Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
This is a report on the fourth year of progress under the University's membership of the Opportunity 2000 Campaign.
In November 1994 the Council and the General Board, on the recommendation of the Assistant Staff Committee and the Work and Stipends Committee, agreed thirty long- and short-term goals in order to develop the University's Equal Opportunities policy, in the light of the objectives of the Opportunity 2000 campaign, of which the University became a member in 1993. Membership of the Campaign entails the setting of clear, achievable, and measurable goals in order to increase the quality and quantity of women's participation in the workforces of its member organizations at all levels.
This report takes a somewhat different form from those of previous years. The thirty long- and short-term goals agreed by the Council and the General Board have been reviewed since the publication of last year's progress report (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 421). This review was initiated because, in preparing the third annual progress report, it had become clear that, while work on several of the goals was productive and well advanced, experience in other areas suggested the need for reformulation or change of approach. In some areas much had been achieved, and systems had been set up to support this work. This suggested that energies should be directed towards fresh initiatives, some of which might build on existing achievements while others might be entirely new.
The most important section of the present report is therefore a revised statement of thirty-one goals, which follows. Comments on progress towards the achievement of the original goals are attached in an appendix. The usual statistical annex, giving the results of monitoring, is also attached. Monitoring underpins all the initiatives in equal opportunities and provides the benchmark for development of further action. Tables of staff numbers show continuation of the slow but steady progress in breaking down the occupational hierarchies in which women are under-represented at almost all levels in almost all categories of staff.
New and reformulated goals for this area are:
(i) Monitoring of appointments should include all categories of academic, academic-related, and assistant staff. The system of monitoring applications, short-lists, and appointments of established academic and academic-related staff, appointed by Appointments Committees, should be extended to cover appointments to all unestablished posts, including contract research staff.
(ii) Monitoring of promotions should include all categories of academic, academic-related, and assistant staff. Monitoring should include promotions from University Assistant Lecturer to Lecturer and all subsequent promotions of academic staff, and all promotions of academic-related staff. For assistant staff monitoring should include promotions to higher grades within Departments and on transfer between Departments, upgrading of posts, and promotions to University offices.
(iii) The award of discretionary payments to all categories of staff should be monitored.
(iv) Monitoring of research student numbers should cover comparison of male and female research student statistics relating to applications, places offered, places taken up, fee source, admission, and completion.
(v) A small project should be established to streamline the presentation of statistics for monitoring in all the goals in this area, in order to achieve consistency and clarity.
(vi) Guidance on good recruitment and selection practice for all categories of staff, based on existing good practice in the University, should be kept under constant review, especially in relation to the requirements of anti-discrimination legislation, including European law.
(vii) Guidance on good practice in relation to promotions of all kinds and for all categories of staff, especially the criteria used for promotion and the award of discretionary payments, should be kept under constant review. Procedures should be periodically reviewed for effectiveness and transparency.
(viii) Results of monitoring of the gender balance of all groups and committees (formal and informal) involved in the recruitment, selection, and appointment of all categories of staff should be analysed and the outcome published annually in the Opportunity 2000 progress report. Any lack of consistency or balance should be drawn to the attention of the groups or committees concerned.
(ix) Where women or men are under-represented in a particular staff group, advertisements for posts should state that applications are particularly welcomed from the under-represented gender, and that selection will take place on the basis of the criteria for appointment for that post.1
(x) The operation of the holiday play scheme should be kept under review, in particular to ensure that it can continue to meet growing demand.
(xi) Work should continue towards the provision of additional day nursery places.
(xii) The arrangements for flexible working for established academic and academic-related staff should be kept under review and further steps should be taken to understand better why take-up of the scheme has been low. The scheme should be formally extended to unestablished academic-related staff. The existing arrangements for part-time working for assistant staff should be kept under review and implemented wherever feasible.
(xiii) Further steps should be taken in devising a career break scheme for academic and academic-related staff.
(xiv) A survey of present and anticipated caring responsibilities amongst all categories of staff should be undertaken, with a view to further development of family-friendly working policies.
(xv) Consideration should be given to the provision of an appropriate infrastructure to support these policies (e.g. a policy to ensure that effective arrangements can be made to cover the jobs of academic and academic-related staff on maternity leave).2
(xvi) The effectiveness of the flow of information about equal opportunities issues and policies should be kept under review and where necessary new or additional means of communication should be introduced.
(xvii) The policy on bullying and harassment should be kept under review and monitoring should be introduced in order to assess the level of problems in this area, and to ensure that complaints are dealt with effectively.
(xviii) Steps should be taken to ensure that all those involved in recruitment, selection, and appointment of all categories of staff understand the legal requirements of equal opportunities legislation. Training should be available to all, and only trained individuals should take part in these procedures.
(xix) The 'Springboard' programme for women staff and graduate students and the new version of the programme developed for undergraduates should be continued for as long as there is a need.
(xx) The possibility of devising a development programme based on 'Springboard' principles for women in senior grades for whom some of the 'Springboard' material is inappropriate should be kept under investigation.
(xxi) All documentation, procedures, training, and advice should be kept under review to ensure that good practice in relation to equal opportunities is incorporated.
(xxii) Information about the University's Opportunity 2000 goals and any subsequent policies or reviews should be effectively and fully communicated to staff and students.
(xxiii) The organization of responsibility for equal opportunities issues in the University should be reviewed so as to develop a system of subsidiarity with devolved responsibility through the Councils of the Schools.
(xxiv) Special initiatives should be set up to address the under-representation of women in science in the areas of access (a focus on recruitment of undergraduates and admissions), participation (a focus on retention of women graduate students and post-doctoral workers), progression (a focus on the career progress of women post-doctoral workers into permanent posts and their retention if they choose to have children or undertake other caring responsibilities), and performance (a focus on whether women scientists are required to out-perform men in order to win research funding or appointments).
(xxv) The experience of women (both staff and students) in the University should be investigated, with the help of outside consultants, in order to inform training and guidance on good practice in all areas of relevant activity (recruitment, selection, appointment, promotion, teaching, and management).
(xxvi) Research should be undertaken into the career histories and career progression of women and other under-represented groups.
(xxvii) Action should be taken to develop general awareness of the importance of equal opportunities, and of the need for cultural diversity and specific good practice, through training programmes.
The Education Committee of the General Board and the Board of Graduate Studies have agreed to leave these goals unchanged. Detailed comments on the progress made under these goals in 1997-98 are included in the appendix.
(xxviii) Providing more comprehensive guidance to supervisors of undergraduates about teaching skills and the criteria for judging essays and other undergraduate supervision work. The criteria should be explicit and should be made clear to students.
