No 6394
Wednesday 15 July 2015
Vol cxlv No 38
pp. 742–784
The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The General Board recommend the establishment of two Professorships as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 below.
2. The Board have accepted an academic case from the Council of the School of the Physical Sciences for the establishment of a Professorship of Astronomy for a single tenure in the Institute of Astronomy. The full cost of the Professorship will be met by the School of the Physical Sciences from its recurrent Chest allocation. Professor R. C. Kennicutt, the holder of the Plumian Professorship of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy which is the most senior Professorship in the Institute of Astronomy, will reach the statutory retirement date on 30 September 2018. The Board have been advised by the Council of the School of the Physical Sciences that it is highly desirable for there to be a period of overlap between Professor Kennicutt and his successor as Plumian Professor for continuity of leadership and to maintain the international reputation of the Institute. The Board have accordingly agreed to propose the establishment of a single tenure Professorship of Astronomy to enable the Plumian Professor-elect to take up appointment in advance of Professor Kennicutt’s retirement. On assuming the Plumian Professorship the single tenure Professorship will lapse. The Board have agreed that the election to the Professorship of Astronomy should be made by an ad hoc Board of Electors and that candidature should be open to all persons whose work falls within the general field of the title of the office.
3. The Board have accepted an academic case from the Council of the School of Technology for the establishment of a Professorship of Infrastructure Geotechnics in the Department of Engineering. The full cost of the Professorship will be met by the School of Technology from its recurrent Chest allocation. The Board have agreed that the election to the Professorship of Infrastructure Geotechnics should be made by an ad hoc Board of Electors and that the candidature should be open to all persons whose work falls within the general field of the title of the office.
4. The General Board recommend:
I. That a single-tenure Professorship of Astronomy be established from 1 October 2015, placed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (vii) 1, and assigned to the Institute of Astronomy.
II. That a Professorship of Infrastructure Geotechnics be established from 1 October 2015, placed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (vii) 1, and assigned to the Department of Engineering.
|
8 July 2015 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Anne Davis |
Rachael Padman |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
David Good |
Richard Prager |
|
|
Robert Cashman |
Duncan Maskell |
Graham Virgo |
|
|
M. J. Daunton |
Patrick Maxwell |
Chris Young |
The General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. Over the course of the 2013–14 academical year, the General Board promoted two initiatives aimed at improving the quality of provision in courses leading to a Master’s Degree. Work is underway to improve the quality and consistency of information available to prospective students, so as to ensure that their expectations are accurate. At the request of the Board, the Schools are undertaking a more detailed review of provision, informed by the basic course information collected for the University’s Graduate Prospectus.
2. The Board have also been reviewing arrangements for the examination of Master’s Degree courses. The recommendations in this Report are made following two consultations with Degree Committees, and have been approved by the Board of Graduate Studies. From responses to the consultations, it is evident that some differentiation is needed between those courses for the M.Phil. Degree primarily based on research and examined by means of a dissertation and oral examination, and others with formally assessed components, so that more coherent examination frameworks can be put in place.
3. The Board propose that, in order to separate clearly these two types of M.Phil. provision, and to allow more coherent requirements to be put in place for those with a taught element, M.Phil. Degrees in subjects examined primarily by dissertation should fall under the regulations that apply to the Ph.D. Degree and other research degrees. Under these regulations, students will be examined on an individual basis with each candidate assigned an internal and an external Examiner who will assess the dissertation, any other associated work for the degree, and conduct a viva. Other M.Phil. courses with additional taught elements assessed by written papers or coursework, would fall within a revised M.Phil. Degree framework under which candidates would be assessed as a cohort, with a Board of Examiners appointed to assess all candidates.
4. The Board further recommend that they assume responsibility for appointing Examiners for M.Phil. courses with taught elements. They also recommend that the regulations for this type of M.Phil. course be clarified and a Board of Examiners established under the chairship of a Senior Examiner, who would make recommendations to the appropriate Degree Committee by means of a pass-list, to be signed at a meeting at which all Examiners are required to be present. Provision would be made for the appointment of Assessors. The proposed arrangements would be analogous to those for Tripos examinations.
5. If the proposals are approved, the Board will request that Degree Committees review their own special regulations to determine within which framework their programmes best fit, or indeed whether any of their M.Phil. courses would be better reclassified as courses leading to the M.Res. Degree. Degree Committees will also be asked to review their special regulations to ensure that they are an accurate and clear description of the format of the examination, and that strands or routes within the course are clearly identified. Where core modules or papers exist, special regulations should require publication of these by the end of the Easter Term before the academical year in which the course starts to ensure that sufficient information is available in advance of the course to give students an opportunity to prepare for their studies. To ensure appropriate flexibility, special regulations may make provision for titles of additional, non-core, subjects and modules to be published later. Lists of modules, papers, subjects, and assessment method will be published in the Reporter to ensure that sufficient, accurate, and timely information is available both centrally and to course organizers of programmes which borrow papers from other programmes.
6. In reviewing the Ordinances for the Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Science and Master of Letters, and the general regulations for the Master of Philosophy, the opportunity had been taken to make a number of amendments to ensure that the regulations better reflect current practice.
7. The General Board therefore recommend that, with effect from 1 October 2016, the proposals as set out in this Report be approved and the regulations for the Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Science, and Master of Letters, the general regulations for the Master of Philosophy, and other Ordinances be amended as set out in the Appendix to this Report.
|
10 July 2015 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Anne Davis |
Rachael Padman |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
David Good |
Richard Prager |
|
|
Robert Cashman |
Robert Kennicutt |
Graham Virgo |
|
|
M. J. Daunton |
Patrick Maxwell |
Chris Young |
1. By amending the general regulations for the degree of Master of Philosophy (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 510) as follows and inserting new general regulations for the degree of Master of Philosophy by advanced study (retaining the Schedule to the current regulations as the Schedule to the latter new regulations):
There shall be two forms of examination for the M.Phil. Degree: by advanced study; and by dissertation.1
1. Candidature for the degree of Master of Philosophy by advanced study shall be through one of the following routes:
Route A – one year of full-time study;
Route B – two years of full-time study, including a prescribed period of study (of not more than three terms) outside Cambridge; and
Route C – two years of part-time study.
Each subject of study, through whichever route, together with the syllabus for the course, the special regulations for the examination, and any subsequent amendments thereof, shall be approved by the General Board on the recommendation of the Faculty Board or other body concerned, after consultation with the appropriate Degree Committee.
2. The scheme of examination for the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study, including provision for an oral examination, shall be as prescribed in the appropriate special regulations for the subject as appended to these regulations. Any such prescribed examination scheme may include any coursework, essay, written examination, or other exercise specified in the special regulations governing that examination. The examination shall be held before the end of the course, except as provided under Regulation 7, and at such time or times as may be determined by the Degree Committee concerned, subject in the case of written papers to the approval of the Board of Examinations
3. The Degree Committee shall issue to Examiners and Assessors appointed for the examination concerned details of the conventions and criteria to be applied in marking written papers and other work, including the thesis and in determining the provisional pass-list. Such details and changes to them shall normally be issued not later than the end of the Full Michaelmas Term preceding the examination.
