Previous page
Table of Contents
|
Previous page
|
Table of Contents
|
Next page
|
University-wide processes for the assurance of academic quality and standards need to be viewed in the contexts of Cambridge's constitutional arrangements, its collegiate nature and its academically democratic structure. These contribute to a culture in which: (a) significant responsibility is delegated to the individual Faculty/Department; (b) initiatives are typically generated locally, rather than imposed from the centre; (c) central prescription is limited to the minimum necessary; (d) substantial developments are subject to extensive consultation before they are implemented; (e) informal networking and mutual scrutiny by the University and the College of each other's provision is as influential as more formal processes; and (f) it is recognised that high quality academic staff and students, reflecting continuously (and, to an extent, implicitly) on teaching and learning arrangements, are the University's most important assets in maintaining standards and assuring quality.
The University's approach to the setting and maintenance of standards reflects both its culture and the deliberate separation, at undergraduate level, between the B.A. Degree and examination performance. The Degree itself is not 'classed'. The notion of a 'final' examination does not apply to Cambridge undergraduates. To be eligible for the B.A., candidates must, broadly speaking, complete two Parts of one or two Triposes. It is within each Tripos that standards applicable to that particular Tripos are set, and it is for each Faculty Board to set marking and classing criteria to reflect the standard required in summative assessment. There is, accordingly, no expectation that classing criteria or marking schemes will be directly comparable across Triposes.
Standards are determined primarily through internal points of reference, though with due heed to the external benchmarks provided through External Examiners, professional statutory bodies and other external agencies. Each Faculty has, over time, consensually developed its expectations of the qualities and skills its students should acquire and be capable of demonstrating (in both formative and summative assessment), according to the level of the Part of Tripos being undertaken. (In this sense, the University's philosophy is consistent with that underpinning the QAA's promotion of individual subject benchmark statements.) These expectations are shared between teachers (within the University and the Colleges) and examiners.
The University believes that this approach has considerable benefits which outweigh those which might arise from more regimented, centrally imposed, criteria. Whilst not claiming an absolute uniformity of standards across all Triposes, the University is confident that there are adequate mechanisms to spot quickly any falling away in standards. The ability to transfer between Triposes provides a ready means for students to flag any widespread disaffection with provision. Each college's oversight of its students will alert it to shifts in standards within both its own and the University's provision or to discrepancies between the two. The maintenance of our standards is testified to by the almost overwhelmingly favourable reports of External Examiners (and, indeed, by the findings of QAA's own Subject Reviews). Whilst, as the data included in Appendix D indicate, the proportions of candidates achieving First or Upper Second Class Honours in Tripos Examinations have steadily risen over the last decades, the fact that classes are awarded by independent Boards of Examiners gives the University confidence that this rise reflects improvements in student achievement, rather than any relaxation in standards. Were the reverse to be true, it would be difficult to explain the demand for our graduates amongst employers and the significant numbers accepted for postgraduate study at comparable universities.
In contrast to undergraduate degrees, postgraduate examination performance is directly linked to approval for the degree sought. In the case of those degrees - the Ph.D, M.Phil. and M.St - which are offered in a range of disciplines, standards are assured through the close scrutiny given to Examiners' marks and reports by first the Degree Committee concerned and then the Board of Graduate Studies.
The General Board, through their Education Committee, have recently reviewed formal University-wide systems for quality assurance. A number of the institutional processes outlined below have been in place for a considerable period of time. The full set of mechanisms was formally agreed by the General Board in 2001-02. The central bodies are convinced that, if University-wide procedures are to be effective and command the confidence of the academic community, they should reflect the University's culture and ethos, and that, whilst compliance with certain central expectations is necessary and desirable, assuring quality and standards is most effective when primarily undertaken by those delivering the provision.
The General Board aim at an approach to quality assurance which:
| • | involves centrally-generated processes which strike a balance between certain minimum expectations across the University, and a recognition of local responsibility for determining how those expectations are to be met; |
| • | is based on proactive personal support from the centre; and |
| • | emphasises enhancement and innovation of provision as much as assurance of it. |
The recognition of the value of a diversity of processes appropriate at subject and course level remains fundamental. Confidence in this level of local independence is felt to be justified by the dual nature of provision, involving the Colleges as well as University institutions. This has produced systems, formal and informal, of checks and balances; and has encouraged continuous scrutiny of, and comparisons between, each Faculty's and Department's provision. Quality assurance is an integral part of local teaching and learning activities. Accordingly the University has not considered it productive to establish a specialised central 'quality' function, as found in some other universities. Central University and intercollegiate bodies which deal with educational business include quality assurance in their remits.
Nevertheless, the General Board recognised that an over-reliance on delegated responsibility had shortcomings. Limited central awareness of local arrangements meant that the University was potentially vulnerable, in that difficulties might not be promptly identified and addressed. The central bodies could be perceived as primarily reactive, responding only as particular issues were drawn to their attention, with no explicit strategy for their role in quality assurance. Equally importantly, means of identifying and disseminating good and innovative practice were limited, particularly before the advent of Faculty and Departmental web-sites. Joint University and College responsibility for provision could bring organisational complexities with potential mismatches of quality assurance arrangements and missed opportunities for enhancement. The General Board were also mindful of external expectations and of the need to satisfy both themselves and external agencies that these expectations could be met, and that quality assurance and enhancement remained high on local agendas. The institutional procedures and systems described below attempt to address these various concerns, whilst building on tried and tested strengths.
There are now four main strands in the University's quality assurance system:
| • | the processes associated with changes to courses and examinations; |
| • | consideration of External Examiners' reports; |
| • | a rolling programme of internal reviews of all Faculties and Departments; and |
| • | the production of an annual statement of each Faculty's and Department's quality assurance and enhancement procedures. |
In each of these strands, Faculties and Departments are required to act within General Board guidelines.
All formal changes to course regulations and to forms of examinations, as well as the proposed introduction (or discontinuation) of courses, must be approved by the General Board (as recommended by their Education Committee), following submission by a Faculty Board or Degree Committee. Changes to courses which require registration as a Graduate Student are also subject to approval by the Board of Graduate Studies.
Within this general framework, the mechanisms for considering changes are designed to be proportionate to the significance of the change. They range from approval by a member of the Education Section, on the Education Committee's behalf (with subsequent reporting back to the Committee), in instances where the change is minor and uncontroversial (for example, altering the title (but not scope or content) of a paper) to major developments requiring a Report to, and the consent of, the Regent House (for example, a significant reform of a Tripos or major changes in the delivery of graduate education).
