Notices

Calendar

15 July, Friday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (see p. 786).

16 July, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (see p. 786).

1 October, Saturday. Michaelmas Term begins. Congregation of the Regent House at 9.30 a.m.: Vice-Chancellor’s Address, and election and admission of the Proctors.

4 October, Tuesday. Full Term begins.

 

The next issue of the Reporter – which will be the last ordinary issue of the Reporter for the 2015–16 academical year – will be published on 27 July 2016. The first issue of the 2016–17 academical year will be published on 28 September 2016.

Notice of a Discussion on Tuesday, 11 October 2016

The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 107) to attend a Discussion in the Senate-House on Tuesday, 11 October 2016, at 2 p.m. for the discussion of:

1. Twenty-first Report of the Board of Scrutiny, dated 21 June 2016 (p. 776).

Amending Statutes for Downing College

11 July 2016

The Vice-Chancellor begs leave to refer to his Notice of 8 June 2016 (Reporter, 6430, 2015–16, p. 635), concerning proposed amending Statutes for Downing College. He hereby gives notice that in the opinion of the Council the proposed Statutes make no alteration of any Statute which affects the University, and do not require the consent of the University; that the interests of the University are not prejudiced by them, and that the Council has resolved to take no action upon them, provided that the Council will wish to reconsider the proposed Statutes if they have not been submitted to the Privy Council by 11 July 2017.

Notice of benefactions

11 July 2016

The Vice-Chancellor gives notice that he has accepted with gratitude bequests to the value of £125,000 under the will of the Reverend Jeremy John Bunting, of which both the capital and the income may be used, to support the following: the University Library (£50,000); the Fitzwilliam Museum (£50,000); the Botanic Garden (£20,000); and Kettle’s Yard (£5,000). The Fitzwilliam Museum also received an additional £223,343.76 as a residuary legatee.

The Vice-Chancellor also gives notice that he has accepted with gratitude a benefaction of £2.5m from The Gatsby Charitable Foundation to establish a Babbage Fund for Policy and Practice to advance research in the field of science, technology, and innovation policy by supporting offices or posts in the University. The Council is publishing a Grace to establish the Fund (Grace 13, p. 784).

University Composition Fees

11 July 2016

In the following Notice the Council proposes amendments to the fees for certain categories of students as set out in the Table of Fees attached to the regulations for University Composition Fees. These include an increase up to the level of the regulated maximum fee of £9,250 for 2017–18, based on the University’s participation in Year One of the implementation of the Teaching Excellence Framework.

A. Home and EU undergraduate and certain other fees in 2017–18

Cost of an undergraduate education

1. Ordinances provide that recommendations for the University Composition Fees to be charged to Home and EU undergraduate students be accompanied by an analysis of the cost of an undergraduate education agreed by the General Board and the Council following consultation with the Colleges (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 154; Grace 13 of 26 May 2011). The outcome of the agreed calculation for 2014–15 is an average cost per student of £18.0k (showing an increase over the 2013–14 calculation of £16.8k; Reporter, 6395, 2014–15, p. 787)1 as follows:

2014–15	£k/UG FTE
University expenditure	14.5
Less: College fee	(4.4)
Net University expenditure	10.1
Plus: College expenditure	7.9
Total cost	18.0

Detail of the analysis is provided on the Planning and Resources website.2

Home and EU undergraduate students subject to the regulated maximum fee (Table A in the attached Schedule)

2. On 25 May 2016 the Minister of State for Universities and Science confirmed3 that for the 2017–18 academic year the rate of inflation applying to maximum fees for institutions demonstrating high-quality teaching is 2.8%. This rate is derived from RPI-X (RPI excluding mortgage interest rate).

3. On 2 June 20164 the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) announced the fee caps applying to new and continuing fee regulated students studying in 2017–18 who started their courses on or after 1 September 2012 at institutions that are eligible for and wish to take part in the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (fees for Old Regime students admitted before 1 September 2012 remain frozen). For those institutions, subject to a revised OFFA Access Agreement, the maximum fee cap is increased to £9,250.

