Previous page
Table of Contents
|
Previous page
|
Table of Contents
|
Next page
|
The University's mission statement and core values are set out in Appendix B. An understanding of the University and its educational provision requires an appreciation of five key characteristics which shape that provision and the University's approach to quality assurance:
| • | the collegiate nature of the University; |
| • | staff and students of the highest calibre; |
| • | a strong research intensive culture, which influences the range and nature of the courses offered; |
| • | a strong reliance on local responsibility, within each Faculty, Department and College, for the delivery, development and monitoring of their contributions to the overall provision; |
the University as a community of scholars, with participatory, rather than managerial, governance arrangements.
The following summarises each characteristic and provides an evaluation of its effectiveness.
As a collegiate university, Cambridge is committed to:
| • | the relationship between the University and the Colleges being fundamental to the nature of Cambridge; |
| • | the interdisciplinary nature of the Colleges as a major stimulus to teaching, learning and research; and |
| • | the quality of experience for students and staff being enhanced through College membership. |
It is fundamental to its long-term strategy that Cambridge remains a collegiate university.
College membership - a requirement for all undergraduate and postgraduate students - sets the parameters of the University's provision and shapes each student's overall educational experience. Full-time residence in Cambridge is central to the majority of the University's courses. Undergraduate teaching relies on complementary academic expertise between the University and the Colleges. Each student, on admission, becomes a member of a relatively small academic community, within which every undergraduate receives close individual academic direction, and all students - undergraduate and postgraduate - have access to a network of tutorial and welfare support systems, and to learning resources additional and complementary to the University's. Participation in the academic and extra-curricular aspects of college life offers all students significant opportunities for personal development.
The formal responsibilities of the University and the Colleges respectively, as they bear on students' education, are broadly as follows.
The University is responsible for:
| • | the provision of lectures and other forms of larger group instruction (classes, practicals, fieldwork, seminars etc) for undergraduates; |
| • | the admission of, and all forms of teaching for, postgraduates; |
| • | the academic infrastructure (libraries, laboratories, lecture theatres, research facilities); |
| • | examinations; |
| • | the award of degrees and other qualifications; and |
| • | various student learning and support services (e.g. the Careers, Computing and Counselling Services, and the Disability Resource Centre). |
The Colleges are responsible for:
| • | the provision of a stimulating and broadening multi-disciplinary educational environment; |
| • | the admission of undergraduates; |
| • | the individual guidance of each undergraduate's studies; |
| • | undergraduate teaching on an individual or small-group basis through supervisions; |
| • | general oversight of the academic progress of their postgraduate members; |
| • | libraries and learning and IT resources to complement the University's facilities; |
| • | each student's general welfare; and |
| • | representing their students in their dealings with University and external authorities. |
Notwithstanding this formal division of responsibilities, the relationship between the University and the Colleges is a partnership between institutions all of which are committed to education, research and scholarship. That partnership is cemented through a substantial overlap in teaching and research personnel. The majority of the University's Teaching Officers (UTOs) are also College Fellows, thereby reinforcing the extent to which small group teaching is informed by research activity; and most College Teaching Officers (CTOs) also contribute to the academic activities in the relevant Faculty.
The collegiate nature of the University is described in detail and evaluated in Section 1.3.
The calibre of its students and staff is the University's greatest asset. The interaction between the two groups and the demands each makes of the other are critical to the maintenance of standards and the assurance of high quality provision.
All undergraduate courses and the majority of postgraduate courses are full-time. Formal teaching takes place within teaching terms which, when compared to the rest of the sector, are relatively short and decidedly intense, with a requirement to produce unusually large quantities of written work at a demanding pace.
Demand for undergraduate admission is extremely competitive. In the 2001-02 undergraduate admissions cycle, some 27% of 12,817 applicants were accepted. 91% of those accepted achieved at least three A grades at GCSE 'A' Level (compared with 11% across the sector as a whole). Offers of admission to those taking 'A' Levels are typically AAA or AAB. Offers are made after rigorous college selection procedures, almost invariably involving interviews with Admissions Tutors and Directors of Studies and often supplemented by other forms of assessment. The effectiveness of the admissions process and the general calibre of the University's undergraduates can be demonstrated by the significant numbers achieving First or Upper Second Class Honours in Tripos examinations; by the University's unusually high retention rates - 99% of undergraduates complete their degree; and by demand for our graduates - the First Destination survey of the first-degree graduates in 2000-01 (whose destinations were known at January 2002) shows that 59% went straight into employment or directly related training, 28% into further study, and only 4% were known to be still seeking employment or further study. Students are regularly successful in national competitions. In 2001, for example, four of the thirteen national Science Engineering and Technology (SET) Student of the Year awards were won by our students.
It is acknowledged that short teaching terms, demanding curricula and teaching methods, and perceptions of their peers' abilities, can impose particular pressures on individual students and reinforce the importance of extensive tutorial and welfare support systems. Equally, there can be tensions between performance expectations (particularly in relation to examination results) and allowing students sufficient time and scope for reflective independent study, in and out of term. The use of vacations for such study has been eroded by the inadequacies of current student financial support arrangements.
Entry to postgraduate courses is similarly competitive. In 2002, some 8,400 applications were received for courses requiring registration as a Graduate Student: approximately 45% were accepted and some 22% (1,894) met all conditions for admission. All applicants recommended for graduate admission are considered centrally (by the Board of Graduate Studies) after consideration at Faculty and Departmental level through the Degree Committees, with particular attention paid to previous academic qualifications, potential for graduate work and, where relevant, proficiency in the English Language (for which the University sets a formally assessed standard higher than that applied by most universities). The quality of those accepted is further assured by a 'gathered field' admissions procedure employed for many of the subjects offered at Masters level. Research students are admitted only when the Board of Graduate Studies are assured that the necessary research facilities and an appropriate Supervisor are available. Prospective doctoral candidates are increasingly expected, particularly in the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, to complete (to a high standard) a Masters course before Ph.D. registration. Graduate student completion rates are high: for example, 91% of those admitted to an M.Phil. programme in 2001 successfully completed the examination in 2002.
The admission of graduate students poses a number of challenges. The University is in competition with other leading international graduate schools. It needs constantly to reflect on the maintenance of both a rigorous admissions system and its market share of the very best candidates. Cambridge attracts considerable numbers of overseas applicants, the majority of whom cannot be interviewed, from a range of different educational systems: evaluation of standards and aptitude for coping with the University's expectations for graduate study cannot, accordingly, be risk-free. There are factors, such as new funding initiatives, that affect growth of graduate student numbers and these can test the Colleges' collective capacity to accommodate intakes which are greater than they anticipated. The level of independent study expected of graduate students can challenge some students, particularly overseas students accepted onto M.Phil. courses.
The quality of the University's academic staff can be measured by various indicators, including: the University's performance in Research Assessment Exercises; its performance in Subject Review (during which reviewers were almost invariably very favourably impressed by their teaching observations); and the numbers of staff achieving national and international distinction (for example, Fellowship of either the Royal Society or the British Academy).
A number of statutory provisions and personnel procedures help to maintain that quality. All holders of established Professorships, and all Readers, Senior Lecturers, Lecturers and Assistant Lecturers have a statutory responsibility to 'provide instruction'. The amount of each Officer's teaching is determined by the relevant Faculty Board within limits set by the General Board. The residential requirements for UTOs are designed to ensure their availability during Full Term (during which they are contractually obliged to restrict their teaching activities to the University and the Colleges). Care is taken to avoid overloading UTOs by formal limits on the amount of college teaching they may undertake. Faculties and Departments make increasing use of 'stint' formulae to monitor the teaching balance between staff and to maintain a reasonable distribution of examining, administrative and other duties. Relatively generous sabbatical leave arrangements (one term in seven) both foster research activity and help to refresh teaching.
Appointment processes for academic posts are rigorous. The majority of appointments to established Chairs are made by Boards of Electors, invariably including external (often international) members. Appointments to other established University Officerships are dealt with by Appointments Committees, chaired by a Vice-Chancellor's deputy and including members, appointed by the General Board, from institutions other than that in which the post falls. Selection procedures for posts involving teaching duties increasingly involve a presentation or mock lecture before members of the Faculty or Department. Appointments are generally made for a probationary period of three years (which may be longer if the appointee has no university experience). General Board permission to waive the probationary period is granted only in exceptional circumstances. Reappointment to posts with teaching duties requires evidence of a strong teaching performance.
All Faculties and Departments have staff appraisal schemes which require General Board approval. Probationary staff are appraised annually; others are appraised biennially. Whilst arrangements vary between institutions, consideration is invariably given to the appraisee's teaching activities, including student numbers and contact hours; the level of courses to which the appraisee contributes and his/her responsibilities within those courses; teaching innovations; and examining duties.
Since the last audit, the University has given very extensive consideration to personal promotions procedures as the principal means of recognising individual performance in research, scholarship and teaching. The most significant development, in the context of this audit's remit, has been the introduction, with effect from 2000-01, of Senior Lectureships, in response to a need, acknowledged across the University, for a clearer recognition of achievement in teaching and other duties. Successful applicants must demonstrate sustained excellence in teaching, (normally over at least a three year period) in terms of delivery, course development and innovation, and (where applicable) supervising and/or directing studies in one or more colleges. Applicants are expected to take student feedback into account in their applications; and the head of the institution (and, where college teaching is to be taken into account, the relevant Senior Tutor) is expected to provide an independent assessment of the individual's teaching performance.