The Education Section encourages early contact with those locally responsible for any proposal, so that it is properly formulated and any ambiguities clarified. Steps are taken to consult other interested parties (for example the Senior Tutors' Committee, the Board of Examinations and any other Faculty which might have an interest); and a timetable is agreed for central consideration of the proposal. The introduction of the Guide to Quality Assurance (see (2.7)) should improve this interaction by including a guide to the processing of business.
Most changes are subject to firm timetables, set out in Statutes and Ordinances, for their implementation. For example, a change to the Regulations for a one-year Part of a Tripos must have been approved by the end of the Easter Term in the academical year preceding the examination. Where timetables are not prescribed in Statutes and Ordinances, the Education Committee will assure itself that no student (or, in the case of new courses, prospective entrant) will be disadvantaged by the timing of the change.
* * * *
Diagrams indicating the processes for considering new and amended course proposals are included in Appendix I. The following are examples of how business is handled.
Major initiatives, such as the revision of a Tripos or alternative routes to a qualification, require a Report to the Regent House. Draft Reports are approved by the General Board and the Council before publication. The academic case for the proposal will have been considered beforehand by the Education Committee (and, where applicable, the relevant Senior Tutors' Committee, and the Board of Graduate Studies). The Guide to Quality Assurance (see (2.7) below) includes a checklist of issues to be considered when substantial revision to, or entirely new, courses are proposed. Before commending a Report to the General Board and the Council, the Education Committee will satisfy itself that the views of all interested parties have been sought and taken into account.
Reports on educational matters and considered by the Regent House in the last three years have included: substantial changes to the Classical, Economics, Education Studies, Medical and Veterinary Science, Music, Natural Sciences and Theological and Religious Studies Triposes; an alternative route to the M.B.A.; a two-year M.Phil. Degree involving a period of study abroad; a part-time route to certain research degrees and certificates; the formulation of residence requirements for the M.Phil. Degree; a review of continuing education and lifelong learning; the establishment of a Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies, and of the Cambridge-MIT Institute; the Gates Scholarships scheme for overseas students; the introduction of a student complaints procedure and of a review process for undergraduate examination results; and the election of student members to the General Board.
New subjects of study for the M.Phil. degree are introduced more regularly than entirely new undergraduate programmes. This reflects the particular external factors influencing graduate education. Proposals from Faculty Boards and their Degree Committees are considered first by the Board of Graduate Studies whose support is essential if the proposal is to be approved by the General Board. The Board of Graduate Studies have their own template of issues to be addressed by those proposing new M.Phil. subjects. Once approved by the General Board, new M.Phil. courses and their examination regulations are announced by a General Board Notice.
Proposals for new papers within an existing course will be considered by the Education Committee which, in consultation (for Tripos papers) with the Senior Tutors' Committee, will examine the academic rationale for the proposal and the sufficiency of the necessary University and College teaching and learning resources, and assess the proposal in the context of the General Board's Policy Statement on Tripos Papers (Appendix J). New papers within existing M.Phil. courses are also scrutinised by the Board of Graduate Studies.
Any change to an examination rubic requires a 'Form and Conduct' Notice specifying the intended change, for publication by the end of the Michaelmas Term preceding the examination. Details are provided by Faculty Boards to the Education Section. Minor changes (e.g. an increase in the number of questions from which a candidate can choose) are processed and published straightforwardly. The Board of Examinations are consulted over changes which fall within their remit (e.g. the length or timing of an examination). More substantial changes (e.g. a change in the form of assessment) are referred to the Education Committee, which will consider the proposal in the context of the General Board's Policy Statement on Tripos papers, students' interests and examining load and the course's intended learning outcomes.
* * * *
The University's procedures for considering course developments and changes have a number of positive features. The need for all proposals to be subject to central approval (which cannot be taken for granted) encourages a properly considered approach by those making the proposal and informal prior consultation with the central administration. Firm regulatory timetables for implementing proposals provide early notification of changes across the University. The closer links between the General Board's and Senior Tutors' Education Committees have improved the coordination of their decision making.
In recent years the Education Committee has, particularly where significant changes are proposed (for example, the recent reform of the Economics Tripos and the provision for a four-year Classical Tripos), been increasingly concerned to focus first on the academic rationale; once satisfied on that score, the necessary changes to regulations (and, where necessary, the Report to the Regent House) can be drafted relatively straightforwardly. The Committee now endeavours to take a more positive approach to innovatory proposals once their rationale has been tested. So, for example, it has agreed to an increasingly wide range of forms of assessment (including undergraduate dissertations, portfolios of essays, project reports and multiple choice question papers). Equally, however, the Committee tries to be appropriately reflective about the consequences of such innovations. Where, for example, assessment by dissertation is proposed, care is taken to address the implications for supervision of those dissertations.
The Committee's main remit has been to concentrate on the educational case for course developments (although it has always adhered as closely as possible to the General Board's policy that the introduction of a new Tripos paper should be accompanied by the withdrawal of an existing paper). Any resource implications have generally been regarded as an issue to be addressed locally. (Central scrutiny was generally restricted to instances in which the proposal was explicitly contingent on additional resources.) As a consequence, it could be said that on occasion the central committees did not test sufficiently rigorously assurances given to them that course developments could be met from within existing resources. The limitations of this approach can be seen in the outcome of the review of M.Phil. provision (Appendix H).
The various forms of educational legislation are not entirely straightforward. As, for example, Triposes have been divided in increasingly various ways - with sub-divisions of Parts of a Tripos into A and B in some areas - and as possible combinations of papers and forms of assessment have multiplied, so their regulations have become more complex. Publication of changes in Reporter, whilst appropriate in a formal sense, is not always sufficient to ensure that all interested parties are fully apprised of them. One feature of a proposed new student records system, CamSIS, will be the ability automatically to detect proposed combinations of examination entries which do not comply with Tripos regulations.
These mechanisms might suggest that legislation is introduced at a pace much slower than is consistent with changing external circumstances. Indeed, the period of time which can elapse between, for example, a Faculty Board preparing a Report to the Regent House and final approval of that Report can, on occasion, be significant. In practice, however, straightforward changes can be quickly implemented. The introduction, for example, of a fully formulated new M.Phil. programme can be rapidly processed. On the other hand major changes to a Tripos, particularly where core Part I courses are concerned, are considered at a more deliberative pace, reflecting not only the University's 'steady state' position on undergraduate numbers but also the need to take account of both University and College resources and expertise, and the labour-intensive nature of undergraduate provision.
