< Previous page ^ Table of Contents Next page >

Section 4

Summary and future developments

4.1 Developments since the 1992 Academic Audit

Appendix M provides a detailed description of the measures taken in connection with the University's responses to the recommendations in the Report of the 1992 Academic Audit of the University, undertaken by a team from the CVCP's Academic Audit Unit.

The key characteristics which underpin the University's approach to educational provision and its quality assurance - described in Section 1 - remain fundamentally unchanged since the last Audit and are likely to remain so.

Within the parameters set by these characteristics, however, the University has endeavoured, in the intervening period, to respond appropriately, both in the nature and range of its provision and in its quality assurance processes, to developments across the education sector.

The University believes that it has developed its approach to quality assurance and enhancement since the 1992 Audit. It has done so through means which maintain a balance of responsibilities between the Faculties and Departments, the Colleges and the central bodies. That balance is an appropriate reflection of the University's culture, diversity and governance. There is now more effective interaction between University and intercollegiate bodies. The activities and remits of the General Board's Education Committee and the Senior Tutors' Committee are now better integrated. The General Board have, for their part, become more pro-active in various respects. They have developed a more explicit strategy for quality assurance so as to more clearly indicate their own expectations and the division of responsibilities. They are developing what are expected to be more effective links with each University institution, with anticipated benefits for the processing of business, internal communications, and for identifying matters of concern and instances of good practice. They have, through the production of the Guide to Quality, endeavoured to bring together all documentation bearing on quality assurance, which was hitherto issued in a somewhat piecemeal fashion by a variety of central bodies. Their Education Committee has attempted to revise its approach to its remit so as to allow greater opportunities for reflection on generic issues and future developments.

The Colleges, for their part, have, through their Senior Tutors' Committee, developed a more structured approach to their educational business. This has enabled them to enhance their ability to arrive at collective decisions and common policies.

4.2 Future developments

The University accepts that its strategies for quality assurance and enhancement and the means whereby its standards are maintained must be kept under regular review. For the foreseeable future, a number of challenges, from within and outside Cambridge, can be identified.

Developments in its educational provision and, in particular, new approaches to teaching and learning involving part-time study and distance and e-learning will need to be carefully handled so that the distinctive features of a Cambridge education - in particular the benefits of college membership, of close personal attention through supervisions and of access to substantial University and College learning resources - are not diminished. Particular care will be needed in quality assuring new forms of provision, including student exchange programmes and courses offered in collaboration with other universities. Changes in pre-university curricula and forms of learning are likely to have increasingly significant implications for Triposes, particularly with regard to first year courses and modes of assessment. As with all new initiatives, however, these likely developments will offer further opportunities for quality enhancement as much as they will test existing quality assurance arrangements.

It is recognised that the newer elements of the University's institution-wide quality assurance procedures have yet to be properly tested. Maintaining a delicate balance between local responsibilities and central expectations, with procedures which are both effective and accepted across the academic community, will require judicious handling. The new processes associated with the production of an annual 'Quality Statement' for each teaching institution are intended to be searching and systematic, whilst reducing the burden of additional documentation required of each Faculty and Department. It remains to be seen whether they will deliver their intended outcomes, in terms of highlighting (and addressing) areas of concern and being an effective tool for disseminating good practice. The Education Committee will need to assess the practical effects of the Guide to Quality, through the ways business is brought forward by Faculty Boards and by regular dialogue with Faculty and Departmental contacts.

Resources are likely to have a particular bearing on both the quality of educational provision and the effectiveness of quality assurance processes. Given the many other and apparently ever-increasing pressures on Faculties and Departments and their individual staff, particular efforts may be needed to maintain a sufficiently high profile for teaching, learning and assessment issues. It will be important to ensure, so far as possible, that steps taken to rectify the University's immediate financial difficulties have the minimum impact on our students' education. The transparency in more clearly attributing income, which the prospective Resource Allocation Model will provide, should lead to a better appreciation locally of the cost of activities. However, the economic drivers behind the RAM will need moderating through policy drivers if smaller teaching units and the diversity of the University's programmes are not to be undermined. Equally, it will be important that the RAM's principle of maximising devolved allocation of resources does not undermine investment in centrally-run activities which support teaching and learning. The availability of adequate resources is also likely to affect the efficient administration of aspects of the new quality regime, in particular the support needed to provide and keep current the publicly available 'Cooke' data-set.

Whilst the University supports the principle of demonstrably useful public data, it is concerned that agencies other than the QAA - for example HEFCE and certain professional statutory bodies - are imposing significant additional quality assurance burdens on institutions. These bodies appear to be driven by concerns to impose an inappropriate uniformity across the sector. We remain to be convinced that the additional data requirements and performance indicators that they seek will generate major tangible benefits to our stakeholders or will help to inform internal self-assessment of the standard of our educational provision.

4.3 Concluding remarks

The University has confidence in the quality and standards of its provision. These are maintained by the contributions of its individual Faculties, Departments and Colleges as much as by its institution-wide processes. Whilst the University will continue to reflect on its provision, it expects to continue to offer extensive learning opportunities and a wide range of courses.

The University believes that its confidence in its provision can be justified on a number of grounds, including: the reports of its External Examiners; its performance in Research Assessment Exercises; the level of competition for admission by highly qualified applicants; its high completion and retention rates; the demand for its graduates by employers and the significant numbers accepted for postgraduate study at comparable institutions; the national and international distinctions achieved by individual students and staff; the extent of external sponsorship of buildings, academic posts and teaching activities; its consistently strong performance in QAA Subject Review (and its predecessors); and the high reputation it enjoys within the UK and globally.

The University very much welcomes the 'light touch' now promoted by the QAA and its adoption of the principle of interaction with each HEI in inverse proportion to its success. It is grateful to the Agency for taking heed of the concerns expressed, by this and other universities, about the heavy burden Subject Review placed on individual Faculties and Departments. It looks forward to a constructive dialogue with the Audit Team.

* * * *


< 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.