Whilst research and scholarship remain the predominant criteria for promotion to Readerships or personal Professorships, satisfactory evidence of an effective contribution to teaching is now an integral part of the promotions procedure for those offices. Hitherto, the promotions exercise for Senior Lectureships has been separate from that for Readerships and Professorships. The University is presently considering the introduction of a single procedure for all personal promotions. This is intended, inter alia, to avoid any perceptions that Senior Lectureships are granted to candidates unlikely to secure promotion to one of the other posts. It is anticipated that it will also facilitate, so far as due recognition of teaching is concerned, comparisons of contributions across the University.
Excellence in teaching is also recognised by Pilkington Teaching Prizes, awarded annually to ten members of staff on the nomination of the Councils of the Schools.
Academic staff are appointed from an increasingly international pool. Whilst the great majority of new UTOs have prior teaching experience, it may have been gained from a different educational system, with consequent implications for staff development priorities. Demands on staff time are acute in Cambridge, given expectations of a high level of research activity, challengingly able students and, for many UTOs, the combination of University and College teaching activities.
The University's mission is the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international level of excellence. A close relationship between teaching and research is fundamental to that purpose. The vast majority of the University's Faculties and Departments are involved with both teaching, at under- and post-graduate levels, and research. (The remainder are research units, with any teaching activities restricted to Masters and doctoral provision.) The collective categorisation of Professors, Readers and Lecturers as 'University Teaching Officers' is intended to signify the importance attached to their teaching duties. The research activity of these Teaching Officers can be calibrated by the University's results in respective RAEs. In the 2001 exercise, submissions were made in 51 units of assessment of which 30 were rated 5* and 18 rated 5. (In no unit was a rating of less than 4 awarded.) Many of those submissions included research active CTOs. Students benefit from teaching informed by the research interests of those at the leading edge of their disciplines who, in turn, have their teaching scrutinised by extremely able students.
The University's strength in research influences the range of subjects taught. Whilst that range is extensive, covering most traditional academic subject areas from Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic to Zoology, and the portfolio of programmes continues to develop (particularly at postgraduate level), the University is committed to providing courses only in those subjects underpinned by a sufficient critical mass of research active academic staff. The span of the University's research activities has enabled it to continue provision for key subjects of national and international significance, but not otherwise widely available across the sector, for example in the lesser taught modern European languages.
An emphasis on provision being shaped locally by teaching staff who are research active produces considerable benefits in terms of a diverse range of rigorous courses constantly refreshed by developments in the discipline and tailored to reflect the teaching staff's research interests. The positive relationship between research and teaching is particularly marked in taught postgraduate programmes; in the wide range of doctoral subjects for which research facilities and supervisory expertise are available; and in the later years of the Triposes, which are characterised by diverse and constantly evolving special and optional subjects.
This is not to deny the potential conflict, in the allocation of staff time, between the pursuit of research and the delivery of teaching. Whilst there is no general correlation between performance in each area (though many staff whose teaching receives the most positive student feedback and who carry heavy teaching loads are also eminent researchers), maintaining an appropriate balance can be difficult, particularly when a high and, in terms of HEFCE and other funding, more tangible premium is put on research. Particular attention needs constantly to be paid to forward planning of more specialised courses, given the University's sabbatical leave arrangements and the difficulties involved in finding suitable replacements for staff at the leading edge of their disciplines.
Primary responsibility for course provision rests with the individual Faculties and Departments, each of which has developed its own culture and approach to teaching within its discipline. Decisions on curriculum, teaching methods and forms of assessment essentially rest with those directly responsible for the course. Initiatives are typically generated locally, rather than being centrally imposed. It is fundamental to the University's approach to quality assurance that (a) local determination of provision carries with it significant delegated responsibility for assuring quality, and (b) high quality staff and students, reflecting continuously on teaching and learning arrangements, are the University's most important assets in maintaining and enhancing quality. Thus, for example, each body responsible for a Tripos is best placed to consider how the Tripos should be divided; and decisions on the nature of postgraduate provision (for example, whether taught postgraduate programmes should be offered and what purposes those programmes should serve) predominantly reflect local circumstances.
The importance of local responsibility is reflected in the University's arrangements for central oversight of academic provision and in the roles of the relevant central bodies. Whilst the General Board have institutional responsibility for the supervision of the University's academic activities, exercised (so far as educational matters are concerned) primarily through their Education Committee and the Board of Graduate Studies (see sections 1.4.3 - 1.4.5 below), the Board's remit is not to prescribe precisely how those activities are conducted within each Faculty and Department. Rather, their task is to set an overall academic framework within which those activities, under the supervision of Faculty Boards (and, in the case of graduate student matters, their Degree Committees), take place. The Education Committee's and the Board of Graduate Studies's primary roles are to assure themselves that existing and proposed activity is consistent with that framework and with the University's strategic aims. Whilst, as described in Section 2, there are certain central requirements with which Faculties and Departments must comply, the central committees endeavour to interact with those directly responsible for course delivery and assessment in a spirit of consultation, co-operation and, where necessary, advice.
The balance between local and central responsibilities has particular benefits in that a respect for the integrity of local arrangements - a belief that those teaching and examining the students are best placed to determine what and how they are taught and assessed - generates a consensual approach to developments in provision. The examples offered in section 2.11.2 below indicate the extent to which individual institutions are quite capable of enhancing their own provision without any central steer, thereby allowing a stronger sense of local 'ownership'. It has, however, been accepted that this approach is not problem-free. It has hitherto limited the extent to which the central bodies are kept sufficiently and regularly apprised of local activity so that both good practice and any potential difficulties can be promptly identified. It is, for example, only relatively recently that central systematic efforts have begun to be made to highlight (via http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/education /goodprac.html) notable examples of on-line advice provided by individual institutions to their staff and students. Whilst some of the General Board's published guidelines (for example on consultation with students) are longstanding, effective dissemination of good practice of potential interest to other Faculties and Departments remains a challenge to the University: the procedure described in section 2.7 is attempting to meet that challenge. Further difficulties, connected with the independence accorded to each institution, can arise in attempting to avoid duplication of provision and to foster collaboration, for example in emerging subjects which cross Faculty and Departmental boundaries. The recent General Board review of M.Phil. provision serves to highlight those challenges in the areas of taught Masters programmes (see Appendix H). Local initiatives can on occasion rely heavily on a particular individual rather than be fully embedded within the institution, with possible consequences for their continuation in the event of that individual's departure. Effective communication across a University as diverse and complex as Cambridge can be difficult: for example promoting awareness of, and ensuring an appropriate local response to, major new statutory requirements, such as health and safety, equal opportunities and disability legislation, is no easy matter.
The philosophy on which the University was founded is realised at every level. Each College encompasses, in democratic governance structures and in both its senior and junior memberships, wide ranges of disciplines and of categories of staff and students. Each Faculty has a membership far broader than the UTOs on its establishment, including CTOs, members of other Faculties and others with an interest in the Faculty's activities. The central committees' memberships typically include academic staff of various categories and from diverse subject areas. Students are now represented on the Council and General Board and a number of key central committees. The democratic framework within which the University operates is epitomised by the University's governing body, the Regent House, comprising all University Officers and College Fellows.
These participatory arrangements encourage a sense of shared ownership of the University's educational provision. They promote an awareness of the need to ensure that wide consultation takes place before major new developments are brought forward and that the rationale for any proposal is sufficiently robust to withstand scrutiny by the entire University community. At the same time, the maintenance of a system of academic self-government which will continue to serve the University well for the future is a challenge with which Cambridge is currently engaged, through debate over aspects of its future governance arrangements. The increasingly wide variety of scholars and researchers in the University, with larger numbers holding unestablished posts, has altered both the size and the nature of the University community. The matrix of boards, syndicates and committees through which academic self governance is exercised, whilst helping to ensure careful consideration of any proposal, can, on occasion, extend the decision-making process. In some respects, the deliberative pace at which significant change is contemplated has advantages: equally, the University must be capable of timely responses to changing external circumstances.
* * * *
In recent decades the University has expanded significantly in size and complexity, with the range of its scholarly activities becoming more diverse. Details of the subjects available, in Triposes, to undergraduates and, through taught courses, to postgraduates are set out in Appendix C. (Ph.D. provision is offered by all Faculties and Departments.)
In determining and developing its course provision, the University is committed to maintaining an extensive range of subjects in all major academic subject groups, including those subjects in which provision elsewhere in the sector may be limited.
Quality, breadth and depth in the discipline, in terms of staffing and learning resources, also determine provision. Whilst, typically, the final Tripos years will include special and variable subjects reflecting individual staff research interests, the earlier years, providing the core material which students must grasp before following their particular interests, require a substantial cadre of lecturers and supervisors. The desirability of offering students a broad foundation within their chosen discipline, the consequent need for a critical mass of teachers, within the University and the Colleges, and the importance attached to small group (and labour-intensive) teaching go some way towards explaining why the introduction of an entirely new Tripos, or even of a Part of a Tripos, is relatively rare.
