|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
A Discussion was held in the Senate-House. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Anthony Minson was presiding, with the Senior Proctor, the Junior Proctor, the Pro-Proctors, the Registrary, and twenty other persons present.
The following Reports were discussed:
Report of the Council, dated 3 March 2008, on the examination requirements for matriculation and on procedures (p. 565).
Professor M. C. MCKENDRICK:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak to this Report as Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, as Chair of the General Board's Education Committee, and as Co-Chair of the Undergraduate Admissions Committee.
The need for a review of our matriculation arrangements (as they apply to undergraduate entrants) was first raised by the Joint Admissions Committee in 2003, after the Government published its Green Paper on secondary school education. The following year, the Government's proposals for the National Curriculum, particularly at GCSE level, prompted the new Undergraduate Admissions Committee to consider the issues surrounding a review of existing requirements - in particular, the removal of language learning from the core curriculum after the age of fourteen. It was clear to the Committee that this change would have a significant impact on take-up (and consequently in due course on provision) of languages in schools, and therefore on our efforts to attract bright applicants who through lack of opportunity or encouragement had no language qualification to offer. Its recommendation, therefore, was that the matriculation requirement for a language other than English be removed.
The central bodies' view at that stage was that the language component of the matriculation requirements should remain, but that responsibility for applying the regulations should be delegated to the Colleges. These were best placed, it was thought, to make decisions about the suitability of applicants' qualifications and therefore to waive the language requirement in all appropriate cases, as is allowed under Ordinances. Accordingly, in due course and on an experimental basis, responsibility for applying the regulations was devolved to the Colleges, with provision for dealing with non-straightforward cases. This procedure has proved satisfactory.
Since then, however, the situation has markedly deteriorated. Last year there was a significant drop in our state sector applications and admissions, which had been slowly but steadily climbing towards the milestones set out in our Access Agreement, and this year's entry saw a further drop. In response to this setback, the Undergraduate Admissions Committee examined the multiple factors that might be involved. Amongst the issues identified as being an obstacle to our Widening Participation and Access objectives was the survival in Cambridge of a set of matriculation requirements, applicable to all subjects. Experience suggests that the requirements are not readily understood by prospective applicants and schools, particularly in the maintained sector, and are perceived as another opaque layer in a complicated admissions procedure. Cambridge is now the only university in the country that has a set of entrance requirements of this kind that applies to all disciplines.
In the meantime, the impact of the changes to the core curriculum has been swifter than was anticipated. In 2000, 80% of school students overall took a foreign language at GCSE. The proportion has since then fallen to below 50% and is likely to drop even further. In only 17% of state schools is there now a requirement to study a language after the age of fourteen. The Dearing Report last year ruled out the possibility of compulsory post-fourteen language learning being reintroduced in state schools, and the damage limitation measures being put in place, even if successful, are going to take years to have an impact on take-up to GCSE level. Any change of policy under a new government would also take time to bed down.
In this context, having a formal entry requirement that at least half of all GCSE students are unable to meet is clearly not acceptable. It does nothing to convince schools, school students, parents, and the outside world generally that Cambridge is serious about widening access to the University. There is no evidence or likelihood that our retention of the language requirement thus far has had any influence on the provision or take-up of languages in schools, and it is unrealistic to think that it will. The waiver system that has served us well in the past is no longer up to the task in present circumstances. It is likely to be seen by students in schools without a history of sending students to Cambridge as yet another hurdle in a process that is already perceived as complex and daunting; and we cannot both advertise the requirement, and at the same time imply that in every case it will be automatically waived, without losing credibility
In the light of these developments, the Undergraduate Admissions Committee asked that further thought be given to the matriculation requirement for a language other than English and also to whether our matriculation requirements generally were still relevant to the needs and circumstances of the University. It was concluded that, since the other subjects mentioned in the regulations are now covered by the core curriculum, a particular focus on the language requirement would not be appropriate. It was also concluded that, instead, the logical course would be to recommend that the existing matriculation requirements be rescinded in full and replaced by subject-specific entry requirements. These would bring the University into line with the rest of the sector, including Oxford, and would be more flexible and more responsive to curriculum change both in secondary schools and in Faculties and Departments.