All Examiners for undergraduate and a number of other degrees and awards are appointed by the General Board (through their Education Committee), on the nomination of the Faculty Board or comparable body. Appointments are for one year. Examiners (including External Examiners) may serve for no more than 3 years consecutively. Any case to extend an appointment beyond that period must be made to the Education Committee, as should any case for an unstraightforward appointment, e.g. the appointment of a graduate student as an Assessor. For each examination there is a Chairman or Senior Examiner who has overall responsibility for the examination and for meetings of the Boards of Examiners.
Examiners for qualifications requiring registration as a Graduate Student are appointed by the relevant Degree Committee, with appointments being reported to the Board of Graduate Studies.
The General Board, recognising the differing circumstances in Faculties and Departments, do not inflexibly prescribe the duties of External Examiners whose moderating functions can vary between disciplines and between levels of study. They do, however, issue Guidance on the arrangements for External Examiners (Appendix K), which may be supplemented by Faculty guidelines. The Board have recently been considering the different roles undertaken by External Examiners and expect to promote changes to the Ordinances governing their appointment, to distinguish between those who are appointed to examine specific Tripos papers and those who moderate across the whole (or a significant proportion) of a Part of a Tripos or other examination. External Examiners appointed by the General Board are required to submit a Report, on which their payment is conditional, to the Vice-Chancellor.
The General Board do not dictate the format of External Examiners' reports. They have deliberately eschewed the notion of a pro-forma or template for reporting, although they do recommend a series of topics, consistent with the relevant section of the QAA's Code of Practice, which Externals are invited to address. The Board believe that External Examiners must be free to comment as they see fit on any aspect of the examinations and the courses leading to them.
The consideration of these reports is an essential part of the University's quality assurance systems. Reports are referred by the Vice-Chancellor to the General Board's Education Section. It, in turn, requests a response by the Faculty Board or comparable authority to the report's recommendations, in addition to the response which that body makes direct to the External Examiner. Responses are expected to consider each issue raised by Externals in a manner appropriate to the strength of the Examiner's recommendation. Accordingly, responses may indicate actions taken immediately, or a commitment to ongoing reflection on a particular issue, or referral to another body (either in the Faculty or to a University body). The response is then considered by the member of the Education Committee whose own discipline is closest to that covered in the report. In the event that the response is considered incomplete, further consideration of the report is required of the Faculty Board until such time as the response is considered satisfactory. At need, responses may be referred to the full Education Committee for consideration and action. The Committee has, for example, recently encouraged one Faculty Board to review its practice in double marking of Part II papers. Aside from their responses to Examiners and to the Education Committee, Faculties and Departments are encouraged to ensure that all interested parties are made aware of the Externals' general comments, including Teaching Committees, Chairmen of Examiners, and Staff-Student Committees.
With effect from 2001-02, the Education Committee has agreed annually to review any general issues arising from all External Examiners' reports for the previous year. The Board of Examinations also consider an annual report by their Secretary on the operation of that year's examinations, leading, as necessary, to changes in their own procedures and to recommendations to the Education Committee. Following the 2002 examinations, for example, the Board of Examinations asked that Committee to review technical difficulties associated with multiple choice question papers and the organisational difficulties arising from overlapping questions on different examination papers.
In addition to these arrangements, there are other features of the University's examination procedures which contribute to quality assurance. The Board of Examinations provide detailed guidance to Chairmen and Senior Examiners to ensure the proper conduct of examinations and compliance with the relevant regulations. Anonymity of scripts is general practice and double marking, particularly in Part II Triposes, is strongly encouraged. Attendance by all Examiners at final meetings of Boards of Examiners is compulsory, unless, for exceptional reasons, a dispensation is granted by the Education Section on the Vice-Chancellor's behalf. The University has longstanding procedures in place for consideration by a central body of candidates whose examination preparation and performance may have been affected by medical or other factors. Since 2000-01 the University has had formal procedures for considering representations, from or on behalf of candidates, relating to the conduct or outcome of an examination, involving, at need, consideration of representations by a Review Committee with no prior involvement in the case. In the 2002 examinations, representations were received from 60 candidates (out of a total of more than 12,000 examined); of these 4 resulted in the Examiners agreeing to a change in the candidate's class. Four cases have been referred to the Review Committee. Both the Board of Examinations and the Education Committee consider an annual report on the review procedure so that any general issues can be identified. After the first year of the review procedure's operation, for example, a clearer set of instructions to Chairmen of Examiners about their role in the process was produced.
Somewhat different arrangements apply to graduate student qualifications, where the awarding body is the Board of Graduate Studies (rather than, as for Tripos examinations, Boards of Examiners). That Board receive all Examiners' reports and marks, together with the recommendations of the relevant Degree Committee and, for taught postgraduate programmes, the approved mark scheme. The Board have power to refer recommendations back to a Degree Committee.
Where moderating External Examiners are appointed for M.Phil. programmes, it is now expected that they will submit reports for consideration by the Degree Committee and that the Board of Graduate Studies (where appropriate through their officers) will consider both the report and the Degree Committee's response. The Board have recently reviewed the use of External Examiners in M.Phil. examinations and anticipate establishing a framework of expectations on which Degree Committees may elaborate to meet their particular needs. Ph.D. examinations are conducted by an External and an Internal Examiner: the Supervisor plays no part in the examination.
Formal procedures are also in place for considering representations about the outcome of examinations for which the Board of Graduate Studies are responsible. This involves a two stage process, whereby the representations are considered first by the body responsible for determining the outcome of the examination and then, if necessary, by a Review Committee with no prior involvement in the case. In 2001 some 17 candidates in graduate student examinations were not approved for the qualification sought (compared with 1,685 successful candidates.) The Board address any general comments which Review Committees may make about examination procedures, for example about the clarity of the guidance given to Ph.D. examiners.
* * * *
With few exceptions, External Examiners regularly testify to the standards maintained against both external and internal benchmarks. Were this not to be the case with a particular External's report, the Education Committee would expect to address the issue immediately.