This is not to suggest that Tripos curricula remain static or that undergraduate learning opportunities are undesirably constrained. The ability to transfer to a different Tripos is built into the structure of the B.A. Degree. The creation of interdisciplinary papers has been a notable feature in many Triposes, reflecting the erosion of a number of traditional subject boundaries (for example in the biologies). It has also become increasingly possible for students to 'borrow' papers from other Triposes. As necessary, entire Triposes or Parts of them are subject to major review, for example the Natural Sciences, Music, and Social and Political Sciences Triposes. There is, nevertheless, a certain external perception that the University's undergraduate subject framework is comparatively traditional, particularly when set against increased breadth in pre-university education. As patterns of that education continue to change, in terms of content, choice and modes of assessment, the University is aware that it must be in a position to respond appropriately.
Residence in Cambridge remains central to the majority of courses, reflecting a belief that immersion in collegiate life and ready access to the University's resources are critical characteristics of a Cambridge education. The University's approach to developments in part-time education and to enabling students to study elsewhere in partial fulfilment of the requirements of a Cambridge degree has, accordingly, been measured and relatively cautious when compared to the rest of the sector. Whilst part-time courses have no formal residence requirement, they invariably stipulate the need to attend for formal teaching as required for the particular qualification.
College resources help to shape provision. Although not every College covers the entire range of subjects offered by the University, Tripos subjects require sufficient collective College resources, in terms of the availability of Directors of Studies, supervisors and learning support.
Provision is also influenced by plans for future student numbers. Whilst postgraduate numbers are forecast to increase at c. 2% per annum, undergraduate numbers are anticipated to increase by no more than ?% p.a. This reflects both the extent to which the Colleges are able to absorb additional numbers and the constraints on significant scaling up of deliberately intensive provision.
Within these parameters, however, the University endeavours to be appropriately responsive to developing new courses in emerging academic fields and to new patterns of provision. This is reflected in its Learning and Teaching Strategy. The current version of that strategy, covering the period 2002-05 and approved for HEFCE Teaching Quality Enhancement funding, is included in Appendix B. Its long-term aims and the objectives to be realised in the immediate future are set out in its sections 5 and 6. In brief, its key themes cover:
| • | maintaining coherence between that Strategy and the University's Access and Participation Strategy, within the context of continuing reflection, through the Joint Committee on Academic Performance, on factors affecting students' academic performance; |
| • | continuing to encourage the acquisition of transferable skills through means such as Personal Development Planning, increased provision for language learning and the promotion of student exchange programmes; |
| • | a close alliance with Staff Development activities; and |
| • | taking advantage of the opportunities offered by innovations in information and communication technologies to support student learning. |
* * * *
The following paragraphs, supplemented by the relevant Appendices, are intended to indicate the University's size and the scale of operation.
The 2002 'Student Numbers' issue of Reporter is attached as Appendix D.
As at December 2002, the University's full-time student numbers totalled 17,307 of which 12,020 (69%) are undergraduates and 5,287 (31%) postgraduates. 49% of the undergraduate population are women and 8% from overseas (for fee purposes). Of the postgraduates, 44% are women and 37% from overseas. Further data, including undergraduate and postgraduate numbers by subject and the ftes attributable to each of the Councils of the Schools, are provided in Appendix D.
The University's principal 'primary' degrees (i.e. those degrees which do not require previous admission to a degree of the University and which are available in a range of subjects) are the B.A., the M.Sci, the M.Eng, the M.Phil., and the Ph.D. There are, in addition, a number of subject-specific degrees, and University Diplomas and Certificates are offered in various subjects. Further details are provided in Appendix E. In 2001-02 some 9,234 degrees were conferred, including 3,205 B.A. degrees, 556 M.Eng/M.Sci degrees, 909 Ph.D. degrees and 824 M.Phil. degrees.
The introduction of a new degree title is relatively rare in Cambridge and is only contemplated when a clear need is demonstrable, for example when provision was introduced for four year 'enhanced' undergraduate degrees in the sciences and engineering and for part-time masters programmes.
In order to qualify for the B.A. Degree, students are normally required to reside in Cambridge for 3 years (9 terms) and to have passed two Tripos examinations. The majority of students meet this second requirement by taking Part I and Part II of the same Tripos. The ability, however, to transfer from one Tripos to another is a particular feature of undergraduate provision. Classing applies to honours examinations, not to the B.A. degree itself. Of the 9,689 candidates who sat honours examinations in 2002, 72% obtained a first or an upper second class result. Further details are included in Appendix D.
The M.Phil. Degree, covering most - though not all - of the University's taught postgraduate provision, is presently available on a full-time basis only in approximately seventy subjects, is (with the exception of a single two-year course) of up to one-year's duration and requires 3 terms of residence. The Degree is presently awarded on a pass/fail basis and can be counted towards the formal requirements of the Ph.D. Degree.
The Ph.D. requires a minimum of three years full-time or five years of part-time study. A part-time route to a research degree is a very recent development: initial intakes and the number of Faculties and Departments involved are likely to be modest.
The University does not at present participate in formal collaborative provision, in the sense in which that term is defined by the QAA. Whilst extensive informal links (involving both staff and students) have existed for a considerable time between individual Faculties and Departments and their counterparts at other, mainly overseas, universities (and comparable arrangements have existed in many Colleges), the University, prior to its strategic alliance with M.I.T., had not sought to conclude institution-wide agreements for joint provision with other universities. Legislation is, however, being enacted to provide for M.Phil. courses jointly taught with other institutions.
It is, however, possible for undergraduates in certain Triposes to pursue a period of study or other activity abroad in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the B.A. Degree. Students pursuing the Modern and Medieval Languages or the Oriental Studies Tripos are generally required to undertake a period of study or appropriate employment abroad in their third year and a range of Faculties and Departments participate in Erasmus/Socrates exchanges. Following the establishment of the Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI), and as part of the broader links between the two institutions, some fifty or so students taking one of the Chemical Engineering, Engineering, Economics, Mathematical or (specified subjects in) the Natural Sciences Tripos are permitted, as part of a reciprocal student exchange programme, to spend a year at MIT on an approved course of study in partial fulfilment of their Tripos and degree requirements. (It is anticipated that similar provision will be made in other disciplines as appropriate.) The Faculty of Law has, since 1999, been involved with the University of Paris II in a Double Maîtrise programme whereby students from both institutions spend two years in each, leading to a Cambridge B.A. and a Maîtrise from Paris II.
Ph.D. students may, according to the facilities required for their research, be permitted 'leave to work away' for a given number of terms at another institution. In addition, there are a number of local non-University research centres (for example, the Laboratory for Molecular Biology and other MRC Centres) approved by the Board of Graduate Studies as institutions in which research students may pursue their work whilst being registered with the University. In such cases students are expected to maintain contact with a cognate University department.
The General Board's Education Committee, the Colleges and, so far as graduate courses are concerned, the Board of Graduate Studies are mindful of the need to exercise particular vigilance in setting and monitoring robust quality assurance arrangements in any provision for courses taught in collaboration with another university.
The University is not involved in any accreditation or franchise arrangements.
The University has a long tradition of offering extramural and continuing education courses, many leading to certificates and diplomas. Notwithstanding its prime concern, so far as degree programmes are concerned, with full-time, residential courses, alternative arrangements have been (and will continue to be) made where it is felt appropriate, for example in widening types of provision in postgraduate education and in courses aimed at continuing professional development. The M.St. Degree, introduced in 1995 through the (then) Board of Continuing Education, provides for two years part-time study in certain subjects and the M.Ed. and M.B.A. Degrees include part-time routes. The University has recently made provision for part-time study towards the M.Sc., M.Litt. and Ph.D. degrees. It is very aware of the need to offer students reading for a degree on a part-time basis opportunities to participate as fully as their circumstances permit in the academic and social life of their Faculty/ Department and of their College. It does not underestimate the challenges this poses. The Board of Graduate Studies has, for example, worked closely with the Colleges to establish an agreed minimum level of support for part-time research students. The University is conscious of the need to have secure quality assurance arrangements in place for part-time students. M.St. students, for example, are admitted only with the consent of the relevant Degree Committee and with the approval of the Board of Graduate Studies. That Board also determine the award of that Degree in the same way as applies to the M.Phil. Degree. It is appreciated that not every University institution nor every College will necessarily feel it appropriate to provide for part-time students.
The University presently employs some 7,900 staff in total, in the following categories:
| Academic | : established1 | - 1,487 |
| : unestablished2 | - 136 | |
| Academic-related | : established1 | - 508 |
| : unestablished2 | - 335 | |
| Contract research | - 2,184 | |
| Assistant staff | - 3,254 | |
| (1 - permanent posts; 2 - limited tenure posts) | ||
Academic staff in established posts include 351 Professors, 205 Readers, 168 Senior Lecturers, 475 University Lecturers and 288 other staff. These, together with the Colleges' teaching provision, provide the bulk of the teaching resource.
The University endeavours to maintain learning resources at a scale commensurate with its status, its research intensive nature and its range of educational provision. Foremost amongst its library resources is the University Library, a legal deposit library which includes a number of dependent libraries. In 2000-01 holdings totalled some 7.1 million books, periodical volumes, etc. The Library subscribes to c. 58,000 periodicals. In addition there are some 54 Faculty and Departmental libraries (with book stocks approaching 2 million and subscribing to a further 7,800 periodicals), in addition to libraries in various research institutions and in the Colleges.