(xxix) Ensuring that the criteria used in the assessment of examination scripts are made explicit and that examiners are given a clear description of the qualities held to be reflected in a particular mark or range of marks. Ensuring that all such information is available to examiners, teachers (including supervisors), and students.
(xxx) Investigating the utility and the efficacy of existing systems of secure number codes for examinations.
In addition, the Education Committee have agreed to include a new goal relating to transferable skills. In the Lent Term 1998, the Education Committee established a Working Party to consider provision by the University and the Colleges of transferable skills. The Working Party, which consists of representatives of the General Board, the Senior Tutors' Committee, the Careers Service, and Cambridge University Students Union, undertook extensive consultation during the Easter Term and the Long Vacation on ways in which the University and the Colleges could work together to ensure that by co-ordinated provision students are afforded the opportunity, through Faculties and Departments and through Colleges, of developing attributes thought useful for success in employment and in later life. An interim report on the Working Party's findings was made available to the Education Committee in July, and work is continuing to finalize a report to the General Board in due course. The new goal in this area is:
(xxxi) Defining, in consultation with the University and the Colleges, a set of transferable skills (which can be subdivided into categories as appropriate) which the University would expect its graduates to possess on graduation, and to develop guidelines on good practice for the acquisition of these skills.
1 This procedure is permissible under anti-discrimination legislation, and is designed to increase the pool of candidates from the under-represented group, from which pool the best candidate is selected. It is recommended by the CVCP's Commission for University Career Opportunity.
2 Provision has already been introduced for maternity leave cover for assistant staff.
(i) Extension of the monitoring of appointments to cover all categories of academic and academic-related staff, both established and unestablished, including appointment to contract research posts.
Progress has been made towards the achievement of this goal.
(ii) Raising the profile of assistant staff monitoring in order to ensure full returns.
Monitoring systems for appointments are now fully in place.
(iii) Extension of monitoring to cover promotions in all categories of academic and academic-related staff, both established and unestablished, including promotions from University Assistant Lecturer to University Lecturer (including timing), from University Lecturer to Reader, from Reader to Professor, and all other upgradings, as well as promotions among administrative, library, and computer staff and among contract research staff.
Work is continuing in this area.
(iv) Extension of monitoring to cover the award of discretionary payments to academic and academic-related staff.
Monitoring is now in place.
(v) Acceleration of the introduction of the SECQUS computerized personnel record.
The system is now fully in place.
(vi) Studying the gender composition of the assistant staff workforce in order to make year-on-year comparisons and to develop a means of tracking the career progress of staff of both sexes.
Studies have taken place and have been found not to yield useful information
(vii) Extension of monitoring to cover the award of discretionary payments to assistant staff.
Monitoring is now fully in place.
(viii) Extension of monitoring to research students, including comparison of male and female research student statistics relating to applications, places offered, places taken up, fee source, submission and completion rates, all by Faculty and Department.
This information is published by the Board of Graduate Studies and will be incorporated in future annual reports on Opportunity 2000.
(ix) Reviewing and issuing of guidance on good recruitment and selection practice for all categories of staff, based on existing good practice in the University.
Guidance has been provided for all categories of staff and will be kept under regular review.
(x) Issuing of guidance on good practice in relation to promotions of all kinds and for all categories of staff, especially the criteria used for promotion and the award of discretionary payments.
Work is proceeding in this area for academic and academic-related staff. The award of discretionary payments for assistant staff is subject to clear criteria.
(xi) Monitoring of the gender balance of all groups and committees (formal and informal) involved in the recruitment, selection, and appointment of all categories of staff.
Monitoring has been introduced for established academic and academic-related posts and for assistant staff posts.
(xii) Investigating existing research on the efficacy of advertising some posts in a form which specifically encourages applications from women. Such advertising is permitted under s.48 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
No action has been taken on this goal, but this procedure is recommended by the CVCP.
(xiii) Provision of a pilot holiday play scheme for 5-12 year-olds for the summer holidays, with a view to extending provision during school holidays and half-terms throughout the year.
This goal has now been achieved. A regular holiday play scheme is now running, and has been awarded the highest level of quality assurance. The operation of the play scheme is regularly reviewed by the Childcare Committee.
(xiv) To subscribe to Child Care Solutions (a service which provides employees with advice and information about childcare according to their particular needs, based on detailed local information).
Following investigation it was decided that it was more cost-effective to make the provision of this information part of the role of the Childcare Co-ordinator, who also runs the play scheme. The service is in place and take-up is increasing.
(xv) To investigate the provision of additional day nursery places.
Progress is being made towards the provision of 100 full-time places, half of which will be allocated to staff and half to students.
(xvi) To review existing policies to test their take-up and their efficacy, including schemes for flexible working and the possible need for a career break scheme, and to amplify this review by including a survey of present and anticipated caring responsibilities among all categories of staff, with a view to extending the range of family-friendly schemes available to all staff.
Work is continuing in this area.
(xvii) To ensure that all staff are aware of existing policies.
Policies are given prominence in the staff handbooks, and information on new policies and progress is published in the Reporter and in the University and Assistant Staff Newsletters.
(xviii) To ensure that an appropriate infrastructure is in place to support these policies (e.g. a policy to ensure that effective arrangements can be made to cover the jobs of staff on maternity leave).
Further work is needed in this area. For assistant staff posts maternity leave cover is centrally funded.
(xix) Revising the policy on harassment in the light of experience and knowledge of good practice.
A completely revised code of advice and instructions for staff, and new procedures, have now been introduced.
(xx) Continuing with the 'Springboard' programme for women staff and students for as long as is necessary, including an assessment of the need and provision with a view to increasing the number of trainers from two to three or four.
Demand for the programme continues to be strong. A third trainer is now delivering the programme and arrangements are being made for the training of a fourth trainer.
(xxi) Developing a 'Springboard for undergraduates' programme.
The programme has been successfully piloted and work continues on the provision of regular programmes.
(xxii) Investigating the possibility of devising a development programme based on 'Springboard' principles for women in senior grades for whom some of the 'Springboard' material is inappropriate.
Preliminary research is under way.
(xxiii) Ensuring that good practice in relation to equal opportunities is incorporated in all relevant documentation, procedures, training, and advice (including staff handbooks, the manual for Heads of Departments, and the Assistant Staff Manual).
Substantial progress has been made towards this goal.
(xxiv) Ensuring that information about all the University's Opportunity 2000 goals and any subsequent policies or reviews is effectively and fully communicated to staff and students.
Information is published widely; additional communication channels may be considered.
(xxv) Investigating the experience of women (both staff and students) in the University, with the help of outside consultants, in order to inform training and guidance on good practice in all areas of relevant activity (recruitment, selection, appointment, promotion, teaching, and management).
Preliminary work has taken place in this area.
