Skip to main contentCambridge University Reporter

No 6268

Wednesday 30 May 2012

Vol cxlii No 33

pp. 639–678

Reports

Report of the Council on the financial position and budget of the University, recommending allocations from the Chest for 2012–13

The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:

1. This Budget Report reviews the financial position of the University and recommends allocations from the Chest for the financial year 2012–13.

2. Information on trends in staff and student numbers, research, and expenditure patterns is provided in the usual way in Appendices 1–5 (pp. 662–73).

Overview

3. In the 2011 Budget Report, the Council emphasized the need for tight budgetary constraint in the face of the challenging financial environment and uncertain funding climate. Schools and institutions absorbed a 2% reduction in allocation compared to 2010–11, and they were asked to plan on only a 1% per annum increase thereafter.

4. The key message of this Budget Report is that whilst the outlook is showing some signs of improvement, it is crucial that we continue to manage spending carefully in order to bring the Chest budget back into balance while providing sufficient flexibility to meet our strategic objectives. The cumulative Chest deficit predicted for the period 2009–10 to 2015–16 in the 2011 Budget Report is now reduced from £36m to £23m with a return to surplus expected one year ahead of schedule in 2014–15. The University’s long-term financial target continues to be a surplus of 2%–3% of Chest income to provide the investment needed to remain globally competitive. The fragile economic recovery and uncertain financial climate continue to make this target a considerable challenge.

5. The external funding prospects are generally unchanged from the 2011 Budget Report, although uncertainties remain. The new UK and EU students’ tuition fees of £9,000 for new entrants to all undergraduate courses will be introduced from October 2012, and will replace, on a phased basis, the greater part of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Teaching funding, which will further reduce by about two-thirds over the next five years. By 2016–17 nearly all undergraduate students will be under the new fee regime, by which point the total increase in teaching income (fees plus teaching funding) in absolute terms is forecast to be about £20m compared to 2011–12. The OFFA Access Agreement predicts spending on bursaries and widening participation to increase by 60% from 2011–12 to 2016–17 to nearly £10m, with the division of the costs subject to the revised agreement on College Fees. Although, compared to funding levels in 2009–10, net Chest income for teaching after bursary costs will still be 4% less in real terms in 2016–17, the position is predicted to be much improved compared to the 12% reduction in 2011–12.

6. Government funding for research continues to be ring-fenced in cash terms, making it harder for the University to maintain its share in real terms. Competition for RCUK awards is increasing. Priority is likely to be given to large-scale programmes that support the RCUK’s Strategic Vision, and which focus on innovative and collaborative global research demonstrating clear and defined benefits for society and the wider economy. It is therefore ever more important that the University makes a collective effort to develop and support compelling strategic research initiatives that can attract large-scale funding.

7. The University must also reassure its funders that it is effective, economical, and efficient in its use of the resources they provide. The recent Wakeham Review1 and Diamond Report2 have brought the concept of value for money for research funding under much greater scrutiny. Research Councils are driving efficiencies in institutions by reductions in indexation and indirect cost rates. Approximately £8m of funding is being withdrawn from the University over the period 2011–12 to 2014–15, of which approximately half represents a reduction in direct costs. The impact of the reduction in indexation for direct costs is relatively small in light of the very modest pay award. The claw back on indirect costs is of more concern. This, together with the current shift towards research funded by Charity and EU sponsors, will add further pressure to the downward trend in the University’s indirect cost recovery.

8. The provision of funding for new capital equipment is also under scrutiny following Wakeham. Research Councils require evidence that existing equipment and facilities are being used efficiently and effectively and, where possible, that opportunities to share resources with other universities are being taken. While it may still be possible to secure Research Council funding for 100% of capital equipment, the general expectation is that universities will be required to contribute at least 50%, and the thresholds for funding have been raised. In response, the University has joined forces with a small group of other southern universities to establish an equipment sharing capability and to develop equipment sharing registers.

9. Against this tight external budgetary framework, Schools and institutions are working hard to raise revenue and make savings, spending reserves where necessary in order to achieve balanced budgets. From 2012–13, fees from overseas students and students on premium M.Phil. courses will generate on average £0.7m per annum more than predicted in the 2011 Budget Report. Growth in Executive Education activities is forecast to generate an additional £15m of income by the end of the planning period. Arts Council England funding totalling £4.5m has been secured for the benefit of all the University’s museums over the next three years. Investment income forecasts have increased by £2.7m due in the main to the transfer of cash into the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF) in anticipation of superior long-term returns to funds held on deposit. As a result of the Voluntary Severance Scheme, the University is projected to accrue significant recurrent savings averaging £4.2m per annum, of which £3.7m represents savings on the Chest.3 Around half of supported applications were from staff in the UAS, and there has been considerable strategic restructuring as a result. Recurrent savings on UAS Chest-funded posts have resulted in a permanent reduction of £1m to the UAS Chest allocation.

