Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
1. The General Board submit this Annual Report to the Council. The following paragraphs summarize significant activities of the Board's main areas of responsibility, both internally and in response to the accountability requirements of external bodies. Particular highlights of the year include:
| • | the establishment of the Centre for Research in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences (CRASSH) from 1 January 2001 |
| • | five outstanding Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) subject reviews which have contributed to the maintenance of the University's pre-eminent national position for the quality of its teaching provision; and |
| • | the successful completion and timely submission of the University's return for the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise. |
2. Throughout the year the Board, through their Education Committee, have engaged in the national debate about the future role of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), repeatedly pressing for the 'light touch' to be realized. The University's responses to proposed changes to the national quality assurance arrangements and the QAA's role seek an outcome which reflects the need for public accountability, the meeting of national requirements, and the diversity of provision across the higher education sector, while keeping to a minimum the administrative burden, particularly for individual institutions. The consultative document 'Quality assurance in higher education', issued jointly by the HEFCE, Universities UK, and the QAA in July 2001, which puts an emphasis on institutional audit (rather than review at subject level) as the main vehicle for demonstrating quality assurance, has been generally welcomed by the sector. There remain, however, issues to be clarified in connection with the extent, if any, of any further subject review in Cambridge, and the acceptability of the institutional 'data set' which the proposals envisage being available to auditors and to the public at large. The timing of a proposed institutional review of the University will be reconsidered once the future arrangements are settled.
3. The results of five subject reviews in 2000-01 were outstanding. In each case the quality of education in the subject concerned was assessed according to six aspects of provision, which were graded on a scale from 1 to 4: curriculum design, content, and organization; teaching, learning, and assessment; student progression and achievement; student support and guidance; learning resources; and quality management and enhancement. The results achieved were as follows:
Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic 23
Archaeology 23
Classics 24
Economics 24
Education 23
The final visits under this method of subject review (to the Faculties of Social and Political Sciences, Philosophy, and Divinity) will take place in the Michaelmas Term 2001.
4. The Board have allocated the funding provided by the HEFCE, following its approval of the University's Learning and Teaching Strategy, to various bodies with responsibility for undertaking activities associated with each of the targets of that strategy. The Board have begun to address appropriate means of developing the strategy beyond the three-year period of HEFCE funding, for example possible strategies for supporting the use of the new technologies in learning and teaching. The Education Section's web-site (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/education/) identifies particular Faculty and Departmental web sites which provide examples of good practice in teaching, learning, and assessment; this aspect of the Section's web site will be developed further as one means of disseminating such material widely.
In the area of examinations and assessment, the focus has been on three issues:
| • | a first Code of Practice on examination issues, developed in the context of the obligations of the Data Protection Act 1998, was issued. Revisions to the Code will be made in the light of feedback from Examiners, Faculty Boards, and others involved in the examination process; |
| • | the Board's longstanding policy that the proportion of an examination which may be assessed by means other than unseen papers should be restricted to c. 30-35%. The Board have agreed that this policy should not be inflexibly applied where a sound educational case is made by a Faculty Board, for example, through a wish to make greater use of dissertations as a means of assessment in Part II of Tripos examinations; and |
| • | consultation with Faculty Boards and other bodies on a range of general issues concerning classing policies and reporting on student achievement. This consultation is intended to give the Education Committee a preliminary indication of the future options in this area deserving particular and detailed consideration. |
5. As part of the programme of departmental reviews, reports were considered from the preliminary reviews of the Faculties of Classics and Divinity and of the Department of Geography. The reports of reviews undertaken of the Department of Chemical Engineering and the Development Studies Committee should shortly be available. The second part of the report of the Review Committee for the School of Clinical Medicine was received and its recommendations are being taken forward. A full review of the Judge Institute of Management Studies has taken place: the Board expect to consider the report of the Review Committee, together with the comments of the Institute, in the Michaelmas Term. The Review Committee established to consider a wide range of issues relating to the University's M.Phil. provision is well advanced in its work.
The Board also established an enquiry team to look into representations from a number of final year undergraduates reading for the Social and Political Sciences Tripos, concerning particular aspects of the Faculty's teaching and learning provision. The enquiry team, having conducted their work with the full cooperation of the Faculty, reported their findings to the Board in July 2001 and remedial action was taken. The Faculty's response to the findings will be considered further, monitored and acted upon during the early part of 2001-02.
