Previous page
Table of Contents
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
This is a report on the sixth year of progress under the University's membership of the Opportunity NOW Campaign (previously Opportunity 2000). Opportunity NOW is a business-led campaign that works with employers to realize the economic potential and business benefits that women at all levels contribute to the workforce.
In 1997-98 the goals defined by the University within its membership of the Campaign were reviewed and a revised statement of thirty-one short- and long-term goals was published (Reporter, 1998-99, p. 348) . The revised goals are set out in Annex A. Progress towards the achievement of the revised goals is set out below.
The report on the goals for 1998-99 included information on other initiatives relating to implementing the University's equal opportunities policies and the intention to conduct an audit of the University's policies and procedures in the whole area of equal opportunities, including gender, race and ethnicity, and disability issues. The Vice-Chancellor referred in his address to the Senate-House on 1 October 1999 (Reporter, 1999-2000, pp. 24-26) to the particular issue of increasing the representation of women at the highest levels of the University. Following the audit, which was carried out between April and September 2000, in his address to the Regent House on 2 October 2000 the Vice-Chancellor committed the University to providing the necessary resources needed to implement the recommendations in the audit report effectively. He added that he saw it as vital that 'we establish a more friendly and supportive environment for everyone' (Reporter, 2000-01, pp. 60-63) . The report of the audit, Setting the New Equality Agenda, has been published in the Reporter and on the University's web-site together with an action plan (pp. 409-23, http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/personnel/equality/) . The plan complements and builds upon the goals agreed under the Opportunity NOW Campaign, and the work of the new Disability Resource Centre, funded jointly by the HEFCE and the University, which is taking forward the University's commitments on disability issues for staff and students. Given the need for a holistic approach to equality issues, reflecting the University's inclusive policy statement on equal opportunities, the Council and the General Board are reviewing the University's membership of the Opportunity NOW Campaign, which has an exclusive focus on gender issues. The Council and the Board are fully committed to taking forward gender issues and intend to extend the base of their equality agenda to include issues of race and ethnicity more explicitly than has been the case in the past. The equal opportunities policy statement is set out in Annex B. In keeping with the intention of the Council and the Board to ensure that the policy statement is updated to reflect national and European legislative requirements, it is intended to revise the statement to include issues of sexual orientation.
Last year's report also referred to the reorganization of the personnel function of the University under the leadership of the Director of Personnel. The newly created Personnel Division now provides an integrated personnel function to the University through a team of Personnel Consultants assigned to particular Schools and other institutions. Each Personnel Consultant has a responsibility to ensure that equality issues are addressed in her respective institutions and it is intended that a Personnel Consultant with dedicated equality responsibilities will be designated in the near future.
The audit drew upon existing and newly commissioned data reports. In the course of 2000, staff from the Planning and Statistics Section of the General Board Division were transferred to the Personnel Division in order to ensure a dedicated statistical function for personnel. It is anticipated that this will allow better collection and presentation of data derived from the SECQUS personnel system. The key findings from the normal annual data scrutiny, and the audit, are:
During 1999-2000 a project on the review and revision of guidance on recruitment, selection, and promotion procedures for all academic and academic-related staff (including contract research staff) was brought to an interim conclusion. Comprehensive draft guidance on procedures was widely circulated for comment.
Included in the immediate action plan arising out of the audit is the launching of the guidance manual in October 2001. It is intended, following this launch, to expand and develop over time the guidance to include other areas of employment and to extend the coverage to other staff groups.
The Playscheme programme continues very successfully. In 1999-2000 there were a total of 10,308 attendances at playschemes, run on two or three different sites every holiday (excluding Christmas). The numbers of families using the schemes ranged from a high of 204 in summer 1999 to a low of 139 in summer half term 2000. Typical feedback comments included the following: 'Altogether we were very pleased with safety standards, friendliness of staff and relaxed atmosphere.' 'My daughter enjoys it more every time she attends. She has great fun which is what it is all about for me.' 'Particularly nice that you have men who are good with children. It is very good for boys at the playscheme.'
Planning continued for the inclusion of a second University nursery on the West Cambridge Site and work will commence on an 84-place nursery for children of staff and students in 2003. Altogether, under a University scheme, 20 children are using the Kids Unlimited nurseries at Fulbourn, which opened in April 2000, and at Cambridge Science Park, which opened in November 2000. Kids Unlimited run the University nursery in Chaucer Road.