(xxvi) Developing general awareness of the importance of equal opportunities, and of the need for cultural diversity and specific good practice, through training programmes.
Further work is needed in this area.
The Joint Committee on Academic Performance have continued their work in monitoring and analysing information about the performance of students in examinations and related issues, such as admissions criteria, different forms of teaching, examination methods, assessment conventions, and pastoral care. In the light of the discussions of the Joint Committee a number of improvements have been made to the presentation of statistics on examination results which facilitate the analysis of information relating to student performance. There is clear evidence that in disseminating information and ideas the Joint Committee are contributing to a heightened awareness of the issues which need to be considered by Faculties and Departments throughout the University.
Good progress is being made on the research project 'Predictors of Academic Performance'. This project, which is concerned with the entire spectrum of student performance and its relationship to gender and to the educational, social, and ethnic backgrounds of students and other factors, has gained wide support from academic staff in Faculties, Departments, and Colleges and from Cambridge University Students Union. The progress made has confirmed the original view of the Joint Committee on Academic Performance, which led them to propose the research programme in the first instance, that the project is of considerable importance to the University. The Joint Committee have also recognized that the initiative has presented an unprecedented opportunity to undertake a study of a cohort of Cambridge undergraduates from the time of their admission to the University until graduation. For this reason the research project, which was originally due to come to an end in 1999, has been extended to the year 2001.
(xxvii) Issuing additional guidance and providing more comprehensive training in research student supervision, and ensuring that all Faculties and Departments have fail-safe procedures for ensuring that supervision is being properly conducted and that both research students and their supervisors have full and effective access to support if they meet difficulties in the supervisor-supervisee relationship (either academic or personal).
The Board of Graduate Studies have agreed to leave this goal unchanged, noting that the Academic Staff Development Committee have under consideration the training of those who expect to supervise graduate students, and the possibility of making such training compulsory.
(xxviii) Providing more comprehensive guidance to supervisors of undergraduates about teaching skills and the criteria for judging essays and other undergraduate supervision work. The criteria should be explicit and should be made clear to students.
and
(xxix) Ensuring that the criteria used in the assessment of examination scripts are made explicit and that examiners are given a clear description of the qualities held to be reflected in a particular mark or range of marks. Ensuring that all such information is available to examiners, teachers (including supervisors), and students.
The General Board's Education Committee continue to scrutinize, and offer advice on, documents produced and refined in Faculties and Departments relating to guidance on undergraduate supervision and detailed marking and classing criteria for examinations. The Committee are always concerned to emphasize that such documents should be made widely available, not only among academic staff but also to students. In the past year, the co-ordination at the University-College interface has been further enhanced by the institution of regular meetings between officers of the Board's Education Committee and of the Senior Tutors' Standing Committee on Education; among the important questions discussed at such meetings are the arrangements for undergraduate supervision.
(xxx) Investigating the utility and the efficacy of existing systems of secure number codes for examination candidates.
Detailed work has been carried out by the officers of the Board of Examinations into arrangements for moving towards greater randomization in the allocation of candidate numbers in examinations, and outline proposals have been considered by the Board. It is expected that new arrangements will be introduced for the 1999 examinations.
Following consultation about the specific procedures adopted by Boards of Examiners in translating candidate numbers into names, the General Board's Education Committee offered advice to Faculties and Departments on this matter. While recognizing that there are a number of considerations to be taken into account, the Committee concluded that the principle of preserving the anonymity of candidates until after the preparation of the final class list is a sound one, which should be regarded as the norm for the University; variations from this norm should be permitted only in circumstances where it is entirely clear that it is in the interests of impartial examining.
| Men | Women | Total | % Women (1997) |
% Women (1996) |
% Women (1995) |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||||
| Technical and related staff (T Division) | |||||||
| T8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 25 | 33 | 33 | |
| T7 | 10 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 10 | |
| T6 | 76 | 11 | 87 | 13 | 15 | 13 | |
| T5 | 166 | 45 | 211 | 21 | 23 | 23 | |
| T4 | 331 | 177 | 508 | 35 | 33 | 32 | |
| T3 | 123 | 95 | 218 | 44 | 40 | 39 | |
| T2 | 51 | 25 | 76 | 33 | 40 | 41 | |
| T1 | 7 | 21 | 28 | 75 | 70 | 66 | |
| Trainees | 16 | 24 | 40 | 60 | 54 | 46 | |
|
|
|||||||
| Totals for T Division | 783 | 400 | 1,183 | 34 | 33 | 32 | |
|
|
|||||||
| Clerical, library, and secretarial staff (CS Division) | |||||||
| CS6 | 10 | 16 | 26 | 62 | 64 | 41 | |
| CS5 | 22 | 91 | 113 | 81 | 81 | 70 | |
| CS4 | 28 | 331 | 359 | 92 | 92 | 88 | |
| CS3 | 30 | 398 | 428 | 93 | 92 | 88 | |
| CS2 | 28 | 195 | 223 | 87 | 87 | 84 | |
| CS1 | 6 | 19 | 25 | 76 | 82 | 76 | |
| Age related | 5 | 8 | 13 | 62 | 64 | – | |
|
|
|||||||
| Totals for CS Division | 124 | 1,050 | 1,174 | 89 | 89 | 83 | |
|
|
|||||||
| Data processing staff (D Division) | |||||||
| D4 | – | – | – | – | – | 100 | |
| D3 | 3 | – | 3 | – | – | 53 | |
| D2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 67 | 67 | 47 | |
| D1 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 83 | 100 | 100 | |
|
|
|||||||
| Totals for D Division | 5 | 7 | 12 | 58 | 62 | 63 | |
|
|
|||||||
| Custodial and manual staff (M Division) | |||||||
| M4 | 12 | 2 | 14 | 14 | 13 | 25 | |
| M3 | 25 | 9 | 34 | 26 | 33 | 43 | |
| M2 | 30 | 10 | 40 | 25 | 14 | 16 | |
| M1 | 62 | 42 | 104 | 40 | 37 | 43 | |
|
|
|||||||
| Totals for M Division | 129 | 63 | 192 | 33 | 29 | 35 | |
|
|
|||||||
| Total staff (excluding cleaners) | 1,041 | 1,520 | 2,561 | 59 | 57 | 57 | |
|
|
|||||||
| Cleaners | 135 | 164 | 299 | 55 | 60 | 67 | |
|
|
|||||||
* Figures for 1996 exclude for the first time UCLES staff, which explains some of the changes in the CS Division.
| % Men (1997) |
% Women (1997) |
% Men (1996) |
% Women (1996) |
% Men (1995) |
% Women (1995) |
% Men (1994) |
% Women (1994) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T Division | 13 | 36 | 13 | 39 | 14 | 37 | 16 | 40 |
| CS Division | 12 | 18 | 17 | 19 | 11 | 16 | 7 | 18 |
| M Division | 9 | 14 | 9 | 20 | 13 | 20 | 11 | 28 |
Table showing numbers of staff in main academic grades. Figures in brackets give the number of women as a percentage of the total.