4. The TEF will be introduced in phases. In Year One of the TEF (TEF 1), all participating providers with any form of successful QA award will receive a rating of Meets Expectations. This will last for one year only. A rating of Meets Expectations will permit that HEI to maintain the undergraduate Home/EU fee in line with inflation. The University meets the requirements of TEF 1, as it was successfully reviewed by the QAA in 2013, and therefore would automatically receive a rating of Meets Expectations. The Council and the General Board, on the recommendation of the Planning and Resources Committee and with the support of the Colleges’ Committee, have agreed that the University should participate in TEF 1. In Year Two (TEF 2), a set of metrics and qualitative submission from institutions will be trialled. The Council and the General Board will consider whether or not to participate in TEF 2 once further information is available following completion of a technical consultation with HEIs.

5. The Council therefore proposes that, subject to paragraph 12 below, Home/EU students admitted on or after 1 September 2017, including those deferring entry from 2016, will be liable for a fee of £9,250 in 2017–18. Depending on participation in and the outcomes of further rounds of the TEF, the cap and fee may be further increased for those students and for new entrants in future years. Although on certain conditions the cap may also be increased for continuing students in 2017–18, the Council does not propose that the fee be increased for students admitted before 1 September 2017.

6. Table A in the Schedule sets out the fees subject to the cap, including the fee for the year abroad. Although a higher rate of fee is permitted for non-Erasmus students on work placements abroad, the Council has agreed for the present that the lower figure that applies to Erasmus students be charged to all New Regime students on both work and study placements.

ELQ students (Table B)

7. Fees for ELQ students on ‘non-exempt’ courses in 2017–18 were approved by Grace 1 of 20 April 2016.

8. The regulated fee continues to apply to Home/EU students on ELQ exempt courses (Architecture, Medicine, and Veterinary Medicine, and the P.G.C.E.).

Continuing Island students (Table C)

9. Island students admitted in and after 2013 are charged fees at Overseas rates.

10. Continuing Island students admitted in 2012 are charged fees which correspond to New Regime rates for students admitted in 2012, and for 2017–18 the fees will be unchanged.

B. Postgraduate fees

Fees for certain other postgraduate courses in 2017–18 (Table D)

11. Fees for the courses in Table D in the Schedule shall be as set out in the table.

C. Students from the EU

12. The University’s ability lawfully to charge EU students less than overseas students depends on the Education (Fees and Awards) (England) Regulations 2007. The Council gives notice that the fee for EU students who are already studying at Cambridge, who have an offer to study at Cambridge, or who apply to start their studies in 2017 will be at the applicable Home/EU rate (which for undergraduate students may be up to the maximum level allowed under UK law for each year) and they will not be subject to the Overseas fee at any point during the course of their study provided this continues to be permitted by UK law.

13. The fees for all applicants, including Home/EU students, considering entry in 2018 (including deferred entry from 2017) have yet to be set.

The Council is accordingly submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 1, p. 783) for the approval of the fees set out in the Schedule attached to this Notice.

Schedule

Proposed Table of Fees

Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on the public display of class-lists and related matters: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

11 July 2016

The Council has considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 7 June 2016 (Reporter, 6430, 2015–16, p. 647) on the above Report (Reporter, 6426, 2015–16, p. 547). It has consulted the General Board. Both bodies have agreed to respond as follows.

