No 6556
Wednesday 17 July 2019
Vol cxlix No 38
pp. 816–835
A Discussion was held in the Senate-House. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Nicola Padfield was presiding, with the Registrary's deputy, the Senior Proctor, the Senior Pro‑Proctor and seven other persons present.
The following items were discussed:
(Reporter, 2018–19; 6551, p. 690 and 6555, p. 806).
No remarks were made on this Report.
(Reporter, 6553, 2018–19, p. 726).
Professor G. J. Virgo (Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, Faculty of Law and Downing College), read by the Senior Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak in my capacity as Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) and as Chair of the General Board's Education Committee. I strongly support this Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on governance arrangements for postgraduate students.
The current arrangements for governance of students on doctoral, Masters' and other graduate or postgraduate courses has been a concern of mine for some time. Currently, students on similar courses are subject to different regulations and provision depending on an arbitrary classification as to whether they are on a graduate or postgraduate course, causing confusion to students and colleagues in Faculties, Departments and Colleges. The University's more than 8,000 graduate student community fall under the jurisdiction of the Board of Graduate Studies, which sits in isolation from the General Board and its Education Committee which oversees provision for undergraduate and postgraduate students. These arrangements affect the quality and equality of provision for post-undergraduate students and leave the University vulnerable to complaints and appeals. A single governance structure encompassing all students would minimise this vulnerability and allow for the inclusion of all students in consideration of education strategy, regulations and processes.
In October 2018 the General Board's Education Committee commissioned a review of these governance arrangements. This review involved consultation with colleagues in Schools, Departments, Faculties and Colleges and with the Graduate Union, and concluded with recommendations that graduate and postgraduate students should all be classified as postgraduate and that the Board of Graduate Studies should be dissolved.
The recommendation to classify all 'post-undergraduate' students as postgraduate is I hope uncontroversial. It will remove a confusing and meaningless distinction between graduate and postgraduate students and aligns with other work planned to ensure equality of provision for all students.
The recommendation to dissolve the Board of Graduate Studies is perhaps more controversial given the Board's history and standing. However, it is my strong view that this is a necessary step to achieve a single governance structure under the auspices of the General Board which oversees matters relating to the entire student community.
It is important to emphasise that in developing the proposals now contained in the Report a series of consultations and extensive discussions have taken place. Initially it was proposed to dissolve the Board of Graduate Studies and to transfer work to other existing Committees, with the power to award (or not award) doctoral and higher degrees being transferred to Degree Committees. A new committee focused solely on research student matters, sitting under the General Board's Education Committee, was also proposed.
However, feedback submitted in response to these initial proposals from Faculties and Schools and by the Board of Graduate Studies raised concerns about the ability of some Degree Committees to take on the additional responsibility for awarding or not awarding doctoral and higher degrees, and it was recognised that further work was needed to support these Committees both in terms of more detailed guidance to ensure consistency of decision-making and within the Schools to recognise the authority of the Committees.
The Examinations and Assessment Committee and its Examinations Access and Mitigation Committee (EAMC) were also consulted regarding the proposal for their Committees to assume responsibility for matters relating to examination and assessment of taught programmes. Although the proposals were supported in principle, concern was raised at the EAMC regarding the impact of this additional work on current resources.
Therefore, taking account of the extensive feedback received, the General Board's Education Committee has recommended a staged approach to reform involving immediate dissolution of the Board of Graduate Studies, transfer of its responsibilities to a new Postgraduate Committee, which will be a sub-committee of the General Board's Education Committee, and a comprehensive review of this work under the direction of the Education Committee.
I hope that in time, and following appropriate consultation and preparation, decisions relating to individual student matters will transfer to Committees in Faculties and Departments, allowing decisions to be made by academic staff with expertise in their field, supported by advice and guidance provided by central offices and for the central Committees under the General Board to focus on matters of policy and strategy. This will create a governance structure which will ensure that the interests of all postgraduate students are not side-lined but are given the attention that they deserve
Dr R. Padman (Chair of the Board of Graduate Studies, Department of Physics and Newnham College):
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am Chair of the Board of Graduate Studies (BGS), but I speak in a personal capacity.