| Professors | Readers | University Lecturers | University Assistant Lecturers | Senior Assistants in Research and Assistant Directors of Research | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Year | Total | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | ||||||
| 1990 | 1,029 | (9.3)1 | 158 | 9 | (5.4) | 80 | 3 | (3.6) | 638 | 65 | (9.2) | 57 | 19 | (25.0) | Not included | ||
| 1991 | Not available | ||||||||||||||||
| 1992 | 1,053 | (10.9)1 | 175 | 11 | (5.9) | 100 | 4 | (3.8) | 614 | 80 | (11.5) | 49 | 20 | (28.9) | Not included | ||
| 1993 | 1,097 | (11.6) | 160 | 9 | (5.3) | 108 | 4 | (3.6) | 592 | 88 | (12.9) | 38 | 17 | (30.9) | 72 | 9 | (11.1) |
| 1994 | 1,109 | (11.8) | 165 | 10 | (5.7) | 121 | 4 | (3.2) | 581 | 93 | (13.8) | 37 | 16 | (30.2) | 74 | 8 | (9.8) |
| 1995 | 1,136 | (12.7) | 172 | 11 | (6.0) | 132 | 7 | (5.0) | 584 | 100 | (14.6) | 26 | 16 | (38.0) | 78 | 10 | (11.4) |
| 1996 | 1,174 | (13.4) | 185 | 12 | (6.0) | 140 | 15 | (9.7) | 577 | 99 | (14.6) | 34 | 18 | (34.6) | 81 | 13 | (13.8) |
| 1997 | 1,277 | (13.9) | 225 | 14 | (5.9) | 151 | 19 | (11.8) | 604 | 112 | (15.6) | 30 | 19 | (38.8) | 90 | 12 | (12.6) |
| 1998 | 1,271 | (14.5) | 262 | 18 | (6.4) | 172 | 20 | (10.4) | 562 | 118 | (17.4) | 21 | 16 | (43.2) | 70 | 12 | (13.0) |
1 Excludes ADRs and SARs.
Numbers of staff in main Contract Research grades (Research Assistant, Research Associate, and Senior Research Associate). Figures in brackets give the number of women as a percentage of the total.
| Year | Men | Women | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 897 | 422 | 1,319 | (31.9%) |
| 1992 | 1,002 | 503 | 1,505 | (33%) |
| 1993 | 798 | 430 | 1,228 | (35%) |
| 1994 | 900 | 486 | 1,386 | (35%) |
| 1995 | 913 | 525 | 1,438 | (36.5%) |
| 1996 | 888 | 533 | 1,421 | (37.5%) |
| 1997 | 1,196 | 745 | 1,941 | (38.4%) |
| 1998 | 1,341 | 883 | 2,224 | (39.7%) |
* From 1994-95 Full-time students are as defined by the HEFCE. Previously the UGC/UFC definition was used.
Academic and academic-related offices.
| School | Women as a percentage of total applicants | Women as a percentage of short-listed applicants | Women as a percentage of total appointments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| Arts and Humanities | 37.2 | 35.9 | 37.1 |
| Biological Sciences | 25.8 | 27.3 | 25.9 |
| Humanities and Social Sciences | 31.0 | 31.2 | 30.6 |
| Physical Sciences | 11.8 | 11.7 | 13.8 |
| Technology* | 10.4 | 8.8 | 16.0 |
| Total General Board institutions | 21.9 | 23.4 | 24.0 |
| Council institutions | 34.4 | 34.9 | 36.6 |
|
|
|||
| Grand Totals | 24.7 | 25.0 | 25.7 |
|
|
|||
* School of Technology established 1 January 1993. No appointments were made in the School of Technology between 1 January and 31 March 1993.
Academic and academic-related offices (percentages are given in brackets).
| Applicants | Short-listed | Appointed | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| School | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | |||
| Arts and Humanities | 153 | 87 | (36.3) | 18 | 10 | (35.7) | 6 | 2 | (25.0) |
| Biological Sciences | 139 | 42 | (23.2) | 24 | 10 | (29.4) | 10 | 2 | (16.6) |
| Humanities and Social Sciences | 164 | 46 | (21.9) | 27 | 4 | (12.9) | 5 | 0 | (0) |
| Physical Sciences | 33 | 26 | (44.1) | 14 | 4 | (22.2) | 4 | 0 | (0) |
| Technology | 40 | 8 | (16.6) | 11 | 2 | (15.4) | 2 | 1 | (33.3) |
|
|
|||||||||
| Total General Board institutions | 529 | 209 | (28.3) | 94 | 30 | (24.2) | 27 | 5 | (15.6) |
| Council institutions | 116 | 104 | (47.3) | 8 | 16 | (66.6) | 1 | 5 | (83.3) |
|
|
|||||||||
| Grand Totals | 645 | 313 | (32.7) | 102 | 46 | (31.1) | 28 | 10 | (26.3) |
|
|
|||||||||
There were fewer appointments to established offices in the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 than in the previous year (65 in 1996-97 and 38 in 1997-98); the small numbers involved mean that percentages can fluctuate widely. Nevertheless, there is an interruption in the overall trend in the University as a whole for women to be appointed to established academic and academic-related offices in slightly higher proportions than those in which they apply. In all General Board institutions 28.3 per cent of applications were from women and 15.6 per cent of those appointed were women. For the second year running no woman was appointed to an office in a CSPS institution, although applications from women were up from 7.7 per cent in 1996-97 to 44.1 per cent in 1997-98. In contrast to 1996-97, when over half of all appointments were of women, no women were appointed in the CSHSS.
| Women applicants as a percentage of | Mixed interview panels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||
| All applicants | Short-listed applicants | Applicants appointed | ||
| 1995 | 61 | 68 | 74 | 70% |
| 1996 | 61 | 64 | 65 | 67% |
| 1997 | 65 | 69 | 70 | 65% |
| 1998 | 65 | 66 | 66 | 60% |
| Ethnic minority applicants as a percentage of | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| All applicants | Short-listed applicants | Applicants appointed | |
| 1996 | 5.2 | 3.0 | 5.4 |
| 1997 | 4.9 | 3.7 | 5.5 |
| 1998 | 7.2 | 3.6 | 5.1 |
| Women applicants as a percentage of | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| All applicants | Short-listed applicants | Applicants appointed | |
| 1996 | 76 | 67 | 75 |
| 1997 | 75 | 79 | 70 |
| 1998 | 72 | 75 | 65* |
* In all seven men and twelve women stating that they belonged to an ethnic group other than white were appointed, out of a total of 437 appointments.
| Candidates mentioning a disability as a percentage of | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| All applicants | Short-listed applicants | Applicants appointed | |
| 1997 | 1.23 | 0.77 | 0.94 |
| 1998 | 1.06* | 0.94 | 0.66 |
* 55 applicants in all mentioned a disability.