The consultation process which led to the production of the Joint Report was comprehensive. So far as student input was concerned, it included, as a number of speakers indicated, CUSU and its Council (which includes student representatives from all College Common Rooms which are affiliated to CUSU); student representatives were also involved in formulating many of the responses from University institutions and Colleges. The significant majority of those responses were very clear and in accordance with the Joint Report’s recommendations. The central bodies remain of the view that the public display of class-lists is undesirable, unnecessary, and it no longer benefits the interests of the collegiate University or the various parties within it. It no longer serves the purpose for which it was originally intended, given that students can now access their own results through CamSIS, as can others with a legitimate interest in those results. A number of speakers referred to the stress publication causes to many students, and to the various undesirable means to which these public data can be put. The case made through the responses to the consultation and by many of the speakers outweighs, in the view of the Council and the General Board, the points made by those speakers who opposed the Report whose comments, in essence, were based on tradition, transparency, and the alleged value of the collective experience which publication generates. The central bodies also note that the consultation exercise revealed no significant appetite for a more automatic opt-out alternative: that would, for no useful purpose, create additional work for University institutions, the Colleges, and the Student Registry during the busy examination period. The central bodies also point out that the relevant data will still be available to all parties with a legitimate interest in those data, in addition to the individual student: Tutors, Directors of Studies, University institutions, and the Colleges themselves will still have the means to assess the performance of their own students relative to the cohort as a whole. Doctors Hartle and Padman drew particular attention to the undesirable effects of league tables. However, the Colleges have since raised concerns about the proposed sharing of data, as outlined in paragraph 4(iii) of the Report. In light of these concerns, the Council and the General Board have agreed to give further consideration to the sharing of data with the Colleges and therefore have removed from the recommendations of this Report any part which concerns the latter.

The Council is therefore submitting a Grace for the approval of the Report’s recommendations, as revised by this Notice (Grace 3, p. 783).

13 July 2016	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	Amatey Doku	Rachael Padman
	Ross Anderson	David Good	Shirley Pearce
	Richard Anthony	Nicholas Holmes	Michael Proctor
	Jeremy Caddick	Alice Hutchings	John Shakeshaft
	R. Charles	Fiona Karet	Sara Weller
	Anne Davis	Mark Lewisohn	I. H. White

13 July 2016	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	David Good	Helen Thompson
	Philip Allmendinger	Martin Millett	Graham Virgo
	Anne Davis	Rachael Padman	Chris Young
	Abigail Fowden	Richard Prager

Report of the Council on revised governance arrangements for the development of the West and North West Cambridge site: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

11 July 2016

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 7 June 2015 (Reporter, 6430, 2015–16, p. 647) on the above Report (Reporter, 6426, 2015–16, p. 545).

Dr Cowley makes a number of general points referring to the investigation into the potential cost over-runs for the North West Cambridge development. The Council acknowledges that there were shortcomings in financial reporting and control. However, whilst not complacent about the final financial outcome for the project, the Council agrees with the view of the North West Cambridge Audit Group, as noted in its first report, that the original rationale for promoting the development of North West Cambridge remains compelling and that there remains ‘substantial headroom before the project ceases to produce a positive Net Present Value (NPV).’ The West and North West Cambridge Estates Syndicate has already implemented many of the recommendations made by the North West Cambridge Audit Group, significant among them the re-baselining of the costs for Phase 1. The reassurance provided by the Finance Committee’s assessment of the re-baselining exercise for Phase 1 was a key factor in the Council agreeing to approve the increase in the peak borrowing requirement, thereby extending the ‘overdraft’ assigned to the project.

Dr Cowley also queries the number of members with relevant expertise that the Council will be able to appoint to the Board. The proposed membership allows for ‘up to nine and no fewer than five’ such members. The capacity to appoint up to four additional members, in addition to the five core members and the Chair, will enable the Board to supplement expertise in particular areas as the need arises.

The Council notes Dr de Lacey’s comments about the quorum for members of the Regent House on the Board. The Council notes that the imperative is to ensure the involvement of experienced and expert individuals in the event that not all members are able to attend a given meeting; there is no reason to believe that this imperative is better served by having another member of the Regent House, as opposed to another external member, present before meetings are quorate. The duty of all members is to act collectively in the best interests of the projects and not to regard themselves as mandated delegates of the constituency from which they are appointed. Moreover, practical experience suggests that, while efforts will always be made to ensure maximum attendance of Board members, the logistics of arranging meetings, and conducting the business, of the Board will become very difficult if two specific persons must always be present. In order to balance these considerations, the Council has decided to maintain the number of Regent House members required to be present at one but to revise the wording of the regulation about quorum to confirm that the presence of one of the members of the Regent House specified in Regulation 1(b) is intended and therefore that regulation now reads as follows: ‘No business shall be transacted at any meeting of the Board unless at least four members are present, of whom one must be a member of the Regent House meeting the criteria specified in parentheses in Regulation 1(b) above.’

