Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
1. Quality assurance and enhancement are central to many aspects of the work of the Board. A clear framework within which to develop and discharge academic and educational policies is essential. The Board have therefore welcomed and encouraged the consultation, which was initiated during the academic year under review, on the University's mission. The Board's approach to quality is based on their understanding of the term to mean 'fitness for purpose'. They do not see quality as a narrow set of issues surrounding the setting, enforcement, and enhancement of standards. They take the view that, whatever aspect of the teaching and research programme, or of the underpinning infrastructure, both human and capital, they have under consideration, the relevant consideration is whether it is configured to serve the purposes of the academic and educational values of the University in the most appropriate way.
2. Quality is at the forefront of the Board's considerations not just because of the ever-developing and encompassing remit of an external agency, like the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. The audit of the quality of the management systems has for some time been the approach adopted by the HSE and other statutory agencies in their review of the appropriateness of health and safety management within the University. The charges which the University faced as a result of the loss of a very small amount of a radioactive substance from the Department of Biochemistry included allegations of poor management systems as well as specific charges arising out of the loss. The Court accepted the University's pleas of 'not guilty' to the general management charges, the University having pleaded guilty to five specific counts covering the loss itself. Since the incident was first reported the Board have conducted a series of reviews of the incident itself, their handling of it and of the health and safety management systems in the University, and also have initiated an extensive programme of audits of health and safety systems in Faculties, Departments, and other institutions. The Board have accepted the advice of a review committee, which included external experts as members, that significant changes be made to the line management accountability for health and safety, and to the relevant committee structure, and the recommendation of the committee that a new post of Director of Health and Safety be created. The Board are confident that, when all of these changes have worked through, the University will be better placed to maintain its record of being a safe place to work and to demonstrate that there are in place high-quality health and safety management systems.
3. During the course of the year the Board have reviewed the role of, and the delegation of decisions to, the committees of the Board. They have felt able, notwithstanding the statutory requirement for them to meet fortnightly, to implement a monthly cycle of meetings. Meetings of the Board will set the broad framework of policy, on the advice of their committees, and the detailed development of, consultation about, and implementation of policy will be delegated to those committees. The Board will not, as they did when they met fortnightly, review the detailed discussions held by their committees. The Board are aware that if, as they hope, this monthly pattern of meetings becomes the norm, there will be a requirement for them to invite the University to change the relevant Statute.
4. The Board hope that the changes, outlined above, will enable strategy to be established and endorsed in advance by the Regent House before specific proposals are brought forward. The previous arrangements, not just the frequency of meetings, but also the scarce administrative support available, have allowed too little opportunity for strategic thinking. As in other areas the Board is aware that high-quality governance and administration can only be achieved if there is a clarity about the purposes and roles of both policy-making committees and their administrative support set in the context of the University's overall aims.
5. In October 1998 the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) issued a new national quality assurance framework prepared in the light of the responses to their consultation paper 'An Agenda for Quality'. The features of this developing system are:
| (i) | work would continue on a qualifications framework, programme specifications, subject benchmark standards, and codes of practice; |
| (ii) | the earlier proposal for registered external examiners had been abandoned although there would be a code of practice for external examiners; |
| (iii) | there would be an integrated process of scrutiny of institutions, with a move away from a series of sample events to an engagement with an institution's own review process over a cycle; |
| (iv) | there would be a review cycle of six years, with two halves, each subject being allocated to one half; subjects in the first half would include those first assessed in the early stages of TQA; |
| (v) | the cycle would be co-ordinated with the visits of accreditation bodies; |
| (vi) | the QAA would agree with institutions the point in the cycle at which the overall academic management of an institution was considered; there would be 42 subject units; the intensity of external scrutiny would vary depending on the level of confidence the QAA has in an institution, based on such factors as earlier assessment and audit reports; |
| (vii) | an unsatisfactory report on outcomes or quality of a subject area in an institution would result in a further enquiry and report within twelve months and, if the original outcome is confirmed, a loss of funding could result; |
| (viii) | the new approach would be introduced in a two-year trial period commencing in October 1998 and mainly involving institutions in Scotland and Wales. |
6. In August 1999 the QAA issued details of proposals for the new framework for quality assurance in Higher Education: Assuring Quality and Standards: Proposals to the funding bodies of United Kingdom Higher Education. The underlying principles are the integration of subject-level and institutional-level review, bringing together reviews of standards and quality, varying the intensity of scrutiny, drawing evidence from institutions' own quality assurance procedures, and lightening the overall burden of external quality assurance. There is still uncertainty over how the new arrangements will work in practice, together with concerns over reporting methods. In relation to subject benchmarking, Cambridge has been one of the most well-represented institutions on subject benchmarking panels, having membership on ten of the twenty-one groups.