Numbers (percentages are given in brackets).
| Number eligible | Number of applicants1 | Number of awards | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| School | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | |||
| Arts and Humanities | 97 | 41 | (29.7) | 19 | 5 | (20.8) | 12 | 3 | (20.0) |
| Biological Sciences2 | 174 | 37 | (17.5) | 38 | 33 | (19.3) | 10 | 3 | (23.1) |
| Humanities and Social Sciences | 98 | 46 | (31.9) | 19 | 3 | (13.6) | 10 | 3 | (23.1) |
| Physical Sciences2 | 148 | 20 | (11.9) | 137 | 16 | (10.5) | 13 | 1 | (7.1) |
| Technology2 | 138 | 20 | (12.6) | 136 | 20 | (12.8) | 16 | 1 | (5.9) |
| Council and University Library | 94 | 69 | (42.3) | 16 | 13 | (44.8) | 10 | 8 | (44.4) |
1 Or number considered in the case of CSPS, CSBS, and CST.
2 All eligible officers in these Schools are deemed to be applicants unless they opt out.
1 Numbers opting out not collected in 1993.
2 Information not available for 1997 exercise.
| Professors | Readers | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| Year | Men | Women | Men | Women |
| 1985 | 2 | – | 9 | – |
| 1986 | 40 | – | 11 | – |
| 1987 | 4 | 1 | 10 | 2 |
| 1988 | 2 | – | 11 | – |
| 1989 | 4 | – | 15 | – |
| 1990 | 8 | 1 | 24 | – |
| 1991 | 8 | 1 | 23 | 1 |
| 1992 | 8 | – | 21 | 2 |
| 1993 | 4 | 1 | 20 | – |
| 1994 | 7 | – | 22 | 3 |
| 1995 | 9 | – | 24 | 8 |
| 1996 | 9 | – | 26 | 4 |
| 1997 | 11 | 1 | 25 | 4 |
| 1998 | 18 | 2 | 31 | 6 |
(Percentages are given in brackets.)
| Applicants | Considered by General Board's Committee | Recommended for appointment | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | ||||
| Professorships | 57 | 7 | (10.9) | 45 | 6 | (11.8) | 18 | 2 | (10.0) |
| Readerships | 118 | 18 | (13.2) | 83 | 12 | (12.6) | 31 | 6 | (10.5) |
| Grade | Additional increments | Discretionary payments | Total | Women as a %age 1998 | Women as a %age 1997 | Women as a %age 1996 | Number in grade | Percentage of women in grade | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | |||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| T8 | – | – | – | – | – | n/a | n/a | n/a | 4 | 33 |
| T7 | – | – | – | – | – | n/a | n/a | n/a | 11 | 8 |
| T6 | – | 1 | 3 | – | 4 | 25 | 18 | 25 | 87 | 15 |
| T5 | 1 | – | 12 | – | 13 | – | 23 | 44 | 211 | 23 |
| T4 | 12 | 4 | 17 | 3 | 36 | 19 | 31 | 23 | 508 | 33 |
| T3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 8 | 25 | 42 | 46 | 218 | 40 |
| T2 | 2 | – | – | 1 | 3 | 33 | 67 | 29 | 76 | 40 |
| T1 | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 100 | 100 | – | 28 | 70 |
|
|
||||||||||
| Total | 16 | 6 | 37 | 6 | 65 | 18 | 32 | 23 | 1,1831 | 33 |
|
|
||||||||||
| CS6 | – | 2 | 1 | – | 3 | 67 | 100 | 100 | 26 | 62 |
| CS5 | 1 | 5 | – | 2 | 8 | 88 | 73 | 73 | 113 | 81 |
| CS4 | 1 | 19 | 3 | 19 | 42 | 90 | 95 | 93 | 359 | 92 |
| CS3 | 1 | 16 | – | 7 | 24 | 96 | 94 | 92 | 428 | 93 |
| CS2 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 12 | 83 | 85 | 100 | 223 | 87 |
| CS1 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 25 | 76 |
|
|
||||||||||
| Total | 4 | 49 | 5 | 31 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 96 | 1,174 | 89 |
|
|
||||||||||
| M4 | 2 | – | 2 | 1 | 5 | 20 | – | – | 14 | 14 |
| M3 | – | – | 2 | – | 2 | – | 50 | 100 | 34 | 26 |
| M2 | – | – | 3 | 1 | 4 | 25 | – | – | 40 | 25 |
| M1 | – | – | 2 | – | 2 | – | – | 50 | 14 | 14 |
|
|
||||||||||
| Total | 2 | – | 9 | 2 | 13 | 15 | 11 | 40 | 192 | 33 |
|
|
||||||||||
| All staff | 22 | 55 | 51 | 39 | 167 | 56 | 64 | 58 | 2,561 | 59 |
|
|
||||||||||
Average percentage women over three years: 59.
1 Total includes trainees not eligible for awards.
| Year | Numbers taking leave | Numbers returning | Percentage returning |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 32 | 13 | 42 |
| 1995 | 33 | 30 | 94 |
| 1996 | 29 | 28 | 85 |
| 1997 | 39 | 30 | 103 |
| 1998 | 26 | 28 | 72 |
N.B. These figures are taken from the staff database; they differ from the figures shown in last year's report because the method of calculation is different. Because maternity leave starts at a different date for each individual and the length of the maternity leave period is not constant, the figures for the numbers of returners cannot give an exact year-on-year comparison. They are, however, shown because they may indicate a trend.