10. Taking these external and internal considerations into account, this Budget Report recommends allocations for 2012–13 which are forecast to result in a Chest deficit of £6.8m. On current projections, the Chest will return a surplus of £3.0m in 2014–15 increasing to £5.4m by 2015–16.4 Over the period 2009–10 to 2015–16, the cumulative deficit is now predicted to be £23.1m, well within the £40m maximum agreed by Council, and less than the £36m deficit predicted in the 2011 Report.

Planning Round 2011

11. In July 2011, the PRC agreed that there were no strong reasons to change the Planning Round guidance issued in the previous year. Schools and institutions have, therefore, prepared forecasts of income and expenditure assuming a 1% increase in Chest allocation for 2012–13 over 2011–12, and for each year thereafter.

12. In the planning guidance issued to Schools and institutions, the pay awards listed below were assumed for modelling purposes. Subsequently, the August 2011 pay award was confirmed as being a flat £150 cash increase, which is less than the 0.5% budgeted for. The difference represents a saving on the Chest of approximately £220,000 per annum over the planning period, and adjustments have been made to School and institution forecast pay costs. As a result, forecast Chest allocations for 2012–13 and baselines from 2013–14 have been reduced.

August 2011:

0.5%

August 2012:

0.5%

August 2013:

1.0%

August 2014:

1.0%

August 2015:

1.0%

All additional pay costs of whatever origin arising from pay awards, promotions, increments, and regrading must be met from within projected allocations except where separate provision is made. The Finance Division’s pay model is used to identify how University-level forecasts would change for different pay assumptions.

13. A default inflation assumption of 2% has been used for non-pay inflation in all years.

14. The RMC continue to support the use of a new mechanism based on the Resource Allocation Model (RAM) to ensure adequate incentives are in place to maximize Chest income and minimize Chest costs. The RAM Distribution Model (RDM) was described in the previous Budget Report,5 and is based on end-of-year RAM calculations, whereby if a School’s RAM surplus exceeds 5% of its out-turn then 10% of the surplus above the tolerance band is added to the School’s allocation in the next round. Similarly, if a School’s RAM deficit exceeds 5% of actual out-turn, then 10% of the deficit below the tolerance band is subtracted from the allocation. The operation of this mechanism based on the accounts for 2010–11 has resulted in an increase in core allocation in 2012–13 for one School and a reduction for three (see the summary in paragraph 22 below).

Fees and Funding Forecasts

15. HEFCE Funding for teaching in 2011–12, as announced in March 2011, was £56.1m which was subsequently marginally reduced in-year to £56.0m. The funding for 2012–13 announced in March 2012 is £45.8m.

16. HEFCE funding for research in 2011–12, as announced in March 2011, was £117.5m. The total research funding for 2012–13, announced in March 2012, is £120.5m. The improvement is due to an increase in Research Degree Programme supervision funds and Charity QR funding.

17. HEFCE funding for capital may be subject to change. Current indications are that £45.5m of Research Capital Investment funding will be available for the four years from 2011–12 to 2014–15, of which £9.2m has been allocated in the current year. The University expects to receive £0.6m of Teaching Capital Investment funding in 2012–13.

The Current Year

18. The Council reported in the 2011 Budget Report that the estimated total income for the year 2011–12 would be £801.7m, being £357.5m Chest income and £444.2m non-Chest income. The overall position on the Chest was expected to be a deficit of £9.2m, which is now forecast to be a deficit of £7.9m. This small improvement comprises a number of changes which are summarized in Table 2 (p. 658). The most significant positive change is the increase in endowment income and interest receivable. Cash surpluses from operations in recent years have been invested in CUEF units in anticipation of a superior long-term return to money held on deposit. In addition, the CUEF distribution rates are higher than those forecast in the 2011 Budget Report. This, and the reduction in forecast for estates-related expenditure, has countered the £3.1m fall in forecast income from research grants and contracts.

19. For the purposes of this Report, allocations to Schools and institutions are assumed to be fully spent even if a balance is carried forward to the next year. There is evidence that funds are being managed carefully with actual expenditure from allocations slightly below budget. The anticipated underspends will assist Schools and institutions in meeting the future budgetary constraints.

20. Income-generating activity funded outside the Chest (excluding Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Assessment, and the Cambridge Trusts) was forecast to generate a small surplus of £0.5m in 2011–12 after making a contribution to the Chest for central costs. This component of the budget is difficult to predict with precision mid-year, but there is currently no reason to expect a significantly different out-turn by the end of the year.