I come to bury the Board of Graduate Studies, not to praise it. Perhaps, however, we might stay the execution until we have a better idea of the consequences.
The Report proposes to dissolve BGS and in the first instance to transfer its current functions to a new Postgraduate Committee reporting to the General Board's Education Committee (GBEC). It is envisaged that following further review over the next two years many of those functions would be transferred to other bodies. The Board's power to award Degrees, and associated powers such as removal from the Register, would go to Degree Committees; those of granting Applications for Masters' students to the Examination Access and Mitigation Committee; policy matters to the Postgraduate Admissions Committee (a Joint Committee of the University and Colleges). The unspoken assumption is that there is no interaction between BGS's various roles, so that they can be redistributed to other bodies at no cost.
The current relatively innocuous proposal needs to be assessed in the light of the longer term vision. If the Report is graced in its current form, then the Regent House need not be given the opportunity to approve further changes, and if we are to go ahead with the current Report, then we most certainly need to put some safeguards in place now. I will come back at the end to suggest three key amendments that will provide those safeguards.
What is at stake?
The duties of the Board are identified in the usual dry way in Statutes and Ordinances. They can be summarised as, in an appropriate context:
•Maintaining the highest academic standards for graduate degrees of the University;
•Exercising a duty of care in respect of all graduate students, ensuring a positive student experience, and seeking to resolve issues when things don't go to plan;
•Ensuring the University's Statutes and Ordinances and its internal procedures are applied equally for students in all Faculties.
In meeting its responsibilities, the Board works closely with the several Degree Committees, as well as the Graduate Admissions Office, Student Registry and the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals (OSCCA).
Following the 2011 and 2014 reforms noted in the Report (and which I supported at the time), BGS's business is now dominated by reserved casework, relating to the award or otherwise of Ph.Ds. and other higher degrees, removal from the Register of Graduate Students, examination allowances for Masters' students, requests to vary conditions of offers of admission and consideration of requests for fee waiver.
BGS continues to initiate discussion of policy relating to its area of competence, most often spurred by trends and patterns of reserved business, which show where we need to improve: recent examples include rewriting the requirements for a Ph.D. to bring the various regulations in line, reviewing eligibility to supervise research students, reviewing the length of a Ph.D. and, in response to a request from the General Board, reviewing the role and composition of Degree Committees. Although the Board has the power of Reporting to the University, in practice since 2011 it has always worked in partnership with the General Board Education Committee on these matters. As a matter of routine business, we also consider Ph.D. submission rates, and other departmental and Degree Committee KPIs, and consider where improvements might be required and how best to encourage those. It is clear, however, that the Board does not have the administrative resources to pursue these threads as quickly as it would like.
The membership of BGS is unusual. The core consists of ordinary academics drawn from across the University, and including two Graduate Tutors. All have supervised Ph.D. students; most are or have been members of their own Degree Committee at some point. Members are not appointed to represent Schools or other institutions, and all are deeply committed to achieving the best outcomes for students.
So, BGS is working well. Why do we need to change?
The first reason, in my view, is that where graduates and undergraduates do the same things, there should as far as possible be a single process. It has never made sense to me that the University would have separate processes applied – in essence – according to whether students or prospective students hold a first degree. Examination, appeals and mitigation processes for Masters' by Advanced Study and undergraduates need to be under the control of a single body.
Second, BGS's status as a Board places it outside the recognised University reporting line. We report to the University, but not to the General Board or Council, which makes it hard to see how those bodies can in turn be responsible to the Office for Students for University policy or delivery in areas in the Board's remit. (I note however that the General Board itself is in exactly the same position vis-a-vis the Council.) The Board gets this, although reluctantly.