7. The first completed section of the QAA's Code of Practice was for Postgraduate Research Programmes, published in October 1998. The QAA expect the University to be able to demonstrate adherence to the code by 2000. The majority of the precepts in the Code are already covered by the University's existing arrangements. The Board of Graduate Studies are actively revising policies and procedures in relation to plagiarism and fraud, complaints and appeals procedures, and student feedback and evaluation so as to ensure compliance with the code. They are also liaising with Degree Committees concerning the arrangements in place in Faculties and Departments. Another section of the Code, on Collaborative Provision, was considered in draft form in April, before its publication in July 1999.
8. During the Lent Term 1999, the QAA undertook a consultation on a Qualifications Framework for Postgraduate Qualifications, one of the stated aims of which was to 'provide a clear and consistent nomenclature' for postgraduate qualifications. The QAA have reported that the responses received overall indicated substantial support for the proposals. The University expressed concern about both the general principles promoted by the QAA and the implications for a number of the University's qualifications.
9. The University's position on Institutional Review (formerly Academic Audit) did not change during 1998-99, following confirmation by the HEFCE that the final phase of subject assessment would proceed in the period October 2000 - December 2001 (see Reporter, 1998-99, Special No. 8, §39). The Board continued to press for a system which would reduce the burdens of external scrutiny by the adoption of a more selective approach resulting in the 'lighter touch' for those institutions which have demonstrated the high quality of their teaching. Nine subject assessment visits will take place during that period; in February 1999, the QAA accepted that the University would not be subject to an Institutional Review in 2000-01 on the grounds that there will again be a heavy schedule of subject reviews during that period.
10. In October 1998 Subject Review replaced Teaching Quality Assessment incorporating certain changes to the process of assessment including increased emphasis on the structured review of student work, and a more systematic scrutiny of the reports of external examiners. In addition the QAA have published a register of subject specialist reviewers from which team memberships are proposed. Mr Graeme Rennie was appointed as the University's first Institutional Facilitator whose role is to liaise with reviewers to ensure that they are well informed about the teaching under review and about the institutional context.
11. During the year, the University received a single subject review visit, in Physics and Astronomy in November 1998. An outstanding result was achieved with a score of 23 out of a maximum of 24. The University's performance in this exercise remains unparalleled and the Board wish to express their thanks and congratulations to all the academic and administrative staff involved.
12. Preparations have also been made for the eight subject review visits in 1999-2000 for the following: Anatomy and Physiology, Mathematics, Medicine, Molecular Biosciences, Organismal Biosciences, Pharmacology, Psychology, and Veterinary Medicine.
13. During the academical year 1997-98 the P.G.C.E. courses in English, Modern Foreign Languages, Classics, History, and Science were inspected by OFSTED and the reports of these visits considered during 1998-99. High scores were achieved. There were no further inspections in 1998-99.
14. The University's internal teaching quality assurance mechanisms are founded on the role played by the reports of External Examiners and on the rolling programme of departmental reviews. These activities will become more important under the new arrangements for Subject Review.