Estimates for 2012–13

21. Chest income for 2012–13 is forecast to be £364.8m. Chest expenditure for 2012–13 is forecast to be £371.6m, which is lower than the £374.5m forecast last year, and due in the main to a reduction in expenditure forecasts for the central administered funds which support University-wide costs. A breakdown of the forecasts for 2012–13 is shown in Table 3 (p. 659).

Net increases in allocations

2012–13

Additions to allocations6

£000

RDM adjustment

£000

Total increase in allocation

£000 

SAH

249

(127)

122 

SHSS

1,214

(11)

1,203 

ST

812

242

1,054 

SPS

161

0

161 

SBS

335

(157)

178 

SCM

28

0

28 

Schools Total

2,799

(53)

2,746 

University Library

528

N/A

528 

Fitzwilliam Museum

185

N/A

185 

Institute of Continuing Education

52

N/A

527

Unified Administrative Service

303

N/A

3038

University Computing Service

94

N/A

949

Others Total

1,162

N/A

1,162 

22. The forecasts for Chest expenditure make allowance for a number of additions to the 1% core Allocation increase. In the case of the Schools, the net increases arise as a result of their share of additional M.Phil. fee income and RDM adjustments. The University Library and Fitzwilliam Museum increases are funded entirely by HEFCE grant income earned on the basis of their activity.

23. The Council continues to consider that the current level of the buildings maintenance budget, at just under £16m, is broadly appropriate. However, growth in the University Estate under the Capital Plan will demand an increase in maintenance provision, and this may require an increase in Chest allocation towards the end of the planning period. A new forecasting model is to be developed in time for the next planning round, and it is hoped that this will help clarify the extent of any future shortfall.

24. The Operating Budget described in this Report is developed and managed on a fund accounting basis. The University’s annual Financial Statements are prepared on a financial accounting basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. A number of adjustments are needed to convert the Operating Budget to a format comparable to the Income and Expenditure account seen in the University’s Financial Statements. The main adjustments are to remove capital expenditure from the Operating Budget and bring in a depreciation charge, and to estimate the amount of spend against reserves and build-up of reserves. To aid comparison with the Financial Statements, such a conversion of the Operating Budget for 2012–13 is shown in Table 5 (p. 661). The Council considers, however, that the format used in Table 3 is the appropriate one for planning.

Forward Forecasts

25. The forecasts for the Chest show a gradual improvement, and by 2015–16 the prediction is a Chest surplus of £5.4m as summarized in Table 4 (p. 660). This assumes no growth in volume of research grants and contracts.

26. Tuition fee income beyond 2012–13 is based on expected changes to the composition of the student population and the changing fee structures. The phasing of the full £9,000 tuition fee for Home/EU undergraduates covers the period to 2016–17, at which point almost all students will be under the new regime. The Government has just announced that tuition fee maxima in 2013–14 will be held flat. This represents a reduction of almost £2m per annum by 2015–16 compared with the assumption last year of an annual inflationary increase.

27. Projections of expenditure beyond 2012–13 have been built up from the detailed plans at School and institution level submitted in December 2011.

28. Pay awards have been assumed to be 0.5% per annum until 2012–13 and 1% per annum thereafter. However, in view of the level of uncertainty about future pay awards, a contingency continues to be set aside against the risk of higher pay than currently assumed in the plan.

29. Negotiations on the new College Fee arrangements have been completed and a proposal agreed. A separate Notice providing the details will be issued in due course. However, the net effect is to provide a smooth continuation of the College Fee with the overall contribution being close to the historic norm of 45% of net teaching income for Home and EU undergraduates.

30. Work continues on proposals for the University’s land at North West Cambridge to provide housing for staff and students together with provision for future academic and research accommodation. In October 2011, the Council commended the proposals for Phase 1 as set out in the original feasibility report dated June 2011, and approved expenditure of £13.25m on pre-development work for the project through to November 2012. On the advice of the Finance Committee, the Council approved this budget as a loan from the Chest and, subject to any significant changes to the financial appraisal or viability of the project, the Council expects to publish a Report in due course seeking the approval of the Regent House to proceed with the construction work of Phase 1.10

31. Endowment and investment income from the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF) has been projected by applying the formula set out in the regulations for the distributions from the Amalgamated Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 992) with the assumption of a continuing modest recovery of the investment markets over the planning period. The formula balances the competing objectives of a stable flow of income to support operations while protecting the value of the endowment in real terms over time. This ‘smoothing’ approach allows consistency for planning and expenditure whilst adjusting gradually to changes in market values. The Finance Committee, with the advice of the Investment Board, will continue to keep the distribution policy under review.

Capital Planning

32. The 2011 Budget Report introduced the Capital Planning Framework and the Capital Fund. Since then the procedures around these have been developed and the Capital Plan has been formulated. Additional demands on the Capital Fund have arisen, and these are discussed below. Last year there was uncertainty regarding the continuation of CIF, but it has been confirmed that the University can expect to receive capital investment funds from the Government, via HEFCE, over the next four years, albeit at a much lower level than previously (at just over 30%).