An experimental training session on recruitment and selection for Secretaries of Appointments Committees and for departmental administrators was offered and evaluated in June 2000. The success of this session led to the inclusion of a similar session in the staff development programme for the Michaelmas Term 2000.
Continuation of the review of the flexible working arrangements led to the introduction of a career break scheme in December 1999.
The University's maternity leave policy was reviewed with the intention of harmonizing benefits for all categories of staff.
The Women in SET Initiative (WiSETI) was set up to raise awareness of women in Science, Engineering, and Technology (SET) and to provide measures to try and increase their numbers within the University. Staff numbers are regularly monitored and under the guidance of the Director, Dr Nancy Lane, the Initiative has operated in three main areas: the Springboard for Undergraduates programme (see below), mentoring, and Access. WiSETI has, inter alia, supported a mentoring scheme for contract research staff in the Department of Engineering, held seminars for the Schools of Biological and Physical Sciences and Technology, organized a one-day conference on Access which brought together participants in a wide range of schemes for Access, with a particular focus on girls and science, developed a draft Code of Practice for laboratories and academic departments, and collaborated with colleagues from MIT in a proposal to CMI.
Where appropriate the Advisory Committee for WiSETI works in conjunction with the Joint Committee on Academic Performance.
The Springboard for Undergraduates programme was again run in 1999-2000 and in 2000 was incorporated into the University's Learning and Teaching Strategy. The associated HEFCE funding which came on stream in 2000 has been invested in trainer training and two further programmes which began in the Michaelmas Term 2000.
The Springboard programme continues to be offered every term, take-up remains consistent, and feedback indicates that the programme continues to meet the needs of female staff and graduate students. In 1998 the Springboard consultancy piloted the Navigator men's development programme, and the University took part in the pilot for this parallel programme. It is now offered annually and to date 50 men have taken part.
The staff development programme has continued to expand. For the first time in 2000-01 one programme was offered to all staff, access to courses being on the basis of relevance to duties rather than staff category. Courses offered for the first time include: Women into Management; Women in Management: exploring the issues of leadership for women in HE; Winning a hearing in meetings: a workshop for women. The Disability Resource Centre is offering new disability awareness courses for staff.
The approval by the HEFCE of the University's Learning and Teaching Strategy has, inter alia, allowed additional resources to be made available in support of the Springboard for Undergraduates and staff development programmes. The Transferable Skills Working Party continues its work in identifying provision across the University of courses which contribute to the acquisition of those skills regarded as either essential or desirable on graduation, as defined in the Learning and Teaching Strategy. The 'Predictors of Academic Performance' project, which is being overseen by the Joint Committee on Academic Performance, continues to make good progress, with a final report due to be available in September 2001. The General Board's Education Committee has, through the Education Section's web-site, disseminated examples of good practice over a range of topics including study skills, marking criteria, supervision guidelines, and teaching codes of practice.
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 NOW 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. |
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.
| (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 NOW 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. |
| (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. |
| (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. |
The University is committed to a policy and practice which require that entry into employment with the University and progression within employment should be determined only by personal merit and by the application of criteria which are related to the duties of the particular appointment and the relevant stipend or salary structure.
No applicant for an appointment in the University, or member of staff once appointed, will be treated less favourably than another on the grounds of sex (including gender reassignment), marital status, race, ethnic or national origin, colour, or disability.
If an employee considers that he or she is suffering from unequal treatment on grounds of sex (including gender reassignment), marital status, race, ethnic or national origin, colour, or disability, he or she may make a complaint which will be dealt with through the agreed procedures for dealing with grievances.