15. In 1998-99 the reports of more than 150 External Examiners were considered together with the responses from Faculties and Departments. These reports not only give consideration to the conduct and the assessment of examinations but also provide useful observations on course content, teaching methods, and standards in comparison with other institutions. The Board are satisfied that the reports are treated seriously by the Faculties and Departments concerned; that appropriate follow up action is taken and that they are welcomed as a means to review teaching and examining. The Board greatly appreciate the time and expertise which is devoted each year by the External Examiners, many of whom give high praise to the achievements of staff and students.
16. As part of the Board's rolling programme of departmental reviews, reviews were set up for the Departments of Biochemistry, and Italian, for the Faculty of Oriental Studies, and for the School of Clinical Medicine. During the course of 1998-99, reports were received from the Review Committees for the Centre of Latin-American Studies, for the Faculty of Oriental Studies, and for the Department of Physiology. In some cases matters raised by Review Committees remain under discussion. The Board received the first report of the Review of the School of Clinical Medicine, which focused on medical education, and its recommendations are being considered. These reports are valuable, not just for what they say about the institutions under review, but also because they highlight generic issues which can then receive careful consideration by the Board in consultation with other bodies in the University. The Board are grateful for the hard work which is devoted to these reviews by the Departments and Review Committees concerned. The Board now require Faculties and Departments to produce annual reports on teaching and assessment.
17. The Board, through their Education Committee, continue to liaise with Cambridge University Students Union. In particular, there has been discussion with the Academic Affairs Officer of CUSU on such matters as Examinations Skills Day, Work Experience, and guidance to overseas students.
18. The availability on the University Offices' web pages of guidelines and checklists on such matters as recommended measures for the co-ordination of University and College teaching, collaboration with other universities, arrangements for External Examiners, and policy on written examination papers has served a useful function in ensuring that Faculties and Departments have immediate access to information on agreed policy and recommended practice.
19. The Board approved changes to the regulations for various courses and examinations, which included:
20. In seeking to assess the relative importance of the many factors that affect the academic performance of students in the University, the Joint Committee has considered information relating to aspects of admissions, provision for disabilities, transferable skills, and careers, as well as continuing to scrutinize statistical data. The Committee's terms of reference have been widened to include the graduate student population and to take explicit account of factors such as ethnicity and school background.
21. The research project on 'Predictors of Academic Performance' funded by the Board is making good progress. In addition to statistical analyses of the academic performance of the whole undergraduate population, qualitative work involving a substantial group of volunteers from amongst the 1997 intake is progressing. It is expected that, inter alia, the information provided by the volunteers via informal e-mail contact during the whole of their undergraduate course will advance understanding of students' perception of the factors affecting their performance in Cambridge and how the relative importance of those factors evolves. Several publications from the project have appeared already. A final report will be available in September 2001. The Joint Committee is confident that the information emerging from the project is of great value to the University in general discussions of student progression and, especially, in the context of 'Access' issues.
22. Following the receipt of a consultation document from the HEFCE in August 1998, entitled Learning and Teaching: strategy and funding proposals, the University provided a critical response to the Funding Council, and at the same time copied the response to other research-intensive universities together with an invitation to reciprocate. While it appeared that most of these other institutions shared this University's reservations about the proposals, only Cambridge appeared to be voicing its criticism directly to the HEFCE.
23. During the Long Vacation 1999, the University received the resulting final funding proposals in a document, entitled Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund: funding arrangements. One strand of the funding is contingent upon the University submitting to the HEFCE, an institutional Learning and Teaching Strategy by 31 January 2000. To this end, a Working Party, with a membership including the University, Colleges, and CUSU representation, has been established to draft such a document, to be circulated during the Michaelmas Term.
24. Following the Review of the Natural Sciences Tripos, a Strategic Committee for the Tripos, under the Chairmanship of Sir David Harrison, was established. This Committee met several times in the Easter Term, publishing a Report on Mathematics in Part IA of the Tripos during the Long Vacation. A Report on the establishment of a Management Committee for the Natural Sciences Tripos will be published in the coming academical year.