33. The Research Councils have changed the basis on which they provide funds for equipment in research grants. For equipment items costing below the OJEU limit,11 the Councils provide 50% of the cost for approved equipment; for items costing above that, the amount can vary. Applications for grants which include equipment above the OJEU limit must include a guarantee that funds will be made available if the application is successful. The equipment component of the Capital Fund, therefore, is now used in three ways:

(a)For the purchase of equipment which is high cost, or meets a large programme of need, for which there is no sponsor.

(b)To cover the 50% of equipment costs in successful research projects. This is devolved to Schools each year.

(c)To support the purchase of expensive items of equipment necessary for a research project for which the sponsor will not cover the full cost.

Research Councils now make it a requirement that expensive items of equipment should be shared internally or regionally.

34. The building element of the Capital Fund was originally intended for major projects, i.e. those costing in excess of £2m. However, this would leave a funding gap between the scope of the Minor Works Fund and the intended use of the Capital Fund. It has been agreed, therefore, that an amount of about £3m per annum should be reserved within the Capital Fund to support building projects in this category.

35. The redevelopment of the central sites is a major theme of the Capital Plan. To this end the Old Press Site/Mill Lane Working Group has continued its work, and recently a New Museums Site Project Board has been established. The redevelopment of the Old Press Site will create the need to find new locations for all the displaced institutions while the New Museums Site will become an opportunity as a consequence of Departments, such as Materials Science and Metallurgy, and Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, moving to the West Cambridge Site.

36. There are currently several major projects at various stages of implementation representing a significant capital investment: the new buildings for the Departments of Materials Science and Metallurgy, and Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology; the new Sports Centre; the proposed Data Centre; the conversion of the Arup Building for the Cambridge Conservation Initiative; and the development of facilities for Student Services.

37. Forecast Capital Fund income and expenditure is set out in the table below. The Council has agreed that the fund can go up to £100m in deficit provided that it covers the costs. It should be noted that planned expenditure beyond 2013–14 has not yet been subject to detailed costing and value engineering.

Forecast Capital Fund income and expenditure

2011–12
£m

2012–13
£m

2013–14
£m

2014–15
£m

2015–16
£m

Brought forward

19.6

27.3

21.0

(11.3)

(39.5)

Income

Cam Assessment regular

11.1

12.0

13.9

15.6

17.6

Cam Assessment triennial

13.5

12.0

Cam Assessment – use for

Chest income

-10.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

CUP

2.1

2.5

4.0

6.2

6.2

CIF

9.2

12.7

12.1

10.0

10.0

Chest allocation

0.0

1.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

25.9

29.1

30.0

43.8

33.8

Spend

Buildings

10.2

27.2

53.7

63.1

67.6

Equipment

8.0

8.3

8.6

8.9

9.2

18.2

35.5

62.3

72.0

76.8

Carried forward

27.3

21.0

(11.3)

(39.5)

(82.5)

External Risks and Uncertainties

38. Assumptions about future pay awards are a key area of sensitivity in the financial projections of this Budget Report. Chest pay costs across the University total just over £200m, so each percentage rise in pay creates a significant, additional recurrent cost. Although a central contingency is set aside towards alleviating the impact of this risk, the extent to which pay may increase is uncertain, and there may be other unforeseen needs for which drawdown from the contingency fund may be required. In the letter informing the HEFCE of allocations for 2012–13, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills has emphasized that it is essential the sector exercise effective pay restraint.12

39. The University is facing a downwards trend in its overhead recovery rate as are most other UK research-intensive institutions. At the same time research funders are putting emphasis on larger, multi-disciplinary research grants, and are seeking greater value for money from their investment. Some funders have also implemented restrictions on the number of applications that Principal Investigators can submit each year, based on grant application success rates. In response to these pressures, the University’s Research Policy Committee has adopted a University-wide strategic approach that aims to maximize and increase the University’s effectiveness with industry, and to lessen dependence on the Research Councils and charities. A key element in the strategy is to organize and present the University’s leading-edge research so that the University is well-placed to compete for very large grants. To this end the Research Policy Committee has established a number of strategic initiatives that build on the existing research base, and which can only be addressed by multi-disciplinary teams of researchers. Large bids consume considerable resources, and dedicated funds are available to provide research facilitators and fund conferences, symposia, and website development.

40. The publication by the Government of the Higher Education White Paper, ‘Students at the heart of the system’,13 and a technical consultation, ‘A new, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for the Higher Education sector’,14 signalled major changes to the way the Higher Education system in England will be funded and regulated. HEFCE is currently consulting on changes to student number controls and teaching funding from 2013–14.