6. New courses and examination for the M.Phil. Degree (one-year course) were approved, as follows: Computer Speech, Text, and Internet Technology (and a part-time version, leading to the M.St. Degree); Real Estate Finance; Environmental Policy; Planning, Growth, and Regeneration; Geographical Research; and International Studies. A number of current M.Phil. courses were amended to accommodate prospective requirements for future 'recognition' by the ESRC, and the Board commended the development of a postgraduate research methods course in the Social Sciences, a collaborative venture involving a number of institutions in the social sciences, initiated in response to the ESRC's requirements. The Board also approved the introduction of an M.St. course and examination in Community Enterprise. Numerous changes in the regulations for Tripos examinations were approved, of which the most significant were changes to the Music Tripos and amendments to the regulations for the Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences Triposes to enable students to undertake a period of study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology while ensuring the students remain in standing for Tripos requirements. The Board, through their Education Committee, are working with CMI in considering the full potential of the educational opportunities at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels arising from the establishment of CMI and the issues which arise from those opportunities. Although CMI is not formally within their responsibilities, the Board will maintain a close interest, in the context of their overall responsibility for the University's academic programme, in the success of CMI in delivering its objectives across all the programme areas: integrated research, undergraduate exchanges, professional practice, and the national competitiveness network.
7. The wide-ranging research project, overseen by the Joint Committee on Academic Performance, on 'Predictors of Academic Performance' has made good progress. The project's final report, expected in the Lent Term 2002, will be a substantial document containing quantitative data and a detailed picture of academic performance in the University and students' perceptions of their learning experience in Cambridge. The Board will ensure that issues raised are addressed appropriately by the relevant bodies across the University.
8. In their Report for 1999-2000, the Board drew attention to their review of the effectiveness of the existing Committee structure, including proposals for the formation of a Resource Management Committee responsible for an integrated approach to the resourcing of all institutions, under the supervision of the Council and the General Board. This new Committee replaced the Council's Allocations Committee and the Board's Needs Committee from 1 January 2001. The Committee are concerned with :
| • | the consideration, and authorization under delegated authority from the Council and the General Board, of business concerned with the University's resource management activities; |
| • | advising the Planning and Resources Committee on policy matters associated with resource management, including major new building projects and priorities for budget setting; |
| • | determining the projects to be funded under the Building Upgradings Procedure; |
| • | advising the General Board and Council on the University's response to an increasing number of external funding initiatives; |
| • | developing and taking forward a new resource allocation model and proposals for devolved budgeting. |
The work of the Committee and the pace at which these developments can be taken forward is dependent on the provision of regular financial information and analysis from the Cambridge University Financial System (CUFS). The Board, like the Council, recognize the very serious difficulties that have been faced by all institutions during the implementation of CUFS. They will continue to work closely with the Councils of the Schools to ensure that adequate arrangements are in place to support the effective financial administration of Faculties and Departments.
9. Together with the Council, the Board have given the highest priority to the development of a Resource Allocation Model to inform the allocation of resources to academic, academic-related, and service institutions within the University. A Working Group, under the Chairmanship of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for Research, Professor D. H. Mellor, and comprising the Chairmen of three of the Councils of the Schools and senior officers, was convened to develop a revised proposal capable of gaining broad acceptance in the University, drawing on the comments from the consultation which was conducted on a previous proposal during the Lent Term 2000. The Board considered an initial report of this Working Group in July 2001. It is expected that a consultation with the Councils of the Schools and other authorities will be launched later in the Michaelmas Term 2001.
10. In December 2001, the University was required, under newly introduced requirements for transparency in the application of public funds, to report to the HEFCE the breakdown of its costs during the 1999/2000 Financial Year, between five categories: publicly funded teaching, non-publicly funded teaching, publicly funded research, non-publicly funded research, and 'other'. The return made by the University, following analysis of a 'time allocation survey' of academic staff, clearly indicated that teaching and research were both under-funded, and were being subsidized from the University's general income. The under-funding of research, both publicly and non-publicly funded, is especially severe. The Board will undertake a second Time Allocation Survey in 2001-02, during which staff will be asked to complete two surveys, covering between them four notional average weeks, and for which a response rate of 70% is required across the University. It is expected, however, that provided that a satisfactory response rate is achieved, the results of this survey would be used for the next five years. Additionally, the achievement of satisfactory response rates should provide evidence for the calculation of indirect cost rates, for use by the Research Services Division in securing realistic overhead rates in negotiations with sponsors.