4. For any examination or part of an examination no change in the form and conduct of the examination, by comparison with the form and conduct of that examination in the previous year, shall be made if it would affect the preparation of candidates, unless
|
either |
(a) |
the special regulations governing the examination have been amended |
|
or |
(b) |
the Degree Committee have published, not later than the division of the term before the one in which the examination is due to take place, a Notice of the changes of form and conduct not governed by special regulation, that will be made. |
5. For any examination or part of an examination held for the first time, the Degree Committee shall publish by the division of the term before the one in which the examination is due to take place, a Notice specifying in as much detail as possible the form and conduct of that examination or part of an examination. The term examination shall include any coursework, essay, or other exercise specified in the special regulations governing that examination.
6. No student shall be a candidate for the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study and for another University examination in the same term. No student shall be a candidate for the degree on more than one occasion.
7. A candidate for the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study shall be a registered Graduate Student who, subject to the provisions of Regulation 8, shall pursue in the University or similar institution approved by the Degree Committee concerned and by the Board of Graduate Studies, the specified course under the direction of a Supervisor, who may be the Course Director, appointed by the Degree Committee concerned, and shall comply with any special conditions that the Degree Committee or the Board may lay down in a particular case. The course under Route A shall extend over one academical year; candidates under this Route are required to reside in Cambridge for all three terms of the year, beginning from the date announced by the Degree Committee for the start of lectures, classes, or other formal instruction. The courses under Routes B and C shall extend over two academical years. Students under Route B shall spend a minimum of three terms in residence in Cambridge. Students under Route C are required to attend classes or other formal instruction during the six terms of the course, beginning from the date announced by the Degree Committee.
8. The Board of Graduate Studies, after considering a recommendation by the Degree Committee concerned, may allow a candidate for the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study, on account of illness or other sufficient cause, to intermit her or his course of study. This period of intermission shall not count for any purpose of these regulations except as provided in Regulation 10 of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student.
9. Details of each candidate’s examination entry and subsequent corrections thereof shall be submitted by the candidate to the Secretary of the Degree Committee concerned, and by the latter to the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies in accordance with the timetables set out in the Schedule appended to the regulations. The term examination shall include any coursework, essay, or other exercise specified in the special regulations governing that examination.
10. Each candidate who is required to submit to the Degree Committee a thesis under the special regulations for the subject concerned shall submit the thesis in accordance with detailed arrangements approved by the Board of Examinations, so as to arrive by a date which shall be determined by the Degree Committee, and which shall, for Route A, be not later than the last day of August in the academical year of the course and, for Routes B and C, the last day of August in the second academical year of the course, provided that a candidate may be permitted to submit her or his thesis at such later date as may be determined by the Degree Committee.
11. In submitting a thesis a candidate shall state, generally in a preface and specifically in notes or in a bibliography, the sources from which information has been derived, the extent to which use has been made of the work of others, and the portions of the thesis which are claimed as original. A thesis shall not be accepted if it is substantially the same as one that the candidate has submitted, or is concurrently submitting, for any other degree, diploma, or similar qualification at any university or similar institution, but a thesis which the candidate has submitted or is concurrently submitting for some other purpose may be accepted. In submitting a thesis the candidate shall declare for what purpose, if any, other than for the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study, the whole or part of it has already been or is concurrently being submitted. The thesis, apart from quotations, shall be written in English.
12. Every Supervisor shall send to the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies reports on the work of each candidate under his or her charge, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 8 of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student.
13. The Degree Committee concerned shall nominate for appointment by the General Board such number of Examiners and Assessors as they shall deem sufficient to conduct the examination for the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study and to report on the performance of candidates to the Degree Committee. Appointment shall be in accordance with the general regulations for Examiners and Assessors. The Assessors shall undertake such duties as the Degree Committee may decide.
There shall be at least one External Examiner appointed for each examination and a Senior Examiner who shall be nominated for appointment not later than the end of the Michaelmas Term.
Where the scheme of examination includes a thesis, each candidate’s thesis shall be referred to two Assessors each of whom shall make an independent report thereon and conduct an oral examination where provided for in the special regulations for the examination and, if so specified, on the other parts of the examination. The Degree Committee in exceptional circumstances may permit the Assessors to conduct the oral examination by video-conference or other remote means. The Assessors participating in the oral examination shall sign a joint certificate of the result, including any marks assigned thereto, of that examination. If the Assessors do not agree in their recommendation, or if for any other reason the Degree Committee need a further opinion or opinions on the merit of the work submitted, the Degree Committee may nominate an additional Assessor for appointment by the General Board. Each additional Assessor so appointed shall make an independent report to the Degree Committee.
14. Every Examiner who has taken part in the examination shall be present, unless prevented by grave cause approved before the meeting by the Vice-Chancellor, at the final meeting of the Examiners at which the marks of candidates are approved and a provisional pass-list signed.
15. The Senior Examiner shall present the provisional pass-list to the Degree Committee at a meeting. The Degree Committee shall consider, for each candidate, whether his or her performance is of the requisite standard for the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study and whether they are of the opinion that the degree should be conferred. The Degree Committee shall communicate their resolution to the candidate and to the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies who shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree of Master of Philosophy, specifying the subject of the examination and the route of candidature.
16. If the Degree Committee, after consideration of a candidate’s marks and the reports of the Examiners in the prescribed examination, are of the opinion that the candidate’s work is not of the requisite standard for the degree, the Degree Committee shall communicate their resolution to the candidate and to the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies. After such a resolution has been made the student concerned shall not be eligible to take the examination for the degree again.
17. A Graduate Student whose course of study for the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study has included any term needed for the B.A. Degree and who elects to proceed to the B.A. Degree shall not be entitled to proceed to the M.Phil. Degree.
2. By amending the regulations for the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Science, and Master of Letters (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 504) so as to read:
1. Subject to clauses (a)–(e) below, a Graduate Student shall pursue in the University, or such other place as the Board of Graduate Studies and the Degree Committee concerned shall determine, under supervision a course of research
(i)if the student seeks the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation as listed in the Schedule to these regulations, by full-time study, for not less than three terms;
(ii)if the student seeks the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation as listed in the Schedule to these regulations, by part-time study, for not less than six terms;
(iii)if the student seeks the M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree by full-time study, for not less than six terms;
(iv)if the student seeks the M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree by part-time study, for not less than ten terms;
(v)if the student seeks the Ph.D. Degree by full-time study, for not less than nine terms;
(vi)if the student seeks the Ph.D. Degree by part-time study, for not less than fifteen terms.
The number of terms referred to shall begin with the term from which the student is registered for a course of research as a candidate for the particular degree and shall be consecutive except in so far as the student may have been allowed to intermit her or his course under clause (c) below, or except in so far as the Board may have determined that he or she shall not be allowed to count any particular term towards the requirements for a degree.
(a)The Board, after considering a recommendation by the Degree Committee concerned, may exempt from up to three terms of her or his full-time course or from up to five terms of her or his part-time course a Graduate Student who is registered as a candidate for the Ph.D., M.Sc., or M.Litt. Degree, provided that before admission as a Graduate Student he or she had been engaged
|
either |
(i) |
in full-time or part-time research |
|
or |
(ii) |
in other work done after graduation deemed by the Degree Committee and the Board to have provided satisfactory training for the course of research in question. |
(b)The Board, after considering a recommendation by the Degree Committee concerned, may allow a Graduate Student to spend all but three terms of her or his full-time course of research or six terms of a part-time course of research as a candidate for a degree, or any lesser number of terms, working under supervision outside the University under conditions approved by the Degree Committee and the Board.
(c)On account of illness or other sufficient cause, the Board, after considering a recommendation by the Degree Committee concerned, may allow a Graduate Student to intermit her or his course of research for one or more terms. Such terms shall not count for any purpose of these regulations except as provided in Regulation 7 of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student.