The freedom accorded to External Examiners in the form of their reporting to the University, whilst generally leading to full and frank reports, can, on occasion, generate a brief and relatively uninformative response. This, however, occurs too infrequently to cause the General Board to constrain that freedom. The Education Committee has, as a result of its 2002 review of the External Examining process, addressed the speed with which some Faculty Boards responded to External Examiners' reports. The Committee will await the outcome of national debate about the publication of summaries of Externals' reports before considering the University's position further (see Section 3). It is conscious of the demands which the University makes of its External Examiners, particularly in Tripos examinations for which the period between the exams and the conferment of degrees is limited.
The University believes its procedures for the conduct of examinations and for considering the reports of External Examiners contribute to the maintenance of standards through:
| • | a clear distinction between the teaching and examining processes; |
| • | the appointment by the General Board of Boards of Examiners exercising their collective and independent academic judgement (within marking and classing criteria agreed by the Faculty Boards); |
| • | sound procedures for considering special circumstances relating to particular candidates; |
| • | no constraint on the issues an External Examiner may raise; and |
| • | rigorous scrutiny of External Examiners' reports and responses to them, and engagement with general issues through annual review, by various central bodies, of the entire examination process. |
Since 1989, the General Board have, as one means of fulfilling their statutory responsibilities for the oversight of the institutions for which they are responsible, conducted a rolling programme of internal reviews of Faculties and Departments. Whilst many institutions may regularly review particular activities, for example through their Teaching Committees, the nature of these reviews varies: some may take a strategic look at future provision whilst others may be concerned with course changes for the following year. The General Board's reviews provide each institution with the opportunity to reflect explicitly on its overall activities and to articulate its position in each of those activities and on the resources available to it. Reviews have accordingly covered a wide spectrum of matters, including teaching and research, accommodation, relations with other bodies, internal governance etc. Until recently the programme was based on a ten-year cycle: from 2001-02, a six-year cycle was introduced. Management of these reviews rests with the Education Committee. The programme for each year is determined by that Committee after consultations with the Councils of the Schools and in light of any instructions, relating to particular institutions, by the General Board.
Under the arrangements in place until the present academical year, each review could potentially involve two stages. A 'Preliminary' review of the state of, and prospects for, the institution (conducted by a review committee normally comprised entirely of internal members of the University) might lead to a 'Full Review' (including an approximately equal balance of internal and external members). Examples, within the last five years, of both stages taking place include the Reviews of Social and Political Sciences, the Judge Institute of Management Studies and the Institute of Criminology. Recent examples of instances in which a Preliminary Review was considered sufficient include Classics, Engineering and Experimental Psychology. Even if a Full Review was not proposed, the Preliminary Review typically generated a range of issues for consideration either by the institution reviewed or by other bodies.
With effect from 2002-03, a number of features of the review process have been amended, partly in recognition of external expectations and partly on the basis of previous experience. These changes are, in summary:
| • | the replacement of 'Preliminary Reviews' by 'Standard Reviews'; |
| • | the automatic inclusion, within each Standard Review Committee's membership, of a member external to the University, with sufficient expertise to give particular consideration to the institution's arrangements for teaching, learning and assessment and the quality assurance of those arrangements; |
| • | a more explicit indication of the issues to be considered by each Review Committee in respect of teaching, learning and assessment and internal quality assurance processes; and |
| • | a clearer indication of the process to be employed once a review has been completed and in tracking the responses to the review's recommendations. |
The General Board's 'Faculty and Departmental Review Procedures', in place from 2002-03, are attached as Appendix L.
It remains central to the General Board's purpose in conducting these reviews that they continue to take a holistic approach to all aspects of an institution's activities and not solely be concerned with the courses which the institution offers. This is reflected in each Review Committee's terms of reference (see para.5 of Appendix L). Nevertheless, it has for some years been the General Board's expectation that reviews should carefully scrutinise the institution's teaching programme, that the written submission from the institution must provide sufficient information about those programmes, and that, as a matter of course, the Review Committee should meet separately with those with formal responsibility for teaching and with a sample of students from each of the institution's courses.
In addition to reviews of individual academic institutions, the General Board also expect to conduct reviews of other institutions which bear on the University's educational provision (for example, a 2002 review of the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies). The Board also, from time to time (in consultation with the Council where appropriate), initiate reviews of general aspects of provision spanning the whole University. Recent examples include the University's arrangements for continuing education and lifelong learning, and provision for the M.Phil. Degree.
Internal reviews have generally proved to be frank diagnoses of the state of the institution reviewed. Their conclusions can often challenge either the institution itself (e.g. the reviews of the Faculties of Divinity and of Social and Political Sciences) or the University (e.g. the reviews of the Judge Institute of Management Studies and of M.Phil. provision). They have generated significant developments either between reviews (e.g. the last two reviews of the Department of History of Art) or as a result of the review (e.g. the Faculty of History's arrangements for its Graduate Students). Whilst the revised arrangements for departmental reviews are in their early stages and their effectiveness is yet to be fully assessed, the University expects its internal review programme to support quality assurance through:
| • | a general confidence, within the University, in the integrity of the process; |
| • | the opportunity afforded for frank dialogue between the institution , including its students, and informed reviewers; |
| • | identification of good practice and of issues to be addressed; |
| • | an opportunity for the institution to explore its strengths and limitations; |
| • | a rigorous examination of the institution in a Cambridge and a wider context. |
The key challenges facing the General Board and the Education Committee in implementing the revised scheme of internal review will be to:
| • | ensure that the faster processing of reviews, necessitated by a move to a 6-year cycle, is not at the expense of their thoroughness; |
| • | allow an appropriate focus on teaching, learning and assessment issues, but without neglecting other areas; |
| • | operate an effective tracking system for monitoring progress in the implementation of agreed recommendations; and |
| • | attempt to avoid the danger of publication of part of each review's outcomes distorting its purposes. |
With effect from 2002 the General Board have introduced a new strand to institutional processes: a statement, from each Faculty and Department, about its quality assurance and enhancement processes, following an interview by members of the Education Section with members of the institution. Statements will summarise the institution's arrangements and indicate any issues to be addressed. Each statement will be updated annually, to flag developments during the year and, as necessary, to show how any areas of concern or need have been addressed. The process will begin afresh every six years.