The Council also agrees there is a necessary transition from the building and development of the North West Cambridge site to the creation of a new and integrated community in this part of Cambridge. Governance arrangements to address this transition, including an Estate Management Strategy and measures secured by legal agreement with Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, are in place and will be implemented at the appropriate time. A full-time Operations Director has also been appointed.

As noted in the Report, the Council has endorsed the Audit Group’s recommendation that a Chief Financial Officer should be appointed and, at its meeting in June, it agreed on an appointment process so that recruitment can commence. The appointee and the Registrary would work closely together; both would be under the direction of the Council and would report in the first instance to the Vice-Chancellor, with the Registrary remaining the principal administrative officer as provided for in the Statutes and Ordinances. In order to avoid any confusion about the status of the role of Chief Financial Officer, whilst the intention for the Chief Financial Officer to attend meetings of the Board remains, the reference in the regulations to the latter has been removed.

The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 4, p. 783) for the approval of the recommendations of the Report, as amended by this Notice.

11 July 2016	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	Margaret Glendenning	Rachael Padman
	Chad Allen	David Good	Shirley Pearce
	Ross Anderson	Nicholas Holmes	Michael Proctor
	Richard Anthony	Alice Hutchings	John Shakeshaft
	Jeremy Caddick	Fiona Karet	Susan Smith
	R. Charles	Stuart Laing	Sara Weller
	Anne Davis	Mark Lewisohn	I. H. White
	Amatey Doku

First-stage Report of the Council on the construction of an off-site storage facility for low-use library material: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

11 July 2016

The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 5 July 2016 (p. 788) on the above Report (Reporter, 6431, 2015–16, p. 696).

Professor Evans asks whether there will be a further Report on this project. The first-stage Report seeks Regent House approval to make a detailed planning application to East Cambridgeshire District Council. Subject to Regent House approval of the recommendations of the first-stage Report, a further Report will be published during Michaelmas Term 2016 to seek approval for implementation of the project.

Professor Evans queries whether a first-stage Report might have been published sooner. Reports on the construction of new University buildings usually include a robust estimate of the capital cost of the proposed development. In this case a ‘Design and Build’ tender process has been undertaken in order to achieve a fully market-tested cost for the project. That process has only recently been completed and reported to the Planning and Resources Committee at its meeting on 22 June 2016. Professor Evans also asks whether construction of the proposed facility is urgent. The University Library at West Road has very limited capacity for additional on-site storage, and urgently needs to address overflow issues in many areas of the open library. 9,000 linear metres of low-use material from the former Central Science Library, which closed in 2015, is currently held in dark storage and will remain inaccessible to staff and students until the new facility is constructed. A further 3,000 linear metres has been removed from the Medical Library to enable the reconfiguration of the Clinical School Building to accommodate increased student numbers commencing in 2017.

Professor Evans asks for assurance that material held at the off-site storage facility will be made available via a regular retrieval service. The Library Syndicate’s support for this project was given on the understanding that off-site storage must allow for timely retrieval of material for users, and this is explicit in the Full Case approved by the Planning and Resources Committee in 2015. A daily retrieval schedule is anticipated.

Finally, Professor Evans queries how ‘low-use’ material has been identified, and whether librarians have been consulted. The 98,000 linear metres of material specified in the Report was identified by a data collection exercise undertaken in 2013. This exercise was undertaken with the participation of almost thirty Faculty and Departmental libraries, in addition to the University Library itself. The project has been scrutinized throughout its development by the Library Syndicate, which is chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Education) and includes among its membership academic representatives appointed by the Council and the General Board, two elected representatives of University officers in the University Library, and undergraduate and graduate student members.

The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 5, p. 784) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report.

Report of the General Board on the introduction of a Doctor of Business Degree in the Judge Business School: Notice in response to Discussion remarks

The General Board has considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 24 May 2016 (Reporter, 6428, 2015–16, p. 602) concerning the above Report (Reporter, 6424, 2015–16, p. 505).