(d)If the Council have granted a student registered for a full-time course an allowance of terms of residence under Regulation 2 in respect of work done by the student in the University before matriculation, the Board, after considering a recommendation by the Degree Committee concerned, may grant the student an allowance in respect of such work towards the period during which he or she is required to pursue a course of research in the University under this regulation, provided that the number of terms so allowed shall not exceed the number of terms allowed by the Council in respect of such work. For every term so allowed the student shall pay the appropriate fee as prescribed in Regulation 11 of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student.
(e)On the recommendation of the Degree Committee concerned, the Board may allow a Graduate Student to count towards her or his course of research as a candidate for the Ph.D., M.Litt., or M.Sc. Degree a period during which he or she was a candidate for another qualification as set out in Regulation 5(c), 5(e), or 5(f) of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student or for the following Diplomas or Certificates:
(i)a student who is qualified to receive, or who has received, the Diploma in Economics, or the Postgraduate Diplomas in International Law, or in Legal Studies, as the case may be, may be allowed to count not more than three terms of the period during which he or she was a candidate for the Diploma concerned towards a full-time course or not more than five terms towards a part-time course;
(ii)a student who is qualified to receive, but who has not received, a Certificate of Postgraduate Study may be allowed to count not more than three terms of the period during which he or she was a candidate for the Certificate concerned towards a full-time course or not more than five terms towards a part-time course.
Every application for dispensation under clauses (a)–(e) shall be made in writing to the Secretary of the Board, and shall be accompanied by a written opinion from the applicant’s Supervisor.
2. On the recommendation of the Board, the Council may grant to a Graduate Student in respect of work done in the University before matriculation, if the student’s matriculation was delayed for sufficient cause, an allowance of terms, not exceeding three in number, towards the minimum of three terms required to be kept under Regulation 7 for the Precincts of the University and residence for full- time study leading to the Ph.D. Degree.
3. Every Supervisor shall send to the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies reports on the work of each candidate under her or his charge, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 8 of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student.
4. The Board may grant to a Graduate Student the following allowance of terms of research towards satisfying the requirements of Regulation 1, on account of illness or other grave cause:
(a)one or two terms of research to a candidate for the Ph.D. Degree who would otherwise be required to complete nine terms of research;
(b)up to three terms of research to a candidate for the Ph.D. Degree who would otherwise be required to complete fifteen terms of research;
(c)one term of research to a candidate for a degree who would otherwise be required to complete three terms of research;
(d)one or two terms of research to a candidate for a degree who would otherwise be required to complete six or ten terms of research.
For every term so allowed the student shall pay the appropriate fee as prescribed in Regulation 11 of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student.
5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation 1 of these regulations and Regulation 4 of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student, the Board shall have power, on the recommendation of the Degree Committee concerned, to permit a Graduate Student to pursue a course of research, as a candidate for the Ph.D., M.Sc., M.Litt. Degree, or the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation, in a particular institution outside the University, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Degree Committee and the Board. Applications under this regulation shall be made in writing to the Secretary of the Board, and shall be accompanied by a written opinion from the applicant’s Supervisor.
6. A Graduate Student who, having pursued a course of research registered as a candidate for the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation, M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree, has been approved for the award of one of those degrees, may be registered as a candidate for the Ph.D. Degree. The Board shall determine the conditions of candidature for a student so registered, after considering recommendations by the Degree Committee. A student who has been approved for the M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree under Regulation 19 shall not be registered as a candidate for the Ph.D. Degree.
7. The examination for the degrees of Ph.D., M.Sc., and M.Litt. shall consist of
(a)the submission of a dissertation embodying the results of the candidate’s approved course of research, which shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 9–11; and
(b)an examination, conducted orally or in writing, on the subject of the dissertation and on the general field of knowledge within which it falls, provided that in exceptional circumstances, and on the recommendation of the Degree Committee concerned, the Board may dispense with such an examination. By special permission of the Degree Committee, a candidate may submit other work to be considered by the Examiners together with the dissertation, the whole forming an integrated submission.
8. The scheme of examination for the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation shall consist of
(a)the submission of a dissertation embodying the results of the candidate’s approved course of research, which shall be submitted in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 9–11; and
(b)an examination, conducted orally or in writing, on the subject of the dissertation and on the general field of knowledge within which it falls, provided that in exceptional circumstances, and on the recommendation of the Degree Committee concerned, the Board may dispense with such an examination. By special permission of the Degree Committee, a candidate may submit other work to be considered by the Examiners together with the dissertation, the whole forming an integrated submission.
9. A candidate for the Ph.D., M.Litt., or M.Sc. Degree may submit her or his dissertation not earlier than the first day of the term during which he or she expects to complete the requirements of Regulation 1 and not later than the last day of the fourth year after the student was registered as a full-time candidate for the degree or the last day of the seventh year after the student was registered as a part-time candidate for the degree, provided that, with the permission of the Board, a dissertation may be submitted later than that day. An allowance of terms made by the Council under Regulation 2 and by the Board under Regulation 1(d) shall count in calculating the standing of a student for the purpose of this regulation as shall an exemption under Regulation 1(a). A candidate for the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation shall submit her or his dissertation by a date determined by the Degree Committee.
10. In submitting their dissertations, candidates shall state, generally in a preface and specifically in notes or in a bibliography, the sources from which their information is derived, the extent to which they have availed themselves of the work of others, and the portions of the dissertation which are claimed as original. They shall also be required to declare that the dissertation submitted is not substantially the same as any that they may have submitted for a degree or diploma or similar qualification; save that the Board shall have power to allow a candidate to submit a dissertation that he or she has already submitted for a qualification other than a degree or diploma or similar qualification at any university or similar institution. A dissertation, apart from quotations, shall be written in English. Each Degree Committee shall have power to specify a maximum length for dissertations submitted by students working under its supervision.
11. Candidates for the Ph.D. Degree shall submit their dissertations to the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies in accordance with requirements determined by the Board. Candidates for the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation, M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree shall submit their dissertations to the Secretary of the Degree Committee in accordance with requirements determined by the Degree Committee.
12. For all candidates, the dissertation shall be referred to two Examiners, appointed by the Degree Committee. Each Examiner shall make an independent report to the Degree Committee on the dissertation. The two Examiners shall jointly conduct the oral or written examination as specified in these regulations, and shall sign a joint certificate of the result; if the examination is conducted orally, both Examiners shall be present, provided that the Degree Committee in exceptional circumstances may permit the Examiners to conduct the oral examination by video-conference or other remote means. If the Examiners do not agree in their recommendations or if for any other reason the Degree Committee or the Board need a further opinion or opinions on the merit of the work submitted the Degree Committee may appoint an additional Examiner or additional Examiners, provided that not more than one additional Examiner shall be appointed without leave of the Board. Each additional Examiner so appointed shall make an independent report on the dissertation to the Degree Committee.
13. If a candidate fails to satisfy the Examiners in the oral or other examination specified in Regulation 7(b), the Degree Committee may permit the candidate to be re-examined by the same Examiners. In the case of candidates for the Ph.D. Degree, permission so given shall be communicated to the Secretary of the Board and shall not be given on more than one occasion. Each Examiner who takes part in an examination under this regulation shall be paid a fee of £42 in addition to any fees to which he or she may be entitled under Regulation 12, and may also claim travelling expenses in accordance with the provisions of that regulation.