25. The Board, for their part, have welcomed the establishment from 1 November 1999 of a Personnel Division covering all staff groups, since it demon-strates the University's continuing commitment to a comprehensive and coherent strategy to personnel policy and practice.
26. The Report of the Review Committee was published in the summer of 1999. The Report is concerned with the establishment of broad frameworks for the determination of pay and conditions of service which will apply to all the HE institutions, but which will allow freedom for individual institutions to adapt the detail. The central bodies are considering its implications for the University and its staff. The Report proposes the setting up of a National Council, with members from all the main organizations representing employers and staff throughout UK higher education, to have substantial negotiating, consultative, and advisory functions on an agreed range of matters; and also proposes that there should be two Sub-Councils, one for academic and the other for non-academic staff. It is also envisaged that the National Council, with its Sub-Councils, will develop over the next few years much of the detail relating to the broad recommendations contained in the Report. The Report acknowledges that the response of the Government will be very significant in determining whether the recommendations can be taken forward successfully. The Government has recently made it clear that funds for achieving the aims of the Report must come from efficiency gains.
27. The central bodies see little merit in their adopting a programme of reform until it is clear what is likely to emerge from the new national arrangements over the next few years. UCEA will be undertaking consultation with the HE sector in the course of the next few months and will provide guidance to universities. The central bodies have agreed to keep these matters under review and to assess the implications for Cambridge of any proposals for changes in pay structure and conditions of service as they emerge at national level.
28. The majority of HE institutions, including Cambridge, have, with effect from 1 April 1999, implemented a 3.5 per cent across-the-board cost of living increase for non-clinical academic and academic-related staff, pending the resolution of a settlement at national level. An increase of 3.5 per cent was agreed for clinical staff with effect from 1 April 1999.
29. In the course of the academical year 1998-99 the Board have been implementing the proposals contained in their Report, dated 3 June 1998, on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 804). The objective of the Report was to seek the approval of the Regent House for a range of proposals which are to be seen as an evolving process of reform and a stage in a strategy for improving the University's competitive ability to attract and retain staff of the highest calibre. The intention of the Board is also to move towards greater coherence in the University's policies concerned with the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related staff. The proposals relating to staff in the professorial grade have been implemented. With regard to other academic and academic-related staff, the Board have brought forward proposals for the introduction of the office of University Senior Lecturer and for necessary consequential changes in the current structure of academic and academic-related offices (Report of the General Board on the introduction of a University Senior Lectureship into the Cambridge structure of academic offices, and associated matters, (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 782). These proposals took account of the changes sought by members of the Regent House in Amendments to the Graces, namely, that College teaching be taken into account as part of the evidence for promotion to a Senior Lectureship; the inclusive in the criterion (a) of just supervision and direction of students instead of supervision of postgraduate students. For legal reasons, the Board could not agree with Amendment C, which had been approved by the Regent House, that the conferment of the title be not regarded as promotion to a University office requiring a new contract. The Board have given careful consideration to the implications of the Amendment in the light of legal advice and have explained reasons why it is not possible to proceed with the Amendment in its approved form.
30. One of the recommendations of the Board's Report on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related staff concerned the replacement of the current discretionary payment scheme for University officers in non-professorial grades by new arrangements. In the course of the academical year 1998-99 the Board have been devising detailed proposals for replacing the discretionary pay arrangements by a scheme which is designed to provide reward for outstanding contribution, commitment, and achievement through award of permanent additional increments. These arrangements are another piece in the plan of the central bodies to move towards more coherent recruitment and retention policies, and are linked to the proposals contained in the Report on the introduction of University Senior Lectureships, and associated matters.
31. The Board and the Council have been engaged jointly in a scoping study, facilitated by the Hay Consultancy, to assess the feasibility of developing a tailored role analysis and job evaluation scheme as an alternative to the Higher Education Role Analysis (HERA) scheme developed by UCEA. The study looked in detail at approximately seventy roles, representing most assistant staff and academic-related grades, carried out in a wide range of institutions in the University. A limited number of academic roles were included. The interim conclusion of the study was that further development of the scheme was desirable but that it should be widened to encompass the full range of academic roles. Further work on the study is planned so that a fair comparison can be made between this and the HERA scheme. In the meantime, the Bett Report has stressed the need for job evaluation, or some other job analysis and ranking system, as a means of achieving reform to pay structures.