All six of the University and intercollegiate bodies that have formally considered the matter were unanimously in favour of the proposal, and neither the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages nor the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies registered any objection. In the consultation exercise with Faculty Boards with regard to draft Schedule I, no concerns have so far been expressed.
The assumption of some members of the University who heard about the proposal before the publication of the Report appears to have been that rescinding the existing requirements would represent a dumbing down, but that is absolutely not the case The proposed new arrangements would involve no change to our entry standards. English, Mathematics, and Science are a compulsory part of the school curriculum and applicants would continue to have to show evidence of a broad educational background with good standards of literacy and numeracy. Entry standards these days are higher than they have ever been; and high grades in three or four subjects at A Level or equivalent would still be expected. Subject moderation has become an important part of the admissions process and helps us to ensure that the best-qualified candidates are successful. Our existing threshold matriculation requirements accordingly bear little relevance to the reality of present-day admissions and now serve only to complicate our admissions procedures in an unhelpful way. We need to make applying to Cambridge as straightforward and transparent as possible, and bringing the configuration of our entry requirements into line at last with those of other universities can only have a positive effect.
Dr D. W. B. MACDONALD:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, as a member of both the General Board and its Education Committee, I would like to speak in support of the proposals outlined in this Report, because I think they are in the long-term interests of the University.
To set these proposals in context, Cambridge is now the only HEI in the UK which retains general matriculation requirements for entry into its courses, and one could fairly argue that these requirements are more often honoured in the breach than in the observance. Commonly, if a College wishes to make an offer to a candidate who does not fulfil the requirements, those requirements are then waived. We should question why we retain such requirements, when our practice is to override them when and if it suits us.
The real problem with retaining these matriculation requirements, however, is the effect they have on our undergraduate recruitment and access initiatives. Our record on access for students from the state sector is not good, and we must do what we can to better that situation. It is clear that these matriculation requirements are one of the factors which effectively prevent potential students, in particular those from maintained schools, from applying to Cambridge, for the following reasons.
Few maintained schools now automatically offer a second language other than English at GCSE, and fewer than half of all school pupils can now take a second language at GCSE level. Our continued requirement for a second language immediately excludes half our potential students, regardless of the course they might wish to pursue in Cambridge, and this cannot be right.
Added to this is the fact that these requirements (and the mechanisms for waiving them) add yet another layer to the complex nature of our admissions process. With good reason, our admissions process is already seen as complex and unclear by prospective students and their advisers, and removing these general requirements will remove at least one level of this complexity.
Secondary education in the UK is subject to continuous change and Cambridge needs to acknowledge this and to be able to respond in a flexible way. The proposed new regulations will acknowledge these changes to our national and international secondary qualifications by removing the general matriculation requirements, and replacing them with subject-specific requirements. These will set out which examination qualifications are required for particular courses, can be tailored to the requirements of courses, and can be easily administered by the College admissions process. Language requirements can be specified where appropriate (for example in MML), and equally, science or maths qualifications can be required, as indeed they already are for medical study.
The schedule of these requirements will be drawn up in consultation with the relevant Faculty Boards and can be adapted as required. It will be clear to prospective students and to the College admission process what the requirements are for each course, and these proposals will give the University as a whole, Colleges, Faculties, and Departments, the ability to respond to changes in the secondary education system. They do not represent any 'dumbing down' of our standards as has been alleged, but are a sensible recognition of the fact that the world outside Cambridge, and in particular the educational landscape within which we operate, has changed.
These proposals have been through wide consultation and have the support of the General Board, the Undergraduate Admissions Committee, and the Colleges. I commend them to the University, as a belated but essential reform of its admissions practice.
Mr A. C. NORMAN:
Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am an undergraduate member of this University, in statu pupillari, having matriculated in the Michaelmas Term 2006.
Reading the proposed changes to matriculation requirements, I worry that the high standard of the University, one of the main reasons I chose to apply here, alongside thousands of other applicants, is being compromised; that too much power is being transferred to individuals, be they Directors of Studies or Admissions Officers, within the Colleges; and that the flexibility of Cambridge for those who do matriculate and study here is being reduced.
The new requirements for matriculation, as proposed in this Report, are less stringent and easier to achieve. These requirements are the minimum entrance requirements for all applicants, and at present include English, a language other than English, an approved mathematical or scientific subject, and two other approved subjects. Two of these have to be at 'A'-level, and the rest at GCSE.