14. Each Examiner shall receive a fee from the Chest. Such a fee shall be £135 if the Examiner takes part in the oral or other examination specified in Regulation 7(b), or £100 if the Examiner does not so take part, either because the Board, on the recommendation of the Degree Committee, have dispensed with the oral or other examination or for any other reason. Examiners may claim travelling expenses, on terms and conditions specified by the Board of Graduate Studies, if their place of residence is more than ten miles from Great St Mary’s Church or if an oral examination or a consultation between the Examiners is for good reason held outside Cambridge. The Board may also approve payment of other reasonable expenses incurred by an Examiner in connection with the execution of her or his duties. A subsistence allowance may be claimed by Examiners at rates determined from time to time by the Finance Committee of the Council, provided that payment may be made only in respect of a day or a night on which the Examiner’s absence from her or his normal place of residence in connection with the execution of her or his duties is necessary. The travelling expenses of a candidate who is required to travel to an oral or other examination outside Cambridge may be paid in whole or in part, at rates determined by the Board of Graduate Studies; such a candidate may also claim a subsistence allowance at rates determined from time to time by the Finance Committee, under the same conditions as apply to the Examiners.
15. The Board shall be the awarding body for the Ph.D., M.Sc., or M.Litt. Degree, and the Degree Committee shall be the awarding body for the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation. The awarding body shall be the deciding authority on all recommendations that candidates be approved for the award of degree or that they be allowed to submit revised dissertations. The Board shall not approve a candidate for the award of a degree unless the Degree Committee have recommended the award of that degree; before refusing an award so recommended they shall give a representative appointed by the Degree Committee an opportunity of explaining the Committee’s reasons for their recommendation.
16. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on a student’s dissertation and on her or his performance in the oral or other examination, the Degree Committee are satisfied that the student’s work is of the requisite standard for the Ph.D. Degree for which he or she is a candidate, a resolution of the Committee to that effect, with the names of those present and voting on either side, shall be communicated to the Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If the Board, after receiving such communication, at a meeting at which not less than five members of the Board are present, resolve that the candidate be approved for the degree sought, the Secretary of the Board shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the Degree.
17. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners on a student’s dissertation and on her or his performance in the oral or other examination, the Degree Committee are satisfied that the student’s work is of the requisite standard for the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation, for which he or she is a candidate, the Degree Committee shall communicate their resolution to the candidate and to the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies who shall publish a notice of the candidate’s approval for the award of the degree, specifying the subject of the examination.
18. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee consider that a student’s dissertation is not of the requisite standard for the degree for which he or she is a candidate, the awarding body may permit the student to submit a revised dissertation. The communication conveying such a recommendation by a Degree Committee shall contain the names of those present and voting , and shall be accompanied by the reports of the Examiners. A student shall not be allowed to submit a revised dissertation on more than one occasion.
19. If, after considering the reports of the Examiners, the Degree Committee consider that a student’s work is not of the standard requisite for the Ph.D. Degree, but that it is of the standard requisite for the M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree, as the case may be, their resolution to that effect, with the names of those present and voting, shall be communicated to the Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. If after receiving such communication the Board decide, at a meeting at which not less than five members of the Board are present, that the candidate could properly be approved for the award of a lower degree, the Secretary of the Board shall ask the candidate whether he or she is willing to be approved for the award of the M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree, as appropriate. Subject to the candidate’s agreement being received by the Secretary not later than the last day of the term following the term or vacation in which the decision on his or her candidature was made, the Board shall approve the candidate for the award of that degree and the Secretary shall publish a notice of such approval. The Board may, in exceptional circumstances, which they shall themselves determine, accept a candidate’s agreement at a later date.
20. If after considering the reports of the Examiners the Degree Committee resolve that a candidate’s work is not of the requisite standard for any degree, and if they do not recommend that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised dissertation, their resolution to that effect, with the names of those present and voting, shall be communicated to the Board, together with the reports of the Examiners. In the case of candidates for the Ph.D., M.Litt., or M.Sc. Degree, the Secretary of the Board shall communicate this decision to the student. In the case of candidates for the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation the Degree Committee shall communicate its decision to the student.
21. Before being admitted to the Ph.D. Degree, a student shall deposit with the Secretary of the Board one copy of her or his dissertation in a form approved by the Board. The Secretary shall deposit the copy of the dissertation in the University Library where, subject to restricted access to the dissertation for a specified period of time having been granted by the Board of Graduate Studies, they shall be made available for consultation by readers in accordance with University Library regulations and copies of the dissertation provided to readers in accordance with applicable legislation.
22. No student shall proceed to the Ph.D., M.Litt., or M.Sc. Degree, or the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation on more than one occasion.
For the purposes of the regulations above, the following shall be classified as subjects for examination leading to the M.Phil. Degree by dissertation:
Architecture
Astronomy
Biological Anthropology
Biological Science
Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology
Chemistry
Earth Sciences
Education
Engineering
Geography
Land Economy
Latin American Studies
Material Science and Metallurgy
Medical Science
Music Studies
Physics
Veterinary Science
3. (a) By replacing in the following regulations the references to the M.Phil. Degree with references to the M.Phil. Degree by advanced study:
Regulations 1 and 18 of the regulations for entries and lists of candidates for examinations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 243)
Regulation 1 of the regulations for dates of examinations and publication of class-lists (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 246)
Regulation 3(f) of the regulations for payments to Examiners and Assessors (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 255)
Regulation 8(c) of the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 446)
(b) In the general regulations for admission as a Graduate Student (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 446) by replacing in Regulation 11(e) 'M.Phil. Degree examined by thesis and oral only' with 'M.Phil. Degree by dissertation'.
The opportunity is also being taken to make a correction in Regulation 9 by replacing the first five sentences with the following:
The Degree Committee concerned shall have power to require a Graduate Student to take a progress examination. The form of the examination shall be subject to approval by the Board. Any such examination shall be held not later than the end of the vacation following the second term after the term of the student’s admission as a Graduate Student or at a time to be determined by the Board. For Graduate Students registered for the part-time Ph.D., Ed.D., M.Litt., or M.Sc. Degrees the progress examination shall be not later than the fourth term after the term of the student’s admission. The Board, after considering a recommendation by the Degree Committee, shall determine how many, if any, of the terms previous to an examination under this regulation shall be counted for the purpose of Regulation 1 of the regulations for the Ph.D., M.Sc., and M.Litt. Degrees, and Regulation 7 of the general regulations for the M.Phil. Degree, and Regulation 4 of the regulations for the M.Res. Degree.
1See the regulations for the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Science, Master of Letters, and Master of Philosophy by dissertation.
The Board of Scrutiny beg leave to report as follows:
1. The Board of Scrutiny could be described as the University’s ‘watchdog body’. It forms part of the official mechanism for ensuring that the University is run in a way that is transparent and is accountable to the governing body of the University, which is the Regent House. It comprises eight directly elected members who serve for a period of four years, and the Proctors and Pro-Proctors (who are nominated by the Colleges and formally elected by the Regent House). Of the members who are directly elected by the Regent House, four retire and four new members are elected every two years. Further information is available on http://www.scrutiny.cam.ac.uk/.
2. The Board has a statutory obligation ‘to scrutinize on behalf of the Regent House’:
(a)the Annual Report of the Council;
(b)the Abstract of the Accounts of the University; and
(c)any other Report of the Council proposing allocations from the Chest.
