officer's period of employment?|
|(v)||a list of research publications?|
|(vi)||a list of all administrative duties, including, where appropriate, the management of high quality research, over the officer's period of employment?|
|(vii)||a personal statement of not more than two pages in support of the officer's case?|
|(viii)||a statement by the Head of the Department or the Chairman of the Faculty Board, as the case may be, in support of the officer's case?|
|(ix)||two further referees' statements?|
|(x)||should those appointed to Senior Lectureships under these schemes be eligible to apply for personal Professorships and Readerships in the usual way?|
|Question 4:||Should these, together with actual classes and lectures, be professionally evaluated in addition to the Faculty Promotion Committees by:|
|(i)||internal Teaching Quality Assurance assessors?|
|(ii)||the Staff Development Officer?|
|(iii)||external Teaching Quality Assurance assessors?|
|Question 5:||Should evaluation of the case for promotion be strictly referenced to the criteria?|
|Question 6:||Should Faculty Promotions Committees be asked to rank candidates before sending on all the relevant papers to the central Promotions Committees?|
|Question 7:||Should there be feedback, as in the case of the existing Professorship and Readership Promotions scheme?|
|Question 8:||Should there be an appeals mechanism, as in the case of the existing Professorship and Readership Promotions scheme?|
|(i)||Should this be dealt with by Faculty Appointments Committees in the first instance?|
|(ii)||and then by the Councils of the Schools?|
|Question 2:||Should the criteria be:|
|(i)||sustained excellence in teaching (in contributions to the development of courses, and in at least one of lecturing, conducting seminars, or supervision of postgraduates)?|
|(ii)||sustained supportiveness and efficiency in undertaking administrative and organizational tasks (including, where appropriate, the management of research groups)?|
|(iii)||some achievement in research/scholarship?|
|Question 3:||Should the evidence in support of these achievements include:|
|(i)||a portfolio containing summaries of student questionnaires over three years?|
|(ii)||a record of all courses taught during three years, including course descriptions, hand-outs, bibliographies, etc., as appropriate?|
|(iii)||details of course development, innovative teaching materials, and new materials?|
|(iv)||a list of postgraduates supervised, with results, over the officer's period of employment?|
|(v)||a list of research publications?|
|(vi)||a list of administrative tasks (including research management where appropriate)?|
|(vii)||a personal statement of not more than two pages?|
|(viii)||a statement by the Head of the Department or the Chairman of the Faculty Board?|
|(ix)||one further internal reference?|
|Question 4:||Should evaluation of the case for promotion be strictly referenced to the criteria?|
|Question 5:||Should the Faculty Appointments Committee be asked to rank candidates before sending on all relevant papers to the Councils of the Schools?|
|Question 6:||Should there be feedback from:|
|(i)||Faculty Appointments Committees?|
|(ii)||Councils of the Schools?|
|Question 7:||Should there be an appeals mechanism?|
|Question 8:||Should those appointed to Senior Lectureships under Scheme 2 be eligible to apply for personal Readerships and Professorships in the usual way?|
|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|