Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 5 July 2011

A Discussion was held in the Senate-House. Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor John Rallison was presiding, with the Registrary’s deputy, the Senior Proctor, a Pro-Proctor, and four other persons present.

The following Reports were discussed:

Report of the General Board, dated 1 June 2011, on the establishment of a Professorship of Education (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 917)

No remarks were made on this Report.

Report of the General Board, dated 1 June 2011, on the establishment of a Dyson Professorship of Fluid Mechanics (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 918)

Professor Dame Ann Dowling (Head of the Department of Engineering) (read by the Senior Proctor, Mr J. A. Trevithick):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, we have a significant research and teaching activity in Fluid Mechanics in the Department, but no established chair in this area. I am delighted that a donation from Dyson Ltd has provided the opportunity to address that.

The study of fluids in motion is essential to understand the performance of aircraft, cars, industrial processes, and a range of smaller-scale commercial products. Advanced instrumentation, particularly laser-based diagnostics, is giving unprecedented information on flows within complex geometries. Computational fluid dynamics can be used routinely to predict steady flows. But most flows of technological interest are unsteady and often turbulent, and computer predictions can currently give only approximations for these complex flows. An integrated experimental and computational approach is very powerful and can lead to new insights into vortical and turbulent flows, thereby opening the way to innovative concepts. The impact of such understanding on design, development, performance, energy efficiency, and noise can be significant.

We are grateful for the support of Dyson Ltd, a UK company with a track record of innovation, which is enabling the establishment of a Professorship in this field. I would like to express the Department’s enthusiasm for this new Professorship and our warmest thanks to Dyson Ltd. We trust others in the University will share our enthusiasm and support the General Board recommendation that the Dyson Professorship of Fluid Mechanics be established.

Report of the General Board, dated 1 June 2011, on the establishment of a Professorship of Polymeric Materials Chemistry and Physics (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 919)

No remarks were made on this Report.

Report of the General Board, dated 1 June 2011, on the re-establishment of two Professorships in the School of Clinical Medicine (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 920)

No remarks were made on this Report.

Report of the General Board, dated 1 June 2011, on Senior Academic Promotions (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 920)

No remarks were made on this Report.

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 13 June and 17 June, on the establishment of a Regius Professorship of Engineering (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 956)

Professor Dame Ann Dowling (Head of the Department of Engineering) (read by Dr A. T. Winter):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak to express the Department’s strong support for the establishment of a Regius Professorship of Engineering. This is an excellent way to commemorate the tenure of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh as Chancellor of the University and to celebrate His Royal Highness’s 90th year.

The Chancellor has long been a staunch supporter of engineering. As he wrote in 2009:1

As the ever-growing human population consumes more and more of the earth’s natural resources, it is going to take all the ingenuity of inventors, engineers and designers to maintain the rate of improvements in the developed societies and to bring better standards of living to more and more people in the less prosperous countries of the world. If this is to be achieved during the 21st century, the challenges . . . will be to make sure that bright young people, whatever their background, who aspire to do something creative and fulfilling with their lives, can achieve their ambition through engineering.

Engineering, the largest department in the University, shares that aspiration: our aim is to address the world’s most pressing challenges through our teaching and research. The last Research Assessment Exercise showed that it is the best general engineering department in the UK by a significant margin and, according to the QS World University Rankings Scorecard, the best in the world. With the Department’s excellent network of academic and industrial connections throughout the UK and beyond, the Regius Professor will be able to play a key role in the Department’s drive to address the world’s most urgent challenges. These challenges are extremely diverse and include energy supply, sustainability, healthcare, economic regeneration, and risk management.

Staff and students in the Engineering Department have been encouraged and inspired through the decades by His Royal Highness’s consistent and energetic support for engineering. The Department is enthusiastic about the establishment of a Regius Professorship of Engineering. This will be a landmark event in the field of engineering, making an impact not only in the UK but internationally. The Department of Engineering at Cambridge is ideally placed to realize the considerable potential of this new chair. We trust others in the University will share our enthusiasm and support the Council and General Board recommendation that a Regius Professorship of Engineering be established.

Report of the General Board, dated 1 June 2011, on the introduction of a Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos and of a Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Tripos (Reporter, 2010–11, p. 958).

Dr D. A. Good (Chair of the Social Sciences Tripos Management Committee) (read by Professor W. A. Brown):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am commenting on this Report in my role as Chair of the Social Sciences Tripos Management Committee which the General Board established in the light of the recommendations of the Social Sciences Review Committee and after extensive consultation with the Council of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences. The original brief given to the Committee envisaged the creation of a single Tripos which would admit its first students in Michaelmas 2012. In the first phase of its activity, the Management Committee worked hard to deliver a programme which conformed to the brief it had been given. However, after an extensive round of consultation with the relevant University and College bodies, it became clear that the proposal it had developed did not receive wholehearted support from all quarters. Nevertheless, the work the Committee had done, and the commentary which it received on the single Tripos proposal, provided the basis for the development of the Report we are discussing today. Important elements of the Committee’s thinking are captured in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the Report, and I will not repeat those now, but I wish to add four further observations about the Committee’s thinking in developing the proposals.