This process has replaced a reporting process, between each institution and the Education Committee, which both parties found defective. In 1999, the Committee asked each Faculty and Department to provide an annual report on its teaching and examining arrangements. Within a year or so of its introduction the limitations of this process soon became apparent. Reports were descriptive and often heavily statistical, rather than evaluative; no clear central steer was given as to what was required and why; and the returns were patchy and variable in their usefulness.
The issues to be covered in the interview and the ensuing statement will include:
means of: collecting and acting on student feedback; reviewing course provision; and dealing (where applicable) with placement learning and collaborative provision;
| • | marking and classing criteria; |
| • | procedures for considering External Examiners' reports; |
| • | staff development opportunities and policies; |
| • | interaction between the institution and the Colleges; |
| • | the institution's approach to transferable skills; |
| • | the production of Programme Specifications; |
| • | engagement with the QAA's Code of Practice, the relevant Subject Benchmark Statement and (as necessary) the requirements of professional statutory bodies; and |
| • | examples of good practice and indications of areas in which advice about practice in other institutions would be welcome. |
The Education Committee will track the progress of the interview procedure and the production of agreed quality statements. It will be informed of any instances where arrangements are thought to give cause for concern and will expect to take appropriate remedial action.
It is intended that this new strand of University-wide quality assurance will have the following features and benefits.
| • | It will not be a heavily paper-based exercise; it will, however, generate, in a common format, a document summarising the key features of the institution's arrangements. |
| • | A personal, pro-active approach will be taken on the central bodies' behalf, in that each institution will have a designated contact within the Education Section, who, in addition to drafting the quality statement, will: assist with the production of Programme Specifications and the institution's engagement with external requirements; and promote liaison with other parts of the central administration in relevant areas, e.g. staff development, use of the new technologies, careers and disability provision. Generally, the designated contact will build up sufficient knowledge of the institution to advise it on its dealings with the central administration on all aspects of teaching, learning and assessment. |
| • | The key evidence sought in the procedure will be that the institution has means of addressing each of the issues above. There is no intention to prescribe what those means should be. |
| • | Having a designated contact in each institution is intended to promote (i) closer relations between the institution and the central bodies, with anticipated benefits in the processing of formal business; (ii) more effective dissemination of information to local recipients best placed to act on that information; and (iii) networking amongst local contacts. |
| • | The process will be co-ordinated with the other strands of quality assurance. The 'Quality Interview' will be informed by the Education Section's knowledge of relevant business concerning the institution which has appeared on the Education Committee's agenda. The most current version of the 'Quality Statement' will be one of the documents available to Internal Review Committees. The relevant Programme Specifications will be available to the Education Committee when it considers proposals for major revisions to the institution's courses. |
Central to this new exercise is the production, with effect from 2002, of a document entitled Quality Assurance and Enhancement of Teaching, Learning and Assessment: a guide for Faculties, Departments and other University institutions ('The Quality Guide'). The document aims to:
| • | provide advice to institutions on activities relevant to quality assurance and enhancement, with examples of good practice; |
| • | provide practical guidance on the four University-wide strands of quality assurance, on the General Board's expectations and minimum requirements and how they can be met locally, and on the processing of business; and |
| • | collate key internal and external documents relating to quality assurance. |
The Guide is, in part, a response to recommendations made following the last audit that the General Board consider the publication of guidelines on procedures for maintaining standards and articulate the issues they expect to be addressed by Faculties and Departments when developing new or revised programmes.
The approach adopted by the General Board to the Code of Practice mirrors the QAA's view that the Code and its precepts are intended to show good practice across the sector, with which each university should engage, rather than being a prescriptive checklist to be complied with. The approach also reflects the balance of responsibility between the central bodies and individual institutions.
In many instances, it was found that University practice already met or exceeded the Code's precepts, for example in graduate admissions procedures (Section 1), central consideration of External Examiners' Reports (Section 4), the importance attached to formative assessment and feedback (Section 6), and the need for new programmes to be approved by a body independent of the institution proposing the programme (Section 7).
Particular Sections of the Code were reviewed by the Education Section to identify at what level in the University - central, local or college - responsibility for addressing the precepts lies; and any areas where there might be difficulties or where University practice was thought inconsistent with particular precepts.
The Code is provided to each Faculty and Department at the time of the Quality interview and those Sections and precepts of particular significance to local activities are highlighted. Faculty and Departmental contacts are encouraged to ensure that an individual or committee scrutinises each of these Sections to compare the precepts with local arrangements. Not all Sections have the same level of significance locally (for example, the precepts concerning undergraduate admissions in section 10 of the Code are a college responsibility). Those Sections which all Faculties and Departments are specifically encouraged to address are: Postgraduate Research Programmes (1); Disability (3); External Examining (4); Assessment (6); and Programme approval (7).
The Education Committee will bear the Code in mind when conducting its business. Thus, for example, the Collaborative Provision Section will be used to benchmark the quality assurance arrangements proposed for any Masters programme to be offered jointly with a partner university; and the Programme Approval Section will be used when new courses are considered.
* * * *
In the initial review of the Code, a number of issues deserving particular action were identified relating to the following Sections.
This Section encouraged the Board of Graduate Studies to extend the range of topics covered in their Memoranda to Graduate Students and their Supervisors, and to give particular attention to generic issues on which evidence suggested that further clarification was required, for example continuation as a Ph.D. candidate after an M.Phil. course.
The General Board's Guidelines to External Examiners were amended to incorporate points of good practice from this Section, for example the general issues which Externals are invited to address. The Section also served to highlight the need for better tracking of the receipt of, and response to, Externals' reports and actions arising from them. The Education Committee now receives an annual report of that tracking process and considers, as a main item of business at the same meeting, a summary of general issues arising from the reports overall. For example, precept 9 has led to the Committee identifying those Parts of Triposes without External Examiners and discussing the rationale for their absence with relevant parties. The Board of Graduate Studies have done likewise in respect of M.Phil. examinations.
The University has, deliberately, separate processes for dealing with representations against examination results and with student complaints.
The precepts on student complaints expedited implementation of a complaints procedure previously approved in principle by the Regent House. The delay in implementation, caused in part by a national suggestion of the need for an independent reviewer, was subsequently resolved and a University procedure is now in place. The Education Committee will receive an annual report of the procedure's operation. (The precepts also assisted the Colleges' deliberations on their own internal student complaints procedures, progress in which is being monitored by the Senior Tutors' Committee.)