32. A major issue for the Board's Academic Staff Development Committee has been the establishment of the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education (ILT). This represents a major development for the HE sector at national level, as a result of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (the Dearing Committee). As the ILT's membership criteria have become clearer, the Board have concentrated their attention on the need to provide a more coherent programme of preparation in academic practice for newly-appointed teaching staff and, at the same time create the opportunity for them to achieve membership of the ILT. The Board are about to conduct a detailed University-wide consultation on the nature, organization, and content of such a programme. Meantime, the opportunity for new University teaching officers to attend accreditable courses elsewhere (at the Open University and the University of London Institute of Education) has been maintained.
33. A further recommendation of the Dearing Committee was that universities should review and update their policies for staff development and make information about them readily available to staff. Hitherto, no formal statement of staff development policy for academic staff had been agreed or published in the University, although the Board had for many years been engaged in the provision and review of staff development activities for academic staff. During the year, the Board agreed and published a statement of policy, setting out arrangements for academic staff development.
34. The Committee's existing centrally-organized programme of staff development activities has continued to develop, in part responding to issues raised by the Research Careers Initiative (RCI), but also to meet the needs of individual Departments, Faculties, and Colleges
35. The Board are reviewing their policies for unestablished staff in the light of the Concordat and the Research Careers Initiative which was set up to monitor progress in the implementation of the Concordat in the HE sector. The University has endorsed the basic principles of the RCI as summarized in Section 2 of the RCI Report. The University's career structure broadly corresponds with that outlined in the RCI Report. Contract research salary scales have been aligned to correspond with national scales. The University's policy is to treat, as far as is practically possible, contract research workers on similar terms as established staff. However, funding is a key issue and it is recognized by the University of Cambridge that the Concordat fails to address such a fundamental issue satisfactorily.
36. The University Careers Service is available to all contract research workers but for those for whom a long-term career in research is not a goal, it is available as a particular source of advice and information. The current level of support made available through the Careers Service is under review.
37. The Board have put in place, and recently reviewed, procedures for consulting, supporting, and advising contract research staff coming to the end of their fixed-term contracts. Although the Board's policy is to continue to apply waiver clauses in contracts of employment, Faculties and Departments must make reasonable efforts to ensure genuine consultation takes place in good time (four months) before the end of the contract. They must not use the approaching end of the contract as a means of avoiding addressing performance issues and they must also ensure that the length of appointments and reappointments are commensurate with the available funding.
38. Where there is a strong prospect of renewed funding, Faculties and Departments are encouraged to use their own funds to support bridging appointments. If there is uncertainty or no prospect of funds to support a renewal of contract, the University will assist the contract research staff in finding new employment in the University, if at all possible. To that end, it is a requirement that all vacancies be advertised in the internal vacancies list, and that information is provided to some who request it on vacancies for a period of up to six months beyond the end of the contract. In the case of staff whose employment comes to an end on the expiry date of their contract and do not have other employment to go to, the University will make a redundancy payment if the period of continuous employment is more than five years. This Board are very conscious that more needs to be done in this area through review and development of existing policies and procedures.
39. Finally, in a progress report to the RCI, certain concerns over which universities have no control have been drawn to the attention of the RCI. The BBSRC have recently started to seek assurances in connection with any relatively long-serving contract research staff for whom funding is sought in grant applications. In several cases the assurances sought have been unspecific but in one case the University was asked to issue open-ended contracts to staff above a certain salary point or length of service. There is no specific requirement on these lines laid down in the Concordat. Also, the ESRC have recently taken up the stance that contract research staff who are taken on to bridging funds and are included in the RAE returns are to be precluded from future salary support. The RCI have therefore been urged to press for greater clarity and consistency of approach, in line with the principles of the Concordat, from the funding Councils.