Now, this could have been a Joint Report of Council, the General Board and BGS. BGS are not signatories, primarily because a majority of BGS members are concerned that in its current form it does not protect either students' interests or the University's academic standards. I should explain the form of that concern.
BGS was created at the outset primarily to exercise a superintendence over research students, who submit a thesis as an original contribution to knowledge. Research students are largely on their own. That is the nature of research. They have an intense relationship with a single primary supervisor, which may be either the most rewarding or the most frustrating experience. They are in cohorts of one: there are no blind grade numbers for exams, and every exam carries the risk of prejudice or bias. The more successful the student at their research, the more likely it is that they and their examiners will know each other. They may well have pre-formed opinions as to the value of each other's contributions.
There is therefore great potential for things to go wrong. A large proportion of the Board's time is spent trying to sort out what to do when a Degree Committee recommends outright failure, or that a student be removed from the Register either after a failed first-year assessment or sometimes simply because the Degree Committee notices that it has been three years and there is no sign of a thesis – or sometimes even of a supervisor – appearing. The Board collectively bring a huge depth of experience and understanding of disciplinary norms to the issues, and also in looking ahead to potential complaints and appeals to see where the University might collectively be judged to have been negligent.
The end-state envisaged in the Report does not recognise the subtleties. There is not time to explain all the bad thoughts represented in the assumption that the Degree Committees will become the awarding bodies for Ph.Ds. and other higher degrees, and that where things go wrong, it would be up to the student to bring a complaint or appeal or both via OSCCA. Degree Committees are too invested; OSCCA's role is to manage risk to the University. The proposed arrangements subordinate students' interests to administrative convenience and an appeals process which is judged not on whether it achieves a good outcome for the student, but whether the University can defend any decision at the OIA. Equality of academic standards and of treatment across the institution are at risk.
It is clear to me that in the medium term we do need to move the applications and appeals processes for non-research graduate degrees onto the same footing as those for Triposes. We should be wary, however, that assessment processes for the various Masters' by Advanced Study are somewhat of a wild west at the moment. BGS has had reform in its sights, but until that is achieved, at least the Board bring a broad understanding of the landscape: some mix of reform and handover needs to be factored into this transition.
I said I come to bury BGS, and I do. But it has been convicted in a kangaroo court – there is a sense that the outcome of the proposed two-year review is already determined. Three key changes to the Report would go a long way to allaying my concerns about future arrangements.
First, rather than reconstituting a Postgraduate Committee under GBEC (Paragraph 6), place it directly under the General Board, at least pro tem. That will also facilitate connections with the Research Policy Committee where graduate student policy – including UKRI and other funders' demands – and the research agenda impact each other.
Second, to ensure that future arrangements are scrutinised by the University and not just GBEC, this Report should commit to bringing forward proposals for the long-term changes in respect of the transfer of degree-awarding powers, and of arrangements for applications, appeals and complaints, in the form of a full Report to the Regent House (Paragraph 9). Colleagues will then be able to consider the arguments fully, against a fully-developed set of proposals.
Finally at this very late date, it is clear that we are not ready to adopt the new arrangements in time for the 2019–20 academic year. The Codes of Practice (which are covered by the Competition and Markets Authority) still reference BGS, and there are no arrangements in place to establish the full membership of the new committee or to ensure the necessary experience is carried forward. Realistically, the implementation date needs to be pushed back to Michaelmas 2020 (Paragraph 10). In due course colleagues and I will bring forward a formal request for these changes as amendments to the Report.
Mr R. W. D. Collinson (Department of Engineering and Homerton College):
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am an alumnus of an M.Phil. programme in the Faculty of History. I was for several years an administrator working at the Student Registry, which administers the Board of Graduate Studies, and I am now an administrator working under the Engineering Degree Committee. My particular role concerns the coordination of the taught Masters' programmes under that Degree Committee.