Please refer to the printed version of the Reporter to see table 2.1
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 (9.33) | 158 | 9 (5.39) | 80 | 3 (3.61) | 638 | 65 (9.25) | 57 | 19 (25.00) | Not included | Not included |
| 1991 | Not available | ||||||||||
| 1992 | 1,053 (10.92) | 175 | 11 (5.91) | 100 | 4 (3.85) | 614 | 80 (11.53) | 49 | 20 (28.99) | Not included | Not included |
| 1993 | 1,097 (11.58) | 160 | 9 (5.33) | 108 | 4 (3.57) | 592 | 88 (12.94) | 38 | 17 (30.91) | 72 | 9 (11.11) |
| 1994 | 1,109 (11.81) | 165 | 10 (5.71) | 121 | 4 (3.20) | 581 | 93 (13.80) | 37 | 16 (30.19) | 74 | 8 (9.76) |
| 1995 | 1,136 (12.68) | 172 | 11 (6.01) | 132 | 7 (5.04) | 584 | 100 (14.62) | 26 | 16 (38.10) | 78 | 10 (11.36) |
| 1996 | 1,174 (13.37) | 185 | 12 (6.09) | 140 | 15 (9.68) | 577 | 99 (14.64) | 34 | 18 (34.62) | 81 | 13 (13.83) |
| 1997 | 1,276 (13.79) | 225 | 14 (5.86) | 151 | 19 (11.18) | 604 | 112 (15.64) | 30 | 19 (38.78) | 90 | 12 (11.76) |
| 1998 | 1,271 (14.48) | 262 | 18 (6.43) | 172 | 20 (10.42) | 562 | 118 (17.35) | 21 | 16 (43.24) | 70 | 12 (14.63) |
| 1999 | 1,202 (14.31) | 259 | 15 (5.47) | 158 | 19 (10.73) | 525 | 115 (17.97) | 19 | 14 (42.42) | 69 | 9 (11.54) |
| 2000 | 1,234 (14.99) | 284 | 18 (5.96) | 167 | 25 (13.02) | 521 | 123 (19.10) | 16 | 11 (40.74) | 61 | 8 (11.59) |
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 (32.0) |
| 1992 | 1,002 | 503 | 1,505 (33.4) |
| 1993 | 798 | 430 | 1,228 (35.0) |
| 1994 | 900 | 486 | 1,386 (35.1) |
| 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) |
| 1999 | 1,184 | 789 | 1,973 (40.0) |
| 2000 | 1,165 | 844 | 2,009 (42.0) |
Trend Analysis - Womens' Employment Patterns - All Academic, Academic-related, and Contract Research Staff.
Census date 30 September of each academic year.
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
1997-2000 |
|||||
| total staff | % women* | total staff | % women* | total Staff | % women* | total staff | % women* | % women difference* | |
| Professor | 250 | 6.8 | 280 | 6.4 | 274 | 5.5 | 302 | 6.0 | -0.8 |
| Reader | 184 | 11.4 | 192 | 10.4 | 177 | 10.7 | 192 | 13.0 | 1.6 |
| University Lecturer | 712 | 17.0 | 690 | 17.4 | 646 | 18.1 | 643 | 19.1 | 2.1 |
| University Assistant Lecturer | 49 | 44.9 | 39 | 43.6 | 33 | 42.4 | 27 | 40.7 | -4.2 |
| Asst. Director/Snr Asst. in Research | 94 | 13.8 | 85 | 15.3 | 78 | 11.5 | 69 | 11.6 | -2.2 |
| Other Academic Officers | 139 | 30.2 | 153 | 34.0 | 190 | 28.4 | 195 | 30.8 | 0.6 |
| Associate Lecturers | 122 | 12.3 | 119 | 14.3 | 119 | 15.1 | 108 | 13.9 | 1.6 |
| Administrative Officers | 199 | 53.8 | 195 | 55.4 | 193 | 61.7 | 205 | 62.4 | 8.6 |
| Library Posts | 82 | 39.0 | 80 | 41.3 | 73 | 41.1 | 77 | 42.9 | 3.9 |
| Curators | 8 | 37.5 | 7 | 42.9 | 7 | 42.9 | 7 | 42.9 | 5.4 |
| Keepers | 12 | 50.0 | 13 | 53.8 | 11 | 63.6 | 11 | 54.5 | 4.5 |
| Technical Posts | 53 | 7.5 | 56 | 5.4 | 50 | 6.0 | 51 | 5.9 | -1.6 |
| Computing Posts | 155 | 20.6 | 169 | 20.1 | 189 | 21.7 | 190 | 23.2 | 2.6 |
| Other Academic-related Posts | 132 | 37.9 | 160 | 44.4 | 197 | 42.6 | 227 | 43.6 | 5.7 |
| Research Posts | 1,857 | 37.6 | 1,978 | 38.5 | 1,985 | 40.0 | 2,096 | 41.0 | 3.4 |
|
|
|||||||||
| Total | 4,048 | 29.2 | 4,216 | 30.3 | 4,222 | 31.4 | 4,400 | 32.6 | 3.4 |
|
|
|||||||||
* The figures in these columns are corrected to one decimal place.