40. The General Board have drawn the attention of Faculties and Departments and other institutions to the importance of ensuring that teaching, examining, and administrative loads are distributed equally and on a transparent basis. The contracts of employment now issued contain an explicit provision explaining the Head of Department's or Chairman of the Faculty Board's responsibility in this respect. Faculties and Departments have been urged to give serious consideration to formulating a fair and transparent approach to the determination of teaching, examining, and administrative loads; to review their present arrangements; to draw up a statement of their policy which can be made available to individual officers; and to keep the policy under review.
41. The Board have made it clear that they do not wish to encourage an exclusively quantitative approach but wish to ensure that each Faculty or Department has in place a system of assigning duties that is generally accepted as fair. The Board has also made it clear that the appropriate approach may vary from institution to institution.
42. Last year's Report referred to the revision of the goals agreed under the University's membership of the Opportunity 2000 Campaign (which has now been renamed Opportunity Now). Four goals were selected for development:
(i) Further development of the 'Springboard for Undergraduates' project
A successful small-scale programme was run for second-year science undergraduates from December 1998 to March 1999, with further refinement of the workshops and a comprehensive evaluation. The project has now been taken into the 'Women in SET Initiative' (see below).
(ii) An initiative on Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology (WISET)
The WISET Initiative is now underway. Dr Nancy Lane has been appointed as Director (half-time) of the Initiative and two of the four proposed projects are being developed (the women's mentoring project) and taken further (the 'Springboard for Undergraduates' project).
(iii) Comprehensive revision of the guidance for the recruitment, selection, and promotion of all established and unestablished academic and academic-related staff, including contract research staff
Work, which has included the use of consultants and extensive interviews of those involved in these procedures, has continued on this major project and the guidance will be launched early in the 1999-2000 academical year.
(iv) Training for staff involved in recruitment and selection processes
Training materials have been developed and a programme will be rolled out in the forthcoming academical year.
43. In addition to these special projects:
44. A preliminary circular giving guidance on the application of the Working Time Regulations 1998 was distributed to Heads of Departments, Chairmen of Faculty Boards, and Heads of Institutions under the supervision of the General Board and the Council in November 1998. More detailed advice and guidance drawn up in the light of further guidance from UCEA, the Council of the Heads of Medical Schools, and other concerned bodies and legal advice was issued in July 1998. This matter is being kept under review particularly in view of the Government's concern and the administrative burden imposed by the current regulations and their intention to amend the scope of the regulations in the near future.
45. The University has responded to the Government consultation on parental and maternity leave. The Government intends that the proposals contained in the consultation will build on the provisions on those subjects contained in the Employment Relations Act 1999 and implement the terms of the EU Parental Leave Directive. It is anticipated that the new rules will come into effect on 15 December 1999. Parental leave is now restricted to parents of babies born after 15 December and until their child reaches five years of age, provided that they have two years' service. (Separate provisions are made for adoptive parents.) The main administrative difficulty is that the employee will be required to give only twenty-one days' notice and will not need to make the request in writing. In addition, the new notice requirements for when the employee wishes to end her maternity leave could mean that it will be unclear at the end of her paid leave whether she intends to return to work and when, with consequent difficulties in making arrangements for cover or ending the employee's contract of employment. The University's policies will be reviewed and amended to take into account the new maternity provisions and those for parental leave, although it is expected that the take-up of the latter will be minimal since it is unpaid.
46. The procedure for dealing with requests for leave of absence has been streamlined by the introduction of a leave form (in general use from the Michaelmas Term 1999, following piloted use), and the transferral of records on to a database enabling requests to be dealt with more quickly. This has enabled us to grant maternity leave more quickly, and to reduce the volume of queries.