It also has the right to report to the University on any matter falling within the scope of this scrutiny, to examine the policies of the University and the arrangements made for the implementation of those policies, and has the power to inspect any documents that are relevant to any enquiry that it is empowered to make. The Board, with the best interests of the University in mind, aims to carry out its functions in a constructive manner. Since its inception, the Board’s practice has been to publish a single Report exploring the themes that emerge from these official documents, rather than a series of separate Reports on Reports. This Twentieth Report follows this tradition.
3. In discharge of these obligations during the academical year 2014–15 the Board has met fortnightly during each Full Term with two additional meetings in June to finalize this Report. It held formal meetings with the Vice-Chancellor, the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor (‘PVC’), the PVCs for Education and for Research, the Registrary, the Director of Finance twice (with the Chief Investment Officer on one occasion), the Executive Director of Development and Alumni Relations, and the Director of Information Services. The Board is most grateful to all of these individuals for the time and assistance they have given.
4. The Board welcomes the amendment of Regulation 3 of the regulations for its membership, removing the need for a Grace for the holding of further elections in the case of insufficient nominations being received and the Council finding itself unable immediately to fill the vacancies concerned.1 Casual vacancies are inevitable on any University body; it takes time for newly-elected members to find their feet, so long gaps are best avoided.
5. The Board was provided with part-time administrative assistance this year by Ms Emma Easterbrook. Her help has been invaluable. Successive Boards owe her a great debt and we wish her well now that she is moving on.
6. The Board has provided a summary of the recommendations that it made in its Nineteenth Report together with the Council’s responses in Annex A.
7. The financial statements for the University (excluding Cambridge University Press (‘CUP’) and Cambridge Assessment) for 2013–14 show a decrease in the operating surplus of the University. Total income grew by 6.3 per cent from the previous year, while expenditure grew by 8.1 per cent and the surplus retained in general reserves fell from £39.1m to £24.8m. With the inclusion of Cambridge Assessment and CUP, the Group results show a deficit of £6.3m for the year compared with a surplus of £23.1m in the previous year. The segmental analysis shows further details of financial performance. The surplus on continuing operations in the Education and Research segment was down from £31.3m to £17.6m. Given the continuing pressures that the higher education section is under, these financial results are probably to be expected. It should be noted that although research grant income rose by 11.9 per cent, direct research grant expenditure rose by 12.4 per cent, and it would be unfortunate if that trend continued. Although the figures are not as encouraging as last year, the Board would still like to thank the Senior PVC and the Director of Finance for their continued efforts to manage the University’s finances in challenging times.
8. The financial results for 2013–14 were again supported by continued growth in endowment and investment income. The University’s consolidated accounts are required to show the income from the underlying investments of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (‘CUEF’). If, however, the accounting treatment had been based on the distributions by the CUEF, which better reflects the total return investment approach adopted in the management of the endowment, total endowment and investment income for the University Group would be seen to have risen to £90.2m from £80.7m. This would have resulted in an overall surplus for the year retained within general reserves of £73.8m compared with £99.0m in the previous year.
9. The CUEF has a financial year that runs to the end of June and investment performance is monitored to that date. In the year to June 2014, the CUEF generated a total return of 10.4 per cent (a reduction from the 20.0 per cent return of the year before, but a creditable result and one more typical of the current economic and market conditions). While performance information is not yet publicly available for the current financial year, the CUEF is expected to report similarly good investment returns in the year to June 2015. The long-term investment performance of the CUEF remains good: over the five years to June 2014 the average annual total return has been 13.1 per cent per annum, which compares well to the long-term total return objective of RPI plus 5.25 per cent (which equates to 8.3 per cent in the relevant period).
10. While the Investment Office (‘IO’) continues to produce strong investment returns, the long-term investment objective remains ambitious, and should be kept under active review, although the Board is satisfied that good risk controls are in place.
11. The Board would like to thank the Director of Finance and the IO for continuing to provide further detail on the CUEF in the annual accounts and the Financial Management Information report.2
12. Continuing tight budgetary constraint recommended by the Council ensured that the actual out-turn for the Chest in the 2013–14 financial year was £1.8m better than the budget forecast. The University achieved this result because total Chest income was £4.5m greater than the budgeted sum, whereas total expenditure was only £2.7m higher. The projections largely show surpluses in the coming years to 2018–19, except for a slight deficit of £0.1m in 2016–17. The latest forecast for 2014–15 now shows a projected surplus of £1.0m, compared to the projected surplus of £6.7m in the 2013–14 Budget Report.3
13. This slight downturn in the Chest’s financial position is largely attributable to a decline of £4.1m in income from academic fees (the result of lower than forecast graduate numbers) and £3.6m more than forecast being distributed in College Fees, which have only been partially offset by increases in research grant and endowment income. Although academic fees are projected to rise over the planning round (with postgraduate numbers assumed to continue to increase at an average of 2 per cent per annum), these assumptions should be tested, particularly as UK students who were charged the higher tuition fees introduced in 2011 are now starting to feed into the potential graduate population.
14. The Board recommends that assumptions about graduate numbers continue to be kept under active review.
15. The budget for 2015–16, and the projections beyond, remain based on some fairly conservative assumptions. The pay assumptions have been recently lowered from 2 per cent to 1 per cent (reversing the position of the previous year). Should pay pressures increase, forecasts may be forced back into deficit for some of the coming years.
16. The Board’s Nineteenth Report noted the increase in budget for the Unified Administrative Service (‘UAS’) for 2014–15, and that investment in Cambridge University Development and Alumni Relations (‘CUDAR’) and Cambridge in America would need monitoring in the next few years. The UAS forecast for 2014–15 remains as budgeted, and total Chest and non-Chest expenditure is projected to reduce to around £40m by 2018–19. Recruitment to new posts in CUDAR is proceeding more slowly than forecast, but the University remains committed to these, and they will be important for the University’s fundraising goals.
17. There are two main areas of risk for the University in the coming years: the North West Cambridge development, and potential liabilities in pension provision. Development continues at North West Cambridge, and the first tenants are still expected to move in in 2016–17. The funding of the project assumes that rental income will cover both the interest on the internal loan funding the development and will also accumulate to repay the capital. This is linked to the coupon of £13.1m per annum on the public bond issue of £350m and its repayment in 2052.
18. The Board recommends that the assumptions surrounding the financial position of North West Cambridge remain under constant review.
19. In terms of pensions, there are two main University schemes, the Universities Superannuation Scheme (‘USS’) and the Cambridge University Assistants’ Contributory Pension Scheme (‘CPS’). In addition, there is also a liability for two CUP defined benefit schemes that are closed to new members. The total pension cost incurred by the University Group in 2013–14 was £98.2m, an increase of 5.5 per cent (from £93.1m) over the previous year.
20. The CPS and the two CUP schemes are accounted for in the financial statements in accordance with Financial Reporting Standard 17, but the liability attributable to the USS is not included in the accounts of the University.4 This is because it is not possible to separate and attribute the Cambridge-specific liabilities of this multi-employer scheme. The total Group net pension liabilities included in the consolidated financial statements for 2013–14 were reported as £417m, an increase of 14.8 per cent on the previous year (£363.6m). Of this reported sum, £338m was attributable to the deficit on the CPS and £79m was attributable to the deficit on the CUP schemes. The total potential liability would be substantially larger if it were possible to include the University’s exposure to the USS. The last USS triennial valuation at 31 March 2014 was expected to show a substantially higher deficit, compared to £2.9bn in March 2011 and an estimated £9.8bn in March 2012. The USS is currently the subject of an employer consultation, but it is clear that increases in contribution rates are inevitable, and owing to the ‘last man standing’ nature of the scheme the University is one of its principal underwriters. The Board reiterates its concern about the University’s potential USS pension liabilities.5 The University projections still assume a 2 per cent increase in employers’ contributions into the USS from 2015–16, but this may be an under-estimate.