The Computing Service provides, through the Granta Backbone Network, computing and related services across the University, including (in 2001) nearly 13,000 Public Workstation Facilities and some 180 courses attended by c. 4,700 members of the University. Its 145 internal Data Network Connections include the Colleges as well as University institutions. By 2003, it is envisaged that c. 10,500 student rooms will be networked.
The University's museums and collections function as major foci for both teaching and research, as well as providing a valuable local, national and international resource. In addition to the internationally important collections of works of art and antiquities in the Fitzwilliam Museum, there are separate museums in Archaeology and Anthropology, Classical Archaeology, History of Science, Earth Sciences and Zoology. The Scott Polar Research Institute has become an important repository for Arctic and Antarctic material. The University's Botanic Garden comprises some 40 acres and includes 10,000 species and nine national collections.
The University's Language Centre is responsible for an increasing range of courses offered through various means and available to all members of the University. The Centre also supports the teaching of languages in a number of Faculties and is particularly pro-active in the application of new technology in language learning. It offers, increasingly through multi-media resources, support for the study of some 140 languages.
The University's estate presently comprises some 340,000 m? usable area. It is presently growing at an unprecedented rate, mainly through external funding: the University has over £500 million of capital projects currently in development (http://www.cam.ac.uk/building/). New buildings for Faculties and Departments take account of their teaching and students' needs and aim to provide state of the art facilities: recent examples include the Judge Institute of Management Studies, and the Faculty buildings for Divinity, Law and the Computer Laboratory.
The University's Careers Service aims to provide comprehensive careers guidance and placement services to both current and former students. Advice is available through individual interviews (of which there were nearly 4,000 in 2001-02) with one of ten Careers Advisors, a recently upgraded Information Room, an extensive programme of events and use of on-line resources for students, staff and employers. Of particular note is the introduction of the CLICK system which provides registered users, in and outside Cambridge, with electronic access to job vacancies and an on-line diary and booking system (including information events, employment sector briefings and over 100 employer presentations). CLICK presently has some 6,700 registered users. The Service is working to meet the precepts of the Section of the QAA Code of Practice on Careers Education, Information and Guidance. Its 2001 Annual Report to the University is available at http://www.careers.cam.ac.uk/stuart/AnnReport2002.pdf.
Since the last audit, a Disability Resource Centre has been established to provide advice, information and support to students and staff in the University and the Colleges. Amongst its services are a Resources Room; advice on applying to the University and on accessing additional funding; dyslexia support; and a programme of Disability Equality Training for staff. The Centre's existence has raised both the numbers coming forward for support and the profile, across the University, of disability issues. The Centre was instrumental in the recent establishment of a Joint Committee on Disability. Through the inclusion within its membership of representatives of other key central committees (including the Joint Committee on Admissions, the General Board's Education Committee and the Personnel and Resource Management Committees), the Joint Committee will aim to promote an integrated approach to disability issues and the Disability Discrimination Act. Purpose-designed accommodation for wheelchair users is available at 'Bridget's'. Further details of the Centre can be found at http://www.cam.ac.uk/ cambuni/ disability/about.html.
The University Counselling Service, financed jointly by the Colleges and the University, has a core staff of six counsellors with additional sessional and trainee counsellors, and a psychiatric assessor. It is managed by an Executive Committee whose members are drawn from Colleges, students, local GPs and the University Council. Most of the Service's work is done in individual counselling, although groupwork also continues to be an increasing strength. Several staff are experienced group therapists. In 2001-2 the Service: saw over 1,000 students (an increase of 5% over the previous year); was approached by or had referrals of 25-40 students seeking counselling for the first time each week during term; offered around 200 counselling sessions each week; offered support and guidance to tutors and other College personnel and to GPs and others in the mental health field; and together with the Senior Tutors' Committee produced a comprehensive guide for tutors on supporting students with mental health problems.
In the Easter Term of 2002 increased demand on the service led to restrictions being placed on the number of sessions which students were offered. This was addressed by a review of the Service's direction and staff structure by the Executive Committee, with proposals being introduced late in 2002 that allowed for a quicker and more focused response to students; expansion of the number and range of counselling groups offered; and development of outreach. These revised ways of working will be evaluated to ensure that an effective service to students is maintained.
The University's total turnover is currently c. £400m of which c. 50% is 'Chest' income (i.e. Funding Council grants, fees, endowment income, research grant overheads, transfers from the University Press and the Local Examinations Syndicate and certain other operating income), and 50% 'non-Chest' income (i.e. income from trust and other special funds, the direct cost element of research grants and contracts, self-supporting accounts, services rendered, and residences and catering). 'Chest' income and expenditure for 2002-03 are estimated at c. £207m and c. £218m respectively. In the short term this deficit is being contained through reduced allocations for equipment, minor works and maintenance, and by delays in the filling of vacant posts. It cannot be denied that these measures have had an impact on the University's educational provision and its other activities. The central bodies' Planning and Resources Committee has been asked to develop an action plan to bring the University back into a breakeven position for 2004-05 and to generate an annual surplus of 1.5% of total income by 2006-07.
Individually, the Colleges provide the main source of personal student support and (for undergraduates) academic direction. Collectively, they interact both amongst themselves (in, for example, sharing good practice and agreeing common policies) and with the University (through participating in the development of University policy, co-operating in matters of mutual interest, monitoring their students' experiences within the University, and providing learning support complementary to that offered by the University). The Colleges also contribute to Cambridge's research output through, for example, Junior Research Fellowships, studentships, travel funds and specialist library collections. A number of CTOs were included in the University's 2001 RAE returns.
Every matriculated student of the University must be a member of one of the 31 colleges, the majority of which admit male and female undergraduate and postgraduate students across the range of subjects taught in the University. Three colleges, (New Hall, Newnham and Lucy Cavendish) admit women only and two (Clare Hall and Darwin) are graduate colleges. Certain colleges do not admit undergraduates in specified subjects, where that subject is not sufficiently represented in their teaching resource. An indication of the size of each College's student population and annual intake can be found in Tables 12 and 13 of Appendix D.
The Colleges exercise the following functions.
| (a) | Admissions: The University Council, in consultation with the Colleges, determines the target number of undergraduate students to be admitted by the Colleges collectively. Each College plays an active role in promoting access, mounting Open Days, sending representatives to admissions conferences and schools, and encouraging their individual academics to promote Cambridge, as well as participating in collective initiatives through the Cambridge Admissions Office. |
| The Colleges interview and/or test by appropriate means all suitable undergraduate applicants. With inter-collegiate discussion through their Admissions Forum, the Colleges work with the Joint Committee on Admissions (which serves to co-ordinate college and University interests in undergraduate admission matters) on numbers of students to be admitted in the various disciplines. Inter-collegiate pooling arrangements - currently being developed further and often, particularly in the smaller subjects, involving the relevant Faculty - seek to ensure that the most deserving candidates are admitted in each subject regardless of their College of first preference. Open applications are increasingly encouraged for the same purpose. All graduate students accepted by the University must also be accepted by a College. | |
| Moderating procedures help to ensure that assessment procedures and levels of offer are broadly comparable across the Colleges for the subject concerned. Selection is particularly geared towards evaluating each student's likely ability to cope with the demanding nature of Cambridge courses. The Colleges, together with the Cambridge Admissions Office and the Student Union, are heavily involved with a number of widening access initiatives aimed at attracting students from schools and colleges with limited experience of applying to Cambridge, at groups that are underrepresented in higher education, and at those from families with little or no tradition of university study, for example through the Cambridge Special Access Scheme. | |
| (b) | Teaching: The Colleges are responsible for the direction of studies and small-group teaching (supervisions) of their undergraduate students. Each student is given individual guidance on choices of options, reading lists, learning resources, the presentation of work, approaches to lectures etc. Their graduate students' progress is monitored by each College. |
| (c) | Academic Resources: The Colleges employ their own academic and other staff, and are responsible for maintaining a proper teaching, research and working environment for them. They ensure the provision of adequate teaching space for supervisions etc, and the availability of college library, computing and other resources. |
| (d) | Tutorial: The Colleges take responsibility for the welfare of students, through Tutors, Deans, Chaplains and Nurses, and facilitate access to central University services and any necessary external professional support. Every encouragement is given to personal development through student participation in all aspects - academic, cultural and social - of college life. |
| (e) | Administration: The Colleges are the normal channels of communication between students and official bodies, both within and outside the University. They enter students for University examinations and present them for University degrees. Changes of course, deferrals, special arrangements for examinations, etc., are dealt with by the Colleges in liaison with the relevant University authority. The Colleges collect University fees and deal generally with all aspects of student funding, including supporting students in applying for access, travel, scholarship and hardship funds from College, University and external sources. They deal with all external bodies, e.g. LEAs and, for overseas students, the immigration authorities. |
| (i) | Accommodation: Approximately 92% of undergraduates and 66% of postgraduates live in College-owned accommodation. The Colleges work with the University's Accommodation Syndicate to find alternative accommodation for the remaining students. |
| (f) | Discipline: The Colleges share with the University responsibility for the discipline of students, including the adoption and implementation of codes of practice. |
The Colleges vary in age, culture, size and in the range of disciplines represented by their fellowships and their students. These variations, together with each College's formal independence, have enabled each to develop its own distinctive approach to the education of its students. This diversity is viewed as positively beneficial in educational terms, with advantages which far outweigh such organisational difficulties as arise through thirty-one independent institutions interacting with the University and with each other.