This Section encouraged the Education Committee to: (a) review the General Board's longstanding position on the proportion of a Tripos examination which may be assessed by means other than unseen examination papers, and to pay greater attention to the appropriateness of the method of assessment when measured against the intended learning outcomes (see Appendix J); (b) review classing criteria and the value and purpose of classing across the University; (c) encourage a greater transparency in classing and marking criteria; and (d) promote an Ordinance explicitly empowering Faculty Boards to set such criteria for implementation by Boards of Examiners.
This Section focused the Committee's attention on the quality assurance of the Cambridge-MIT undergraduate exchange programme. Whilst each outgoing and incoming student's experience is monitored by the College concerned, the Education Committee agreed, as its contribution to central monitoring of CMI activities, to: receive a termly report from the CMI Education Programmes Liaison Group (including representatives from CMI, the Committee and the Colleges); include CMI educational activities as a substantive termly item for its agenda; encourage regular contact between administrative officers of the Education Section and MIT on quality procedures; and consider an external report, commissioned by CMI, on the success of the exchange programme to date.
The Joint Committee on Admissions sought to assure itself that undergraduate admission procedures were consistent with this Section's expectations and the Board of Graduate Studies gave similar attention to graduate admissions. The particular need for formal admissions complaints procedures was identified. An undergraduate procedure, drawn up by Senior Tutors' Standing Committee on Numbers and Admissions, was formally approved in October 2002. A procedure for graduate applicants was agreed by the Board of Graduate Studies in the Michaelmas Term 2002. The Section also flagged the need to give particular attention to the admission processes for a certain number of postgraduate courses for which the admitting authority is neither a College nor the Board of Graduate Studies, for example the MEd and MBA Degrees. The admissions arrangements for these courses will be taken up in the Quality Interview procedure.
* * * *
All of the above is not to suggest that the University agrees with each and every precept in all sections of the Code. For example, we do not agree with precept 12 in Section 8, which recommends that academic staff offering careers advice to students should be explicitly trained for that purpose. Nor do we accept, in connection with the commentary on 'Internal Processes' in Section 5, that a central authority should have power to substitute its own decision on an examination result. However, the University believes that it is taking a measured and responsible approach to the Code of Practice, by
| • | highlighting precepts deserving the most immediate attention, either centrally or locally or by the Colleges; |
| • | considering the rationale for its arrangements as and when these do not precisely coincide with particular precepts; and |
| • | central explanation and distillation of the Code to make it more digestible to Faculties and Departments. |
Members of the University were involved in the production of the following Benchmark Statements: Anthropology, Archaeology, History of Art, Architecture and Design, Biomedical Science, Classics, Computing, Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Economics, Engineering, Geography, History, Law, Linguistics, Mathematics, Statistics and Operational Research, Philosophy, Physics, Astronomy and Veterinary Science.
As part of the Quality Interview the relevant Subject Benchmark Statement and a copy of the FHEQ is provided to the Faculty/Departmental contact.
The interview includes discussion about the use of the documents. Level descriptors in the FHEQ and skills described in Benchmark Statements contribute to programme specifications; the Faculties of Classics and Law, for example, used the skills listed in the Benchmark statements for their subjects in making explicit the transferable skills associated with their courses. Any institution considering new courses is expected to bear in mind the material contained in these documents.
The Education Committee, when considering proposals for new courses and changes to courses, will bear in mind the provisions of the Benchmark Statements and the FHEQ, and expect advice in them to be borne in mind by Faculties and Departments. In considering earlier drafts of the FHEQ, the University considered whether any of its qualifications did not meet the Framework's expectations and concluded that it sought to address issues not apparent at Cambridge. The University has never taken lightly the introduction of an entirely new title for a qualification. The range of its degree titles is modest in comparison with many other universities. It believes that its qualifications are consistent with the Framework's Qualification Descriptors.
The University's performance in Teaching Quality Assessment and in Subject Review has been strong. Between 1993 and 1995 eleven subject areas were assessed under TQA, of which ten were considered 'excellent'. 24 units of assessment have been reviewed since 1997 with the following results:
| Overall grade | No. of units of assessment |
| 24 | 7 |
| 23 | 14 |
| 22 | 2 |
| 21 | 1 |
No unit of assessment received a grade of less than 3 in any of the six aspects of provision reviewed:
| Aspect of provision | No. of units of assessment graded | |
| 4 | 3 | |
| Curriculum Design, Content & Organisation | 21 | 3 |
| Teaching Learning and Assessment | 17 | 7 |
| Student Progression and Achievement | 24 | 0 |
| Student Support and Guidance | 24 | 0 |
| Learning Resources | 23 | 1 |
| Quality Management and Enhancement | 14 | 10 |
The Education Committee sought a response to each Subject Review report from the Faculty/Department concerned and determined whether the response was satisfactory. In instances where the institution disagreed with the grade awarded in a particular aspect, the Committee assessed the validity of the claim. In the majority of cases, the Committee was satisfied with the response, but where necessary it referred the response back for further consideration (for example in the cases of Archaeology and Social and Political Sciences). In a number of instances the Report's recommendations have caused changes in the Faculty/Department's practices (not only where a grade less than 4 was awarded). For example, in light of their respective Reports, the Faculty of Education introduced a peer assessment scheme and the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic now holds regular meetings at which all aspects of its Tripos provision are discussed. The Education Committee is satisfied that Faculties and Departments which have undergone Subject Review have responded constructively to valid criticisms, where it was in their power to do so (in some cases, the report's recommendation had resource implications outwith the institution's control, for example, the limitations of the Department of Architecture's accommodation).
The Education Committee has considered whether general conclusions might be drawn from the subject review reports, particularly in respect of the two aspects of provision (TLA and QME) most frequently gaining a grade of 3. In the case of TLA, the grounds for the reviewers' concern were often specific to the subject reviewed. So far as QME is concerned, the Committee took account of such concerns in developing the Quality Guide and introducing the Quality Interview, both of which are intended to ensure that all Faculties and Departments consciously reflect on, and explicitly articulate, their quality assurance arrangements.
At the end of the Michaelmas Term 2002, the Education Committee reviewed the overall outcomes of the University's involvement with Subject Review and identified certain areas which would benefit from further exploration including student feedback, staff development, and assessment policy and practices. The Committee expects to return to these issues during the remainder of the present academical year.