21. The Board recommends that the University continue to engage proactively with the Universities Superannuation Scheme to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable without undue risk to the University.
22. Anticipated changes to the USS from April 2016 – in particular the demise of the defined benefit element – can only exacerbate the University’s lack of attractiveness as a potential employer. The fact that the University currently does not have the discretion to place its academic and academic-related staff in any other pension scheme (the ‘exclusivity rule’), coupled with our uncompetitive salaries, means that recruitment packages at both ends of the scale are perhaps not as attractive as they need to be in a world-class university. Neither a young post-doc nor a newly recruited Professor will find working in the University financially attractive. The Board welcomes the University’s commitment to exploring the idea of providing more flexible remuneration packages for staff.
23. The Board recommends that, while the University must remain mindful of its position as one of the principal underwriters of the Universities Superannuation Scheme, it should nevertheless continue to explore total remuneration packages as a means of attracting the most talented staff.
24. The Nineteenth Report of the Board noted the existence of numerous projects affecting the University estate, and plans to develop and add to existing provision. That Report expressed the concern that, while the University has an overall vision of the development of the University estate, it was not clear that there was a comprehensive and strategic plan for the management of the University’s property assets in the mid- to long- term. In particular, the Report noted that the relocation of Departments and Faculties, the changing nature of the student body, new building initiatives, and the North West Cambridge project would all suggest the need for a comprehensive strategy which, even if loosely defined, recognized the need for their co-ordination and integration. The Board welcomes the inception of the Estates Strategy Committee and looks forward to the publication of the University’s new Estates Strategy.
25. The Nineteenth Report also considered the disposition of parts of the University estate. It encouraged the University to ensure that there is sufficient transparency in relation to the disposition of any part of the estate in order to forestall any misunderstandings about why and how such decisions are reached. The Board notes that various University premises will fall vacant in the near future, and wishes to emphasize again that transparency and strategic coherence in their disposition remain ongoing concerns to the Board and Collegiate Cambridge.
26. The Board recommends that the Estates Strategy Committee publish a clear strategic plan for the University estate at the earliest opportunity.
27. The Board notes that certain announcements relating to estates, strategy, and planning are made primarily in the form of notices posted in the Senate-House arcade. The Board commends this adherence to tradition, but notes that an online noticeboard would increase greatly engagement with the University’s operations. At the very least, this should include all material currently posted in hard copy in the arcade, and may usefully be extended to include other matters of strategic and operational interest.
28. The Board recommends that an online Senate-House noticeboard be established and regularly maintained.
29. The University’s rankings in the Research Excellence Framework (‘REF’) dropped slightly in 2014 to fifth overall (compared with second in 2008) and second in research power (compared to first in 2008). This may be in part due to the new measure of research impact, in which the University ranked 12th, but may also be a reflection of the improved performance of other UK universities, rather than a decline in performance of the University. Direct comparisons between universities are not straightforward, in that this University submitted 95 per cent of its eligible researchers, whereas most universities submitted a far lower percentage of their research staff. While research intensity brings financial benefits, it is clearly very important for the University to assess performance and plan accordingly for the next REF; in particular assessing research outputs and impact against other high-ranking UK universities. The REF 2014 outcome had a financial impact on the University with a reduction of £3.7m overall in Higher Education support (a £5.9m reduction in mainstream Quality-related Research funding (‘QR’) partially offset by an increase of £2.2m in Charity QR).
30. Much of the University’s research activity depends on external research income. As recently as 12 years ago, the University raised more external research income than any other Higher Education Institution in the UK, but since then it has fallen behind. This relative decline reflects a more competitive environment in which many other universities have adopted a more strategic approach to research funding. The University has adopted a largely decentralized approach and has devolved strategy to individual Schools, Faculties, and Departments. An exception has been the limited co-ordination for major grant applications, which has been a response to the Research Councils shifting some of the responsibility of peer review to universities. The Board values highly research autonomy on the part of individual academics and groups, but notes that greater and higher level support from the Research Office would be hugely welcome and likely to benefit future REF submissions. A clearer strategy at the University level may also help to address the fall of the University in the research income rankings. Such a strategy could consider the costs and benefits of different sources of research funding and the development of a coherent response to the requirement of many Research Councils that there should be an ‘institutional contribution’ to major grants.
31. The Board recommends that the University develop a clearer strategy that will both maintain world-class research and attract the maximum research income to support it.
32. Concerns about contracts and grants management have been raised in Schools, Faculties, and Departments around the University. These include securing funds in a timely manner and effectively accounting for research grant funds that have been secured. Effective audit, review, and monitoring of the management of all research projects are critical to preserve the reputation and standards of the University. At the moment there is a lack of clarity regarding financial, ethical, and regulatory responsibilities. We are aware of discussions within the University to deal with these issues and await the outcome with interest. Given the potential impact of these issues on the ability of the University to secure funding, retain world-class researchers, attract the best students, and increase REF rankings, the Board considers this issue paramount and will continue to monitor the situation.
33. The Board recommends that the University provide greater clarification and support regarding financial, ethical, and regulatory responsibilities to those involved in research.
34.The result of the 2015 general election is likely to impact on finance, research, and research strategy at the University. The new government may review, and modify, Higher Education funding. Additionally, discussions around participation within the European Union (‘EU’) could significantly affect the University. Withdrawal from the EU would significantly reduce research funding (currently worth £52.6m in 2013–14, around 14 per cent of the total University research income of £371.8m).
35. The Board recommends that the University continue to take a proactive approach to lobbying on Higher Education funding and European Union representation for decisions that will protect the ability of this University and others in the UK to continue to conduct world-class research.
36. The University continues to explore issues of equality and diversity and has made significant progress. However, only approximately one eighth of the University’s Professors are female. Moreover, the University’s gender pay gap as highlighted in the Times Higher Education Pay Survey of 2015 remains significant.6 The University had the 15th largest pay gap of all UK universities, with women earning on average 17.4 per cent less than their male colleagues. The Board welcomes the recommendations of the University’s Equal Pay Review 2014 and looks forward to a report on their implementation and impact.7
37. The Board welcomes the Examinations Review set in motion by the PVC for Education. Matters relating to forms of assessment, location, and invigilation of exams, the possible increased used of computer-based testing, and security are all pressing. In particular, the Board hopes that remodelling of the University’s infrastructure, notably the New Museums site, will be allied closely with our developing pedagogical aims in student assessment. The Board encourages the Examinations Review to look carefully at the practices of other world-leading universities. The Board hopes that Faculties and Departments will engage positively with the Review.
38. The Board applauds the PVC for Education’s endeavours to address the perennial problem of the unequal distribution of University teaching officers (‘UTOs’) across the Colleges. It welcomes the development of imaginative new recruitment initiatives which will help to place UTOs (or equivalent officers) where they are most needed. The Board supports the PVC for Education in his work with Faculties and Departments to ensure an appropriate level of UTO engagement with collegiate teaching and the Directors of Studies, and looks forward to the day when the Fellowship of every College will include a UTO in every large and medium-sized subject. The Board recognizes that there will always be variation between Faculties, but encourages the University to identify and seek to address the factors which prevent UTOs from taking College Fellowships. In some Faculties and Departments, the proportion of UTOs not taking College Fellowships is strikingly high.
