The Council have considered the remarks made at the Discussion of this Report on 15 March (Reporter, p. 570). They have consulted the General Board and have agreed to comment as follows:
Professor J. S. Bell set out the principles on which the Report's proposals are based. As he indicated in his remarks, the purpose of the Report's proposals is to seek agreement to the principle that those responsible for particular courses should have the opportunity, subject to the various safeguards indicated in the Report, to propose differential fee levels for scrutiny by the relevant School and the central bodies. As Professor Bell made clear, Master's courses vary in their purposes and content, which have implications for their costs, and any proposal to introduce a differential fee level will be based on academic considerations. In connection with Professor G. R. Evans's remarks, the Council and the Board note that all that the Resource Allocation Model (RAM) and the costing models, to which Professor Bell refers, have done is to give clearer information on the costs associated with Master's courses. As Professor Bell noted, many Master's courses are operating at a loss. Teaching costs are indeed relevant but the stipends of particular officers are not. The costing model which has been developed with wide consultation across the Schools takes into account a variety of costs, including staff costs, at an average rate for the type of institution. It does identify the distinct contributions of University Lecturers and University Senior Lecturers on the one hand and Readers and Professors on the other, but again only at a notional average rate. The Report's proposals are not intended to encourage an increase in graduate student numbers. Plans for future numbers are being dealt with through the current Planning Enquiry.
The Council and the General Board agree with their student members that a general debate about Master's and other postgraduate provision is desirable, but concur with Professor Bell's view that it is not appropriate to delay considering the proposals in this Report until such a debate takes place. The Review chaired by the Mistress of Girton College in 2001-02 was wide-ranging. It made clear the desirability of allowing individual University institutions to respond locally to needs and opportunities. The Board of Graduate Studies and the General Board, through their Education Committee, are monitoring progress on its recommendations. The Council and the General Board accept that there are particular aspects of postgraduate provision, for example quality assurance arrangements and overall postgraduate numbers, for which a University-wide strategy is appropriate. They do not, however, believe that maintaining a standard fee rate for all types of that provision is an appropriate or a necessary strategy in the present circumstances.
The Council, with the concurrence of the General Board, are submitting a Grace (Grace 7, p. 597) for the approval of the recommendations in the Report.