47. To improve the administration of the annual review of non-pensionable additional payments for administration, and to improve the quality and accuracy of information provided by Faculties and Departments, forms have been introduced for the 1999-2000 academical year. These forms will be available electronically next year, and records will be transferred on to a database to reduce duplication of effort year on year.
48. The next national Research Assessment Exercise has now been announced. Institutions will be required to submit information on staff in post on 31 March 2001 by 30 April 2001. New software which the HEFCE are developing for 2001 to support the exercise will be tested at an early date and the General Board have agreed to allocate funds to ensure that institutions are adequately equipped to participate in any testing or preparatory exercises. Funds have also been allocated for the purchase of a dedicated central file-server, if this proves necessary.
49. The HE funding bodies continue to seek the views of Higher Education institutions on various aspects of the exercise. As part of the general framework established for the management of the exercise within the University, meetings with those identified as academic co-ordinators for each unit of assessment have been held to discuss the University's response. The HE funding bodies, in guidance given to panels, have stated that institutions will need to demonstrate forward plans for research strategy and have emphasized their intention to seek evidence of a strong institutional research ethos in their assessment of the quality of research activity; this should, for example, result in panels making allowances for the submission of less than four publications in cases where an institution had elected to recruit, and develop, promising younger researchers, rather than established researchers, provided that there is clear evidence of an established research culture and practice of developing junior staff.
50. The Board have also taken measures to strengthen the University's position in advance of the next RAE. Based on their assessment that the arrangements for the 'proleptic' filling of vacant offices, i.e. replacement in advance of retirement from the underlying post in advance of the 1996 exercise, were both beneficial and cost-effective, the Board authorized a non-recurrent allocation of £1.3m to support a further scheme of proleptic appointments, to be filled by 1 October 2000, primarily based on the existing needs of institutions and the prospects of improving or maintaining ratings. Twenty-three such appointments have been approved, eight in the School of the Physical Sciences, four in each of the Schools of the Arts and Humanities, Humanities and Social Sciences, and Biological Sciences, and three in the School of Technology.
51. The Resource Allocation Working Group of the Planning and Resources Committee has continued work on a Resource Allocation Model (RAM) for supporting the process of allocating recurrent funding to Faculties and Departments. A consultation exercise with the Councils of the Schools will be launched in the Michaelmas Term 1999.
52. A total of £6m was committed from the Minor Works Fund in support of General Board institutions. The high level of demand for minor works continues for numerous reasons, including health and safety, the arrival of new staff, especially Professors, and in response to (or in anticipation of) QAA Subject Review visits. Wherever possible, the Board require contributions towards the cost of schemes from discretionary funds in Faculties and Departments, thus allowing central funds to be used to best effect. The Board have introduced an annual application process for the development and implementation of minor works schemes, to be known as Building Upgrading Procedures. Institutions were invited to submit applications under the first round of the new arrangements in the first half of the Michaelmas Term 1999. Councils of the Schools will be involved in the initial prioritization of projects and flexibility will be built into the arrangements to cope with needs which arise at short notice.
53. The Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) was established, following the announcement of the Comprehensive Spending Review in July 1998, at the level of £600m (£300m from Government and £300m from the Wellcome Trust for purposes consistent with the Trust's aims), and was augmented by £100m of HEFCE funds in March 1999 (see paragraph 49 of the Allocations Report, Reporter, 1998-99, p. 649). The Fund covers all elements of research infrastructure for science and engineering encompassed by the remits of the Wellcome Trust and the Research Councils, including research equipment and infrastructural research facilities, new scientific research buildings, and the refurbishment of laboratory or research-related space. The programme will run for three years, with five rounds of applications; the final deadline for applications for new buildings and refurbishments will be April 2000. The minimum bid level is £750,000. In the first two rounds, the University submitted twenty-one applications of approximately £230m in value; seven of these sought funding for equipment and the remainder were for buildings or refurbishment. To date, two applications for equipment and a major project to refurbish laboratories in the Department of Chemistry have been approved. Thirteen projects are still under consideration and the outcome of a further round is expected to be announced in December 1999.