Internal Risks and Uncertainties

41. The governance, organization, and strategic development of IT infrastructure and support across the University is currently under review; this was an outcome of the PRC’s Working Groups which reported last year. A report making recommendations will be put forward to the Council and the General Board in due course.

42. An independent review of Cambridge University Development Office and Cambridge in America has been carried out to advise on the organizations, structures, and resources required for the next campaign. Recommendations arising as a result of the review will be made in due course.

43. Over the planning period Schools’ Chest-sourced reserves are forecast to reduce from a peak of £40m in July 2011 to £20m by 2015–16. Although the spend-down of reserves is a risk and could inhibit a School’s flexibility to make strategic investments, it is also an important strategy, in co-ordination with constrained expenditure, to achieving balanced budgets. The rate at which reserves are spent will need to be closely monitored for all Schools and institutions.

44. Preparations are underway for the Research Excellence Framework (REF). The outcome of REF submissions will be known at the end of 2014, and will determine quality-related research funding from 2015–16. A central fund was established in the previous planning round in order to provide funding to support preparation for submissions and facilitate strategic academic appointments. Initial allocations for Schools have been agreed.

Conclusions

45. In recommending this budget, the Council is aware that this will be the third year in succession that it has recommended a planned deficit on the Chest. However, this is consistent with the strategy set out in the 2010 and 2011 Budget Reports, which is designed to strike an appropriate balance between financial prudence and the need to ensure that the excellence of our teaching and research is not irreparably compromised.

46. Overall the prospects do appear to be improving. The cumulative Chest deficit predicted for the period 2009–10 to 2015–16 in the 2011 Budget Report is now reduced from £36m to £23m with a return to surplus expected one year ahead of schedule in 2014–15. Nevertheless, it is essential that Schools and institutions continue to maintain careful control over expenditure. As outlined above, risks and uncertainties remain and, while the Chest remains in deficit, it is essential that the current prudent planning guidance is maintained.

Recommendations

47. The Council recommends:

I. That allocations from the Chest for the year 2012–13 be as follows:15

(a) to the Council for all purposes other than the University Education Fund: £169.1m;

(b) to the General Board for the University Education Fund: £202.5m.

II. That any supplementary HEFCE grants which may be received for special purposes during 2012–13 be allocated by the Council, wholly or in part, either to the General Board for the University Education Fund or to any other purpose consistent with any specification made by the HEFCE, and that the amounts contained in Recommendation I above be adjusted accordingly.

Tables and Appendices

28 May 2012

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

I. M. Le M. Du Quesnay

Mavis McDonald

David Abulafia

Nick Gay

Susan Oosthuizen

N. Bampos

David Good

Rachael Padman

Richard Barnes

Andy Hopper

T. Parry-Jones

D. Casserley

Christopher Hum

John Shakeshaft

Stephen J. Cowley

F. P. Kelly

Gerard Tully

Athene Donald

Vanessa Lawrence

A. D. Yates

R. J. Dowling

Robert Lethbridge

Footnotes

  • 1http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/reviews/fec/fECReviewReport.pdf.

  • 2http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Publications/documents//2011/EfficiencyinHigherEducation.pdf.

  • 3From 2011–12 to 2013–14, the total net saving less upgrading and replacement costs and less VSS severance costs is just over £7.3m, of which £6.2m represents savings on the Chest. Total severance costs incurred in 2011–12 were £5.4m of which the cost to the Chest was £2.0m.


  • 4Table 1 summarizes actual Chest out-turn for 2010–11. Compared to Budget Report 2011, in which the forecast deficit of £1.8m was updated to a forecast deficit of £3.7m, the actual position on the Chest was a surplus of £4.7m.


  • 5Reporter, 2010–11, pp. 766–7.


  • 6Other changes include Business Research Funding, Overseas UG fees, adjustments for over-and under-allocating in the previous year following receipt of actual student numbers, and reductions to pay forecasts in light of the lower-than-predicted pay award.


  • 7This will fund the changes to and development required of the ICE Registry, which, as approved by the General Board, is to assume responsibility for all Master of Studies programmes.


  • 8This will fund increased Oracle licensing costs and new support requirements in the Vice-Chancellor’s and Pro-Vice-Chancellors’ offices. The UAS Review noted that the roles performed in these offices had increased in complexity and demanded more structured staff support. The forecast increase in allocation for the UAS follows a permanent reduction of £1m to the UAS baseline as a result of the Voluntary Severance Scheme.


  • 9This is cost-neutral and funded entirely via a corresponding decrease in the centrally-managed University Equipment Grant.


  • 10Reporter, 2011–12, pp. 82–4.


  • 11The OJEU threshold value is £101,323 (net of VAT) or £121,588 (inclusive of VAT).