Both Professor Edwards and Professor Evans remark on the standard, identity, and introduction of professional doctorates within the University. As Professor Prager notes, this is not the first professional doctorate the University has introduced, having approved the Vet.M.D. in 1999, the Eng.D. in 2005, and the Ed.D. in 2010. Discussions took place on each occasion,1 and the General Board reiterates the Council’s remarks on the introduction of the Eng.D. (Reporter, 5997, 2004–05, p. 616): ‘Proposals must necessarily arise from particular sets of circumstance to which it is incumbent on the University to respond appropriately. Some national developments may be suitable for Cambridge whilst others may not.’ It is the General Board’s view that the Bus.D. is a suitable development for this University. The area of doctoral education, and the forms it can take, have developed considerably since the time when the General Purposes Committee existed. Professional doctorates are now widely recognized within the sector as a developing body of degrees which marry professional practice and research, and professional doctorates in business have been particularly successful in both the UK and international markets. A recent report for HEFCE2 on the viability of professional doctorates identified business as one of the growing markets for professional doctorates, albeit with attendant challenges with which the sector is attempting to engage. Professor Evans notes that these challenges had been considered by the UK Council for Graduate Education. This body has stated: ‘The professional doctorate now stands firmly as an appropriate and relevant qualification for enabling individuals to develop their research skills and particularly for advancing their profession and their professional practice.’3 Experience with other professional doctorates does not suggest any likelihood that the Bus.D. (or any of Cambridge’s other professional doctorates) will be confused with the University’s higher doctorates.

Professor Evans also comments on the equivalency to the Ph.D., stating that ‘one is a research degree and the other is not, or at least not as Cambridge has hitherto understood the concept.’ The Bus.D. is a research degree, but with a different structure and focus. This difference stems from the target group’s circumstances and the course’s delivery, but does not diminish the importance of the research element. Bus.D. students will be held to the same high educational standards as apply to the Ph.D. degree, requiring significant original contribution and rigorous examination, and will be subject to the same processes with regard to checking that the work is their own.

Professor Evans comments on the fee proposed and claims that students who do not progress may not feel they have received value for money. While the course is undoubtedly expensive, the cost, the required progression hurdles, and the possible outcomes will be made clear to prospective applicants. As Professor Prager points out, the pricing of the degree has been chosen with respect to the intended market.

Professor Edwards queries some elements of the regulations. He is correct that the Ed.D. was omitted unintentionally from the list of doctorates for which the cope is not worn; this was corrected in a recent Grace.4 If the proposals are approved, the Bus.D. will also be added to this list, and will likewise be added to the Order of Seniority of Graduates. The wording of Regulation 2(b) will also be clarified as he suggests. With regard to Regulations 13 and 14, this is standard practice for the Ph.D., and the wording is identical to that used in the regulations for that degree.5 With regard to Regulation 15, this is likewise standard wording for the Ph.D.; the Chair of the Degree Committee may well be the representative to put forward the case, but may permit a deputy to do so in his or her stead. Professor Evans also queries the Certificate of Postgraduate Study. If the recommendations of the Report are approved, regulations governing the Certificate of Postgraduate Study will be prepared and will consist of assessment requirements equivalent to that of the progression exercise. Finally, there is no formal University standard for dissertation length and each Degree Committee may publish this as it chooses; nevertheless, the General Board agrees that word length is clearer than page length and less open to interpretation, and will encourage the Degree Committee for the Faculty of Business and Management to publish the requirement in words.

A Grace is being submitted (Grace 6, p. 784) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report, as amended by this Notice.

6 July 2016	L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor	A. L. Greer	Richard Prager
	Chad Allen	Roberta Huldisch	Helen Thompson
	Philip Allmendinger	Patrick Maxwell	Graham Virgo
	Abigail Fowden	Martin Millett	Chris Young
	David Good	Rachael Padman

Undergraduate Admissions Statistics, 2015

The Undergraduate Admissions Statistics cycle information for 2015 is now live on the Undergraduate Study website. An online PDF of the information is available at http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/files/publications/undergrad_admissions_statistics_2015_cyle.pdf. Further information about undergraduate admissions statistics is available at http://www.undergraduate.study.cam.ac.uk/apply/statistics/.