11. The assessment date for the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) was 31 March 2001, with 30 April being the final date for the submission to the HEFCE of the University's return. In the event, the paper and electronic versions of the University's 51 submissions to 46 Units of Assessment were despatched one week early and passed the HEFCE's validation procedures. Although as much work as possible was undertaken centrally by the Board's RAE team, a considerable burden fell on those staff in Faculties and Departments who were designated as RAE contacts. The Board are grateful to the staff concerned for their support. During the audit period (1 May to 30 September 2001), in common with a number of other universities, Cambridge was required to submit a very high proportion of outputs to certain RAE panels, with 1,335 outputs being submitted overall. The results of the Exercise will be available in late December 2001, but it is of concern that there is now some doubt as to whether these will be reflected in the HEFCE block grant for 2002-03, notwithstanding earlier assurances by the HEFCE following its fundamental review of research policy and funding about funding levels of 5 and 5* rated subjects.
12. The establishment, from 1 January 2001, of the Centre for Research in the Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences was a major achievement for the University. As well as providing the infrastructure and support for the development of research in the relevant institutions, the Centre is expected to catalyse cross-disciplinary research programmes, supported by the external funding bodies.
13. With effect from 1 August 2001 the School of Education became responsible for the education, teaching, and research activities of Homerton College, as proposed in the Joint Report of the Council and the Board on Teaching and Research in Education, and on Homerton College (Reporter, 2000-01, p. 216).
14. External funding has enabled proposals for the establishment of the following new Professorships in 2000-01:
the Robert Monks Professorship of Corporate Governance, established from 1| • | three Professorships of Cancer Research, established for one tenure from 1 April 2001, two in the Department of Oncology, and one in the Department of Surgery, funded by an anonymous benefactor for five years and, thereafter, for the remainder of the tenure of those appointed, from funds identified by the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine; |
| • | the Professorship of Cardiothoracic Surgery, established from 1 April 2001 in the Department of Surgery, funded by the Papworth NHS Trust for one tenure; |
| • | the Nycomed Professorship of Clinical Magnetic Resonance Imaging, established for one tenure from 1 April 2001 in the Department of Radiology, supported by a generous benefaction from Nycomed plc; |
| • | March 2001 in the Judge Institute of Management Studies, supported by a generous benefaction from Mr Dennis Kozlowski and the Tyco Corporation; |
| • | the van Eck Professorship of Engineering, established from 1 October 2001 in the Department of Engineering, supported by a generous bequest from the estate of Mr Fred van Eck; |
| • | the Hitachi Professorship of Electron Device Physics, established from 1 October 2002 in the Department of Physics, supported by a generous donation from Hitachi Ltd; |
The Professorship of Real Estate Finance was re-established permanently and titled the Grosvenor Professorship of Real Estate Finance, supported by a generous benefaction from the Westminster Foundation. The Prince Philip Professorship of Technology was established from 1 October 2001 in the School of Technology and funded by the suppression of the Professorship of Engineering established by Grace 4 of 1 December 1965. The Professorship of Oncological Pathology, was established from 1 January 2001 in the Department of Pathology at no additional cost to central funds as a result of the suppression of another office.
15. In July 2000 the Government announced the Science Research Investment Fund (SRIF), which will provide £1,000m (£775m from the Government and £225m from the Wellcome Trust) for improving the scientific infrastructure in the United Kingdom, between 2002 and 2004. £600m of Government money was allocated formulaically to English Higher Education Institutions, of which the University's share was £41.9m (including Homerton College's allocation of £386,000). The University was required to submit a programme for the expenditure of this allocation, including a contribution of 25% of the overall cost of a project, by May 2001. The University's approved programme consisted of a total of sixteen projects, the total value of which is £88.7m.
The Wellcome Trust's fund has been allocated in part in support of top-rated, but unfunded bids to the Joint Infrastructure Fund, which fell within the Trust's remit. The University has been allocated £2m each towards the costs of a Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies in the Department of Biological Anthropology and a Cambridge Unit for Bioscience Engineering in the Department of Chemical Engineering. The last year of funding from the Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) is 2001/2002. JIF covered all elements of research infrastructure for science and engineering encompassed by the remits of the Wellcome Trust and the Research Councils. Over the lifetime of the fund, the University received a total of approximately £90m for buildings and £15m for equipment (from total bids of £226.1m). The University was awarded approximately a further £2m under the HEFCE's Joint Research Equipment Initiative.