  • 12http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/higher-education/docs/L/letter-he-funding-25-jan-2012.

  • 13http://discuss.bis.gov.uk/hereform/white-paper/.

  • 14http://discuss.bis.gov.uk/hereform/technical-consultation/.

  • 15The outcome of a proposal to bring the Fitzwilliam Museum and Kettle’s Yard under General Board supervision during 2012–13 may change the balance of allocations between the Council and the General Board, but will not affect the combined total.


Report of the General Board on Senior Academic Promotions

The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:

1. The senior academic promotions exercise in respect of promotions to take effect from 1 October 2012 has been completed. The General Board, at their meeting on 23 May 2012, considered recommendations from the Main Senior Academic Promotions Committee in respect of promotion to personal Professorships, Readerships, and Senior Lectureships. With the recommendations, the Board received an extensive report, which provided the Board with an account of the procedure followed for the evaluation and comparison of the evidence for all applicants. The Board were able to see how recommendations had been arrived at so that, without repeating the entire exercise, they could either approve the recommendations or, if they so wished, consider the basis on which any of the recommendations had been made.

2. The contents of the report were as follows:

• Minutes of the Main Committee and Sub-Committees

• Summary lists of Faculty Promotions Committee and Sub-Committee evaluations indicating adjustments in evaluations and special and non-standard aspects of applications

• Summary tables giving names of applicants in priority order by Sub-Committee for each of the senior academic offices

• Funding and statistical information

• Equal opportunity report on all applications received

• Feedback Statements

3. The Board now recommend the establishment of thirty-one Professorships from 1 October 2012 as set out in Recommendation I. The establishment of these Professorships is proposed on condition that in each case where the person currently holds a permanently established office, that office should be placed in abeyance during the tenure of the Professorship.

4. The Board also propose the establishment of forty Readerships from 1 October 2012, as set out in Recommendation II. The establishment of these Readerships is proposed on condition that in each case where the person currently holds a permanently established office, that office should be placed in abeyance during the tenure of the Readership.

5. In order to avoid delay in publishing the Report, the Board have put forward their recommendations before the titles of the Professorships and Readerships have been agreed. The Board will announce these titles at a later date, after consultation with the individuals concerned.

6. The Board have also agreed, in accordance with Statute D, XVIII, 3 and the special regulation for University Senior Lectureships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 716), to appoint the twenty-eight individuals listed in the Schedule to this Report to University Senior Lectureships, or an unestablished appointment at the same level.

7. The estimated total additional cost to central funds in the first year of the proposals for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships and of the appointments to University Senior Lectureships of the persons named in this Report will be approximately £611,913.

8. The General Board recommend:

I. That, with effect from 1 October 2012, Professorships be established for the following named persons for one tenure, placed in Schedule B of the Statutes, and assigned to the Faculty, Department, or Institution named in each case, as follows:

School of Arts and Humanities

One in the Department of Architecture for Dr François Andre Penz of Darwin College

One in the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic for Dr Paul Russell of Pembroke College

One in the Department of French for Dr William Burgwinkle of King’s College

One in the Department of German and Dutch for Dr Christopher John Young of Pembroke College

One in the Department of Slavonic Studies for Dr Alexander Etkind of King’s College

One in the Faculty of Philosophy for Dr Alexander Duncan Oliver of Gonville and Caius College

School of the Biological Sciences

One in the Department of Biochemistry for Dr Guy Charles Brown of Downing College

One in the Department of Biochemistry for Dr Kathryn Susan Lilley of Jesus College

One in the Department of Biochemistry for Dr Sarah Catherine Ruth Lummis of King’s College

School of Clinical Medicine

One in the Department of Clinical Biochemistry for Dr Fiona Mary Gribble of Churchill College

One in the Department of Clinical Neurosciences for Dr Stephen James Sawcer of Jesus College

One in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology for Dr David Stephen Charnock-Jones of Corpus Christi College

One in the Department of Oncology for Dr Neil Gunn Burnet of Clare College

One in the Department of Public Health and Primary Care for Dr Paul David Peter Pharoah of Gonville and Caius College

School of the Humanities and Social Sciences

One in the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology for Dr Charles Andrew Ivey French

One in the Department of Social Sciences for Dr Claire Helene Hughes of Newnham College

One in the Department of Social Sciences for Dr Lawrence Peter King of Emmanuel College

One in the Department of Land Economy for Dr John Stuart Landreth McCombie of Downing College

One in the Department of Land Economy for Dr Paul Gerard McHugh of Sidney Sussex College

School of the Physical Sciences

One in the Department of Geography for Dr Clive Matthew Martin Oppenheimer of Sidney Sussex College

One in the Department of Geography for Dr Sarah Anne Radcliffe of Christ’s College

One in the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics for Dr Ivan Smith of Gonville and Caius College