Under the new regulations, as outlined in this Report, candidates could meet the 'standards of literacy and numeracy' with just English and a Maths or a Science subject at GCSE, and would then need normally just one 'A'-level in addition, depending on Tripos. The new requirements would allow, for example, a candidate to be matriculated for the Mathematical Tripos with no qualifications outside his own subject other than a GCSE in English language.
The present requirements are not difficult to understand, as this Report suggests. They are set out clearly in the University's Prospectus - I make reference to page 144 of the Undergraduate Prospectus for 2006 entry, which I myself used when making an application. If prospective entrants cannot understand that, then there is very little hope for us indeed!
The Council says that the present regulations 'act as an obstacle to the University's Widening Participation and Access aspirations'. Does the University aspire to admit students of lower calibre, and those who are more narrowly specialized and less broadly educated? The flavour of this University depends on the breadth of interest of its members, and the strength of their education and scholarship prior to applying here. Indeed there are already procedures in place to allow parts of the matriculation requirements to be waived in individual circumstances, at the discretion of the Matriculation Board.
The new regulations would put all of this down to Colleges, and often just one or two individuals within the Colleges. It worries me that individuals may have the power to 'deem a candidate to be qualified'. Such a system could be easily abused, either systematically according to some private agenda, or in individual cases, and I remain unconvinced that the proposed 'right of review' regulation process would be effective against such abuse, which would compromise the fairness of the admissions system.
The draft regulations appear confused as to whether they would like to refer to applicants as 'candidates' or 'students'. Whichever word is decided upon, once matriculated, they are members of the University of Cambridge, free to attend 'any course of instruction within the University during term'1 (with only one or two exceptions). In her annual address to the Regent House in the year in which I matriculated, the Vice-Chancellor spoke of how the best students, 'finesse our systems skilfully to find their own educational path'. May they now be prevented from doing so, because they have fulfilled the requirements to matriculate for one Tripos but not another?
I am concerned that the move to a subject-specific approach, and the idea of matriculating for admission to a particular Tripos, will restrict the freedom which Cambridge students presently enjoy to move between Triposes, and to study that which interests them within the guiding framework provided by the Masters within their College, which has so long been an integral part of the Cambridge way of doing things, setting this University apart from so many others.
Dr E. R. WALLACH:
Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak in support of the proposals in the Report as Secretary of the Senior Tutors' Committee, and also as a member of the University and Colleges' Undergraduate Admissions Committee, of the General Board's Education Committee, and of the Senior Tutors' Education Committee.
Underpinning the admissions process in our University is the considerable time and care taken within Colleges when looking at the diverse backgrounds and attributes of each applicant. Those who are offered places for the University's wide range of courses show the most potential to study here and to be successful in their chosen discipline. A key aspect of this has been, and will remain, to ensure that applicants have the necessary prior knowledge in their discipline. The removal of the existing matriculation requirements will not diminish that responsibility.
In recent years, there has been much better awareness and sharing of knowledge of the various examination systems used in different countries, and this has helped to meet the above aim of ensuring all applicants are appropriately qualified on arrival. Also, and again in recent years, the University and Colleges together have granted exemptions to the existing matriculation requirements to ensure that very able applicants, otherwise well qualified for their chose course of study, are not denied the opportunity to study here. There have been no apparent difficulties arising from this. Hence, the need for a standard matriculation requirement across all subjects, perhaps a useful safeguard historically, is no longer necessary and so can and should be removed for all applicants.
Colleges will continue to collect data and, through the introduction of improved shared databases, will continue to monitor prior qualifications, and can also correlate these with subsequent Tripos results. The resulting knowledge will help to ensure that applicants in particular subjects continue to have the necessary and required background qualifications to study a given subject successfully. It also is thought that the removal of what has been perceived as an artificial requirement in some subjects will help to attract even more excellent applicants and, in particular, widen access.
Finally, a particular concern, which has been raised further to the proposed changes to matriculation procedures, is the removal of a language requirement, and hence a fear that our students will not be motivated to study languages. In fact, within a number of undergraduate subjects other than formal language degree courses, there now is the opportunity to continue with or to take up a new language. These subjects include engineering, several natural sciences subjects, and history. In addition, the University's Language Centre has expanded considerably over the last ten years and now provides courses and resources across many languages. Thus, rather than just insisting on a matriculation qualification on arrival, the University is appropriately increasing opportunities within its courses and more generally for undergraduates who are not studying languages to either continue with languages of interest to them or to take up new languages.