Unfortunately, I am unable to say that I am here representing the Degree Committee, because the full text of this proposal was not available until it was published in the Reporter two weeks ago. That was the first time that this proposal has appeared in its current form, and the first time that we have seen any of the proposals to change the Statutes and Ordinances. I am therefore speaking to some extent in a personal capacity, although I hope that I am informed by the many discussions we have within the Department over the last year.
I will be focusing my remarks in three areas. Firstly, the question of the process whereby these proposals have emerged, to which I have already alluded. Secondly, the question as to this distinction between graduates and postgraduates, of which so much is made in the Report. And thirdly, a brief comment on the reservations that the Degree Committees had about the original proposals, which could easily be re-introduced under the current proposal.
The first point I would like to make, therefore, is one of procedure. The Department of Engineering has made its best efforts to engage with the consultation effort, but that has been difficult. The consultation paper was first presented to the Degree Committees late in Michaelmas 2018, with a requirement that the Degree Committees respond by 12 December. The Board of Graduate Studies had earlier received that paper in October 2018, having received no prior warning of its proposed impending abolition.
It was difficult to form a response. It was difficult partly because of the scope and significance of the changes provided. However, it was difficult primarily because the main body of the Review contained almost no argumentation or explanation; it read almost entirely as a list of changes. At a generous estimate, there were perhaps 400 words of explanation embedded within nineteen pages of proposed changes.
Moreover, the justifications for those changes which are found within the Report were nowhere to be found within the Review document. The sole reason given in that document was that there were inconsistencies between postgraduate and graduate students, an issue to which I will return in a moment. On that basis, and that basis alone, the Review proposed to abolish the Board of Graduate Studies wholesale, to remove all of the regulations pertaining to graduate students, and to set out a wholly new structure of graduate governance. It was subsequently revealed to the Degree Committees that a second motivation was the desire to create consistency between undergraduate students and (post)graduate students, but this was not referred to in the Review document.
Let us be clear, therefore: the Joint Report under discussion reads as though it is a summary of matters which have been carefully weighed up and measured through an extensive Review procedure. In fact, the Report is considerably longer than the Review on which it relies; it is not a summary, but an expansion. This should not be the end of a consultation process, but the beginning. It is only now that we are truly beginning to see what justifies the proposed changes. Indeed, because this is the first time that Ordinance changes have been released, it is only now that we are beginning to see what the changes truly are. Over and over again, the Degree Committees have asked, 'Why?' and been met with silence.
Nevertheless, the Degree Committee pressed on despite being forced to fight against the mist, and alongside the Board, submitted a long list of reservations about the proposal to place graduate students under the undergraduate committee system. It is excellent that many of the original changes outlined in the paper are not contained within the Report under discussion. However, it is very concerning that further changes require only the consent of the 'General Board and its Education Committee'. It appears to be within the powers of the new Postgraduate Committee to implement the very changes which the Degree Committees strongly desire to resist.
To be clear: there is an important issue of University democracy at stake here. If we are serious about being a University which operates by consensus and makes its decisions democratically, we should expect serious consultation with the changes laid bare before us, and the justification argued at least to the standards of argumentation that we would expect of our students.
Secondly, I want to address this issue of the supposed confusion caused by the distinction between graduates and postgraduates. It is true that there is some inconsistency in the University regulations. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of the students concerned are graduate students – well over 90%. The postgraduate programmes are a tiny minority of the programmes within the University, and their anomalous situation would be easily resolved by encompassing them within the existing structures for graduate students. To be clear: there are I think only six postgraduate programmes, to be set against the many dozens of Ph.D., M.Phil., M.Res. and other programmes. I have already sat in meetings with the Judge Business School, which owns half of the postgraduate programmes; the representatives of the Judge said that, as far as they know, there would be no hostility to converting the postgraduates to graduate students.
It is also clear that no economic costing has been done to assess the impact of changing our nomenclature so drastically. The expenditure in administrative resources will be immense – as all Colleges and Departments speak expansively of 'graduate students' – and it is wholly unclear what the gain will be.