| Category | Ethnic origin stated | Not known | Total | % of category |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||
| No. | % | No. | % | |||
|
|
||||||
| Established | ||||||
| Professor | 176 | 62.9 | 104 | 37.1 | 280 | 100 |
| Reader | 114 | 59.4 | 78 | 40.6 | 192 | 100 |
| University Lecturer | 373 | 54.9 | 307 | 45.1 | 680 | 100 |
| University Assistant Lecturer | 25 | 67.6 | 12 | 32.4 | 37 | 100 |
| Assistant Director/Senior Assistant in Research | 41 | 50.0 | 41 | 50.0 | 82 | 100 |
| Associate Lecturer | 61 | 50.8 | 59 | 49.2 | 120 | 100 |
| Other academic | 58 | 72.5 | 22 | 27.5 | 80 | 100 |
| Administrative | 119 | 78.8 | 32 | 21.2 | 151 | 100 |
| Library | 50 | 66.7 | 25 | 33.3 | 75 | 100 |
| Curators | 5 | 71.4 | 2 | 28.6 | 7 | 100 |
| Keepers | 8 | 61.5 | 5 | 38.5 | 13 | 100 |
| Technical | 29 | 53.7 | 25 | 46.3 | 54 | 100 |
| Computing | 64 | 59.3 | 44 | 40.7 | 108 | 100 |
| Other academic-related | 35 | 68.6 | 16 | 31.4 | 51 | 100 |
| Research | 6 | 66.7 | 3 | 33.3 | 9 | 100 |
|
|
||||||
| Total (established) | 1,164 | 60.0 | 775 | 40.0 | 1,939 | 100 |
|
|
||||||
| Unestablished | ||||||
| Other academic | 56 | 76.7 | 17 | 23.3 | 73 | 100 |
| Administrative | 31 | 66.0 | 16 | 34.0 | 47 | 100 |
| Library | 3 | 60.0 | 2 | 40.0 | 5 | 100 |
| Computing | 41 | 69.5 | 18 | 30.5 | 59 | 100 |
| Other academic-related | 62 | 69.7 | 27 | 30.3 | 89 | 100 |
|
|
||||||
| Total (unestablished) | 193 | 70.7 | 80 | 29.3 | 273 | 100 |
| Research | 1,097 | 56.2 | 854 | 43.8 | 1,951 | 100 |
|
|
||||||
| Total | 2,454 | 58.9 | 1,709 | 41.1 | 4,163 | 100 |
|
|
||||||
| Category | Disability stated | No disability | Not known | Total | % of category |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |||
|
|
||||||||
| Established | ||||||||
| Professor | 10 | 3.57 | 162 | 57.86 | 108 | 38.57 | 280 | 100 |
| Reader | 4 | 2.08 | 111 | 57.81 | 77 | 40.10 | 192 | 100 |
| University Lecturer | 18 | 2.65 | 353 | 51.91 | 309 | 45.44 | 680 | 100 |
| University Assistant Lecturer | 1 | 2.70 | 24 | 64.86 | 12 | 32.43 | 37 | 100 |
| Assistant Director/Senior Assistant in Research | 6 | 7.32 | 36 | 43.90 | 40 | 48.78 | 82 | 100 |
| Associate Lecturer | 0 | 0.00 | 61 | 50.83 | 59 | 49.17 | 120 | 100 |
| Other academic | 1 | 1.25 | 56 | 70.00 | 23 | 28.75 | 80 | 100 |
| Administrative | 10 | 6.62 | 107 | 70.86 | 34 | 22.52 | 151 | 100 |
| Library | 1 | 1.33 | 49 | 65.33 | 25 | 33.33 | 75 | 100 |
| Curators | 0 | 0.00 | 5 | 71.43 | 2 | 28.57 | 7 | 100 |
| Keepers | 2 | 15.38 | 6 | 46.15 | 5 | 38.46 | 13 | 100 |
| Technical | 1 | 1.85 | 27 | 50.00 | 26 | 48.15 | 54 | 100 |
| Computing | 2 | 1.85 | 62 | 57.41 | 44 | 40.74 | 108 | 100 |
| Other academic-related | 3 | 5.88 | 32 | 62.75 | 16 | 31.37 | 51 | 100 |
| Research | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 66.67 | 3 | 33.33 | 9 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total (established) | 59 | 3.04 | 1,097 | 56.58 | 783 | 40.38 | 1,939 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Unestablished | ||||||||
| Other academic | 2 | 2.74 | 46 | 63.01 | 25 | 34.25 | 73 | 100 |
| Administrative | 1 | 2.13 | 28 | 59.57 | 18 | 38.30 | 47 | 100 |
| Library | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 60.00 | 2 | 40.00 | 5 | 100 |
| Computing | 3 | 5.08 | 37 | 62.71 | 19 | 32.20 | 59 | 100 |
| Other academic-related | 1 | 1.12 | 62 | 69.66 | 26 | 29.21 | 89 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total (unestablished) | 7 | 2.56 | 176 | 64.47 | 90 | 32.97 | 273 | 100 |
| Research | 35 | 1.79 | 1,050 | 53.82 | 866 | 44.39 | 1,951 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total | 101 | 2.43 | 2,323 | 55.80 | 1,739 | 41.77 | 4,163 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Grade | Ethnic origin stated | Not known | Total | % of grade |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||
| No. | % | No. | % | |||
|
|
||||||
| T8 | 3 | 75.00 | 1 | 25.00 | 4 | 100.00 |
| T7 | 6 | 42.86 | 8 | 57.14 | 14 | 100.00 |
| T6 | 25 | 31.25 | 55 | 68.75 | 80 | 100.00 |
| T5 | 78 | 34.51 | 148 | 65.49 | 226 | 100.00 |
| T4 | 186 | 38.27 | 300 | 61.73 | 486 | 100.00 |
| T3 | 75 | 37.69 | 124 | 62.31 | 199 | 100.00 |
| T2 | 28 | 41.18 | 40 | 58.82 | 68 | 100.00 |
| T1 | 12 | 44.44 | 15 | 55.56 | 27 | 100.00 |
| TX | 8 | 50.00 | 8 | 50.00 | 16 | 100.00 |
| TT | 17 | 77.27 | 5 | 22.73 | 22 | 100.00 |
|
|
||||||
| Total T Division | 438 | 38.35 | 704 | 61.65 | 1,142 | 100.00 |
|
|
||||||
| CS6 | 10 | 40.00 | 15 | 60.00 | 25 | 100.00 |
| CS5 | 61 | 48.80 | 64 | 51.20 | 125 | 100.00 |