As the same time, diversity and the complexities inherent in the collegiate structure bring challenges to quality assurance. Whilst, for example, the undergraduate admissions process generally achieves an intake for each Tripos reasonably consistent with the relevant Faculty's resources, variations within a multi-subject Tripos can have repercussions, for example if there is an imbalance of biological and physical scientists admitted to the Natural Sciences Tripos or of candidates with particular preferences amongst the modern languages. The Colleges vary in the general and subject specific resources available to each. In recognition of this, the Senior Tutors' Committee has been developing a 'manifesto', which sets out an agreed intercollegiate position on educational provision, including: the Colleges' educational function in relation to the University; academic provision; student welfare; and student-related administration.
Within each College, the key officers who play the most significant roles in assuring the quality of each student's education and in monitoring the provision offered by the University are (for all students) the Senior Tutor and each student's Tutor, and (for undergraduates) the Director of Studies.
The Senior Tutor is the College Officer responsible for managing and assuring quality in all aspects of collegiate provision for all student members, to whom all Tutors and Directors of Studies report.
The Director of Studies deals with the academic progress of all undergraduate students in the College reading a particular subject. He/she plays a crucial role as the primary point of academic contact between the College and the relevant Faculty/Department. The full job profile is described in Appendix F.
The Tutor's responsibilities involve general oversight of each student's welfare in the broadest sense. Tutorial provision may be organised in different ways. In some Colleges responsibilities may fall to a single person whilst in others they may be delivered by a tutorial team whose members may be responsible for a particular group of students or for a particular area of responsibility (e.g. admissions, financial hardship, accommodation, graduate students etc). Tutorial responsibilities are more fully described in Appendix F.
The increasing number of graduate students and in particular the greater numbers of those who completed their undergraduate education elsewhere and of those taking one year postgraduate courses, has caused the role of Graduate Tutor to develop considerably. These Tutors perform a role broadly comparable to that of the undergraduate Tutor, but with additional elements which reflect the different needs of graduate students and the different structure of their studies (Appendix F).
College provision makes a critical contribution to the quality of education, and collegiate structures, both formal and informal, help to assure the quality of the collegiate provision and contribute to the quality of the University's provision. The following paragraphs summarise and evaluate the nature of that contribution and the collegiate organisational structures in place to promote quality assurance. They are also intended to provide examples of how issues are identified and acted on. Issues may relate to an individual student; to an area of inter-collegiate interest, whether bearing on their own provision or on arrangements in a particular Faculty, Department or course; or to some general aspect of the University's provision.
The Colleges' responsibility for undergraduate admissions has created an exceptionally thorough and responsible admissions process, through which each applicant's potential, as much as prior qualifications, can be rigorously assessed. Whilst graduate admissions are managed by the University, the fact that each graduate student must also be accepted by a College helps to promote their participation in the academic and social benefits of college life. Reference has already been made to the potential for the occasional mismatch, at the level of individual subjects within a Tripos, between College undergraduate intakes and a Faculty or Department's resources, the effects of which are likely to be felt in the later, more specialised, years of a Tripos. Comparable difficulties can arise, in reverse, if the graduate student intake is greater than the Colleges can easily accommodate. Graduate admissions are further complicated by the lateness with which some students can demonstrate fulfilment of all conditions set for their admission and by the number who do not take up their places, despite being expected.
The supervision system provides a regular and close form of teaching and learning through which, by the production and discussion of work for each supervision, the undergraduate student develops subject-specific knowledge, acquires a range of transferable skills and receives frequent feedback, both oral and written, on his/her work. Whilst summative assessment is entirely a University responsibility, formative assessment of undergraduates takes place within both the Colleges through supervisions, and the student's Faculty/Department (particularly where courses are delivered through means other than lectures).
Monitoring of progress in supervisions occurs through termly reports by Supervisors, made available to both the Director of Studies and the Tutor, and discussed at the end of each term between the Director of Studies and the student. A common format for the report form, promoted by the Senior Tutors' Committee, has been developed; and the introduction, from 2002-03, of electronic reporting is expected to maximise both the rate and speed of returns from supervisors and to expedite feedback to students. Similar arrangements are being introduced for on-line reporting of Graduate Students' progress. In addition, Colleges now have in place termly self-assessment forms (with a common format promoted by the Senior Tutors' Committee) through which students can assess their progress, again for discussion with the Director of Studies. These various arrangements allow academic difficulties to be promptly identified and addressed. The small group nature of the supervision system makes Supervisors quickly familiar with each student's progress. Students can raise with either their Supervisors or their Director of Studies any difficulties they are experiencing with their work or with lectures or other elements of the University's provision; and, if necessary, raise with their Director of Studies any issues they feel unable to discuss with their Supervisor.
This necessarily labour-intensive operation requires a large pool of supervisors. Not all supervisors are UTOs or CTOs: some may be doctoral students, post-doctoral workers, or others resident in Cambridge. The extent to which each Supervisor is integrated in the relevant Faculty/Department can also vary. It is inevitable that Supervisors may take different approaches to the task and that, given the very individual nature of the process, the student-supervisor relationship can vary. Whilst the quality of each relationship is overseen by the Director of Studies, the effectiveness of that monitoring is heavily dependent on Supervisors' reports and pro-active student self-assessments: hence the particular attention given by the Senior Tutors' Committee to enhancing both these reporting lines. Whilst a blanket uniformity in supervisory practice is neither desirable nor achievable, increasing attention is now paid to establishing, with individual Faculties and Departments, guidelines for supervising (covering, for example, the number of supervisions expected per paper) and to appropriate induction and training of new supervisors.
The tutorial system, through close regular monitoring of all aspects of a student's experience in Cambridge, seeks to ensure that welfare and pastoral needs are met and that professional help is called upon at need. Students can seek tutorial advice in the event of financial difficulties or should an issue arise which they might not wish to raise with those directing their work. An overseas graduate student, for example, experiencing problems with English language proficiency may turn to his/her Graduate Tutor for help in finding appropriate remedial provision. Tutors also play a critical role in representing their students' interests in their dealings with the University and the College, for example in instances where a student needs, for medical reasons, to take an examination under special conditions, or where a student wishes to invoke the University's or the College's student complaints or appeals processes. The tutorial remit is a wide one and Tutors can vary in their knowledge and experience of University procedures. Whilst there is a range of documentary guidance, it is the Senior Tutor's responsibility to ensure that all appropriate material is distributed to all Tutors, that they are kept up to date on relevant regulations and developments, and that they have access to support and advice, for example through regular meetings of tutorial teams.
Various formal means exist for the Colleges to discuss collectively items of general relevance, to exchange information about their practices and, where appropriate, to agree common positions.
The Senior Tutors of each College meet twice a term as the Senior Tutors' Committee, under the chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor. The full Committee is advised by four Standing Committees with remits covering Education, Welfare and Finance, Student Numbers and Admissions, and Graduates. The development of these Standing Committees has enhanced both the effectiveness of the main Committee and the extent to which expertise in particular areas can be disseminated across the Colleges, as well as facilitating the Colleges' ability to agree common policies. They have, for example, collectively agreed guidance notes for supervisors; guidelines (in collaboration with CUSU and the University's Counselling Service) on student mental health; and guidance for Tutors on Careers, Transferable Skills and Progress Files (see http://www.admin. cam.ac.uk/units/seniortutors/).
All Graduate Tutors meet regularly as the Graduate Tutors' Committee, under the chairmanship of a Senior Tutor and reporting to the Senior Tutors' Committee, to ensure due attention to particular issues facing postgraduates. The Committee has, for example, recently considered: overseas graduate students' interaction with the immigration authorities; the operation of the University's pre-sessional 'English for Academic Purpose' course for overseas students; and organisational and funding issues relating to M.Phil. students continuing as Ph.D. candidates.
Directors of Studies in all subject areas are expected to meet at least annually to discuss matters of mutual interest, relating to College or University provision in the subject. Reports of their activities are considered by the Senior Tutors' Education Committee. This enables that Committee to identify general issues in which they have an interest: for example, the supervision arrangements for candidates for the Social and Political Sciences Tripos, and pass rates in Part IA of the Engineering Tripos.
At need, other inter-collegiate bodies, such as the Bursars' Committee, consider issues which bear upon educational provision, for example, in negotiating with the University the proportion of the HEFCE teaching grant to be transferred to the Colleges, and, in collaboration with the Senior Tutors' Committee, in setting payment rates for supervisions.
The increasingly structured approach to inter-collegiate matters has produced significant benefits in terms of: identifying and sharing good practice (for example, in College student complaints procedures); collective monitoring of University provision and policies, both centrally and at Faculty/Departmental level (for example, through closer scrutiny of the interaction between Directors of Studies and the relevant Faculty); and in co-operative ventures applicable to all colleges (for example, the introduction of on-line reporting mechanisms and the introduction of Personal Development files). Equally, however, the administrative implications of supporting inter-collegiate activity are considerable. Coordination of the work of the various Standing Committees, together with shouldering much of the responsibility for representing collegiate educational interests on University bodies and keeping fully abreast of external developments, have created a heavy workload for the Secretary of the Senior Tutors' Committee (when combined with his/her full-time College responsibilities). The Senior Tutors' Committee is presently debating the future role of its Secretary.