54. During the year the University has also been awarded £2.6m under the third round of the HEFCE Joint Research Equipment Initiative. A bid to the HEFCE for funds for the improvement of 'poor estates' was unsuccessful.
55. The University Challenge Fund is one of two 'challenge' funds, the other being the Science Enterprise Challenge Fund, launched by the Government, through the Department of Trade and Industry. The University Challenge Fund was set up to finance investigations into the commercial viability of research and to provide initial start-up funding. A total of £45m has so far been allocated from government and charitable sources. The University, together with the Babraham Institute, was successful in winning £3m of seed capital to enhance the commercialization of research.
56. The Science Enterprise Challenge Fund was set up with £25m to support the establishment of up to eight centres of enterprise in UK universities. The University sought support from the Fund for the establishment of an Entrepreneurship Centre linked to the Judge Institute of Management Studies. The bid was successful and £2.9m has been awarded to the University to provide initial seed funding for the first five years after which the Entrepreneurship Centre will be required to be self-financing. The Cambridge Entrepreneurship Centre will operate as part of the Judge Institute of Management Studies in partnership with the science and technology Faculties. It will support innovation and entrepreneurship at undergraduate and graduate levels and will also work alongside aspiring entrepreneurs and representatives of larger companies. The Centre's core activities will be teaching and training, advising and mentoring, and reviewing and disseminating knowledge.
57. The possibility of substantial Government funding being available for a collaboration between the University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology led to a series of discussions with MIT and the Treasury of which the General Board were kept regularly informed. They endorsed in principle the proposal that will support academic collaboration in four broad areas: undergraduate education; a programme of integrated research; professional practice programmes in innovation and entrepreneurship; and the creation of a National Competitiveness Network of Enterprise Centres. The funding for the Cambridge Entrepreneurship Centre will be subsumed into this collaboration which was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer after the year under review (Reporter, p. 130).
58. The exercise to reduce recurrent expenditure by £2.2m, referred to in last year's Report, was completed by 31 July 1999. In order to assist institutions in making the required savings, the Board and Council introduced a selective early retirement scheme for officers and assistants, funded by £8m made available from the Chest in two phases. The primary purpose of Phase I was to achieve savings in recurrent expenditure to facilitate the pay restructuring proposals; hence posts which became vacant under this phase of the scheme were suppressed, but Phase II allowed institutions to fill posts which became vacant to enable restructuring and strengthen institutions in advance of the next RAE. In practice, however, many institutions identified a substantial proportion of the proposed savings, around 50 per cent across General Board institutions as a whole, without the loss of academic posts and recourse to early retirements, but by making savings in assistant staff and non-pay costs.
59. External funding has enabled proposals for the establishment of the following new Professorships in 1998-99:
60. In the Faculty of Clinical Medicine both the Sheila Joan Smith Professorship of Immunology and the Professorship of Anaesthesia were re-established from 1 October 1999 for one further tenure.
61. A Professorship of Medical Materials was established for one tenure at no additional cost to general funds as a result of suppressing another office and compensating savings in the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy. Two Professorships, one of Primary Education and a second of Educational Leadership were established in the Department of Education at no additional cost to general funds as a result of the suppression of three other offices.
62. In the Department of Zoology a donation by the Rank Prize Funds provided the funding for a Rank Research Professorship of Opto-Electronics, for five years, in the first instance. In addition a donation to the Department of Earth Sciences provided the funding required for a Research Professorship in Ferroics for ten years, in the first instance.
1 December 1999
| ALEC N. BROERS, Vice-Chancellor | MALCOLM GRANT | N. J. MACKINTOSH |
| P. J. BAYLEY | BRIAN F. G. JOHNSON | ADRIAN POOLE |
| A. L. R. FINDLAY | JOHN A. LEAKE | KATE PRETTY |
| K. GLOVER | PETER LIPTON | M. SCHOFIELD |
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
Cambridge University Reporter Special, 16 December 1999
Copyright © 1999 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.