As far as student feedback was concerned, it was noted that reviewers had drawn attention to issues concerning effective reporting back to students on actions taken as a result of their feedback. The Committee agreed that further action should be considered to strengthen good practice such as further guidance in the Quality Guide or workshops for institutional contacts. It has also encouraged its student representative to draw its attention to institutions providing particularly effective feedback mechanisms.
Under staff development, reviewers had drawn attention to issues concerning lack of clear departmental strategies, staff participation in training, and the linkage of staff development to appraisal. The Committee considered that various staff development activities over and above those offered in the University's staff development programme took place both in the University and in Colleges, and that a 'one-size fits all' programme would not be appropriate for the University's culture of devolved responsibility, nor would it be effective. A revised appraisal scheme, more closely linked to staff development, is under consideration, and a working group of the Personnel, Staff Development and Education Committees is exploring the issue of staff development in teaching, learning and assessment more generally.
On assessment policy and practices, there appeared to be issues concerning the relationship of learning outcomes to assessment practices and the provision of information to students and staff. The Committee noted that certain recent developments, such as the production of programme specifications and the report of the Joint Committee on Academic Performance, had encouraged reflection on assessment practices and whether they were appropriate to learning outcomes. However, it was also acknowledged that a more strategic and University-wide view of assessment policies and practices, to highlight the need for transparency, clarity, reflectiveness and good communication, would be useful. However, the Committee was also firmly of the opinion that assessment practices should not drive changes to the nature of learning, but rather that practices which supported and extended the particular features of teaching and learning in Cambridge should be encouraged.
* * * *
Central oversight of the interaction between individual Faculties and Departments and relevant Professional Accreditation Bodies (PSBs) has hitherto varied according to the extent to which individual institutions needed central support in meeting PSB requirements, and to which the PSB sought a University submission. In Engineering and Computer Science, for example, central input has been limited, continued accreditation has been straightforward and the Education Committee has been apprised of the outcome. The Committee has been particularly conscious of the positions of the GMC and the RCVS in considering proposals concerning the University's medical and veterinary courses. It has worked closely with the Faculty of Law in determining a position in response to new quality assurance arrangements proposed by the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar; and with the Department of Experimental Psychology in respect of the BPS. The Committee is monitoring the Department of Architecture's ability to meet additional ARB/RIBA requirements.
The Committee recognises, however, that it requires a more comprehensive and systematic means of becoming aware in advance of the timetable for re-accreditation so that: any necessary central input can be provided in good time; the General Board's programme of internal reviews can be scheduled to complement the relevant PSB's timetable; and duplication of documentation avoided. The Committee is also aware that it needs a better capacity for tracking the outcome of institutions' responses to their PSBs and for addressing the educational and resource implications of each outcome.
The fostering of improved provision and the encouragement of innovative practice in teaching, learning and assessment are as important as assuring the quality of existing provision. The University's approach to quality enhancement is consistent with its overall philosophy. Developments are most effective when initiated locally. The centre's role is to encourage local innovations, disseminate those which have a more general applicability, and to focus its own provision in areas of demonstrable demand for central support.
It is a characteristic of Faculties and Departments that they continuously reflect on means of enhancing provision for their students, and that they do so without central prompting. Whilst it is impossible, in this document, to give more than a flavour of this activity, certain generally applicable trends over recent years can be identified:
| • | increased variety in forms of course delivery, for example seminars, classes, group work, and computer-based learning packages; |
| • | more diverse forms of assessment, including dissertations, portfolios of essays and multiple choice question papers; |
| • | substantial use of web-sites for teaching resources, course and administrative documentation and general dissemination of information to students and staff; |
| • | more diverse means of soliciting student feedback, and encouragement of student-initiated activities. |
IT resources have played a major part in many recent innovations. The Faculty of English, for example, has for some time offered prospective students 'The Virtual Classroom' to introduce them to the Faculty's approaches to literary criticism. Modern and Medieval Languages have introduced a Certificate in Humanities Computing for Languages, a one-year course to equip students with computing skills particularly suitable for the study of languages, literature and linguistics and for relevant employment. The Department of Geography offers its Part IB students a self-study and self-assessment computing package in statistics, whilst the Department of Pathology has created a 'Teaching Laboratory' whereby audio-visual links can connect students and staff wherever they are situated in the Department. The Faculty of Law, in anticipation of the expectations of the legal professional statutory bodies, introduced a Freshfields Legal IT course, designed to familiarise students with the use of major web-based legal resources. The Department of Engineering has recently initiated COMET (Cambridge On-line Management of Engineering Teaching) to handle many aspects of its courses, allowing students to make course choices and examination entries on-line on a data base which can be interrogated by Departmental and College staff: COMET is presently being piloted in Part IIA of the Tripos.
Reflecting efforts to increase student response rates, a number of institutions have supplemented paper-based questionnaires with means of electronic feedback. The Computer Laboratory and the Faculty of Economics and Politics have an 'instant response' anonymous e-mail facility for urgent problems.
Training in languages has developed in various ways depending on the discipline. The Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, for example, has introduced 'The Spoken Word', a web-based facility through which prospective students can listen to how the languages taught in the Tripos sounded. The Faculty of Oriental Studies is developing a linguistic aptitude test for its students, whilst the Department of Engineering has for some years offered a multi-media Language Programme For Engineers, covering a range of languages at various levels.
Recent local enhancements have not been restricted to increased exploitation of the new technologies. A number of institutions (for example the Faculties of Classics and of Philosophy) developed in-house programmes for developing the skills of postgraduates who wish to supervise undergraduates. The Faculty of Music has recently introduced 'Study days' focusing on a particular composer and expects shortly to initiate master classes on historical performance, involving leading professional musicians. The Faculty of English provides financial support for its student society's theatre visits. The Department of Engineering has produced comprehensive Staff and Examiners' Handbooks covering all aspects of its teaching activities; and the Computer Laboratory commissioned a Ph.D. guide written by its doctoral students.
The centre's contribution to quality enhancement has, until recently and with the exception of its staff development activities (see below), been relatively modest. In a University as diverse and devolved as Cambridge, with a relatively small central infrastructure, identifying appropriate means of central support for quality enhancement has not been straightforward.
It is anticipated that the introduction of the Quality Interview procedure will improve the centre's knowledge of good practice and its capacity to make it more widely known.