One in the Institute of Astronomy for Dr Richard Gerard McMahon of Clare Hall

One in the Department of Chemistry for Dr Jason William Karl Chin of Trinity College

One in the Department of Chemistry for Dr Matthew James Gaunt of Magdalene College

One in the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy for Dr Bartlomiej Andrzej Glowacki of Darwin College

School of Technology

One in Judge Business School for Dr Jochen Heiko Runde of Girton College

One in the Computer Laboratory for Dr Peter Michael Sewell of Wolfson College

One in the Department of Engineering for Dr Mark John Francis Gales of Emmanuel College

One in the Department of Engineering for Dr William O’Neill of Downing College

One in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology for Dr John Stephen Dennis of Selwyn College

II. That, with effect from 1 October 2012, Readerships be established, as follows, and that the General Board be authorized to appoint to each Readership the person for whom its establishment is proposed:

School of Arts and Humanities

One in the Department of East Asian Studies for Dr Joseph Peter McDermott of St John’s College

One in the Department of Middle Eastern Studies for Dr Katherine Nicole Bennison of Magdalene College

One in the Faculty of Classics for Dr James Peter Timothy Clackson of Jesus College

One in the Faculty of Classics for Dr James Ian Warren of Corpus Christi College

One in the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic for Dr Rosalind Claire Love of Robinson College

One in the Department of German and Dutch for Dr Michael Robert Minden of Jesus College

One in the Faculty of Philosophy for Dr Fraser Lepage MacBride of Trinity Hall

School of the Biological Sciences

One in the Department of Biochemistry for Dr Daniel Nietlispach

One in the Department of Experimental Psychology for Dr Lisa Marie Saksida of Newnham College

One in the Department of Genetics for Dr Francis Michael Jiggins of Emmanuel College

One in the Department of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience for Dr Paul Nicholas Schofield of Robinson College

One in the Department of Plant Sciences for Dr Julian Michael Hibberd of Emmanuel College

School of Clinical Medicine

One in the Department of Surgery for Dr Ludovic Vallier

School of the Humanities and Social Sciences

One in the Department of Education for Dr Pamela Anne Burnard of Homerton College

One in the Department of Education for Dr Michael John Evans of Clare Hall

One in the Department of Education for Dr Keith Stephen Taber of Homerton College

One in the Faculty of History for Dr Annabel Sarah Brett of Gonville and Caius College

One in the Faculty of History for Dr James Craig Muldrew of Queens’ College

One in the Department of Politics and International Studies for Dr Helen Elizabeth Thompson of Clare College

One in the Department of Social Sciences for Dr Darin Thompson Weinberg of King’s College

One in the Faculty of Law for Dr Mark Christopher Elliott of St Catharine’s College

One in the Faculty of Law for Mrs Nicola Margaret Padfield of Fitzwilliam College

School of the Physical Sciences

One in the Department of Earth Sciences for Dr Richard John Harrison of St Catharine's College

One in the Department of Geography for Dr Andrew David Friend of Clare College

One in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics for Dr Stuart Bruce Dalziel of Sidney Sussex College

One in the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics for Dr Nathanael Edouard Berestycki of King’s College

One in the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics for Dr Richard Nickl of Queens’ College

One in the Department of Chemistry for Dr Markus Kalberer of Darwin College

One in the Department of Chemistry for Dr Oren Alexander Scherman of Jesus College

One in the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy for Dr James Arthur Elliott of Fitzwilliam College

One in the Department of Physics for Dr Erika Eiser of Sidney Sussex College

One in the Department of Physics for Dr Zoran Hadzibabic of Trinity College

School of Technology

One in Judge Business School for Dr Shahzad Mumtaz Ansari

One in the Computer Laboratory for Dr Stephen Christopher Clark of Gonville and Caius College

One in the Computer Laboratory for Dr Timothy George Griffin of King’s College

One in the Department of Engineering for Dr Jorge Goncalves of Pembroke College

One in the Department of Engineering for Dr Stephan Hofmann of Peterhouse

One in the Department of Engineering for Dr Matthew Pudan Juniper of Trinity College

One in the Department of Engineering for Dr Mate Lengyel

One in the Department of Engineering for Dr Garth Nathan Wells of Jesus College

23 May 2012

L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor

Simon Franklin

R. Kennicutt

N. Bampos

Andrew Gamble

Rachael Padman

William Brown

C. A. Gilligan

J. Rallison

H. A. Chase

David Good

Patrick Sissons

Sarah Coakley

SCHEDULE

The General Board have agreed to appoint the following to University Senior Lectureships, with effect from 1 October 2012, to the retiring age. The asterisked appointment is to an unestablished Senior Lectureship from 1 October 2012, the period of appointment being coterminous with the end of the current appointment.