16. A total of £2.2m was committed from the Minor Works Fund by the Resource Management Committee in support of some eleven major schemes in General Board and Council institutions identified by the Minor Works Review Group in the 2000-01 Building Upgrade Procedure. In addition, requests for minor works continue to arise for numerous reasons, including health and safety, the arrival of new staff (especially Professors), in connection with QAA Subject Review visits, facilitation of successful JIF and SRIF bids, and opportunities to make more effective use of existing accommodation. As in previous years, the Board have required contributions towards the cost of schemes from discretionary funds in Faculties and Departments. The Building Upgrading Procedure, which considers and ranks applications for minor works from institutions, was implemented for the first time last year and continued to be used this year. Among the larger schemes approved by the Resource Management Committee for support from the Minor Works Fund were the refurbishment of 'Skylab' and the First Floor Wellcome Wing of the Department of Biochemistry, the refurbishment of the changing rooms and gym for the Department of Physical Education, and refurbishment of the Upper Dixon Teaching Laboratory for the Department of Chemical Engineering.
17. As part of the arrangements for the formation of a Research Services Division within the University Offices (Reporter, 1999-2000, p. 238), the Board set up a Research Policy Committee to advise them on issues relating to research policy, including matters concerning industrial liaison, consultancy, and intellectual property rights. The Committee, with the support of the staff of the Division, are also expected to improve communication between the University and funding bodies and stimulate a proactive approach so that the University is well placed to respond to future funding opportunities.
The Committee have advised the Board on a number of key issues in order to clarify and strengthen the policy within which research is conducted:
| • | Intellectual property rights (IPR): A revised policy, establishing that the IPR on externally funded research is owned by the University, was set out in a Report of the General Board (Reporter, 2000-01, p.429) and approved by the Regent House. The Committee are undertaking a more fundamental review of the University's IPR policy with a view to further consultation with Faculties and Departments in 2001-02. |
| • | Overheads: The recovery of an improved level of overheads on externally funded research grants and contracts is vitally important, especially at a time when the size of the University's estate, and the related running costs, are growing at a rapid rate. In the Lent Term the Board agreed to replace the policy on overheads approved by the General Board in 1997 with a new policy with a single minimum target rate of 70% of salary costs. The Board are increasingly concerned by the tendency of some of the funding bodies to regard overhead payments as additional money, available for new activities, rather than as a contribution toward costs incurred centrally and in Faculties and Departments in supporting the research. Appropriate representations are being made at national level. In due course, the outcome of the transparency review and the development of a resource allocation methodology for the University will have a bearing on future policy on overhead levels. At that stage, we (and other universities) will have to choose whether to continue to charge companies and others a contribution towards overhead costs (and expect to share in the benefits of that research, as at present) or whether to seek to recover the full costs, which will be much more than 70% of salaries, in return for passing ownership of the commercial benefits to sponsors. |
| • | Conflicts of interest: Research is an area where conflicts of interest (or conflicts of commitment) may arise for those employed by the University. On the advice of the Committee, the central bodies have approved the introduction of arrangements requiring members of academic and academic-related staff to make an annual return to the central offices, listing the nature of involvements with external bodies, contractual or otherwise, which might potentially raise an issue of conflict of interest. |
| • | Copyright: The Committee also gave detailed consideration to the implementation of the Report of the Joint Working Party on Copyright. An updated version of the Report has been published for the information of the University (Reporter, 2001-02, p.80). |
The Committee also considered the University's arrangements for managing and developing its research programme, taking account of:
| • | the funding priorities identified by the Research Councils; |
| • | the growth in cross-Council funding programmes, e.g., in e-science, genomics, and basic technology; and |
| • | the need for the central offices to be better informed about departmental programmes and emerging themes in order that the growth of the University's research activities can be effectively supported and promoted. |
The Committee recognized the merits of a more coherent and open research strategy, which would not be prescriptive, but would indicate broad strategic themes for development that could be articulated to the funding bodies. The preparation of such a strategy has been initiated by Professor Mellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor with responsibility for Research, working with the Councils of the Schools. The Committee welcomed the creation of the Corporate Liaison Office (CLO), from which it will in future receive a quarterly report. This will cover, inter alia, the CLO's work in developing strategies for engagement with particular companies, including the development, with interested groups of academics from across the University, of interdisciplinary 'Thematic Research Strategies', chosen for their relevance to the achievement of both academic and industrial objectives.