| CS4 | 175 | 47.95 | 190 | 52.05 | 365 | 100.00 |
| CS3 | 186 | 46.04 | 218 | 53.96 | 404 | 100.00 |
| CS2 | 100 | 48.78 | 105 | 51.22 | 205 | 100.00 |
| CS1 | 13 | 65.00 | 7 | 35.00 | 20 | 100.00 |
| CSA | 6 | 50.00 | 6 | 50.00 | 12 | 100.00 |
| CST | 2 | 100.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 100.00 |
|
|
||||||
| Total CS Division | 553 | 47.75 | 605 | 52.25 | 1,158 | 100.00 |
|
|
||||||
| M4 | 8 | 44.44 | 10 | 55.56 | 18 | 100.00 |
| M3 | 11 | 34.38 | 21 | 65.63 | 32 | 100.00 |
| M2 | 31 | 41.89 | 43 | 58.11 | 74 | 100.00 |
| M1 | 25 | 31.65 | 54 | 68.35 | 79 | 100.00 |
|
|
||||||
| Total M Division | 75 | 36.95 | 128 | 63.05 | 203 | 100.00 |
|
|
||||||
| CD | 80 | 31.87 | 171 | 68.13 | 251 | 100.00 |
| AH | 56 | 33.94 | 109 | 66.06 | 165 | 100.00 |
|
|
||||||
| Total | 1,202 | 41.18 | 1,717 | 58.82 | 2,919 | 100.00 |
|
|
||||||
| Grade | Disability stated | No disability | Not known | Total | % of grade |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |||
|
|
||||||||
| T8 | – | – | 2 | 50.00 | 2 | 50.00 | 4 | 100 |
| T7 | 1 | 7.14 | 1 | 7.14 | 12 | 85.71 | 14 | 100 |
| T6 | 1 | 1.25 | 9 | 11.25 | 70 | 87.50 | 80 | 100 |
| T5 | 3 | 1.33 | 23 | 10.18 | 200 | 88.50 | 226 | 100 |
| T4 | 12 | 2.47 | 90 | 18.52 | 384 | 79.01 | 486 | 100 |
| T3 | 5 | 2.51 | 54 | 27.14 | 140 | 70.35 | 199 | 100 |
| T2 | 1 | 1.47 | 18 | 26.47 | 49 | 72.06 | 68 | 100 |
| T1 | – | – | 7 | 25.93 | 20 | 74.07 | 27 | 100 |
| TX | – | – | 12 | 75.00 | 4 | 25.00 | 16 | 100 |
| TT | – | – | 20 | 90.91 | 2 | 9.09 | 22 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total T Division | 23 | 2.01 | 236 | 27.58 | 883 | 77.32 | 1,142 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| CS6 | 1 | 4.00 | 1 | 4.00 | 23 | 92.00 | 25 | 100 |
| CS5 | 2 | 1.60 | 26 | 20.80 | 97 | 77.60 | 125 | 100 |
| CS4 | 12 | 3.29 | 84 | 23.01 | 269 | 73.70 | 365 | 100 |
| CS3 | 5 | 1.24 | 121 | 29.95 | 278 | 68.81 | 404 | 100 |
| CS2 | 6 | 2.93 | 74 | 36.10 | 125 | 60.98 | 205 | 100 |
| CS1 | – | – | 9 | 45.00 | 11 | 55.00 | 20 | 100 |
| CSA | 1 | 8.33 | 9 | 75.00 | 2 | 16.67 | 12 | 100 |
| CST | 1 | 50.00 | 1 | 50.00 | – | – | 2 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total CS Division | 28 | 2.42 | 325 | 28.07 | 805 | 69.52 | 1,158 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| M4 | 1 | 5.56 | 1 | 5.56 | 16 | 88.89 | 18 | 100 |
| M3 | – | – | 10 | 31.25 | 22 | 68.75 | 32 | 100 |
| M2 | 4 | 5.41 | 19 | 25.68 | 51 | 68.92 | 74 | 100 |
| M1 | 4 | 5.06 | 24 | 30.38 | 51 | 64.56 | 79 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total M Division | 9 | 4.43 | 33 | 16.26 | 54 | 26.60 | 203 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| CD | 9 | 3.59 | 61 | 24.30 | 181 | 72.11 | 251 | 100 |
| AH | 2 | 1.21 | 109 | 66.06 | 54 | 32.73 | 165 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total | 71 | 2.43 | 764 | 26.17 | 1,977 | 67.73 | 2,919 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| School | Year | Women as a percentage of total eligible | Women as a percentage of total applicants | Women as a percentage of number in receipt of award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||
| Arts and Humanities | 1993 | 32.0 | 20.0 | 6.6 |
| 1994 | 31.0 | 17.2 | 19.0 | |
| 1995 | 31.5 | 35.3 | 27.8 | |
| 1996 | 35.0 | 34.3 | 33.3 | |
| 1997 | 35.0 | 50.0 | 46.6 | |
| 1998 | 29.7 | 20.8 | 20.0 | |
| Biological Sciences | 1993 | 15.5 | 17.6 | 21.4 |
| 1994 | 12.7 | 13.7 | 18.5 | |
| 1995 | 14.0 | 14.9 | 8.3 | |
| 1996 | 15.4 | 16.2 | 6.6 | |
| 1997 | 16.6 | 18.0 | 27.3 | |
| 1998 | 17.6 | 19.3 | 23.1 | |
| Humanities and Social Sciences | 1993 | 29.5 | 29.0 | 25.0 |
| 1994 | 24.1 | 16.6 | 15.8 | |
| 1995 | 25.0 | 20.7 | 16.7 | |
| 1996 | 25.3 | 21.6 | 22.6 | |
| 1997 | 24.3 | 20.6 | 40.0 | |
| 1998 | 31.9 | 13.6 | 23.1 | |
| Physical Sciences | 1993 | 12.8 | –1 | – |
| 1994 | 7.0 | 5.5 | 4.0 | |
| 1995 | 9.8 | 25.0 | 10.5 | |
| 1996 | 11.5 | 9.3 | – | |
| 1997 | 11.4 | 9.6 | 7.1 | |
| 1998 | 11.9 | 10.5 | 7.1 | |
| Technology | 1993 | 12.7 | –1 | – |
| 1994 | 15.6 | 15.8 | 21.0 | |
| 1995 | 12.2 | 8.1 | 7.7 | |
| 1996 | 12.2 | 8.9 | 5.5 | |
| 1997 | 13.9 | 13.8 | 21.4 | |
| 1998 | 12.6 | 12.8 | 5.9 | |
| Council and University Library | 1993 | 32.8 | 14.7 | 14.3 |
| 1994 | 38.0 | 33.3 | 26.6 | |
| 1995 | 37.5 | 50.0 | 41.6 | |
| 1996 | 40.2 | 45.9 | 53.0 | |
| 19972 | ||||
| 1998 | 42.3 | 44.8 | 44.4 | |
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
||
Cambridge University Reporter, 10 February 1999
Copyright © 1999 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.