| Men | Women | Total | % Women (2000) | % Women (1999) | % Women (1998) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical and related staff (T Division) | ||||||
| T8 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 20.0 | 25 | 25 |
| T7 | 12 | - | 12 | - | 7 | 9 |
| T6 | 75 | 15 | 90 | 16.7 | 15 | 13 |
| T5 | 182 | 65 | 247 | 26.3 | 21 | 21 |
| T4 | 314 | 178 | 492 | 36.2 | 37 | 35 |
| T3 | 100 | 85 | 185 | 45.9 | 42 | 44 |
| T2 | 41 | 23 | 64 | 35.9 | 34 | 33 |
| T1 | 11 | 16 | 27 | 59.3 | 71 | 75 |
| Transitional grade | 6 | 5 | 11 | 45.5 | 42 | 63 |
| Trainees | 9 | 10 | 19 | 52.6 | 56 | 60 |
|
|
||||||
| Total for T Division | 754 | 398 | 1,152 | 34.5 | 34 | 34 |
|
|
||||||
| Clerical, library, and secretarial staff (CS Division) | ||||||
| CS6 | 9 | 17 | 26 | 65.4 | 61 | 62 |
| CS5 | 25 | 135 | 160 | 84.4 | 86 | 81 |
| CS4 | 37 | 377 | 414 | 91.1 | 91 | 92 |
| CS3 | 37 | 362 | 399 | 90.7 | 92 | 93 |
| CS2 | 28 | 135 | 163 | 82.8 | 87 | 87 |
| CS1 | 10 | 14 | 24 | 58.3 | 61 | 76 |
| Age related | 3 | 5 | 8 | 62.5 | 69 | 62 |
|
|
||||||
| Total for CS Division | 149 | 1,045 | 1,194 | 87.5 | 89 | 89 |
|
|
||||||
| Data processing staff (D Division) | ||||||
| D4 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| D3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 66.7 | 50 | - |
| D2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 50.0 | 50 | 67 |
| D1 | - | 2 | 2 | 100.0 | 100 | - |
|
|
||||||
| Total for D Division | 2 | 5 | 7 | 71.4 | 69 | 58 |
|
|
||||||
| Custodial and manual staff (M Division) | ||||||
| M4 | 16 | 7 | 23 | 30.4 | 22 | 14 |
| M3 | 31 | 9 | 40 | 22.5 | 24 | 26 |
| M2 | 56 | 28 | 84 | 33.3 | 34 | 25 |
| M1 | 52 | 26 | 78 | 33.3 | 33 | 40 |
|
|
||||||
| Total for M Division | 155 | 70 | 225 | 31.1 | 31 | 33 |
|
|
||||||
| Total staff (excluding cleaners) | 1,060 | 1,518 | 2,578 | 58.9 | 59 | 59 |
|
|
||||||
| Cleaners | 104 | 126 | 230 | 54.8 | 51 | 55 |
|
|
||||||
* The figures for 1998 are based on December reports. The figures for 1999 are based on a July report.
[Note: please refer to the printed edition of this Reporter for the graph accompanying this Notice, which is not reproduced online.]
| 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 | 36.8 | 36.5 | 40.8 |
| Biological Sciences | 26.5 | 28.4 | 29.9 |
| Humanities and Social Sciences | 28.8 | 32.4 | 31.4 |
| Physical Sciences | 11.2 | 11.1 | 13.9 |
| Technology* | 13.3 | 11.3 | 17.9 |
|
|
|||
| Total General Board institutions | 21.8 | 23.7 | 26.3 |
| Council institutions | 34.8 | 33.5 | 39.0 |
|
|
|||
| Grand Totals | 24.5 | 25.0 | 28.0 |
|
|
|||
* School of Technology established 1 January 1993. No appointments were made in the School of Technology between 1 January and 31 March 1993.