18. A major development was the announcement by the HEFCE of additional funding conditional on the submission of a Human Resource (HR) Strategy addressing key areas identified by the Funding Council (including, inter alia, recruitment and retention). The University was successful in securing additional funding of more than £2m in 2001-02 through the presentation of an 'emerging' HR strategy. The time scale for the submission of strategies did not allow for full consultation on its content and, therefore, the Council and the General Board approved the submission of the bid in this category, rather than as a 'full' strategy. A consultation exercise will be undertaken in the Michaelmas Term 2001 to provide the basis for a 'full' strategy for approval by the University and submission for audit by the HEFCE in order to secure further, additional funding in 2002-03 (more than £3m) and 2003-04 (more than £4.5m).
19. In the light of the experience in the inaugural round of promotions to University Senior Lectureships from 1 October 2000, some revisions were made to the scheme for the 1 October 2001 exercise. Consultation will be undertaken in the Michaelmas Term on revisions to the arrangements for promotions to personal Professorships and Readerships, a proposal to bring into a single exercise the promotion procedures for University Senior Lecturers, Readers, and Professors, and the criteria used in the existing schemes.
20. Following consultation with Faculties, Departments, and Colleges, Joint Reports on the relaxation of restrictions on University officers undertaking College duties (extended to include academic-related officers) and the abolition of the policy of making deductions from stipend for work other than for College teaching or direction of studies were published (Reporter, 2000-01, pp. 1003 and 1010).
21. The Health and Safety Executive Committee was established in January 2001 to reflect the present need for informed, decisive, and responsive senior commitment to safety. The existing structure of safety sub-committees continue in existence as originally constituted, and report to the Consultative Committee for Safety. A priority for the Board is the development of a comprehensive safety training programme, targeted at particular groups within the University, and building on the well-established safety education programme. The feedback from the first Head of Department briefings which occurred in July, entitled 'Reputations and Reprisals' was positive and provided an encouraging start to this series of specially designed executive sessions. The 'Strategy for Safety Management' has been approved by the Health and Safety Executive Committee. This is a prioritized action plan, which, working at all levels of the University, describes, inter alia, the need to define senior staff commitment, produce coherent University safety policy, develop safety relevant sectors of job descriptions, and endorse influential and effective communication networks and educational programmes. Progress against targets set in the plan will be reported to the Health and Safety Executive Committee. However, the Board remain concerned about the occurrence of incidents and actions in Faculties and Departments, sometimes giving rise to Improvement Notices, and attention from the enforcement authorities, which divert the attention of the University's Director of Health and Safety from the delivery of safety advice and the development of strategy to 'crisis management' to mitigate the effects of such attention.
22. The Committee on Libraries have continued their programme of visits to Faculty and Departmental libraries in the University, and have also addressed a number of general policy issues. The Committee approved the selection of the Endeavor Voyager integrated library management system for all the libraries in the University, to be installed during the spring and summer of 2002.
Most libraries have produced statements of their collection development policies and the Committee will be addressing a number of generic issues, which were raised. Other issues which have been considered included the following:
| • | the improvement of professional development for librarians; |
| • | arrangements for reciprocal borrowing prac-tices between libraries, with libraries being encouraged to review their arrangements to ensure that the needs of both their primary and secondary groups of users are being met; and |
| • | the resourcing of libraries. |
The statistics which the Committee collect annually from Faculty and Departmental libraries now conform with guidelines issued by the Society of College, National, and University Libraries (SCONUL), and the new statistical return will provide a fuller and more accurate picture of the Cambridge library system as a whole.
23. The Board are conscious that these, and the other achievements referred to above, represent the culmination of the efforts of many staff, building on the breadth and depth of the quality of Faculties and Departments. Accordingly, they wish to record their thanks to all staff for their contributions to maintaining the outstanding position of the University.
| 31 October 2001 | ALEC N. BROERS, Vice-Chancellor | KEITH GLOVER | PETER LIPTON |
|
TONY BADGER |
MALCOLM GRANT | A.C. MINSON | |
|
P. J. BAYLEY |
J. C. GRAY | KATE PRETTY | |
|
N. BULLOCK |
BRIAN F. G. JOHNSON | M. SCHOFIELD | |
|
H. A. CHASE |
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
Cambridge University Reporter, 16 November 2001
Copyright © 2001 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.