It is vital for the University's constitutional arrangements to secure the representation of College interests and to promote, at every level, co-operation, both formal and informal, between itself and the Colleges.
Informally, co-operation is reinforced by most UTOs also being College Fellows, often acting as Directors of Studies, Supervisors and Tutors, and thus contributing to both their Faculty/Department's and their College's provision. Most CTOs participate actively in Faculty activities through, for example, lecturing and examining, supervising postgraduates, and membership of Faculty bodies. The relatively small size of each College and the extensive range of disciplines represented in each, amongst both senior and junior members, encourage the routine exchange, in a variety of daily contexts, of information and comparisons about provision across disciplines. This helps to promote knowledge of good practice and to highlight perceived differences and shortcomings. The high degree of personal interaction between students and teachers, built into the colleges' academic and tutorial arrangements, fosters continuous and critical scrutiny of the quality of University provision at all levels; facilitates the speed with which issues affecting individual students are addressed; and identifies issues of more general applicability. The importance of these informal mechanisms, embedded in the collegiate structure, in contributing to the quality and awareness of provision cannot be over-emphasised. Their effectiveness, however, is dependent on many of those employed by the University continuing to be able to participate actively in College life, including being willing to assume formal College positions. Current demands falling on UTOs, not least in terms of research performance and research grant generation, can reduce the time available for their collegiate contribution. Equally, the importance of the collegiate system may not be readily apparent to University employees who do not have College membership.
Formal provision for the representation of College interests and for dialogue between the University and the Colleges is made across a range of the central committees which contribute to educational provision and its quality assurance. The most important formal connection, introduced since the last audit, is the overlapping membership of the General Board's Education Committee and the Senior Tutors' Committee. Two members of the latter (the Secretary to the Senior Tutors' Committee and the Chair of the Senior Tutors' Standing Committee on Education) serve as full members of the General Board's Committee, ensuring proper attention to any item of the Committee's business which has implications for the Colleges and presenting business arising from the Senior Tutors' Committee. The Chair of the General Board's Committee attends meetings of the Senior Tutors' Standing Committee on Education, and both Committees receive each other's Minutes. In addition, the administrative support for the Senior Tutors' Committee and its Standing Committees is provided by the central administrative office supporting the General Board's Education Committee, thereby providing co-ordination and early identification of items of mutual relevance. For example, input from the Senior Tutors' Committee is now routinely sought as part of the General Board's internal review programme.
The link between the Education Section and the Senior Tutors has also encouraged close links between the Senior Tutors' Committee and other parts of the central University. The Careers Service, for example, now holds meetings with the Colleges to discuss careers guidance for students; and the University's Staff Development team interacts regularly with the Senior Tutors in developing programmes relevant to college teachers. The introduction of the 'CamCORS' mechanism for on-line supervision reporting was the result of University and College co-operation and should help to ensure that reports are promptly received on all supervisions, whether organised by the Colleges or by a University institution. Similarly, the development of Progress Files, Personal Development Planning and of common transcripts is a co-ordinated effort involving the Colleges, the Education and Student Records Sections of the central administration, and the Careers Service.
The Board of Graduate Studies now include a College Graduate Tutor in their membership, and the officers of the Board attend, and provide the secretariat for, the Graduate Tutors' Committee. Closer relations between these bodies have resulted in a collaborative approach in a number of areas. For example, the Board have been instrumental in encouraging the Colleges collectively to agree on appropriate means of enabling part-time research students to participate in college life. Since the last audit, the University's Graduate Studies Prospectus has been amended to include more easily comparable data about each College, to better inform applicants; and an 'open' application scheme has been promoted to expedite consideration of graduate applicants who have no particular college preferences.
Good practice in collaboration between Faculties and Colleges is promoted through the General Board's guidelines on measures recommended for the co-ordination of University and College teaching. (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/ offices/education/checklist.html). Each institution's interaction with the Colleges is amongst the topics raised during the Quality Interview (see Section 2.7).
At Faculty/Departmental level, there is a variety of means whereby the University and the Colleges interact. Faculties make available, via Directors of Studies and increasingly comprehensive websites, information about courses and teaching arrangements which affect college activities, for example course descriptions, reading lists, notices (to supplement those which appear in Reporter) about changes in papers and forms of assessment, marking and classing criteria, in-house training courses, supervision guidelines, developments in library and IT provision, etc. A number of Faculties have formal representation on Directors of Studies Committees and Directors of Studies representatives are often included in Departmental Teaching Committees. Faculties with smaller student numbers have become increasingly involved in collaborating with Directors of Studies in undergraduate admissions.
Whilst formal responsibility for the supervision of undergraduates remains a College responsibility, it has, over recent years, become increasingly frequent for Faculties and Departments to play a greater role in the organisation of supervisions. This is particularly so in the more specialised, Part II Tripos papers. Some Faculties contribute by allocating students to Supervisors in liaison with the Directors of Studies or by providing details of appropriately qualified potential supervisors. In some instances, full responsibility for supervisions is delegated by the College to a Faculty. The balance of responsibility is generally determined by mutual agreement as to what is most organisationally effective, taking into account the stage the students have reached in the Tripos. Oversight of the adequacy of such arrangements remains with Directors of Studies who continue to receive termly supervision reports, supplemented by meetings with students.
Faculties and Departments have no formal role in the assurance of college provision. Nevertheless, they can raise particular issues with the Colleges. In 2001, for example, the Faculty Board of Biology drew to the Senior Tutors' Committee's attention the absence (quickly rectified) of a Director of Studies in Biological Sciences in a College. In the same year the Department of French discussed with that Committee the contribution and workload of CTOs in view of the changing nature of the Department's provision. In the previous year, an initiative by the Department of Architecture resulted in an agreement with the Colleges on a standard number of supervisions in the subject. As the University's provision for part-time postgraduate study has developed, the Faculties and Departments concerned have been active in identifying and working with those Colleges best placed to meet the needs of their students (for example, in providing accommodation at agreed terms of the year). If a Head of a University institution becomes aware, through whatever route (for example, feedback from students or UTOs), that some aspect of College provision is causing difficulty, the matter is taken up with the Director of Studies. If necessary, it can then be raised with the Senior Tutor or, if the issue relates to more than one College, with the Senior Tutors' Committee.
Equally, the Senior Tutors' Committee raises, either with a particular Faculty or with all Faculties, issues affecting college provision. The Committee has recently been, for example, instrumental in seeking revised procedures for the selection procedure for entry to Part II Natural Sciences Tripos subjects; in working with Faculties and Departments to avoid overlapping University and college induction sessions; and in highlighting the financial and IT implications for students required to download and print out on-line lecture handouts and other teaching material.
* * * *
All this is not to imply that University and College interests and agendas are invariably complementary. The Colleges, for example, are sensitive to any Faculty requirement for students to attend classes outside termtime. Nor is it suggested that there are not areas in which communication could be improved, as evidenced by the review of M.Phil. provision. However, taken together, these links between the University and the Colleges - which have developed significantly over the last decade - have provided more structured and effective lines of communication; have promoted a better awareness of each party's interests; and have encouraged a co-operative approach to external developments which impact on both University and College provision.
The University's governance arrangements are complex. They are also at present the subject of considerable debate within the University. What follows describes those parts of them which bear upon the University's arrangements for assuring the quality of its courses and the standards of its awards. An organisational chart is attached as Appendix G.
The University is made up of some one hundred Faculties, Departments and other institutions, listed in Appendix C.
Under the University's Statutes and Ordinances, each Faculty has a Board comprising representatives of its professorial and non-professorial staff, its students and, where appropriate, members of cognate Faculties. In a limited number of instances where the nature of the subject is such that support and collaboration from a number of other Faculties is appropriate, the functions of a Faculty Board are undertaken by a Syndicate. The educational remit of the Faculty Boards includes responsibility, for which each is accountable to the General Board, for ensuring the provision of appropriate instruction, preparing the teaching programmes, prescribing the subjects to be offered in those programmes, and ensuring teaching standards. Accordingly, much of the General Board's educational business stems from initiatives proposed by Faculty Boards which, in turn, can expect to be consulted by the General Board on major issues of educational significance. Faculties may, according to their needs, size, complexity, history and the number of disciplines represented in them, be divided into Departments. This is particularly so in the Sciences. In such cases responsibility for the organisation of departmental teaching rests formally with the Head of Department. At Faculty and Departmental level, business may be delegated to particular committees such as Teaching and Staff-Student Committees, reporting to the Faculty Board.
Each Faculty has a Degree Committee with responsibility for graduate student matters, including the admission of graduates, their registration, supervision and examining arrangements, and recommending their approval for degrees. Aside from these formal statutory responsibilities, either they or Faculty or Departmental Graduate Education Committees will determine local arrangements for graduate education, for example, Ph.D. registration and second and third year review procedures, graduate training programmes, academic support in addition to that provided by Supervisors, and local responses to external studentship providers' policies. Where M.Phil. programmes are offered, general arrangements are normally handled through M.Phil. Sub-Committees, reporting to the Degree Committee, and, on a day to day basis, by M.Phil. Course Directors.
In recent years, various Centres have been established, bringing together staff with cognate research interests from various departments but, except for a number of M.Phil. programmes, these Centres do not serve as teaching units.