39. The Board recommends that the University engage actively with those Faculties and Departments where the proportion of University teaching officers taking College Fellowships is markedly lower than in comparable subjects in order to understand and address the reasons why this is the case.
40. The Board notes with concern that the University’s ratings in the National Student Survey and the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey, though high in some areas, are disappointingly low in others. In particular, workload is a source of dissatisfaction for our undergraduates and lack of feedback for our taught postgraduate students. The Board is concerned that this raises worries about students’ academic and personal welfare, and may impact negatively on recruitment. The Board welcomes the PVC for Education’s active engagement with this matter.
41. The Board shares the concerns of the PVC for Education regarding the University’s international recruitment strategy. The University draws its international undergraduates from a relatively small number of countries, and so may not recruit the most able worldwide. In part, this is a consequence of our methods of assessing the suitability of prospective students. Although undergraduate admissions remain a College responsibility, the Board recommends that the University do all it can to assist in the development of more effective international recruitment. The Board recognizes that a key component of this must be a reconsideration of financial support packages.
42. The Board recommends that the University develop a competitive strategy for international recruitment, especially at undergraduate level.
43. The Board notes that the University Information Services (‘UIS’) has been formed from the merger of the University Computing Service, Management Information Services Division, and the High Performance Computing Service. This process has been carried out without noticeable disruption to services, although there has as yet been little change to how IT services are provided to the University. The Board intends to continue to monitor developments under the new management and governance arrangements.
44. The Board notes that the UIS is spending considerable sums on external consultants. It is not clear to the Board that this spending represents good value for money, nor that the resulting input is well geared to the particular needs of the University.
45. The Board recommends that the University Information Services engage critically with consultants to ensure their advice is world-leading and not merely ‘industry-standard’, and ensure that consultancy is only used where it is appropriate and represents good value for money.
46. The Board notes that the UIS intends to make efficiency savings to cover the costs associated with several new posts at the deputy director level (Grade 12). The Board is concerned that it might be difficult to maintain existing service levels to the University while leaving more junior posts unfilled to pay for these senior appointments.
47. The Board recommends that the University Information Services monitor the staffing levels necessary to maintain its current service levels, and ensure it retains sufficient staff with the necessary expertise to meet its current service commitments and the future IT needs of the University.
48. The Board has observed that many of the new appointments in the UIS are to unestablished posts, removing them from the extra protections afforded to University officers by the Statutes and Ordinances.8 The Board is aware of other formerly established posts which have, upon being vacated, been filled on an unestablished basis.
49. The Board recommends that the University review its use of unestablished posts, and only appoint on an unestablished basis where there exists an objective justification for doing so.
50. The Board welcomes the UIS’s commitment to consulting widely with the University about its operations and what new IT services it might develop for the University.
51. The Board recommends that the University Information Services consult widely with students and staff as to their IT needs, including staff who are not IT specialists, such as University teaching officers, and a diverse sample of the student body.
1.The Board recommends that assumptions about graduate numbers continue to be kept under active review.
2.The Board recommends that the assumptions surrounding the financial position of North West Cambridge remain under constant review.
3.The Board recommends that the University continue to engage proactively with the Universities Superannuation Scheme to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable without undue risk to the University.
4.The Board recommends that, while the University must remain mindful of its position as one of the principal underwriters of the Universities Superannuation Scheme, it should nevertheless continue to explore total remuneration packages as a means of attracting the most talented staff.
5.The Board recommends that the Estates Strategy Committee publish a clear strategic plan for the University estate at the earliest opportunity.
6.The Board recommends that an online Senate-House noticeboard be established and regularly maintained.
7.The Board recommends that the University develop a clearer strategy that will both maintain world-class research and attract the maximum research income to support it.
8.The Board recommends that the University provide greater clarification and support regarding financial, ethical, and regulatory responsibilities to those involved in research.
9.The Board recommends that the University continue to take a proactive approach to lobbying on Higher Education funding and European Union representation for decisions that will protect the ability of this University and others in the UK to continue to conduct world-class research.
10.The Board recommends that the University engage actively with those Faculties and Departments where the proportion of University teaching officers taking College Fellowships is markedly lower than in comparable subjects in order to understand and address the reasons why this is the case.
11.The Board recommends that the University develop a competitive strategy for international recruitment, especially at undergraduate level.
12.The Board recommends that the University Information Services engage critically with consultants to ensure their advice is world-leading and not merely ‘industry-standard’, and ensure that consultancy is only used where it is appropriate and represents good value for money.
13.The Board recommends that the University Information Services monitor the staffing levels necessary to maintain its current service levels, and ensure it retains sufficient staff with the necessary expertise to meet its current service commitments and the future IT needs of the University.
14.The Board recommends that the University review its use of unestablished posts, and only appoint on an unestablished basis where there exists an objective justification for doing so.
15.The Board recommends that the University Information Services consult widely with students and staff as to their IT needs, including staff who are not IT specialists, such as University teaching officers, and a diverse sample of the student body.
|
9 July 2015 |
M. J. Franklin (Chair) |
David Goode |
Hugh Shilson-Thomas |
|
Bruce Beckles |
Michael Kitson |
Matthew Vernon |
|
|
Andrew Bell |
S. J. Lucy |
David Woodman |
|
|
Lydia Drumright |
David Secher |
The Board recommends that the total return objectives of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund be kept under review.
Response: The Investment Board considers the long-term investment objective and risk profile of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF) carefully at each of its meetings. The Investment Board sees no reason at this time to recommend a change to the Council.
The portfolio is constructed and managed appropriately for a long-term endowment and is not structured to take on unnecessary risks in pursuit of a short-term target. The Council, on the advice of its Investment Board, remains of the view that consistency and patience are important in achieving an investment objective. The Council notes that, for the six years since management arrangements for the CUEF were revised, the investment performance has exceeded the long-term objective by 0.6% on an annualized basis and with experienced volatility (being one measure of risk) substantially less than that of general stock market indices.
The Board recommends that assumptions about annual increases in postgraduate numbers and in pay be kept under review.
Response: The Council agrees that these are matters requiring ongoing review. Assumptions used in the planning round for postgraduate student numbers and staff pay will continue to be monitored closely.
The Board recommends that assumptions surrounding the financing of the North West Cambridge project should remain under constant review.
Response: The Council notes the Board’s particular emphasis on the importance of monitoring the finances for the North West Cambridge development and agrees that vigilance is required. The financial appraisal of the North West Cambridge project is refreshed frequently and the position considered at each meeting of the West and North West Cambridge Estate Syndicate. The development is being carried out in a number of phases and at each stage the financial projections are reviewed rigorously. In addition, the Council and the Finance Committee receive regular updates.
In his remarks on the Board’s Report, Dr de Lacey drew attention to the naming of a neighbourhood on the North West Cambridge site. The Regent House has approved the three residential neighbourhood names within the North West Cambridge development: Eddington (the local centre), Gravel Hill (the area in the east of the site, near Storey’s Way), and Ridgeway Village (the neighbourhood in the west of the site). The names adopted follow the naming principles for the North West Cambridge site. Eddington is named for Sir Arthur Eddington, a former Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, famous among other things for his work on the theory of relativity. The other two names are based on physical features of the site, drawing closely on the characteristics of their location and the existing natural landscape. This naming strategy recognizes that different parts of the site will have different characters, and takes account of the need for a different identity in the part of the site within Girton Parish. Ridgeway Village was agreed by the Syndicate as a suitable name for this area because it takes account of the site’s topography, and is located adjacent to the new high-capacity cycle route within the site, called the Ridgeway. It is expected that the neighbourhood, focused on family housing, will have a more village-like character. The Ridgeway Village will be near the facilities provided in the new local centre, and there is no requirement for villages to have a church or other place of worship.