(Percentages are given in brackets)
|
Applicants
|
Short-listed
|
Appointed
|
|||||
| School | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | |
| Arts and Humanities | 304 | 160 (34.5) | 52 | 30 (36.6) | 10 | 10 (50.0) | |
| Biological Sciences | 127 | 48 (27.4) | 52 | 20 (27.8) | 9 | 7 (43.8) | |
| Humanities and Social Sciences | 894 | 283 (24.0) | 79 | 40 (33.6) | 13 | 9 (40.9) | |
| Physical Sciences | 359 | 53 (12.8) | 54 | 7 (11.5) | 11 | 3 (21.4) | |
| Technology | 221 | 57 (20.5) | 44 | 7 (13.7) | 11 | 3 (21.4) | |
|
|
|||||||
| Total General Board institutions | 1,905 | 601 (24.0) | 281 | 104 (27.0) | 54 | 32 (37.2) | |
| Council institutions | 285 | 180 (38.7) | 59 | 26 (30.6) | 13 | 9 (40.9) | |
|
|
|||||||
| Grand Totals | 2,190 | 781 (26.3) | 340 | 130 (27.7) | 67 | 41 (38.0) | |
|
|
|||||||
Women as a percentage of total
| Applicants % women | Short-listed % women | Appointments % women | Mixed interview panels % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 61 | 68 | 74 | 70 |
| 1996 | 61 | 64 | 62 | 67 |
| 1997 | 65 | 68 | 69 | 64 |
| 1998 | 65 | 66 | 66 | 60 |
| 1999 | 54 | 57 | 64 | 57 |
| 2000 | 63 | 69 | 68 | 54 |
Ethnic minority women as a percentage of total:
| Applicants % women | Short-listed % women | Appointments % women | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 76 | 67 | 75 |
| 1997 | 75 | 78 | 68 |
| 1998 | 72 | 75 | 65 |
| 1999 | 51 | 41 | 83 |
| 2000 | 71 | 75 | 71 |
Ethnic minority applicants (men and women):
| As % of applicants | As % of short listed candidates | As % of appointments | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 5.2 | 3.0 | 5.3 |
| 1997 | 4.7 | 3.3 | 5.1 |
| 1998 | 7.2 | 3.5 | 5.1 |
| 1999 | 6.6 | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| 2000 | 8.2 | 6.6 | 7.1 |
N.B. The absolute numbers of ethnic minority applicants has increased but only to under 300, which may account for the variation in percentages.
Information is collated on candidates reporting disabilities, but the absolute numbers are so small as to be insignificant.
Assistant staff regrading requests
| Assistant staff regrading requests | |||||||
|
Men
|
Women
|
||||||
| Applications | Regraded | Percentage successful | Applications | Regraded | Percentage successful | Total no. of applications | |
| 1999-01 | 15 | 6 | 40 | 18 | 10 | 56 | 33 |
| 1999-02 | 11 | 9 | 82 | 28 | 19 | 68 | 39 |
| 2000-01 | 16 | 13 | 81 | 24 | 22 | 92 | 40 |
| 2000-02 | 10 | 8 | 80 | 29 | 23 | 79 | 39 |
Regradings are considered twice yearly and are numbered as 1999-01 and 02, etc.
|
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 |
| 1999 | 24 | 4 | 40 | 12 |
| 2000 | 31 | 2 | 43 | 8 |
(Percentages are given in brackets)
| Applicants | Considered by General Board's Committee | Recommended for appointment | ||||
|
|
|
|
||||
| Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | |
| Professorships | ||||||
| 1998 | 57 | 7 (10.9) | 45 | 6 (11.8) | 18 | 2 (10.0) |
| 1999 | 63 | 10 (13.7) | 52 | 8 (13.3) | 24 | 4 (14.3) |
| 2000 | 54 | 5 (8.5) | 45 | 5 (10.0) | 31 | 2 (6.3) |
| Readerships | ||||||
| 1998 | 118 | 18 (13.2) | 83 | 12 (12.6) | 31 | 6 (10.5) |
| 1999 | 122 | 26 (17.6) | 92 | 23 (20.0) | 40 | 12 (23.0) |
| 2000 | 93 | 14 (13.1) | 72 | 12 (14.3) | 43 | 8 (15.6) |
Success rates for applicants in the 2000 exercise are as follows:
| male professorial candidates | 57.4% |
| female professorial candidates | 40.0% |
| male readership candidates | 46.2% |
| female readership candidates | 57.1% |
NB: The small numbers of women candidates, especially for Professorships, should be noted.