| Undergraduates | Postgraduates | Totals | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
| Men | % | Women | % | Total | Men | % | Women | % | Total | Men | % | Women | % | Total | |
| 1968-69 | 7,371 | 89.1 | 900 | 10.9 | 8,271 | 1,837 | 85.6 | 308 | 14.4 | 2,145 | 9,208 | 88.4 | 1,208 | 11.6 | 10,416 |
| 1969-70 | 7,287 | 88.4 | 959 | 11.6 | 8,246 | 1,780 | 83.9 | 341 | 16.1 | 2,121 | 9,067 | 87.5 | 1,300 | 12.5 | 10,367 |
| 1970-71 | 7,346 | 87.1 | 1,091 | 12.9 | 8,437 | 1,909 | 83.6 | 374 | 16.4 | 2,283 | 9,255 | 86.3 | 1,465 | 13.7 | 10,720 |
| 1971-72 | 7,333 | 86.3 | 1,164 | 13.7 | 8,497 | 1,852 | 83.7 | 361 | 16.3 | 2,213 | 9,185 | 85.8 | 1,525 | 14.2 | 10,710 |
| 1972-73 | 7,352 | 84.0 | 1,402 | 16.0 | 8,754 | 1,735 | 83.5 | 343 | 16.5 | 2,078 | 9,087 | 83.9 | 1,745 | 16.1 | 10,832 |
| 1973-74 | 7,291 | 82.3 | 1,564 | 17.7 | 8,855 | 1,587 | 82.8 | 330 | 17.2 | 1,917 | 8,878 | 82.4 | 1,894 | 17.6 | 10,772 |
| 1974-75 | 7,181 | 80.8 | 1,711 | 19.2 | 8,892 | 1,567 | 80.6 | 378 | 19.4 | 1,945 | 8,748 | 80.7 | 2,089 | 19.3 | 10,837 |
| 1975-76 | 7,127 | 80.4 | 1,732 | 19.6 | 8,859 | 1,568 | 78.8 | 422 | 21.2 | 1,990 | 8,695 | 80.1 | 2,154 | 19.9 | 10,849 |
| 1976-77 | 7,228 | 79.6 | 1,852 | 20.4 | 9,080 | 1,479 | 77.9 | 419 | 22.1 | 1,898 | 8,707 | 79.3 | 2,271 | 20.7 | 10,978 |
| 1977-78 | 7,104 | 78.1 | 1,997 | 21.9 | 9,101 | 1,496 | 77.2 | 442 | 22.8 | 1,938 | 8,600 | 77.9 | 2,439 | 22.1 | 11,039 |
| 1978-79 | 6,992 | 74.6 | 2,386 | 25.4 | 9,378 | 1,460 | 76.2 | 457 | 23.8 | 1,917 | 8,452 | 74.8 | 2,843 | 25.2 | 11,295 |
| 1979-80 | 6,818 | 72.5 | 2,592 | 27.5 | 9,410 | 1,460 | 75.8 | 467 | 24.2 | 1,927 | 8,278 | 73.0 | 3,059 | 27.0 | 11,337 |
| 1980-81 | 6,739 | 70.8 | 2,781 | 29.2 | 9,520 | 1,470 | 75.0 | 489 | 25.0 | 1,959 | 8,209 | 71.5 | 3,270 | 28.5 | 11,479 |
| 1981-82 | 6,737 | 69.4 | 2,970 | 30.6 | 9,707 | 1,446 | 74.1 | 506 | 25.9 | 1,952 | 8,183 | 70.2 | 3,476 | 29.8 | 11,659 |
| 1982-83 | 6,498 | 67.7 | 3,106 | 32.3 | 9,604 | 1,389 | 75.5 | 451 | 24.5 | 1,840 | 7,887 | 68.9 | 3,557 | 31.1 | 11,444 |
| 1983-84 | 6,352 | 66.8 | 3,153 | 33.2 | 9,505 | 1,496 | 71.5 | 597 | 28.5 | 2,093 | 7,848 | 67.7 | 3,750 | 32.3 | 11,598 |
| 1984-85 | 6,135 | 64.7 | 3,346 | 35.3 | 9,481 | 1,577 | 72.1 | 611 | 27.9 | 2,188 | 7,712 | 66.1 | 3,957 | 33.9 | 11,669 |
| 1985-86 | 6,219 | 64.1 | 3,483 | 35.9 | 9,702 | 1,610 | 69.0 | 723 | 31.0 | 2,333 | 7,829 | 65.1 | 4,206 | 34.9 | 12,035 |
| 1986-87 | 6,182 | 63.0 | 3,624 | 37.0 | 9,806 | 1,669 | 69.2 | 744 | 30.8 | 2,413 | 7,851 | 64.3 | 4,368 | 35.7 | 12,219 |
| 1987-88 | 6,157 | 62.4 | 3,714 | 37.6 | 9,871 | 1,771 | 67.8 | 843 | 32.2 | 2,614 | 7,928 | 63.5 | 4,557 | 36.5 | 12,485 |
| 1988-89 | 6,131 | 60.8 | 3,950 | 39.2 | 10,081 | 1,939 | 68.9 | 874 | 31.1 | 2,813 | 8,070 | 62.6 | 4,824 | 37.4 | 12,894 |
| 1989-90 | 6,048 | 59.0 | 4,195 | 41.0 | 10,243 | 2,016 | 67.8 | 959 | 32.2 | 2,975 | 8,064 | 61.0 | 5,154 | 39.0 | 13,218 |
| 1990-91 | 6,121 | 59.0 | 4,261 | 41.0 | 10,382 | 2,123 | 67.0 | 1,048 | 33.0 | 3,171 | 8,244 | 60.8 | 5,309 | 39.2 | 13,553 |
| 1991-92 | 6,116 | 58.5 | 4,331 | 41.5 | 10,447 | 2,246 | 64.7 | 1,227 | 35.3 | 3,473 | 8,362 | 60.1 | 5,558 | 39.9 | 13,920 |
| 1992-93 | 6,108 | 58.4 | 4,348 | 41.6 | 10,456 | 2,362 | 63.6 | 1,353 | 36.4 | 3,715 | 8,470 | 59.8 | 5,701 | 40.2 | 14,171 |
| 1993-94 | 6,063 | 57.1 | 4,553 | 42.9 | 10,616 | 2,532 | 63.8 | 1,437 | 36.2 | 3,969 | 8,595 | 58.9 | 5,990 | 41.1 | 14,585 |
| 1994-95* | 6,066 | 56.1 | 4,756 | 43.9 | 10,822 | 2,904 | 63.7 | 1,658 | 36.3 | 4,562 | 8,970 | 58.3 | 6,414 | 41.7 | 15,384 |
| 1995-96 | 6,205 | 55.8 | 4,910 | 44.2 | 11,115 | 2,712 | 60.7 | 1,758 | 39.3 | 4,470 | 8.917 | 57.2 | 6,668 | 42.8 | 15,585 |
| 1996-97 | 6,137 | 54.7 | 5,086 | 45.3 | 11,223 | 2,761 | 58.9 | 1,927 | 41.1 | 4,688 | 8,898 | 55.9 | 7,013 | 44.1 | 15,911 |
| 1997-98 | 6,005 | 53.8 | 5,155 | 46.2 | 11,160 | 2,737 | 58.7 | 1,924 | 41.3 | 4,661 | 8,742 | 55.3 | 7,079 | 44.7 | 15,821 |