Organisational arrangements vary according to the size of the Faculty and whether it is made up of a number of constituent departments. At either Faculty or Department level, there will be a Teaching Committee (or equivalent) with operational responsibility for course delivery and course changes. Typically, it will be this committee which undertakes annual reviews of undergraduate courses, taking into account the views of External Examiners and the student body as well as developments in the subject and the level and expertise of the teaching resource available. These bodies may, in turn, have reporting to them committees responsible for particular papers within the course.
Student opinion is collected in various ways. Staff-student liaison committees exist in all Faculties and Departments, and all Faculty Boards and comparable bodies have student representatives. Other means of soliciting student feedback have increased significantly over recent years, in terms of both the points at which feedback is sought (whether at the end of a course of lectures, of the year or of the complete course) and the means (through paper-based questionnaires, meetings between staff and students, suggestion boxes, web-based feedback and e-mail instant feedback links). Actions arising from analyses of the feedback are taken at the individual level (e.g. if it relates to an individual's lecturing technique) or, if more general, by the Teaching Committee.
General oversight of all educational provision rests with the Faculty Boards which ensure appropriate coordination between the bodies reporting to them and determine the level of staffing and other resources contributing to the Faculty's educational provision, for example through the development of teaching 'stint' systems, the use of library and IT resources, and making recommendations to the Councils of the Schools regarding new needs and the filling of vacant posts.
The University's reliance on local determination of provision and of its quality assurance has considerable benefits in terms of each Faculty Board's and Department's ownership of arrangements which fit with their culture, the resources available, students' needs and developments in the discipline. The matrix of committees and of formal reporting mechanisms which might be necessary in a large Department are not generally appropriate in smaller units. Where arrangements vary, there is a need for a clear and defensible rationale for different approaches which, given the University's collegiate nature, can quickly become apparent to students and their colleges. The independence of each institution also poses challenges to the University in implementing its aim further to foster collaboration between subjects, in the organisation of inter-departmental courses, and in finding effective ways of locating and disseminating good practice. Effective channels of communication and a common understanding of where responsibilities lie can be challenges, particularly in the larger multi-departmental Faculties. The Degree Committees, for example, are bodies formally independent of the Faculty Board. Whilst in practice (and particularly given overlapping membership) this is rarely problematic, there is the potential in their statutory independence for graduate issues to be considered separately from the rest of the Faculty's educational programme.
Each Faculty is attached to one of six Schools: Arts and Humanities, Humanities and Social Sciences, Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, Technology, and Clinical Medicine. The Schools represent administrative groupings of cognate disciplines. School business is transacted through the Councils of the Schools. These serve to promote links between their constituent Faculties, to distribute amongst them (taking into account their teaching and other activities) funds allocated to the School by the General Board, and to advise the General Board on their Faculties' resource needs and the priorities to be accorded to them. Each Council of the School is represented on the General Board. The Councils of the Schools also contribute to the University's quality assurance arrangements through their appointment of members on Departmental Review Committees and by commenting on the Reports of those Review Committees prior to their consideration by the General Board. The University is in the process of introducing a new Resource Allocation Model (RAM), the principal features of which are a significantly increased level of devolved budgetary responsibility to each School and more transparent means of identifying income attributable to each activity within the School's constituent institutions. The RAM is, inter alia, likely to make clearer to each Council of the School the income and resources associated with each of their Faculties' teaching programmes. Whilst, hitherto, educational proposals have typically come from Faculty Boards direct to the Education Committee, the RAM is likely to increase School interest in the resource implications of these proposals and to require Schools to come to potentially difficult decisions in prioritising their activities. The RAM will make clearer the fee and (where applicable) HEFCE income attributable to each institution's ftes. Whilst this transparency is likely to be welcome, each institution's incentive to maximise its ftes may have undesirable consequences for the facilitation of inter-departmental initiatives.
Overall institutional responsibility for the supervision of the University's academic and educational policies and provision rests with the General Board, accountable to the Council and, through it, to the Regent House. This body, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, comprises 12 members of the Regent House (of which 8 are appointed by the Councils of the Schools and 4 appointed by the Council (2 from its own constituency)) and (with effect from 2002) 2 student members (one undergraduate and one graduate) elected by the student body. The Board's statutory responsibilities reinforce the particular importance of their assuring the quality of education. Amongst those responsibilities are to ensure that adequate facilities for teaching are available; that appropriate courses of study are provided; and that the teaching given is of the highest standard. The same Statute also requires the General Board to approve (or remit for further consideration) the University's teaching programmes, to keep under review the regulations for the majority of the University's examinations, to ensure the proper observance of those regulations, and to appoint Examiners.
As indicated earlier, the General Board aim to set a general academic framework within which each Faculty and Department operates, save in those limited instances where consistency of approach is critical (for example, in personal promotions procedures). It cannot therefore easily be compared to the Senate or Academic Development Committee in other universities. Nevertheless, the fact that 'Academic Standards, Quality and Reviews' is a standing item on the Board's agenda reflects their interest in this area. Recently, for example, the General Board have sought to ensure that a complaint by a number of final year students in the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences was thoroughly investigated, and they were responsible for launching an extensive review of the University's M.Phil. provision. The Board's overall remit and membership enables them to set educational developments in the context of the resources available, within both a particular institution and the University Education Fund generally, and of the University's other academic activities. By allowing its standing committees (all of which include members of the Board) delegated responsibility for more straightforward business, the Board are better able to focus on strategic issues. A particular challenge to be faced by the Board in the near future will be to ensure that the University's proposed Resource Allocation Model (see 1.4.2 above) does not distort the University's overall educational provision in ways which are inconsistent with the University's aims.
The General Board are advised, in exercising their educational responsibilities, by their Education Committee, to which the Board may delegate the implementation of certain of those responsibilities. The Education Committee is the principal central authority with operational responsibility for educational quality assurance and standards. It considers new and amended courses and modes of assessment, and the necessary regulatory changes; implements the University's Learning and Teaching Strategy; considers External Examiners' reports; manages the General Board's programmes of Departmental Reviews; interacts with the Colleges, through the Senior Tutors' Committee, on educational matters of mutual interest; liaises with relevant external bodies (including the QAA); considers and advises the General Board on draft Reports bearing on educational matters; and advises the General Board on the University's response to external developments. The Committee also advises the General Board on strategic issues relating to all of these activities.
At the time of the last academic audit, this body was named the General Purposes Committee, with a small membership made up entirely of members of the General Board. Whilst the present Committee's business still includes items not relating directly to educational provision, its change of title reflects the significant proportion of its business which bears on that provision. The size and remit of the Committee have increased accordingly. Its membership now comprises four current members of the General Board (of whom one is Chairman), two members appointed by the General Board, two Senior Tutors and the Student Union's Academic Affairs Officer. The Committee's membership is chosen to cover as broad a range of disciplines as possible, mirroring the constituencies of the various Schools, but without any of the General Board appointees formally representing a particular constituency. This, together with the representation of College and student interests, helps to ensure both dispassionate scrutiny of proposals from Faculties and Departments and a variety of perspectives from academics of different disciplines.
The range of the Committee's remit is wide. It encompasses all aspects of teaching, learning and assessment and their quality assurance. It has become wider as the Committee has, in addition to scrutinising proposals coming from Faculties and Departments, become increasingly proactive in reflecting on general issues. Certain of these issues have arisen from the Committee's consideration of specific proposals from Faculties, Departments and other bodies. For example, a suggestion by one Faculty Board that the University consider the possible advantages of placing candidates, after examination, in an order of merit, encouraged the Committee to launch a University-wide consultation on marking and classing criteria. Similarly, course-specific proposals involving changes in assessment methods led the Committee to review, revise and make more flexible the General Board's policy on the proportion of Tripos examinations which might be assessed by means other than a three-hour unseen paper; and a review of the use of multiple choice question papers is currently underway.
Other aspects of the Committee's business have been self-generated. The Committee has, for example, established a Transferable Skills web-site and was instrumental in the establishment of a Joint Committee on Academic Performance, whose first task was to oversee an innovative research project on factors affecting undergraduate academic performance. The Education Committee is presently dealing with the findings of the research. The Joint Committee has now launched a further research project on patterns of demand for graduate admission.
The widening of the Education Committee's remit has been accompanied by close links with other bodies whose activities relate to educational provision, for example the Staff Development Committee, the Careers Service and the Disability Resources Centre (with which the Committee worked to establish a Joint Committee on Disability, with a remit intended to promote an integrated approach to provision for the disabled and to recent statutory requirements).
The Committee faces a number of challenges for the future. It will play a critical part in ensuring that the University's educational activities are not distorted, as competition for resources with other activities increases and as the University moves towards devolved resource allocation. The Committee has, for example, strongly argued against the erosion of central funding to support students on approved forms of vacation study. A second challenge, consequent upon both the wider remit of the Committee and the extent to which that remit overlaps with other bodies' activities, is to ensure that agreed strategies can be translated into realisable objectives. Given the wealth of business which comes before it, the Committee has endeavoured to delegate to individual members or its officers more routine matters, so that it can focus, at each meeting, on a limited number of more major issues. Whilst the Committee has made some progress in this regard, its agendas can still, on occasion, be extensive.