School of Arts and Humanities

Department of Architecture

Mr Michael Hector Ramage of Sidney Sussex College

Department of Architecture

Mary Ann Steane of Murray Edwards College

Department of History of Art

Dr Frank Edwin Salmon of St John’s College

Department of Middle Eastern Studies

Dr Christine Van Ruymbeke

Faculty of Classics

Dr Lucia Prauscello of Trinity Hall

Faculty of English

Dr Alex Houen of Pembroke College

Faculty of English

Dr Subha Mukherji of Downing College

Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics

Dr Napoleon Katsos of Darwin College

School of the Biological Sciences

Department of Experimental Psychology

Dr Michael Richard Fraser Aitken of Selwyn College

Department of Experimental Psychology

Dr Luke Clark of Trinity Hall

Department of Experimental Psychology

Dr Jonathan Sam Simons of Emmanuel College

Department of Pathology

Dr Adrian Paul Kelly

Department of Pathology

Dr Heike Laman

Department of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience

Dr Joan Teresa Tiffert* of Robinson College

School of Clinical Medicine

Department of Medicine

Dr Mark Gurnell

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Dr Jose Miguel Alvao Serra Medeiros Constancia

School of the Humanities and Social Sciences

Department of Education

Dr Nidhi Singal of Hughes Hall

Department of Education

Mrs Elizabeth Jane Taylor of Newnham College

Faculty of History

Dr Leigh Matthew William Shaw-Taylor of Jesus College

Department of Social Sciences

Dr Simone Schnall

Department of Land Economy

Dr Elisabete Manuela Alves Silva of Robinson College

School of the Physical Sciences

Department of Geography

Dr Poul Christoffersen of Murray Edwards College

Department of Geography

Dr David Patrick Nally of Fitzwilliam College

School of Technology

Judge Business School

Dr Mark Peter Anthony Thompson of Trinity Hall

Department of Engineering

Dr Cesare Alan Hall of King’s College

Department of Engineering

Dr Sumeetpal Sidhu Singh of Churchill College

Non-School Institutions

Institute of Continuing Education

Dr Gillian Clare Carr of St Catharine’s College

Institute of Continuing Education

Dr Samantha Katherine Williams of Girton College

STATISTICAL SUMMARY

Attached as Annex A to this Report is a statistical summary by Sub-Committee of the number of successful and unsuccessful applications for promotions by Professorships, Readerships, and Senior Lectureships.

SENIOR ACADEMIC PROMOTIONS 2012 – ANNEX A

Statistical Summary of Outcomes by Sub-Committee

Professorships

Sub-Committee

Successful

Unsuccessful

Total

Arts and Humanities

6 (6 M 0 F)

5 (5 M 0 F)

11 (11 M 0 F)

Biological and Medical Sciences

8 (5 M 3 F)

5 (5 M 0 F)

13 (10 M 3 F)

Humanities and Social Sciences

6 (4 M 2 F)

2 (2 M 0 F)

8 (6 M 2 F)

Physical Sciences

6 (6 M 0F)

3 (3 M 0 F)

9 (9 M 0 F)

Technology

5 (5 M 0 F)

4 (4 M 0 F)

9 (9 M 0 F)

Total

31 (26 M 5 F)

20 (20 M 0 F)

51 (46 M 5 F)

Readerships

Sub-Committee

Successful

Unsuccessful

Total

Arts and Humanities

7 (5 M 2 F)

3 (2 M 1 F)

10 (7 M 3 F)

Biological and Medical Sciences

6 (5 M 1 F)

8 (5 M 3 F)

14 (10 M 4 F)

Humanities and Social Sciences

9 (5 M 4 F)

7 (5 M 2 F)

16 (10 M 6 F)

Physical Sciences

10 (9 M 1 F)

3 (3 M 0 F)

13 (12 M 1 F)

Technology

8 (8 M 0 F)

6 (6 M 0 F)

14 (14 M 0 F)

Total

40 (32 M 8 F)

27 (21 6 F)

67 (53 M 14 F)

University Senior Lectureships

Sub-Committee

Successful

Unsuccessful

Total

Arts and Humanities

8 (4 M 4 F)

3 (1 M 2 F)

11 (5 M 6 F)

Biological and Medical Sciences

8 (6 M 2 F)

2 (2 M 0 F)

10 (8 M 2 F)

Humanities and Social Sciences

9 (5 M 4 F)

2 (2 M 0 F)

11 (7 M 4 F)

Physical Sciences

1 (1 M 0 F)

1 (1 M 0 F)

2 (2 M 0 F)

Technology

3 (3 M 0 F)

0 (0 M 0 F)

3 (3 M 0 F)

Total

29 (19 M 10 F)

8 (6 M 2 F)

37 (25 M 12 F)