Finally, to turn to some of the Degree Committee's concerns about the original proposal. Let us be clear that graduate students have a different pattern of life to undergraduate students. They are much more likely to view their Department as their primary community, rather than their College; the College provides an excellent support, but it is in their Department that they conduct their day-to-day business, and it is with Departmental staff that they have their primary interactions.
Additional reservations held by the Degree Committees included potential resourcing implications if more tasks were delegated to the Department, and the possible marginalisation of graduate students in the committees. Again, these are very real concerns which could easily be re-introduced under the current proposal.
I am therefore strongly in support – and I know that the Engineering Department is in support – of Dr Padman's amendments to this Report as outlined: in particular, that the Report 'commit to bringing forward proposals for the long-term changes in respect of the transfer of degree-awarding powers, and of arrangements for applications, appeals and complaints, in the form of a full Report to the Regent House'.
But it is worth considering whether, in the interests of the democratic and cost-efficient running of the University, these proposals should be taken back to the drawing board entirely. The only reason to rush through these proposals at this time would be some great and dire need, and no such dire need has been presented.
Dr S. J. Cowley (University Council, Faculty of Mathematics and Emmanuel College):
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am a member of the Council, but I speak in a personal capacity. I did not sign this Report.
I had always wondered what the distinction was between a postgraduate student and a graduate student. Now I know; this Report has not been in vain. I welcome the proposals to refer to all students at post-undergraduate level by a single term, and to ensure that, where processes for undergraduates and postgraduates are the same, there is a consistent process.
However, I am unhappy with those aspects of this Report where the cart is before the horse. It is proposed to establish the Postgraduate Committee, then to invite it to 'undertake a systematic review of arrangements for post-undergraduate students' (i.e. for the Postgraduate Committee to establish its own raison d'être), which can then be rubber-stamped in a General Board Regulation without reference back to the Regent House. This is back to front, although Sir Humphrey Appleby would no doubt approve such a top-down procedure that potentially lacks in-depth scrutiny.
Why am I proud to work in this University? One of the reasons has been its humanity. That humanity is not perfect, but to my mind an underlying principle has been to do the best, or at least the right thing, for students as far as is possible. Years ago someone, and I cannot remember who, said if there were n rules then the nth rule should be that an exception could be made to the preceding n-1 rules if a good case could be made in writing. In my experience, when the nth rule has been applied it has almost always been in favour of the student.
As Dr Padman has observed, the business of the Board of Graduate Studies (BoGS in vintage terminology) is now dominated by reserved casework. In this regard, as a Chair of the Degree Committee of the Faculty of Mathematics (for four years), I was grateful more than once to BoGS for its intervention. When sometimes a Ph.D. goes wrong (and unfortunately it is inevitable that a few Ph.Ds. will go wrong), there can be conflicting interests, maybe loyalties, on Degree Committees between academic colleagues and students; indeed, even with the best will in the world, decisions may be affected by unconscious bias, or similar. BoGS works because it is once removed from those decisions, and as Dr Padman has put it, the ordinary academics1 on BoGS all are deeply committed to achieving the best outcomes for students. My experience is that this dedication is reflected in the humanity of their decisions.
The Report refers to an aim
to improve strategy and policy-making and understanding, and to ensure that appropriate focus is given to matters relating to these students. This supports the Council's ambitions to streamline administration and reduce committee load.
There has been a great deal of such re-organisation of committees in the recent past. My experience has been that as a result of such improvements, the bureaucracy has often increased, or special cases have slipped between the cracks, or both. Undergraduate examination appeals are a case in point, where the revised legislation and OSCCA's role seem to be to defend the University from liability, and not to ensure that the student's interests are front and centre. For instance, the process for correcting a failure of academic judgment in marking a script is now far less clear that it was, say, 20 years ago when I was Chair of the Examiners for Part II of the Mathematical Tripos (I fear that lapses in academic judgment are not unheard of, at least in mathematics, since academics are fallible).