The Board recommends that the University continues to engage actively with the Universities Superannuation
Scheme to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable without undue risk to the University.
Response: The Pensions Working Group, a sub-committee of the Finance Committee, responded to the consultation from UUK on the future of USS during the summer of 2014 having taken advice from a representative Pensions Advisory Group. Officers of the University engage closely with USS and the Employers Pension Forum to ensure that the best information about the Scheme and the challenges it faces inform the views of the senior bodies. The Council is of the same opinion as the Board of Scrutiny about the need for a sustainable and affordable Scheme that can offer benefits to its members proportionate to the risks that the University and the other employers in the Scheme can sustain.
The Board recommends that the University develop an overall strategy for the management of its estate and ensure transparency and good communication with the Regent House and other relevant interested parties.
Response: The Report of the Council, dated 14 April 2014, on revised committee arrangements for estates strategy and buildings recommended the establishment of an Estates Strategy Committee from 1 October 2014 to address the need for strategic oversight in the development of the University’s estate (Reporter, 6344, 2013–14, p. 467 (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2013-14/weekly/6344/section7.shtml#heading2-22) , approved by Grace 5 of 21 May 2014 (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2013-14/weekly/6348/section7.shtml#heading2-19)). The Committee has met once, has a schedule of meetings for the current academical year, and will develop a work programme, including a comprehensive estate strategy. The Council agrees that good communication is important and will continue to publish information about plans for the University’s estate once they are at a sufficiently developed stage. It has already confirmed that School offices will have access to the new committee’s papers, so that they can engage in discussion about new developments at an early stage.
The Board recommends that, as part of this strategy, the University address the variable nature and suitability of all spaces used for examinations.
Response: The Council notes that the Board of Examinations and the General Board’s Education Committee will be conducting a review of examination policies and operations which will include the nature and suitability of spaces used for examinations, with a view to developing an examinations space strategy in conjunction with the Estate Management Division.
The Board recommends that the University take active steps to facilitate the signing of publication contracts by its members that are fully consistent with the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s policy on open access. The University must do so without compromising academic freedom.
Response: The Council welcomes the Board’s recognition of, and support for, the actions that the University has already taken in response to the open access requirements imposed by HEFCE and others; and the Council agrees that the implications of open access policies will be kept under close review. The University states on its Open Access page (http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/research-at-cambridge/open-access) that the University is committed to maintaining the freedom of its academics to publish in the journals they consider most appropriate to their discipline. The email sent to every researcher in the University by the Pro-Vice- Chancellor for Research on 26 October 2014 was intended to make it clear that the University is doing everything it can to ensure compliance with HEFCE’s requirements while at the same time trying to make this task as easy as possible for the range of research disciplines across the University.
The Board recommends that the resource implications of the Graduate Fee agreement and efforts to improve the postgraduate experience are carefully considered by the Schools.
Response: The Council agrees that these matters should be monitored. Arrangements for the Graduate Fee agreement will be kept under close review during the early years of operation, and the resource implications will be carefully considered as part of that process. The Council also notes that the General Board are involving the Schools in initiatives to improve the postgraduate experience.
The Board recommends that the Council must know the identity of the principals behind every donation, and assure itself that every donation complies with current money laundering legislation.
Response: The scrutiny of prospective benefactions from an ethical and reputational perspective is undertaken by the Advisory Committee on Benefactions and External and Legal Affairs. This exercise is carried out in accordance with ethical guidelines on the acceptance of benefactions approved by Council, which require the Vice-Chancellor to seek the advice of the Committee for all benefactions over £1 million, or that are likely to give rise to significant public interest. The Committee are told the identities of the principals behind every donation which the Committee considers and any member of Council may call for the information available to the Committee, which is a standing committee of the Council. Members of the Council may also request from Development and Alumni Relations information about the identity of principals behind donations which do not meet the threshold for reference to the Committee. The Council is satisfied that procedures are in place to ensure that all donations are routinely scrutinized to ensure compliance with money laundering legislation, as well as bribery and corruption law. An express requirement to report any suspicions of money laundering and to seek specialist legal advice in such event is set out in the University’s Procedures for Handling Donations, a revised version of which is due to be published shortly.
The Board recommends that the financial model for the Sports Centre be given careful attention.
Response: The Council agrees that the Sport Centre is a welcome addition to the sporting infrastructure of the University. The business plan for the Centre, on which the original loan by the University for its construction was made, is reviewed annually during the planning round alongside the scrutiny of the overall budget of the Department of Physical Education.
The Board recommends that as the Press Syndicate is the main oversight body it should have a majority of non-executive directors, who are not employees of the University, and the operating board consequently should be discontinued.
Response: The Council is grateful to Professor Minson for describing and explaining with clarity, in his remarks in the Discussion on the Board’s Nineteenth Report, the governance arrangements for Cambridge University Press. The Council agrees with Professor Minson that the structure he explains is intended to achieve the ‘best practice’ recommended by the Board: namely that (a) governance is dominated by non-executives; (b) expert non-executives external to Cambridge are very much in evidence except on the Academic Publishing Committee where the appropriate expertise lies within the University; and (c) that the board of management (‘the Press Board’) plays no part in the University’s governance of the Press. As a result the Council does not accept the Board of Scrutiny’s suggestion that the Operating Board should be discontinued or changed as it is working effectively.
The Board recommends that sufficient notice be given of all new substantial policy changes, as well as any major changes to existing policies, so that the Regent House and any affected individuals can comment if appropriate.
Response: All new policies and substantial amendments to policies follow the University’s formal consultation processes. Thus, they are considered by the Partnership Working Group, the University and Assistants Joint Board, and the Human Resources Committee, before proceeding to the General Board and the Council for approval prior to implementation. The sickness policy referred to by the Board in their Report followed this procedure; the policy was also subject to wider consultation with Trade Unions and with Schools, Faculties, and Departments.
|
Chest |
An income stream of funding council grants, Home and Overseas fees, endowment income, a share of research grant overheads, transfers from CUP and Cambridge Assessment, and certain other operating income. |
|
CPS |
Cambridge University Assistants’ Contributory Pension Scheme |
|
CUDAR |
Cambridge University Development and Alumni Relations |
|
CUEF |
Cambridge University Endowment Fund |
|
CUP or the Press |
Cambridge University Press |
|
EU |
European Union |
|
HEFCE |
Higher Education Funding Council for England |
|
IO |
Investment Office |
|
PVC |
Pro-Vice-Chancellor |
|
QR |
Quality-related Research funding |
|
REF |
Research Excellence Framework |
|
UAS |
Unified Administrative Service (of the University) |
|
UIS |
University Information Services |
|
USS |
Universities Superannuation Scheme |
1Approved by Grace 3 of 15 April 2015 (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2014-15/weekly/6382/section7.shtml#heading2-28)
2https://www.cam.ac.uk/system/files/reports_and_financial_statements_2014.pdf, http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2014-15/special/06/
3http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2012-13/weekly/6308/section7.shtml#heading2-17
5Nineteenth Report, paragraphs 19–20 (http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2014-15/weekly/6357/section6.shtml#heading2-20)
7http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2014-15/weekly/6370/EqualPayReview2014.pdf
8http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2014/statute_c-section1.html