First, it is clear that many of the constituent parts of the existing Archaeological and Anthropological, and Politics, Psychology, and Sociology Triposes are based on core departments which are often smaller and differently configured to their competitors at other institutions. The Committee recognized that it was important to develop an undergraduate offering which traded on our local strengths and did not seek simply to emulate the courses offered by much larger departments elsewhere. The architecture offered by the new Triposes enables this as it readily permits the inclusion of courses from other cognate disciplines. Thus, there are many ways for students to create different forms of specialization in their studies which build on our local strengths broadly considered.

Second, while offering new educational opportunities to our students, the structure preserves the successes of the existing provision in both the Archaeological and Anthropological, and the Politics, Psychology, and Sociology Triposes.

Third, the structure of the Part I in both the PBS and the HSPS Triposes will allow students to try subjects which may not have been available to them in their secondary education, and, if they wish, to subsequently specialize in them at Part II.

Fourth, it is the firm belief of those on the Committee with knowledge of the different constituent subjects, and their varied experiences with applicants, schools, and related subjects at other universities, that the proposed Triposes will be very attractive to future applicants, and should bring to the University high quality students who may not have seen Cambridge as the place to pursue their interests as an undergraduate.

Overall, the proposals offer a major opportunity to develop the University’s provision in the areas covered. Importantly, they do so in a framework which will readily permit the evolution and development of that provision as the subjects involved grow and change in the future.

Finally, I will conclude on a personal note. I was the last Secretary of the Social and Political Sciences Tripos Management Committee, which was established by the Boys Smith Committee Report of 1967 to oversee the Part II of that name. In 1988, I was also the first Secretary of the Social and Political Sciences Faculty Board which took charge of the SPS Tripos and suppressed that original Part II replacing it with a new Part I, and a reformed Part II which had a greatly reduced engagement with cognate disciplines. The introduction of the Part I was in line with the Boys Smith proposals, but the changes to the Part II were not.

Now the wheel has turned full circle. The subjects involved have changed much since 1967, especially psychology, and these proposals reflect this. Nevertheless, the idea of an educational offering which allows students to engage with focused cross-disciplinary study or disciplinary specialization to suit their interests in these areas makes even more sense now than it did then. I am pleased that the Committee I have chaired was able to turn the wheel in this way, and I hope the University accepts the General Board’s Report.

Dr K. B. Pretty (Chair, Faculty Board of Archaeology and Anthropology and Chair-elect of the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science) (read by Professor W. A. Brown):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak on behalf of the current Heads of Department within the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology, which I currently chair.

There have been extensive consultations within the Departments of Archaeology, and Biological and Social Anthropology, about the form and content of the new Tripos in Human, Social, and Political Sciences in particular, and they support the introduction of both Triposes, which will allow undergraduates to achieve both breadth and depth across a range of disciplines. This development offers an opportunity to refresh existing papers and construct new cross-disciplinary approaches, and will strengthen the links within the new Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science, which expects to be closely involved in the publicity for the new Tripos from this August and for its management in due course.

The Faculty Board for Archaeology and Anthro­pology supports the recommendations wholeheartedly.

Professor S. E. Golombok (Acting Head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology) (read by Professor W. A. Brown):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am speaking today on behalf of myself and of Professor Trevor Robbins who is Head of the Department of Experimental Psychology. We both wish to welcome the proposal which has been put forward by the General Board for the establishment of a Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Tripos. We believe that this provides an important avenue for the development of the University’s educational provision in this field that will not only attract to Cambridge very well-qualified students who have taken a mix of humanities and sciences at the age of 18 and who currently apply elsewhere, but also create a structure which will allow appropriate educational collaboration with other Departments where psychology has become part of fabric of the discipline.

In the period since the original Social and Political Sciences Tripos was established with its own distinctive mix of Social and Developmental Psychology, the subject has grown remarkably both in the scale of the enterprise it represents, and its value to a number of fields of enquiry, ranging from neurology to economics, linguistics, and anthropology. This has been aided by the development of a number of novel investigative techniques, especially in neuroscience, and a broader recognition of the value of psychology in various applied areas including social and economic policy, organizational practice, and the design of new technologies alongside the well-established areas of educational and clinical psychology. Cambridge has distinctive strengths in all these areas, but has to date not fully deployed that strength in the provision of an integrated undergraduate education. This new Tripos will remedy that failing and we fully support the General Board’s proposal.

Dr D. A. Sneath (Head of the Department of Social Anthropology) (read by Professor W. A. Brown):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Department of Social Anthropology warmly welcomes the new Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos and looks forward to playing its part in the exciting new undergraduate education that it will make possible. We are delighted that the new Tripos will give students an enhanced spectrum of choice, particularly in the first year, and that a number of exciting new joint Part II options will be established. We hope that in the future this choice can be extended further still, and that new joint Part II degrees can be added to those already agreed.

All those involved in the new Tripos are sure to face challenges in the near future as ways are found for the new structure to work in practical terms, but we are convinced that any short-term costs will be more than outweighed by the longer-term intellectual and pedagogical benefits of the new course structure. We would like to congratulate Dr David Good on his skilful handling of this highly complex challenge, and to thank him for his commitment and hard work.

Professor A. M. Gamble (Head of the Department of Politics and International Studies) (read by Professor W. A. Brown):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Department of Politics and International Studies welcomes the new Tripos in Human, Social, and Political Sciences. It provides extra choice for undergraduates particularly at Part I, as well as a clear set of pathways in Part II in the disciplines which comprise the new Faculty. A significant feature of the new Tripos will be the possibility of allowing students for the first time at Cambridge to specialize in Part II in Politics and International Relations, and also the possibility of combining the Politics papers with Sociology and in due course with other disciplines. The new Tripos will increase flexibility while ensuring that there is appropriate academic progression at every stage in the Tripos, as well as greater clarity as to graduates’ subject identity through the provision of separate class-lists. We believe this Tripos will prove popular with applicants and will provide an appropriate framework for the development of undergraduate teaching in Politics and International Relations at Cambridge.

Professor W. A. Brown (Head of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am delighted to be able to add my voice to these in support of the Report on the introduction of a Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos, and of a Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Tripos. The proposal has the full support of both Faculty Boards immediately involved: Archaeology and Anthropology; and Politics, Psychology, Sociology, and International Studies. In addition to those who have spoken, the Heads of the Departments of Sociology, Biological Anthropology, and Archaeology have also stated their strong support for the statement of Dr Pretty.

The proposed new Triposes offer undergraduates courses that will place Cambridge at the forefront of psychological, human, and social science teaching. They will meet better than in the past the subject choices of sixth formers, which have changed substantially in recent decades. They will help the University to meet its ambitions in terms of improving the social mix of access to its courses. I want to thank the many colleagues who have put in so much time to working out the details of these proposals, not least those from cognate disciplines which may in due course be joined with it through optional courses. In particular, I want to place on record the debt we owe to Dr David Good and to Duncan McCallum for patiently but firmly shepherding this process thus far. The School of the Humanities and Social Sciences is enthusiastic about this major educational innovation.

Dr R. E. Hunt (Senior Tutor of Christ’s College) (read by Dr A. T. Winter):

Mr Deputy Vice-Chancellor, on 30 October 2009 the Regent House approved the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 20 July 2009 and 8 July 2009, on the requirements for the B.A. Degree by Honours (Reporter, 2008–09, p. 1010). The key change that this Report introduced was that ‘a Cambridge Honours Degree should require satisfactory completion of a course of the depth and intellectual level typically associated with a Part II’; therefore, no person could graduate with an Honours B.A. Degree without having obtained Honours in a Part II Tripos examination (for which purpose Part IIa of any Tripos is entirely adequate so long as it is completed in the candidate’s third year or later). Not everybody agreed with this change, which was introduced at the behest of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), but once it had been made we all had to respect it.

In the proposals before us now, the structure proposed for the Human, Social, and Political Sciences (hereafter HSPS) Tripos is a Part I followed by Part IIa (normally in the candidate’s second year) and Part IIb (normally in the third year). It is therefore possible for a student to graduate with Honours having completed Part I of a different Tripos (Part I History, for example) in his or her second year, followed by Part IIa of the HSPS Tripos in his or her third year. Indeed, it is likely that this will be a popular option. The same student could not graduate if he or she had done Part I History followed by Part Ib Philosophy, say, or Part Ib Mathematics, in his or her third year. Can the General Board confirm that this is its intention, and that Part IIa HSPS will be of an intellectual standard sufficiently above that of Part Ib Philosophy or Mathematics to justify this different treatment? The clear implication is that Part Ib Philosophy and Mathematics are not of sufficient ‘depth and intellectual level’ for an Honours Degree, while Part IIa HSPS will be.

Furthermore, can the General Board confirm the maximum proportion of Part IIa HSPS that may consist of papers borrowed from Part I (or Part Ib) of another Tripos? It would make an obvious mockery of the new regulations for the Honours B.A. Degree if it were possible to complete Part IIa HSPS by taking a large number of papers that were actually of Part I standard.

The comments above all apply equally, of course, to the proposals for the Psychological and Behavioural Sciences Tripos, in which it will also be possible in Part IIa to borrow Part I papers from other Triposes.

Alternatively, is there any reason why Part Ib Philosophy should not immediately be re-labelled as a Part IIa, in order to enable students to graduate having taken only the second-year course (so long as they do so in their third year)? Or, perhaps, we could re-label Parts Ia, Ib, and II of all existing Triposes as Parts IIa, IIb, and IIc so as to enable students to graduate having taken only the first-year courses in their third year?