There are other cases where our humanity is being replaced by 'improved' process. The decision to cease chasing down students who fail to turn up for an examination is another example. Yes the process of chasing down a missing student with the aim of isolating them within the first half-an-hour was a pain and could be a logistical nightmare, but it was part of our institution's humanity. Its passing is a matter of regret (as shared recently with me by a porter with 30 or so years of 'pursuit')
Let's get this re-organisation right. Put it on hold for a year, undertake a systematic review of arrangements for post-undergraduate students first, and then Report to the Regent House with detailed proposals; in doing so please remember one of Cambridge's 'unique selling points' (if that is not a too hackneyed phrase), our humanity.
Finally, a detailed point is that the proposed membership of class (d) is too restrictive: 'up to three members of the Regent House who represent a broad subject balance and who act or have recently acted as Chair of a Degree Committee'. There is no need to have been a Chair of a Degree Committee, indeed some of the most active, useful and knowledgeable members of Degree Committees are not the Chairs. Further the 'up to' should go. What is needed is appropriate experience, the willingness to dedicate the necessary time, and some humanity.
1Or 'jobbing academics' in an earlier draft.
Dr M. Frasca-Spada (Corpus Christi College), read by the Senior Pro-Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I speak in my capacity as the Associate Secretary of the Senior Tutors' Committee with responsibility for Education, including postgraduate and graduate student matters. I am also a member of the Board of Graduate Studies, the Graduate Tutors' Committee, the Examinations and Assessment Committee and its Examinations Access and Mitigation Committee.
I am strongly in favour of the proposals set out in the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on governance arrangements for postgraduate students.
The current arrangements for governance of students on doctoral, Masters' and other graduate or postgraduate courses are no longer appropriate; this reform is needed. When the Board was established, many years ago, graduate students were very much in the minority, and M.Phils. undreamt of. Times have changed – research students represent a significant and extremely important part of our collegiate community; it will not be long before M.Phil. students make up a majority of our alumni. These students deserve to be recognised in all our discussions about education and student policy, and to be treated consistently with our undergraduates and other postgraduate students.
As a member of the Applications Committee, now the Examinations Access and Mitigation Committee, and the Board of Graduate Studies I have seen two very different approaches to consideration of student cases for allowance and mitigation. This leaves the University vulnerable to complaint. Significant changes in the arrangements for consideration of student examination and progress appeals have not been integrated as efficiently as possible, and this has meant duplication of effort and again bringing risk. It is time that arrangements for all students are aligned.
Professor F. M. Gribble (Department of Clinical Biochemistry), read by the Senior Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, as Director of Graduate Education for the School of Clinical Medicine, I wish to express some reservations regarding the proposed changes to the governance of the Board of Graduate Studies. Whilst I agree it would seem appropriate to bring the governance arrangements for students on taught Masters' courses in line with those for undergraduates, students undertaking research Masters' and Ph.D. courses can be more complex and face a very different set of problems. Devolving the awarding of research degrees to Degree Committees runs the risk of a drift in academic standards and non-uniformity among Committees. It is also essential that the depth and breadth of understanding of BGS is not lost by the proposed restructuring, as this will impact on the outcomes of individual students with complex issues.
Dr A. Gannon (Department of History of Art, Cambridge Centre for Teaching and Learning, and St Edmund's College), read by the Senior Proctor:
Deputy Vice-Chancellor, whilst some of the points put forward in the Report are good, especially considering taught Masters', I am most concerned about the proposed demise of the Board of Graduate Studies. I believe BGS has a fundamental role as arbiter of disputes between Faculties and students, and especially a guarantor of academic standards across the institution. The award of Ph.Ds. should be its responsibility.
I would support a request of more time being allocated to an appropriate re-thinking of how best to restructure the system, so that what is effectively a repository of collective wisdom is not dismantled in a hurry.
(Reporter, 6553, 2018–19, p. 743).
No remarks were made on this Report.