The Education Committee works closely on graduate student matters with the Board of Graduate Studies, whose formal responsibilities include the admission of Graduate Students, their registration for degrees, the overall supervision of their work, and their approval for degrees. In addition, the Board oversee the University's arrangements for graduate education generally and advise the General Board, through the Education Committee, on those arrangements and on the University's response to external developments. The Board is chaired by a Vice-Chancellor's Deputy and its membership includes four members appointed by the Council, four by the General Board, a Graduate Tutor (elected by the Graduate Tutors' Committee), and four members co-opted by the Board. The President of the Graduate Union attends meetings.
The balance between the operational and strategic aspects of the Board's business has adjusted in recent years, with increasing emphasis on general issues in graduate education. Nevertheless, the operational aspects of the Board's business - those of their duties set out in Statutes and Ordinances - contribute significantly to quality assurance in various ways. For example, the Board have formal responsibility for admitting Graduate Students; determining whether prospective research students should be formally registered to the Ph.D. Degree; scrutinising Supervisors' reports; and, ultimately, for determining whether candidates should be approved for the qualification sought. These responsibilities are rigorously carried out. The Board, for example, can and will, where necessary, decline to admit an applicant recommended by a Degree Committee; and they consider the full documentation for any examination where the proposed outcome does not seem straightforward (and for any examination in which the Degree Committee does not recommend approval of the candidate). The University's regulations for graduate students are explained and elaborated on through Memoranda issued by the Board to students, Supervisors and Examiners.
The Board have become increasingly proactive. They promoted, for example, a structured pre-sessional University English Language course for overseas students (replacing somewhat ad hoc arrangements whereby students needing language support had to seek provision elsewhere). They have recently initiated regular reviews of those local non-University institutions with which graduate students may be registered; and expect shortly to introduce a facility for on-line reporting by Supervisors on student progress.
Within the general academic framework set by the Board and described in their various Memoranda, Faculties and Departments develop, under the auspices of the Degree Committees, approaches to graduate education appropriate to their own circumstances and in response to student needs and external expectations. These approaches may involve changing the nature of the provision falling solely within the institutions concerned (for example, the introduction of a new M.Phil. programme or of changed arrangements for first year research training). They may also involve inter-departmental initiatives. A range of institutions, for example, now collaborate in a Joint Schools Postgraduate Course in Social Science Research Methods, introduced, partly in response to current ESRC recognition criteria, to facilitate interdisciplinary links and promote an inter-Faculty research culture amongst research students. A Graduate School in the Biological, Medical and Veterinary Sciences has been established by the three Faculties concerned (which between them account for c. 25% of the University's graduate population), aimed at providing opportunities for structured research training, seminars, workshops and social activities, as well as promoting a common approach to research student supervision (http://www.bio.cam.ac.uk/ gradschool). Nevertheless such initiatives do not always sit easily alongside the independence valued by individual institutions, and fully effective organisation of them can be a challenge.
The speed with which the University can appropriately respond to external developments in the relatively volatile world of graduate education is a particular challenge for the Board, as are ensuring the smooth introduction of the part-time route to the Ph.D. Degree and tackling the outcomes of the recent General Board review of the University's M.Phil. provision. (The summary of recommendations of that wide-ranging review is included as Appendix H, as an example of the University's capacity to reflect critically on its provision.) The Board will be one of the University and College bodies which will need to find means of ensuring that the implications for the colleges of the University's plans for expansion in graduate student numbers and of initiatives in support of postgraduate provision which is either part-time or jointly offered with overseas institutions are addressed.
Save for straightforward pieces of educational legislation, all other items, in the form of Reports and Graces, must be sanctioned by the University's Council before publication in Reporter for consideration by the Regent House. The Council is the University's principal executive and policy-making body, with general responsibility for the administration of the University, the planning of its work and the management of its resources. Chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, as the University's principal officer, it presently consists of 16 members elected by the Regent House (4 from the Heads of the Colleges, 4 Professors or Readers and 8 other members of the Regent House), together with 3 student members elected by the student body. Whilst educational policy is primarily a General Board matter, the Council's responsibility for assuring itself that Reports and Graces are fit for publication provides an additional safeguard in ensuring proper and careful formulation of proposals. For example, the Council raised questions which were taken into account in the final formulation of the General Board's Report on amendments to the regulations for Part III of the Natural Sciences Tripos relating to Chemistry. (That Report, ultimately approved by the Regent House, allowed for the Examiners for Part III (Chemistry) of that Tripos to take into account students' marks in the Part II examination in that subject.)
With origins dating back to the early thirteenth century, the University is a self-governing, common-law corporation, governed by Statutes made in accordance with the Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923, with the privilege, within specified limits, of making its own Statutes and Ordinances. Its constitution establishes a framework of academic democracy, through which its educational provision is offered.
The University's governing body and electoral constituency, to which the central bodies are accountable, is the Regent House, comprising some 3,200 University Officers and College Fellows. The Regent House is empowered, inter alia, to discuss major topics of interest or concern to the University (normally presented in the form of Reports), to approve (or contest) Graces submitted by the Council, to consider annual reports by the Council and the General Board and to raise topics for Discussion. The fact that Regent House approval must be sought for any significant educational developments (such as, for example, the changes to the residence requirements applying to a particular degree) helps to ensure that the rationale for each proposal has been properly tested and widely consulted on, before it is subjected to the Regent House's scrutiny. The Regent House's interest in major developments can be demonstrated through its Discussions of the Reports on a part-time route to research degrees. It was as a result of Remarks made at one of those Discussions that the central bodies agreed to discard their earlier proposal to prevent full-time Ph.D. students transferring to part-time registration. Final approval of proposals cannot be assumed: for example, in 1993 a Report of the Council and General Board proposing an extension to the length of teaching terms and the introduction of a 'reading' week was defeated after a ballot.
The University has various ways of enacting educational legislation. Appendix I provides (a) a diagram summarising the stages and bodies through which proposals of various types must pass, and (b) examples of the timescales involved.
Any significant development is subject to the consent of the Regent House. Such developments might involve the introduction of new forms of provision (for example, the introduction of a part-time route to research degrees, and of provision for Masters courses involving a period of study and residence at another institution); and significant amendments to existing provision (for example, recent reforms to the Classical, Economics and Music Triposes). Major items of this nature are put forward as Reports to the Regent House. The General Board are also required to proceed via a Report on any item which they know to be potentially controversial. All Reports are the subject of formal Discussion by the Regent House, and can be commented upon by any of its members. Any such comments (Remarks) require a response from the Council (after consultation with the body responsible for the Report) before a Grace (a resolution) can be promoted to enact the necessary legislation (amended, as necessary, in the light of the Remarks made). Items requiring changes to Statutes (for example, a change in the formal residential requirements for a degree or the introduction of a new degree title) are subject to the consent of the Queen in Council.
Ordinances (regulations) of the General Board (for example the regulations for each Tripos) can be amended by a General Board Notice, and straightforward business is regularly and relatively quickly transacted this way. Changes to other Ordinances (for example, the regulations relating to University examinations) require a Grace.
In all instances, proposed changes in provision, at whatever level (from the change in the title of a Tripos paper or the form and conduct of a particular examination through to the introduction of entirely new provision), must be made known to the University community through publication in Reporter (now available on the web as well as in paper form).
These formal arrangements contribute to quality assurance in a number of ways. Firstly, they allow wide publicity to any educational developments. Secondly, an awareness that items can be subject to scrutiny and debate by the Regent House ensures that, so far as possible, items have been subject to careful formulation and that all interested parties have been consulted about the proposal before legislation is promoted. Thirdly, the timetables imposed by the University's constitutional arrangements for approving educational legislation, together with timing constraints stipulated in the Ordinances for particular examinations, mean that approval of changes is sought well in advance of the intended change coming into effect. When considering any proposal affecting educational provision, at whatever level of significance, the General Board's Education Committee will be particularly concerned to assure itself that sufficient time has been allowed to give notice of the change proposed, that all interested parties have been consulted, and that obligations to current and prospective students are properly met. Fourthly, the fact that any change envisaged must be considered by a committee or other body which has not been responsible for the proposal encourages carefully formulated proposals.
The difficulties associated with these formal arrangements stem largely from the regulatory framework within which they operate. The number of bodies which have either responsibility for considering educational change or an interest in that change can impede the speed with which change occurs. It is not always easy to streamline consideration of proposals so that those responsible for the proposal have a clear indication, at a significantly early stage, of the full set of issues which they need to address. Having responded to one committee's questions or concerns, they may then be faced with answering other issues raised by another body. This may act as a disincentive to change: certainly, it requires stamina and a full commitment to the proposal on the part of its advocates. Whether or not the arrangements for processing business through to its conclusion are complex, they are certainly perceived to be so, at least by those of the academic staff at a distance from the bodies with formal responsibility for the conduct of business. As a contribution to a better understanding of their procedures, the Council, the General Board and its Education Committee now make their Minutes available on the web.
The University's debate over aspects of its governance arrangements includes the remit of the Vice-Chancellor, the function and membership of the Council, and the role of the Regent House. Whilst the proposals under consideration do not primarily concern the means whereby educational legislation is transacted, amongst them is the establishment of additional Pro-Vice-Chancellors, of whom one may be given the remit of general academic leadership in teaching and learning issues.
|
Previous page
|
Table of Contents
|
Next page
|
Cambridge University Reporter, Monday 3 March 2003
Copyright © 2002 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars
of the University of Cambridge.