| Year | Numbers taking leave | Of whom No. returned | Percentage returners | Average leave (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 29 | 16 | 55 | 8.8 |
| 1995 | 33 | 19 | 58 | 8.7 |
| 1996 | 29 | 14 | 48 | 11.1 |
| 1997 | 39 | 14 | 36 | 8.8 |
| 1998 | 32 | 21 | 66 | 9.0 |
| 1999 | 35 | 21 | 60 | 10.1 |
(position on the computerized personnel system as at 30 September 2000)
|
Ethnic origin stated
|
Ethnicity - White
|
Not known
|
||||||
| Staff category | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | Total | % of category |
| Established | ||||||||
| Professor | 204 | 67.5 | 194 | 64.2 | 98 | 32.5 | 302 | 100 |
| Reader | 119 | 62.0 | 113 | 58.9 | 73 | 38.0 | 192 | 100 |
| University Lecturer | 378 | 59.2 | 362 | 56.7 | 261 | 40.8 | 639 | 100 |
| University Assistant Lecturer | 19 | 70.4 | 16 | 59.3 | 8 | 29.6 | 27 | 100 |
| Assistant Director/Senior Assistant in Research | 40 | 58.8 | 38 | 55.9 | 28 | 41.2 | 68 | 100 |
| Associate Lecturer | 57 | 52.8 | 55 | 50.9 | 51 | 47.2 | 108 | 100 |
| Other academic | 59 | 74.7 | 53 | 67.1 | 20 | 25.3 | 79 | 100 |
| Administrative | 128 | 82.6 | 124 | 80.0 | 27 | 17.4 | 155 | 100 |
| Library | 51 | 68.0 | 49 | 65.3 | 24 | 32.0 | 75 | 100 |
| Curators | 5 | 71.4 | 5 | 71.4 | 2 | 28.6 | 7 | 100 |
| Keepers | 9 | 81.8 | 9 | 81.8 | 2 | 18.2 | 11 | 100 |
| Technical | 36 | 70.6 | 36 | 70.6 | 15 | 29.4 | 51 | 100 |
| Computing | 86 | 68.8 | 81 | 64.8 | 39 | 31.2 | 125 | 100 |
| Other academic-related | 47 | 77.0 | 47 | 77.0 | 14 | 23.0 | 61 | 100 |
| Research | 2 | 33.3 | 2 | 4.0 | 4 | 66.7 | 6 | 100 |
| Total (established) | 1,240 | 65.1 | 1,184 | 62.1 | 666 | 34.9 | 1,906 | 100 |
| Unestablished | ||||||||
| Lecturer | 3 | 60.0 | 3 | 60.0 | 2 | 40.0 | 5 | 100 |
| Assistant Director/Senior Assistant in Research | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 1 | 100 |
| Other academic | 93 | 80.2 | 84 | 72.4 | 23 | 19.8 | 116 | 100 |
| Administrative | 39 | 78.0 | 38 | 76.0 | 11 | 22.0 | 50 | 100 |
| Library | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | 50.0 | 2 | 100 |
| Computing | 45 | 69.2 | 36 | 55.4 | 20 | 30.8 | 65 | 100 |
| Other academic-related | 139 | 83.7 | 133 | 80.1 | 27 | 16.3 | 166 | 100 |
| Total (unestablished) | 320 | 79.0 | 295 | 72.8 | 85 | 21.0 | 405 | 100 |
| Research | 1,535 | 73.4 | 1,332 | 63.7 | 555 | 26.6 | 2,090 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total | 3,095 | 70.3 | 2,811 | 63.9 | 1,306 | 29.7 | 4,401 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
(position on the computerized personnel system as at 30 September 2000)
|
Disability stated
|
No disability
|
Not known
|
||||||
| Staff category | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | Total | % of category |
| Established | ||||||||
| Professor | 7 | 2.3 | 194 | 64.2 | 101 | 33.4 | 302 | 100 |
| Reader | 3 | 1.6 | 115 | 59.9 | 74 | 38.5 | 192 | 100 |
| University Lecturer | 17 | 2.7 | 363 | 56.8 | 259 | 40.5 | 639 | 100 |
| University Assistant Lecturer | 2 | 7.4 | 19 | 70.4 | 6 | 22.2 | 27 | 100 |