In summary, I welcome the proposals as a further measure to ensure that we continue to be seen as a vibrant and attractive university to potential applicants, and one not having discouraging artificial barriers.
Dr C. T. MORLEY:
Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I would like to say that I very much agree with the remarks made by the last-but-one speaker.
I was somewhat surprised to see reports in the national press in the past few days, apparently endorsed by the University's press office, that the University had decided to abolish the requirement for students to have a foreign language at GCSE in order to matriculate. I do hope that this announcement is premature, otherwise one wonders what might be the status of this Discussion within the University's decision-making process.
I would like to express dismay that the General Board has thought fit, in paragraph 6 of its Report on the examination requirements for matriculation, to recommend in effect the abolition of the general requirement to have knowledge of one foreign language to GCSE level. With respect to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, I do not see why the requirement to have a language is difficult to understand.
At a time when University undergraduate education is often criticized as being too specialized, and not broad enough, this abolition of the language requirement surely is an undesirable narrowing step. Under the draft requirements, candidates must show evidence of 'a broad educational background' - and I maintain that to demonstrate such a background not only literacy and numeracy, but also some knowledge of a foreign language, should be required, irrespective of the student's intended course of study in Cambridge. Can one be fully and effectively literate in English - so important for the proper exposition of all our subjects, in science as well as the humanities - unless one has at least an inkling of other language, and how languages in general work? What do they know of English, who only English know?
For many years the Engineering Department has encouraged its students, as a small component of the Tripos and/or as a voluntary addition, to study one or more of now five or six major foreign languages - both as a useful broadening of their education, and as possibly of value in professional or business life later on. Students coming up to Cambridge with no experience of learning a foreign language at school will surely have little idea of what is involved in learning another language - and if I may say so, little appreciation of how straightforward it can sometimes be, given effort. Why should you be interested in learning another language, or taking one you know any further, if you have not obtained a language qualification at school, and indeed have been given the impression that knowing only English will do. I fear that, if this recommendation of the General Board is approved, this valuable language provision by the Engineering Department, and the parallel provision in the University's main Language Centre, will be severely undermined.
But my main objection to the recommendation is the terrible signal it gives to schools about what the 'broad educational background', expected by Cambridge - and I would hope by other universities - of all its incoming undergraduates, should consist of. I very much hope that the General Board will reconsider this aspect of its recommendations, whatever the Government may be permitting secondary schools to get away with.
Dr P. N. HARTLE:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak as Associate Secretary of the Senior Tutors' Committee and Co-Chair of the joint University and Colleges' Undergraduate Admissions Committee.
One of the key factors in expanding access to the University from a wider range of state educational institutions is the effort to bring our admissions practices more closely into line with those operated by other universities. Insofar as it is possible, application to Cambridge should be no more complex or opaque a process than application to any university in the country, and - ideally - this University should be in its processes the most transparent, open, and accessible of all. One part of this developing strategy has been the recent abolition for Home and European Union students of the separate Application Fee; another is the measure recommended by the Council under discussion today, which will sweep away a bar to access from some state educational institutions. Since that bar is already more perceived than real, given the current experiment in devolved authority to grant exemption, it is the mistaken perception alone which the Council seeks to advance to a well-deserved extinction, with significant advantage to the University's Widening Participation and Access agenda.
The existence of general matriculation requirements is a late survivor from an earlier age; we must evolve. Colleges will not admit undergraduates who are believed to be not capable of succeeding in their chosen Tripos, but the possession of specified GCSE or equivalent qualifications for all undergraduates is no longer a relevant requirement. It will be open to Faculties and Departments to set at any time whatever subject-specific matriculation requirements they deem necessary prerequisites for academic success.
Report of the General Board, dated 28 February 2008, on the establishment of a HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies and related matters (p. 568).
Professor R. HUNTER:
Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak as the Chairman of the Council of the School of Arts and Humanities and thus as the Chairman, ex officio, of the Committee of Management of the proposed HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies.
The very generous benefaction which will support the Centre and its activities represents a wonderful opportunity for the University to become a significant focus of research and policy debate in an area whose importance in modern Britain it would be difficult to exaggerate; it is also one in which many different institutions across the University have an important stake, a fact recognized in the proposed constitution of the Committee of Management. This gift is a very positive sign for the future health of the University's teaching and research agenda in fields which are becoming ever more central to national concerns. It also looks to the future through a programme of postgraduate studentships, postdoctoral fellowships, and public outreach which is designed to ensure that the work of the Centre has the greatest possible impact both within the United Kingdom and abroad. The proposed mix of research, teaching, and public debate plays to Cambridge's strengths, as the Centre will be able to draw not only on the academic expertise of the University community, but also upon the wide experience of public affairs embodied across the University and Colleges.
The proposed cross-disciplinary Centre is designed to serve all of the University, but there is also an important local dimension. The Centre will be physically located within the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, and it is central to the benefaction that it will fund a new University Lectureship in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies in the broad area of modern Islamic studies; the benefaction thus fits very well indeed with the strategic directions being taken by the Faculty, with the need for the University seriously to engage with the modern Middle East, in the manner of its very distinguished tradition of engagement with the classical cultures of the region, and with the remarkable progress which the Faculty as a whole has made in the last year or so. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the members and staff of the Faculty and its officers for the effort and time they have devoted to the unglamorous and hard slog of Tripos reform and the (never easy) introduction of departmental structures; as well as the contribution it will make across the University as a whole, the new Centre will also, I believe, prove to be an important resource for the Faculty, and vice versa.
Professor Y. SULEIMAN:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor I would like to express my strongest support for the proposed Centre not because I have spent the last seven months working with other colleagues to secure the generous Gift that will lead to its establishment, but because of the many benefits that I am sure the Centre will bring to the University. In this connection, I would like to emphasize the following:
1. The proposed Centre has received the full support of the Department of Middle Eastern Studies, of which I am Head. The Department discussed the proposed Centre on several occasions and saw the proposal in full in its two major drafts. The new Centre will be closely linked to the Department. Its Director will be a senior member of the Department. The Assistant Director will be a Lecturer in the Department. The Postdoctoral Fellows will be associated with the Department and will provide teaching to undergraduate and postgraduate students in the Department and beyond. The postgraduate Scholars will be supervised by members of the Department and others from outside as appropriate. The Visiting Fellows will add value and expertise to the work of the Department. The proposed Centre will, therefore, be of enormous benefit to the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and to the Faculty at large.
2. The proposed Centre will function as a hub to research on Islam and Muslims in the UK and Europe across the University. It will work in collaboration with the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme and other institutions in the University on joint projects and will engage scholars from the humanities and social sciences with interest in its programmes of research and public policy outreach.
3. The proposed Centre will be a research Centre with a strong public policy outreach programme. It will build on the current strengths in the University and on its finest traditions of unfettered scholarship and public policy engagement. The research programme of the Centre will be project based. It will be organized around research teams in which staff from the humanities and social sciences will work alongside Postdoctoral Fellows, Visiting Fellows, postgraduate Scholars, and practitioners to produce research of the highest quality.
4. The proposed Centre will build strong relationships with other Centres established by HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, to work on common projects of international reach and significance. It will also collaborate with other Centres in Europe and the Middle East to set the agenda for research on Islam in the global age. Considering the many tensions surrounding Islam and Muslims in the modern world, the work of the Centre will have great relevance and it will resonate with some of the most challenging issues of our time.
5. This profile of activities of the Centre will produce a qualitative expansion in the way Islamic Studies are conducted in the University. Its success will bring great benefits to the University in terms of expanded international profile and enhanced scholarly interests involving established academics, postgraduate students, and policy practitioners, as well as giving the University greater presence among civil society organizations and think tanks.
For these reasons, I am very happy to give the proposal to establish the HRH Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Centre of Islamic Studies at Cambridge my full and strongest support.
Professor R. J. BOWRING (read by Professor H. J. VAN DE VEN):
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am aware that a number of people have been occupied with the details of this particular gift for some considerable time. The Professor of Modern Arabic Studies, in particular, is to be congratulated on his success in attracting such a benefaction. There are, however, a number of points in the Report that deserve comment and, perhaps, further consideration.
On the plus side, I note that somewhere in the Central Administration there has been a complete reversal of previously stated policy on where to situate such centres. This new Centre is to be 'an institution under the supervision of the General Board' and not part of the School structure. In the reply to my comments on the reorganization of Oriental Studies dated 30 April 2007 (less than a year ago), the opposite view was forcefully expressed: 'The General Board's view is that the Centres need to be within a School: (a) to reinforce the linkages to Faculties and Departments in the 'hub and spoke' model described above; and (b) to ensure that their needs are properly addressed and are accorded appropriate priority through the annual funding and planning cycle.' While I note this change of heart with considerable satisfaction and hope that it will be cited as a sensible precedent, it is a little depressing to see academic policy so openly revealed to be driven by financial considerations. In the absence of any indication to the contrary, one must assume that such a volte face on the part of the General Board was in response to outside pressure.
Some other drafting comments on the Report itself.
1. I note that the arrangements for the Committee of Management make it possible (though not, I admit, probable) that five members would be external (classes e and f) and five members (classes a, b, c, d) internal to the University. I am sure that the General Board would not allow this to happen but it seems unwise to even allow the possibility.
2. While we are all in favour of 'an informed understanding of Islam in today's societies', it should be recognized that although Schedule I, item 5(a) mentions 'the twin paths of high quality research and effective outreach' the details in 5(b-i) are overwhelmingly concerned with matters of public outreach. It would be unfortunate if this bias apparent in the drafting became a guiding principle by default. Outreach may be important but must always remain secondary to scholarship in a University such as ours.
3. There is no mention in Schedule II of accommodation expenses. As the Centre is not to be connected to any School but housed for the foreseeable future in the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, there should perhaps be explicit reference to rent for office space and other facilities, since this aspect is becoming increasingly important in view of the RAM.
Lest it should seem from my comments that my support for this Centre is lukewarm, let me reiterate my admiration for the energy, enterprise, and sheer hard work that has secured much needed support for Islamic Studies in this University.
Professor H. J. VAN DE VEN:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am speaking as the Chairman of the Faculty Board of the Asian and Middle Eastern Studies.
My main reason for speaking today is to assure the Regent House that the proposed new Centre has the enthusiastic support of the Faculty Board of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. Its organization and remit have been scrutinized at several meetings of the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and the Faculty Board. At both, support was overwhelming.
Others are better qualified to speak about the benefits of the gift of His Royal Highness Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal for Islamic Studies at our University. It is clear that it will give us a real chance to make Cambridge into one of the foremost centres in the world for the study of Islam. But let me also note that His Royal Highness Prince Alwaleed has made equally generous donations to Harvard and Georgetown Universities in the US and to the American University of Cairo and the American University of Beirut, in the last two cases not for the study of Islam but for American Studies. This structure of donations illustrates that the purpose of HRH Prince Alwaleed is to promote a better understanding between the Middle East on the one hand and Europe and America on the other. The importance of this needs no elaboration.
The possibility of this benefaction has come about as the result of the very hard work since last spring of Professor Yasir Suleiman, the Professor of Modern Arabic Studies, Professor Richard Hunter, the Chair of the Council of the School of Arts and Humanities, and Mr Peter Agar, the Director of the Development Office. In thinking through the organization of the Centre, I know that one aim was to ensure that the Centre was sufficiently independent to develop its diverse academic and outreach programmes effectively. Another was that it would work in close relationship with the Department of Middle Eastern Studies. I believe that the proposed structure lays a good foundation for both objectives. While the Centre will not formally be a part of the Faculty or the School, its Director will be a member of the Department. The benefaction will also make possible the appointment in the Department of a new University Lecturer in Islamic Studies who will concurrently undertake the duties of the Assistant Director of the Centre. The structure of the Committee of Management for the Centre is also designed to create a constructive and mutually re-enforcing relationship between the Department and the Centre. It therefore will have the autonomy it requires but it will also be closely connected to the Department. It will be up to those involved in the Centre and the Department to make this work on the ground.
1 Rules applicable to all lectures, Lecture-List, 2007-08.
|Previous page||Table of Contents||Next page|
Cambridge University Reporter 23 April 2008
Copyright © 2011 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.