The implementation of the University's original (1999-2002) and revised (2002-05) Learning and Teaching Strategies has helped to foster a more pro-active central approach to enhancement. The HEFCE funding made available following their approval of each version of that Strategy has, for example, enabled the development of a University-wide Undergraduate Transferable Skills Website (http://www.caret.cam.ac.uk/transkills/home.htm), supported courses promoting individual academic and personal development under the 'Springboard for Undergraduates' programme, and contributed to the University Language Centre's Cambridge University Language Programme (CULP).
Recent years have seen an increased recognition, at central level, of the potential value of research in teaching, learning and assessment matters in informing future practice. In 1996, a Joint Committee on Academic Performance was established to act as a forum for considering factors which affect examination performance. A four year project, funded by the General Board, on Indicators of Academic Performance has recently been completed. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, the project examined, across a range of Faculties and Departments, student approaches to learning and examinations and the extent to which they could be linked to gender, school background and other factors. The Education Committee is presently considering the project's findings for particular institutions and more generally. The Joint Committee is now engaged with a project on factors influencing demand for graduate admission and is expected to be one of a number of central committees considering the Tripos implications of developments in pre-university education.
The University has invested in the 'Granta Learning Initiative', a portfolio of prospective initiatives involving: the introduction of a learning management system to provide a hierarchy of learning information resources available within and outside the University; the establishment of 'Learning/Educational Technologists' to work with academic staff in developing e-learning materials; and the establishment of a more explicit Research and Development agenda to support learning and teaching. An early initiative in this field was the establishment, in 2000-01, of the Centre for Applied Research in Educational Technologies (CARET), a central unit aimed at providing a focus for the application of research in new technology for learning and teaching (http://www.caret.cam.ac.uk/home-nav.htm). The future funding position of CARET is presently under review.
It is consistent with the value the University places on its individual members of staff that support for staff development has expanded significantly since the previous audit. The University's general approach to staff development is defined by five key features:
| • | A commitment to the development of all staff, irrespective of their roles; |
| • | A broad definition of staff development, to encompass any activity which bears on the individual's duties. Thus for academic staff, for example, sabbatical leave, secondments, membership of professional bodies, attendance at national and international conferences and the development of their own teaching materials are all activities which influence their teaching contribution; |
| • | An emphasis on the individual, with each member of staff taking prime responsibility for personal and professional development and for identifying needs through self-reflection and local feedback (from students, peers and appraisers); |
| • | An increasing range of centrally provided programmes; |
| • | A central approach which is supportive, rather than prescriptive, and which evolves in response to locally articulated demand. |
There have been considerable organisational changes to reflect the University's approach to staff development. All central activity now takes place under the aegis of a single Staff Development Committee, responsible, through the Personnel Committee, for advising the General Board and the Council on University-wide provision for all types of staff, and for monitoring the implementation of agreed policies. The Committee is accordingly better placed than its predecessors to take an overview of staff development activities and to prioritise the resources allocated to each centrally-funded activity.
Central staffing resources have been increased. In addition to a full-time Officer responsible for the needs of academic staff generally, there are two full-time Officers with remits covering learning and teaching issues for such staff, one full-time officer responsible for the needs of heads of institutions and academic-related staff, and a number of part-time 'University Teaching Associates'. The integration of this group within the Personnel Division has enabled it to use expertise from other parts of that Division to provide specialist programmes in matters such as equal opportunities and the implications of employment legislation. The group also collaborates with other central units with interests in specific areas of training, such as the Computing Service and the Disability Resource Centre.
The central staff development programme has expanded in size and range over recent years. In 2001-02, it included some 220 events (some 33% more than in the previous year), including, for example, career and professional development, induction, IT development and an increasing number on pedagogic matters (from lecturing techniques to student questionnaire design and modes of assessment). Since 1998-99, numbers attending parts of the programme have doubled. An increasing number of events are 'bespoke' courses (for example, for teachers whose first language is not English). The programme provides developmental opportunities for all staff, irrespective of their experience: for example, a successful and innovative 'Mid-Career Review' residential course has been in place for several years. All new UTOs and CTOs are strongly recommended to attend a three-day introductory seminar, during which teaching and learning issues feature prominently.
This central programme is just one aspect of the Staff Development Office's activities. The Office is increasingly involved with providing support tailored to the needs of particular institutions. Officers have, for example, worked with one department in the development of new teaching materials and with others in developing interviewing techniques. It also provides support, on a one-to-one basis, for individuals, for example through teaching observations and by constructing an individualised set of activities for new staff following the introductory seminar.
In order better to identify and respond to local needs, central liaison with each institution is being enhanced through named local contacts ('Staff Development Coordinators'). Particular emphasis is now placed on central support for local trainers, best placed to organise activities relevant to their own institutions.
At the time of the last audit, academic staff development focussed primarily on UTOs. In recent years the balance of provision has altered. This in part reflects the fact that the majority of those appointed as UTOs often already have very substantial teaching experience, either in Cambridge or elsewhere. Their demand for an extended generalised training programme beyond the introductory seminar is, accordingly, limited. Equally importantly, it was recognised that a very diverse population now contributes to teaching provision, including contract researchers, Associate and Affiliated Lecturers, research students and demonstrators. Central staff development provision has been reshaped accordingly. CTOs, for example, can now attend the introductory seminar (and other parts of the University programme), and the Staff Development Office is working with the Senior Tutors' Committee on how it can otherwise contribute to the development of CTOs. Particular attention is given to the support, by the 'University Teaching Associates', of supervisors and demonstrators (often postgraduate students), and also those who interview and select students.
Following extensive consultation across the University, it was agreed that the University should encourage those who sought membership of the Institute of Learning and Teaching by funding their initial membership fee and the first year subscription. Central staff development personnel provide individual advice on securing ILT membership.
Overall, the University's provision for staff development has expanded significantly over the last decade, in the number and nature of centrally organised events, in the developmental opportunities available to all types of employee, and in its responsiveness to local and individual needs. The range of activity will continue to be determined so as to meet needs which the University community itself identifies, rather than continue with activities for which take up is limited. The University is conscious of the difficulties which can be encountered in encouraging academic staff to engage in formal staff development activity: a better understanding of the determinants of their engagement will be explored in an international conference in Cambridge in September 2003. The challenges which the Staff Development operation faces for the future are likely in part to involve how best to prioritise its activities within the resources available and how to identify and maintain effective lines of communication with the many different groups who contribute to teaching in one form or another.
|
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.