| Assistant Director/Senior Assistant in Research | 5 | 7.4 | 34 | 50.0 | 29 | 42.6 | 68 | 100 |
| Associate Lecturer | 1 | 0.9 | 54 | 50.0 | 53 | 49.1 | 108 | 100 |
| Other academic | 2 | 2.5 | 57 | 72.2 | 20 | 25.3 | 79 | 100 |
| Administrative | 7 | 4.5 | 118 | 76.1 | 30 | 19.4 | 155 | 100 |
| Library | 1 | 1.3 | 50 | 66.7 | 24 | 32.0 | 75 | 100 |
| Curators | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 71.4 | 2 | 28.6 | 7 | 100 |
| Keepers | 1 | 9.1 | 6 | 54.5 | 4 | 36.4 | 11 | 100 |
| Technical | 2 | 3.9 | 33 | 64.7 | 16 | 31.4 | 51 | 100 |
| Computing | 3 | 2.4 | 84 | 67.2 | 38 | 30.4 | 125 | 100 |
| Other academic-related | 3 | 4.9 | 44 | 72.1 | 14 | 23.0 | 61 | 100 |
| Research | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 33.3 | 4 | 66.7 | 6 | 100 |
| Total (established) | 54 | 2.8 | 1,178 | 61.8 | 674 | 35.4 | 1,906 | 100 |
| Unestablished | ||||||||
| Lecturer | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 40.0 | 3 | 60.0 | 5 | 100 |
| Assistant Director/Senior Assistant in Research | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 1 | 100 |
| Other academic | 3 | 2.6 | 89 | 76.7 | 24 | 20.7 | 116 | 100 |
| Administrative | 0 | 0.0 | 40 | 80.0 | 10 | 20.0 | 50 | 100 |
| Library | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | 50.0 | 2 | 100 |
| Computing | 4 | 6.2 | 42 | 64.6 | 19 | 29.2 | 65 | 100 |
| Other academic-related | 4 | 2.4 | 132 | 79.5 | 30 | 18.1 | 166 | 100 |
| Total (unestablished) | 11 | 2.7 | 306 | 75.6 | 88 | 21.7 | 405 | 100 |
| Research | 43 | 2.1 | 1,476 | 70.6 | 571 | 27.3 | 2,090 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
| Total | 108 | 2.5 | 2,960 | 67.3 | 1,333 | 30.3 | 4,401 | 100 |
|
|
||||||||
Note that the heading 'Disability Not Given' has been included in Not Known.
|
White
|
Other etnic groups
|
Not known/not stated
|
|||||
| Grade | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | Total |
| T Division | 917 | 79.6 | 33 | 2.9 | 202 | 17.5 | 1,152 |
| CS/D Division | 1,001 | 83.8 | 45 | 3.8 | 148 | 12.4 | 1,194 |
| M Division | 176 | 78.2 | 2 | 0.9 | 47 | 20.9 | 225 |
| CD | 171 | 74.3 | 11 | 4.8 | 48 | 20.9 | 230 |
| Temporary staff | 72 | 55.8 | 7 | 5.4 | 50 | 38.8 | 129 |
|
|
|||||||
| Total | 2,337 | 79.8 | 98 | 3.3 | 495 | 16.9 | 2,930 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Disability stated
|
No disability
|
Not known
|
|||||
| Grade | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | Total |
| T Division | 64 | 5.6 | 1,028 | 89.2 | 60 | 5.2 | 1,152 |
| CS/D Division | 68 | 5.7 | 1,097 | 92.0 | 28 | 2.3 | 1,193 |
| M Division | 14 | 6.2 | 204 | 90.7 | 7 | 3.1 | 225 |
| CD | 24 | 10.4 | 198 | 86.1 | 8 | 3.5 | 230 |
| Temporary staff | 8 | 6.2 | 116 | 89.9 | 5 | 3.9 | 129 |
|
|
|||||||
| Total | 178 | 6.1 | 2,643 | 90.2 | 108 | 3.7 | 2,929 |
|
|
|||||||
In the Disability table, not known also includes the figures for not given and other disability.
| Previous page |
Table of Contents |
Next page |
Cambridge University Reporter, 16 May 2001
Copyright © 2001 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge.