The Council begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. This Budget Report reviews the financial position of the University and recommends allocations from the Chest for the financial year 2017–18.
2. Information on trends in staff and student numbers, research, and expenditure patterns is provided in the usual way in Appendices 1–4.
3. This year’s Budget Report shows a continued deterioration in financial forecasts as anticipated last year. The Chest is forecast to remain in deficit over the planning period, although the position is anticipated to improve from a deficit of £21m in 2017–18 to one of just under £6m in 2020–21.
4. This position is viewed seriously by the Council, although it is considered to be manageable for a limited period given the strength of the University’s balance sheet, the size of the University’s endowment, and the scale of annual turnover. Operating with a Chest deficit, albeit for the short-term only, enables the University to maintain momentum and invest in areas of strategic academic importance, and to provide administrative services that have been agreed by the Heads of Schools and the Planning and Resources Committee (‘PRC’) as being fundamental to the core operation of the University.
5. Forecast Chest allocations are not sustainable based on current levels of income, which are already under pressure. Recovery of indirect costs of research from research grants and contracts continues to fall.1 Analysis shows that for every pound of research income, the University loses in the region of 15 pence.2 The loss can be limited if there are improvements in the rate of indirect cost recovery.3 One of the principal ways of achieving this is by increasing the proportion of research funded by industry.4 There are many initiatives such as the Maxwell Centre,5 and the Cambridge Academy of Therapeutic Sciences,6 which encourage closer working with industry and the translation of research. These should help improve performance over time.7 Having the right incentive mechanisms in the approach to allocating Chest resources will also be an important step in encouraging academics towards more industrial collaborations.8
6. Despite the continued investment performance of the CUEF, investment income is also reduced from earlier projections, driven by lower cash holdings following increased expenditure on capital projects. This position is unlikely to improve in the short- to medium-term given the scale of the University’s capital programme.9 However, as explored in more detail later in this Report, alternative funding methods for capital projects must be considered where this is appropriate.10
7. University Composition Fee income is now about half total Chest income and the forecast increase in fee income over the planning period is the primary reason that the Chest deficit is forecast to reduce. Approximately 40% of projected fee income is earned from regulated undergraduate fees and opportunity for growth here is limited. Fee increases of regulated undergraduate fees are dependent on Access and Participation Agreements and the Teaching Excellence Framework,11 and it is anticipated will be no more than inflation. They are therefore fixed in real-terms.12 The rate at which other fees can be increased is limited by the market. Therefore a primary way of increasing fee income would be via growth in student numbers providing that any accompanying increase in costs can be kept to a minimum. Maintaining the excellence of the educational experience and providing appropriate educational and welfare measures would be fundamental to any strategy for growth.13
8. The University and the Colleges are maintaining a joined-up approach to student number planning and are taking into account the longer-term impact and opportunities of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (‘EU’). Two distinct groups are in operation: a recently reinstated University and Colleges Numbers Sub-committee of the Undergraduate Admissions Committee, and a Joint University and Colleges Working Group on Postgraduate Student Numbers, which will report by the end of the academic year.
9. Current forecasts assume growth in postgraduate student numbers through new and expanded courses.14 Achieving and maintaining this forecast growth will be challenging given the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.15 Trends in student applications and acceptances, the actual mix and number of all students, and the consequences for fee income overall will continue to be monitored closely because a reduction in this significant income stream could be damaging for the University. In pursuance of this objective a postgraduate recruitment strategy has been developed and is being implemented.
10. Philanthropy continues to be a significant component of the financial strategy for collegiate Cambridge. The Campaign is progressing well and, as at 31 July 2016, £753m had been raised against the £2bn target. A continuing priority is to ensure that philanthropic giving is aligned with the core objectives of the University and the academic priorities of the Schools. Initiatives that will enhance and improve the University’s engagement and partnerships with international trusts and foundations (amongst others) are already in place and will continue to be developed. The University’s global reach will become increasingly important in forthcoming years.
11. Expenditure must be constrained and greater efficiencies achieved. A challenge in this planning round has been achieving a balance between investment in academic activities on the one hand, and in supporting administrative services – which in turn support academic activities – on the other.16 Improving the efficiency of the administration throughout the University has been and will continue to be a priority, and the University’s participation in a detailed benchmarking exercise, UniForum,17 will help to clarify the level of resourcing needed to provide an efficient and effective University administration. However, it is likely to be a further year before the data will be fully understood and the University will be in a position to consider how it wishes to respond. In the meantime, academic growth,18 changes in higher education governance and policy,19 the increasing complexity and scale of the University’s capital programme,20 and the forthcoming withdrawal from the EU are placing heavy and increasing demands on administrative services across the University. The balance between expenditure on academic and non-academic activities that is proposed in this Budget Report reflects these tensions, but in no way diminishes the urgent need to rationalize administrative provision over the next three years. Cost control and financial restraint are central to improving the University’s financial position and the Schools, central offices, and other non-School institutions (‘NSIs’) must find ways of constraining and reducing expenditure accordingly without diminishing the quality of the core services they provide.
12. A substantial proportion of annual expenditure from the Chest is for the benefit of collegiate Cambridge. The efficient and effective use of public and private funds is a responsibility that must be shared by the University and the Colleges.
13. Over the next twelve months, a priority for the University’s PRC will be to develop and implement robust strategies that will return the Chest to balance by the end of the current planning period and to a more financially sustainable position for the longer term. These strategies will support the generation of new and additional income to the Chest, and must constrain and reduce expenditure.
14. Achieving financial improvement will necessitate changes to the University’s planning and resource allocation processes. As noted in last year’s Budget Report, there must be appropriate mechanisms and incentives in place to ensure that the academic community benefits directly, having implemented strategies that raise income and contribute to an improved overall financial position for the University. The Resource Management Committee (‘RMC’) has been overseeing a review of the University’s approach to resource allocation and has supported, in principle, a proposal in which the Resource Allocation Model (‘RAM’) could be used to calculate core allocations for each School. Through this mechanism there would be a more direct link between Schools’ financial performance and subsequent allocations from the Chest. The intention is that this will incentivize academics to engage in strategically important activity that is also financially sustainable. At the same time, it is also recognized that the University will want to continue to invest in certain areas of education and research that are not necessarily financially self-sustaining, but are outstanding and world-leading nonetheless. Further development of the RAM model is underway in order to identify a cross-funding mechanism to address this issue and that will also protect Schools from significant fluctuations in allocation from one year to the next. The aim is to pilot a model in the next planning round and, subject to feedback, implement the new methodology formally from Planning Round 2018.
15. This year’s planning process introduced a series of meetings to focus on the long-term academic strategies of each School beyond the confines of the four-year planning period. These discussions represent the starting point for a continuing dialogue on academic strategy that, it is hoped, will facilitate more effective prioritization of expenditure on recurrent activity and on capital.21
16. An improved understanding of longer-term academic strategies will also support the possibility of a new approach to planning and resource allocation processes for the NSIs. These institutions have an important role to play in the support of the University’s core education and research activity. They also provide services that are of value to communities beyond the University, but that are not necessarily linked to academic priorities. Given the increasing pressure on Chest resources, it is more important than ever for the NSIs to respond directly and specifically in their plans to the long-term academic goals as articulated by the Schools.22 The subsequent allocation of Chest resources to the NSIs may need to be prioritized towards those services that the Schools assert are fundamental to achieving their academic objectives. Agreement on this will need to be achieved through a more iterative process between the Schools and the NSIs than has hitherto been the case. Prioritizing Chest resources in this way will increase the need for the NSIs to become more financially sustainable and to find alternative ways of funding activity that is ‘non-core’, but is nevertheless of importance and value to communities internal and external to the University. The University will help the NSIs to achieve this goal by ensuring that their governance structures are robust and by providing access to appropriate support functions, including fundraising and communications.
17. The Schools also need to focus attention on generating efficiencies by making progress in streamlining their internal governance and administrative structures. The scope for shared service models should be explored, taking into account not only the potential for implementation within a single School, but also the possibilities for shared provision with other Schools. As already noted, the UniForum benchmarking exercise will provide some valuable insights that can inform this work, and help to identify where there might be most potential to achieve efficiencies. Work on this can begin now and continue over the next twelve to eighteen months with the objective of beginning to implement new ways of working from Planning Round 2018.
18. In the meantime, the PRC is considering the guidance and expectations for Planning Round 2017, with the aim of being able to report in next year’s Budget Report on progress achieved towards raising income and reducing expenditure.
19. This year’s Budget Report comes at a time of major change and uncertainty in the external environment. Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon was triggered on 29 March 2017 and the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU are now under negotiation, a process that is limited to no longer than two years. These crucial negotiations will be led by a newly-elected government following the General Election on 8 June 2017.23
20. The UK’s decision to leave the EU is likely to have major repercussions for the higher education sector in general, and for the University of Cambridge in particular. Nationals of other EU countries constitute 8.5% of Cambridge’s undergraduates, 23% of its postgraduate students, 27% of its postdocs, 16% of its academic staff, and 17% of all staff. Funds from the EU provide 12.6% of the University’s total research income, and 18% of new grants and awards.24 European networks and funding programmes25 play an invaluable role in the education, research, and enterprise activities of the University. Any negative impact of the referendum result on the UK’s international standing poses a threat to the University’s global profile and reputation.
21. An EU Working Group26 is considering the consequences of leaving the EU and is working hard to ensure that the University is in the strongest possible position to mitigate the negative impacts of the UK’s exit, and to take advantage of opportunities in the new environment. The University has been highly influential in its engagement with Ministers, local Members of Parliament, Peers, Members of the European Parliament, and representatives from the city of Cambridge and the wider region. A strategic response has also been prepared for the Council focusing on four key areas – students, staff, research funding, and global reputation and reach.
22. At the same time as the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU are under negotiation, the Higher Education sector is facing other transformative changes to the way in which education and research is delivered and governed. The Higher Education and Research Bill received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017 and a transition of the sector’s regulation and funding from the Higher Education Council for England to the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation is underway.
23. The University has participated in Year 1 of the Teaching Excellence Framework, and has implemented an associated inflationary uplift in fees for Home/EU students from Michaelmas Term 2017. It has also participated in Year 2, which will inform the rate of fees for Home/EU students in 2018–19.27 The awards for TEF2 will be announced in June 2017.
24. The University has responded to the government’s Green Paper ‘Building our Industrial Strategy’.28 The University’s response emphasizes five key points:
•the importance of knowledge transfer – a complex, non-linear process which involves the movement of people as well as the exchange of ideas;
•the importance of integration – adopting a systems perspective to industrial strategy ensuring that the inter-connections between the ten pillars29 are recognized;
•the importance of support – learning from overseas where bottom-up schemes exist to support ongoing innovation and where scale-up is seen through multiple dimensions covering technology, production processes, businesses, and the wider ecosystems and value chain;
•the importance of skills and infrastructure – essential elements to enable ongoing growth and economic development; and
•the importance of diversity – through people, disciplines, and the exchange of ideas.30
25. The internal environment of the University is also undergoing change. The term of the current Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, comes to an end this year and Professor Stephen Toope will become the new Vice-Chancellor from 1 October 2017. This is one of a series of changes in the University’s senior leadership. Mr Anthony Odgers has joined the University as its first Chief Financial Officer.31 Professor Andrew Neely is newly appointed as the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Enterprise and Business Relations. Professor Ian Leslie has been appointed as Senior Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Information System Strategy and Environmental Sustainability. Ms Emma Rampton is Acting Registrary following the retirement of the former Registrary, Dr Jonathan Nicholls.
26. The University continues to support and promote educational initiatives that will enhance teaching and learning. The virtual Cambridge Centre for Teaching and Learning was launched in April 2016 and provides opportunities to build on best practice in teaching and learning across the University.32 A Teaching and Learning Innovation Fund continues to offer grants33 for University staff to fund creative projects with the aim of promoting innovative practice in teaching and learning techniques that will enhance the educational experience. The Centre for Teaching and Learning also provides a focus for strategic priorities within Cambridge and for engaging with national and international developments in higher education. The Centre’s second annual Teaching Forum was held in March 2017 and provided an opportunity for staff to share ideas, learn about innovative approaches to teaching, and discuss wider higher education issues.
27. The University has launched its new Digital Strategy for Education, which aims to provide a framework for the introduction of technology that supports teaching and learning. The Strategy34 seeks to achieve five strategic goals: to build and maintain a shared understanding of the needs and priorities of the collegiate University; to support students throughout the learning cycle; to ensure quality and equity of the student experience; to provide maximum effectiveness and efficiencies of resources for students, staff, and collegiate University administration; and to enable and propagate innovation.35
28. Over the course of 2016–17, the MRC Biostatistics Unit and the Mitochondrial Biology Unit have transferred into the University. The MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit will transfer to the University in July 2017 and the MRC Toxicology Unit is anticipated to join from March 2018.36 This Unit will play an important role in the development of the Cambridge Academy of Therapeutic Sciences, an initiative that promotes the development of therapeutics and the integration of industry into academic activities. The close proximity of major pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca and GSK will ensure that the University is well-placed to combine excellence in science with efficient translation.37
29. Other initiatives involving industry include future involvement with the planned Rosalind Franklin Institute38 and development of relations with the Sir Henry Royce Institute for Advanced Materials.39 The University is a partnering institution in both. The Rosalind Franklin Institute will provide a national multi-disciplinary science and technology research centre designed to tackle major challenges in health and life sciences. The initiative involves other leading universities and representatives from industry and the Research Councils.40
30. The Royce Institute, which will have a hub in Manchester, will be a leading centre for advanced materials research and commercialization. Funding is being distributed across the Institute and its six partners to support investments in new equipment and infrastructure.
31. The University has been successful in its bid to host an Improvement Research Institute, for which funding of £40m over ten years is being invested by the Health Foundation, an independent charity.41 The Improvement Research Institute will strengthen the evidence-base for how to improve health care.42
32. The University awaits government approval of the business case for the new Cavendish Laboratory. A sum of £75m is anticipated from the government in contribution to this significant project for the University and the Department of Physics.43 The result will be a new, modern Laboratory that is fit for purpose for world-leading research and teaching in the Department, and that can provide a national facility to support UK-wide physics research.
33. The Council endorsed the Strategic Framework for the Development of the University’s Estate in November 2016. This framework prioritizes improving the utilization of existing space and also provides guiding principles to inform the expansion of the estate and the acquisition or disposal of land or buildings. These broad principles, and an increasing understanding of the long-term academic goals across the six Schools, will help the relevant Committees44 in their capital decision-making processes.
34. The relative absence over past decades of sustained capital investment means that significant parts of the University’s estate now comprise buildings that are no longer suitable for modern education and research of the quality for which this University is known. Failure to refresh and rebuild these parts of the estate, or to provide new, modern buildings to meet anticipated growth, risks a decline in the University’s academic activities and, ultimately, a fall in its long-standing and hard-won reputation.
35. Therefore the University’s capital programme needs to be ambitious. If all projects were to be taken forward, it would require capital expenditure over the next 15–20 years of over £4 billion. University resources in isolation cannot deliver development on this scale and it is possible that some projects will not be taken forward. The Chief Financial Officer and the Director of Estate Strategy will explore alternative funding models as well as reflect on the management resources necessary to support such a significant programme. Alongside this work, the Schools must take a lead in prioritizing their building projects, and be proactive in preparing for opportunities to bid to government funding schemes. Given the increasing interest by government in funding research institutes involving several partnering institutions, the Schools are encouraged to consider how new facilities may be of regional benefit and, potentially, support national interests in key academic areas.
36. The North West Cambridge Development, which is a ring-fenced project under the management of the West and North West Cambridge Estates Board, continues to make progress and a new district, Eddington, is opening in phases. Applications for affordable housing are already open to University staff and the first residents will be moving into their new homes over the summer. A series of public tours of the site held to showcase the development under construction have been well attended with positive feedback from University staff and local residents. The local centre and public realm is anticipated to open in summer 2017 with postgraduate housing being fully occupied from 2017–18. Phase 2 of the development is now being considered and detailed proposals are expected to be made this year.
37. In June 2016, the PRC agreed again to continue the Planning Guidance issued in previous years. Schools and NSIs have, therefore, prepared forecasts of income and expenditure assuming a 1% increase in Chest allocation for 2017–18 over 2016–17 and for each year thereafter. Schools and NSIs may also bid for additional allocation in support of investment in strategic priorities. The outcome of this exercise is outlined in paragraphs 52–58.
38. Assumptions about future pay awards are a key area of sensitivity in the financial projections of this Budget Report and increases in pay inevitably lead to significant, additional recurrent costs. A central contingency is set aside to mitigate this risk for Chest-funded posts, but the risk of extra costs remains. For modelling purposes, the pay award assumed in the planning guidance was 1% per year during the planning period. Apart from National pay awards, all additional pay costs arising from promotions, increments, and regrading are met from within allocations to the Schools and other NSIs except where separate provision is made.45 The Finance Division’s pay model is used to identify how University-level forecasts would change for different pay assumptions.
39. A default inflation assumption of 2% has been used for non-pay inflation in all years unless there have been compelling reasons to adopt an alternative assumption for specific classes of non-pay expenditure.
40. The RMC continues to use the current RAM and RAM Distribution Model. The RAM Distribution Model is based on end-of-year RAM calculations, whereby, if a School’s RAM surplus exceeds 5% of its out-turn, then 10% of the surplus above the tolerance band is added to the School’s allocation in the next round. Similarly, if a School’s RAM deficit exceeds 5% of actual out-turn, then 10% of the deficit below the tolerance band is subtracted from the allocation. The operation of this mechanism based on the accounts for 2015–16 has resulted in an increase in core allocation in 2017–18 for one School and a reduction for another (see summary of additions to allocations table below). As mentioned in paragraph 14, an alternative RAM is under development for piloting in Planning Round 2017 and implementation in Planning Round 2018.
41. For the purposes of this Report, allocations to Schools and NSIs are assumed to be fully spent even if a balance is carried forward to the next year. This is the mechanism by which Chest-derived reserves accumulate.
42. The Secretary of State sets out the annual funding for higher education in a letter to HEFCE. This year’s Funding Letter to HEFCE was received on 23 February 2017, and the announcement of grants for each institution funded by HEFCE was made available, under embargo, on 12 April 2017.
43. Appendix 5 describes HEFCE funding in 2017–18. The University’s allocation of HEFCE funding for teaching has been decreasing significantly each year. The marginal increase for 2017–18 is due to the extra funding for the increased clinical intake in 2017.
44. The University’s allocation of HEFCE funding for research has increased by £2.3m in 2017–18 compared to 2016–17 due primarily to increases in mainstream quality-related research funding (‘QR’) and Business Research funding.46
45. As always, the allocations outlined in the HEFCE grant letter are provisional since the academic and government financial years differ. A government budget cut in 2018–19 may therefore result in a ‘claw-back’ from the 2017–18 HEFCE allocations.
46. The actual Chest out-turn for 2015–16 is provided in Table 1 of this Report (p. 613). The overall position on the Chest was a deficit of £2.1m compared to a £2.7m surplus anticipated in the original budget. The deterioration is due largely to a reduction in income from academic fees, and in the Chest share of overheads from research grants and contracts.
47. Table 2 (p. 613) summarizes the forecast out-turn for the Chest in 2016–17. In the 2016 Budget Report this was anticipated to be a deficit of £3.3m. The forecast is now for a deficit of £7.1m driven by lower academic fee income, a fall in overhead income to the Chest, and reductions in investment income and other operating income.47
48. Activities funded outside the Chest (excluding Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Assessment, and the Cambridge Trust) were previously forecast to result in a deficit of £16.2m in 2016–17 after making a contribution to the Chest for central costs. This component of the budget is difficult to predict with precision but there is currently no reason to expect a significantly different out-turn by the end of the year.
49. Forecast Chest income for 2017–18 is £453.2m compared to £452.0m assumed in the 2016 Budget Report. The increase of £1.2m is driven in the main by the increase in HEFCE funding for Teaching and Research. When compared to the forecasts submitted in the previous Budget Report, HEFCE income has increased by £5.3m. This reflects the higher mainstream QR income as described in para. 44, and includes £3.4m funding for Knowledge Exchange (formerly Higher Education Innovation Fund) that had not been assumed in the income forecasts for the previous Budget Report. However, the impact of the increase in HEFCE funding on Chest income overall is reduced as a result of a decrease of just over £3.0m in endowment income and interest receivable, and £1.1m in other operating income48 when compared to forecasts submitted in the 2016 Budget Report.
50. A breakdown of the forecasts for 2017–18 is shown in Table 4 (p. 615). Forecast expenditure includes a number of bids for additional Chest allocation beyond the core 1% increase built into the planning guidance. Bids were scrutinized at annual planning meetings with each School and NSI, and reviewed again at a joint meeting of the PRC and the RMC. In the current planning round, these Committees have agreed to recommend increases to allocations in 2017–18 totalling £9.1m as detailed in the summary below.
51. The Operating Budget described in this Report is developed and managed on a fund accounting basis. The University’s annual Financial Statements are prepared on a financial accounting basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. A number of adjustments are needed to convert the Operating Budget to a format comparable to the Income and Expenditure account seen in the University’s Financial Statements. The main adjustments are to remove capital expenditure from the Operating Budget and bring in a depreciation charge, to estimate the amount of spend against reserves and build-up of reserves, and, with a change to new accounting standards, inclusion of certain donations received. To aid comparison with the Financial Statements, such a conversion of the Operating Budget for 2017–18 is shown in Table 5 (p. 616). The Council considers, however, that the format used in Table 3is the appropriate one for planning.
2017–18 |
Additions to allocation |
RAM Distribution Model |
Total addition to allocation |
School of Arts and Humanities |
425* |
(55) |
370 |
School of the Humanities and Social Sciences |
0 |
0 |
0 |
School of the Physical Sciences |
0 |
0 |
0 |
School of Technology |
0 |
225 |
225 |
School of the Biological Sciences |
726 |
0 |
726 |
School of Clinical Medicine |
1,210 |
0 |
1,210 |
Schools total |
2,361 |
170 |
2,531 |
Institute of Continuing Education |
78† |
– |
78 |
Botanic Garden |
150 |
– |
150 |
CUDAR and Cambridge in America |
679 |
– |
679 |
University Library |
200‡ |
– |
200 |
Fitzwilliam Museum |
37 |
– |
37 |
Kettle’s Yard |
154§ |
– |
154 |
University Information Services |
1,333# |
– |
1,333 |
Unified Administrative Service (incl. the Office for Postdoctoral Affairs) |
3,941◊ |
– |
3,941 |
Total non-School institutions |
6,572 |
– |
6,572 |
GRAND TOTAL |
8,933 |
170 |
9,103 |
*The allocation to the School of Arts and Humanities in 2017–18 includes £275k of non-recurrent funding.
†This is £10k higher than the provisional allocation already made for the Institute of Continuing Education in financial forecasts.
‡This is a non-recurrent allocation in 2017–18.
§This figure includes £125k for 2017–18 that was provisionally endorsed in the previous planning round.
#This figure includes £755k which is non-recurrent and for 2017–18 only.
◊The additional allocation to the UAS is forecast to reduce from £3,941k in 2017–18 to £2,188k by 2020–21 as forecast non-recurrent funding needs fall away and cashable savings increase.
52. Approximately £1.1m of the increase to Schools in 2017–18 is fully funded. This includes allocations to the Schools of Clinical Medicine and the Biological Sciences of 75% of the forecast additional income resulting from the increase in the clinical cohort from 2017–18.50 Other allocations that are not fully funded, but which may help to bring in additional income over time include investment as follows: in the School of Arts and Humanities to support its academic strategy, in the School of the Biological Sciences to meet costs associated with the transfer of the MRC Toxicology Unit and to provide extra support for the teaching of Anatomy,51 and in the School of Clinical Medicine to meet a funding shortfall for clinical posts following the phased withdrawal of an external funding stream.52
53. The additional allocation for the NSIs is £6.6m, which is summarized in the table. As already noted earlier in this Report, a challenge in this year’s planning round has been achieving a balance between investment in Schools, on the one hand, and in NSIs on the other. The main components of the allocations to the NSIs are described below.
54. A substantial proportion of the allocation to the UAS represents investment that the Council had already deemed necessary, including a sum of £0.7m earmarked for investment in resources to support strategies for managing risks and opportunities associated with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; and £0.9m towards costs associated with changes in the senior leadership team of the University reflecting the implementation of decisions made by the Council.53
55. Approximately £0.5m of the increase represents recurrent allocation to fund posts that, to date, have been funded by reserves or other non-recurrent funding sources.54 This has been part of a strategy of spending down Chest reserves in line with guidance approved by the PRC in recent planning rounds. This is no longer a sustainable strategy for the UAS.
56. The remaining £1.9m increase in funding will provide services that are viewed as fundamental to the University’s core activity. The underlying detail behind the bid from the UAS was subject to intense scrutiny by the Heads of the Schools who, in conclusion, agreed that the objectives behind the proposed investment were sound, and endorsed the increase for the UAS overall.55 As already noted earlier in this Report, a priority for the next three years will be to rationalize administrative provision and improve efficiency drawing on the data provided through the UniForum exercise.56
57. The allocation to the UIS includes a recurrent increase in funding of £578k to address the recommendations of a recent review by the Cybersecurity Technical Review Group.57 The remaining £755k is for 2017–18 only to meet costs of operating the High Performance Computing Facility.58
58. The increase to the Botanic Garden is fully funded by HEFCE Higher Education Museums, Galleries, and Collections funding. The £679k uplift to Cambridge in America is required to cover the deterioration in the US$/GBP exchange rate.59 The allocation to the University Library is non-recurrent in 2017–1860 and supports the operation of the Research Data Management Facility pending a review of the continuing level of funding necessary to comply with external open access and open data requirements. The funding for the Fitzwilliam Museum and Kettle’s Yard will facilitate the participation of museum staff in teaching and research activity in co-ordination with relevant academic Departments in the School of Arts and Humanities.61 The funding also provides essential support to ensure a successful relaunch of Kettle’s Yard when the extended museum opens in 2018.
59. The RMC has also considered the forecasts for the Administered Funds. Overall, the forecasts for 2017–18 are just under £2m higher than forecast in the previous Budget Report.62 These centrally-held funds, which meet University-wide costs, were reviewed by the RMC in 2016 and the Committee endorsed the grouping of the funds into distinct categories to show more clearly how funds were being spent. The largest proportion of expenditure from the Administered Funds (57%) is in direct support of educational and research activity, which is forecast to be £113.7m in 2017–18. This includes the College Fee transfer (£47.3m), the Chest contribution to the University Graduate Fee (£27.2m), contributions to the Cambridge Commonwealth, European, and International Trust and other bursaries (£13.9m), HEFCE charity support funding for Departments (£8.7m), Knowledge Exchange (£3.4m), Widening Participation and outreach (£1.5m),63 and Examiner and Supervisor Fees (£1.4m).
60. The Administered Funds also include the estate maintenance budget, for which the allocation is £19.8m (10% of total Administered Funds) in 2017–18. Estate Management’s forecasts are informed by an asset prioritization model, which has enabled the production of more sophisticated data to support maintenance planning and the identification of higher and medium priorities for maintenance works over the planning period. The Buildings Committee endorsed the Long-Term maintenance plan covering the period up to 2020–21.
61. Other significant allocations to the Administered Funds include £18.2m towards utilities costs, £7.1m for IT including projects under the oversight of the Information Services Committee, £6.6m towards University-wide rates and rents, £4.3m towards a contingency fund for pay costs (see para. 38), £2.5m for the Minor Works fund, and £2m for the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund.
62. The forecasts for the Chest show a deficit across the planning period.
63. Tuition fee income beyond 2017–18 is based on expected changes to the composition of the student population and the changing fee structures.
64. Projections of expenditure beyond 2017–18 have been built up from the detailed plans at School and NSI level submitted in December 2016.
65. Pay awards have been assumed to be 1% per annum across the planning period with a contingency set aside to allow for any variation in actual pay awards.
66. The University is in a position to operate with a Chest deficit for the short term in order to maintain investment in areas of strategic academic importance, and to provide administrative services that have been agreed as being fundamental to the core operation of the University.
67. However, the University must return to a more financially sustainable position over the longer term and this will necessitate measures to increase income and to restrain expenditure. Proposals for new mechanisms for allocating resources, and that include the introduction of appropriate incentives, have been endorsed by the Resource Management Committee and are undergoing further refinement. Changes to the University’s planning processes are in development and discussions about longer-term academic strategies have already been initiated. The output of the UniForum exercise will provide greater clarity in relation to the structure and resourcing of the University’s administrative services. This, in turn, will help to inform discussions about how those administrative services can best support the University’s academic endeavour. These initiatives will contribute to a strategy to return the Chest to balance and to improve the University’s financial sustainability over the long term. These measures are essential in order to ensure that Cambridge is well placed to manage risks and act on opportunities in a volatile and uncertain external environment.
68. The Council recommends:
I. That allocations from the Chest for the year 2017–18 be as follows:
(a)to the Council for all purposes other than the University Education Fund: £121.1m.
(b)to the General Board for the University Education Fund: £353.5m.
II. That any supplementary HEFCE grants which may be received for special purposes during 2017–18 be allocated by the Council, wholly or in part, either to the General Board for the University Education Fund or to any other purpose consistent with any specification made by HEFCE, and that the amounts contained in Recommendation I above be adjusted accordingly.
13 June 2017 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Nicholas Gay |
Philippa Rogerson |
Chad Allen |
Nicholas Holmes |
John Shakeshaft |
|
Ross Anderson |
Alice Hutchings |
Susan Smith |
|
Richard Anthony |
Umang Khandelwal |
Sara Weller |
|
R. Charles |
Stuart Laing |
I. H. White |
|
Stephen J. Cowley |
Mark Lewisohn |
Jocelyn Wyburd |
|
Amatey Doku |
Michael Proctor |
2017 Budget Report - Tables and Appendices
1See paras. 46–47, and 49.
2This calculation is based on TRAC Income as a percentage of TRAC costs in 2014–15. The position has deteriorated from a loss of approximately 11 pence in the pound for 2012–13 and 2013–14. The funding mechanisms make it very difficult to recover the full costs for research. The Research Councils only pay 80% of the full economic cost and charities tend to pay no overheads although the University can, for eligible charity-funded research, claim Charity QR.
3It is also important to ensure that all direct costs are recovered from those sponsors who do not pay overheads.
4The RMC requires all industrially funded research to charge a minimum price of 100% full economic cost.
7More examples of engagement with industry are provided later in this Report in paras. 28–30. The University’s response to the government’s new industrial strategy will also inform the scope for further engagement with industry. Other helpful measures include work to strengthen support for University-level engagement with key industrial partners and the development of Framework Agreements with major commercial entities.
8A new approach to the allocation of resources is under development. See para. 14.
9This is discussed in more detail in paras. 33–35.
10This is under consideration by the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the Chief Financial Officer, in co-ordination with the Director of Estate Strategy. See para. 35.
11See para. 23.
12Cambridge tuition fees for Home fee status students starting their first undergraduate degree in 2017 will be £9,250 for all courses. Tuition fees for these students, and new entrants thereafter, are expected to rise in subsequent years in line with inflation. The fee for EU students who are already studying at Cambridge or who will start their studies in 2017 or 2018 will be at the applicable Home rate for the duration of their course.
13Some marginal costs will also be incurred, but the overall impact can be positive for the Chest. Student number planning is being overseen by two main groups as described in para. 8.
14Forecasts for postgraduate student numbers are aspirational only. The Joint University and Colleges Working Group on Postgraduate Student Numbers will be making proposals at the end of Easter Term relating to the size of the postgraduate student population. Undergraduate student numbers are fixed, with the exception of the Clinical School expansion over the next few years.
15The fee status of EU nationals for 2019 entry onwards has yet to be determined by the UK government.
16See paras. 52–58.
17http://www.staff.admin.cam.ac.uk/projects/uniforum-programme.
18For example, through the accretion of MRC units, through plans for growth in areas of research and teaching which in turn require the delivery of new facilities and buildings, and the increasing complexity of academic collaborations such as those involving third parties.
19For example, the introduction of the Teaching Excellence Framework, and the anticipated move to new regulatory structures including the Office for Students, and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
20See paras. 33–35.
21A better understanding of academic strategies will inform decision-making when opportunities to invest in new academic activity emerge at short notice. Recent examples of investment decisions include bids to host a Dementia Research Institute regional centre, and a Health Foundation Improvement Research Institute (see para. 31) and there are clear synergies with established academic priorities for the School of Clinical Medicine in each case. It will be helpful, however, to have more visibility of the longer-term strategies of all Schools in order to understand more clearly how opportunistic investment in one initiative may reduce the scope for future investment in another, and influence the size and shape of the University over a period of time.
22This, in turn, requires a clear articulation by the Schools of their longer-term academic goals.
23The publication of this Budget Report will immediately follow the outcome of the General Election held on 8 June 2017.
24See Council Paper ‘The UK’s exit from the EU – strategies proposed in response’, page 1.
25This includes education and development programmes such as Erasmus+.
26This is chaired by the PVC for Research, and its membership includes all other Pro-Vice-Chancellors, and Professor Catherine Barnard (Professor of European Union Law and Senior Tutor and Fellow of Trinity College).
27The outcome for Year 2 of the Teaching Excellence Framework will be determined by a panel of academics, employers, and students and will be based on the assessment of metrics issued by HEFCE to providers and calculated from data returned to the Higher Education Statistical Agency and the University’s narrative submission.
28https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/building-our-industrial-strategy.
29Ibid, p. 11.
30A copy of the full submission was received by the Council at its meeting on 24 April 2017.
31The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for overseeing the financial and trading activities of the University group and for ensuring the group’s financial health and sustainability.
32More information about the Centre and its activities can be found at http://www.cctl.cam.ac.uk/.
33The Digital Teaching and Learning Sub-committee makes a number of grants available each year. Grants range from between £10,000 and £20,000.
34The Digital Strategy for Education, which commenced in 2016, focuses on activities up to 2020.
35Two pilot projects are running in 2016–17 on lecture capture, and on computer-based examinations. More details on the Strategy can be found on http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/committees/digital-teaching-and-learning-sub-committee.
36The physical relocation of the Unit from its current base in Leicester is anticipated to take place during 2020. The Unit will occupy space alongside the Department of Pharmacology.
39http://www.research-strategy.admin.cam.ac.uk/Royce-Institute.
40The central hub will be at Harwell, near Oxford. It will link to partner sites including the universities of Cambridge, Edinburgh, Manchester, Oxford, Imperial College, King’s College London, and University College London.
42The Institute will be led by Mary Dixon-Woods, RAND Professor of Health Services Research and Wellcome Trust Investigator.
43The project has already received approval from the Business and Science Group Capital Board and the Projects and Investment Committee at BEIS, and has been given a satisfactory assurance rating via an Office of Government Commerce Gateway Review.
44Specifically the Estate Strategy Committee, in terms of the strategy for the development of the estate, and the Planning and Resources Committee, which oversees the University’s Capital Plan, and Capital Projects Process. These Committees are supported by a series of Site Development Boards.
45The in-year costs of the contribution reward and progression schemes for academic, and academic-related and assistant staff is met non-recurrently via the relevant central administered fund. Thereafter, the recurrent cost must be managed within existing Chest baselines.
46Sector total mainstream QR research funding has increased by £17m. Charity Support and Business Research funding reflect changing volumes reported in the HESA returns and for 2017–18, for the first time, are calculated on an average of four past years instead of two.
47The fall in other operating income is due to reductions in the recovery of the Indirect Cost Charge and Trust Fund overheads, and central cost recovery from Major Research Facilities.
48The reduction in operating income is driven by a fall in Indirect Cost Charge and Trust Fund overheads, and in Central Cost recovery on Major Research Facilities.
49The PRC and RMC have observed that it cannot allocate resources without a fully worked-out business plan, a point that has been made in previous planning rounds. Amongst the allocations for 2017–18, central provision has been made for an allocation to the School of Arts and Humanities. However, the PRC and RMC have made clear that this will not be released until a full business plan to underpin the strategic plan has been produced by the School and endorsed by the RMC.
50The undergraduate clinical student cohort increases from 160fte per annum to approximately 273fte per annum from 2017–18. The majority of the allocation is for the benefit of the Clinical School, but a proportion is also available to the School of the Biological Sciences in recognition that increased teaching costs will fall on this School.
51As recommended in an External Review of the Teaching of Anatomy.
52The Clinical Academic Reserve funding is being withdrawn by the Clinical Commissioning Groups. The funding agreed here continues an arrangement agreed by the RMC in previous planning rounds.
53This includes, but is not limited to, the new Chief Financial Officer. The Council endorsed the North West Cambridge Audit Group’s recommendation that that the University appoint a Chief Financial Officer, reporting directly to the Vice-Chancellor (Council Minute 81(c) from the meeting on 14 March 2016).
54This includes the Strategic Planning Reserve Fund.
55Several meetings were held over the course of the planning period to scrutinize the detail behind the request for funding from the UAS. These meetings involved the Heads of the Schools (or their agreed representative), and included the Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor and the Acting Registrary. The primary item of business at the joint PRC/RMC meeting on 29 March 2017 was forecast allocations for 2017 and the joint Committee supported the request from the UAS.
56See para. 11.
57A thorough review of the overall financial model for the UIS is underway and will be overseen by the Senior Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Information Systems Strategy.
58The current business plan for the High Performance Computing Facility is being reviewed with the aim of maximizing the opportunities to recover the operational costs through income generated from industry.
59The Chest is the beneficiary when the exchange rate works in favour of the pound.
60A non-recurrent allocation of up to £200k is earmarked for 2017–18.
61The expectation is that museum staff will be returnable in the next Research Excellence Framework.
62In the 2016 Budget Report the forecast allocation to the administered funds in 2017–18 was £196.1m. The £2m increase relative to the 2016 Budget Report is masked in the Tables of this Budget Report due to in-year cost neutral transfers totalling £3.3m from the administered funds to non-UAS baselines, resulting in a corresponding reduction to the Administered Funds overall. This is in accordance with a decision by the RMC that recurrent activity should be reflected in institutional baselines rather than being held separately in central administered funds. The RMC approved cost neutral transfers of £3.3m and of £6.6m in October 2016. The transfer of £6.6m from the administered funds to UAS baselines will be actioned in time for the start of the financial year 2017–18, with a corresponding reduction in the overall allocation to the administered funds.
63This represents only a part of expenditure by the collegiate University on widening participation and outreach. It is estimated that, in 2017–18, overall expenditure by the collegiate University will be approximately £9.5m, including bursaries and other financial measures.
The Council and the General Board beg leave to report to the University as follows:
1. This Report proposes that the University’s student complaint and review procedures be amended, revised, or supplemented as set out in this Report, with effect from 1 October 2017, and that they are brought under the direct oversight, and subject to the approval, of the General Board. The proposals reflect (i) a review of the University’s student complaint and review procedures prompted by the ‘Good Practice Framework for handling complaints and academic appeals’ by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), and (ii) the Education Committee’s discussions of complaints and review procedures and its consideration of the OIA framework.
2. The proposals have been developed in consultation with the officers and members of the Board of Graduate Studies, the Board of Examinations, the Faculty Boards of Clinical Medicine and of Veterinary Medicine, and the Council’s Standing Committee on Applications.
3. Following publication by the OIA of its ‘Good Practice Framework for handling complaints and academic appeals’ in December 2014 (http://www.oiahe.org.uk/providers-and-good-practice/good-practice-framework.aspx) and a review of the framework by the Education Committee of the General Board in Lent Term 2015, work has been undertaken to review the University’s student complaints procedures and the examination review procedures, in addition to establishing a single procedure for the review of decisions taken by different University bodies.
4. The proposals also arise from (i) a number of shortcomings and inefficiencies (procedural and operational), identified through internal review and the experience of the officers involved in the administration of complaints and reviews, and (ii) various observations or recommendations made by the OIA following their scrutiny of cases brought by Cambridge students, including:
“ … the University should … put in place a mechanism to address the situation where a student is genuinely disadvantaged by poor training and/or supervision so that an academic outcome can be considered …
… it is reasonable for a Complaints Procedure to be involved to establish whether poor supervision has taken place. However, where it can be shown that poor supervision may have impacted on a student’s performance… there should be a mechanism for this impact to be considered … [as a factor within an examination review procedure]
… the University should … review its mechanisms for ensuring a department’s compliance with any recommendations made in response to a complaint”
5. If the recommendations of this Report are approved, the key changes to the procedures will be as follows:
•The Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals within the Academic Division will be responsible for the administration of these procedures, as part of a more co-ordinated approach to student complaints and review procedures;
•The procedures will operate within a framework established by an overarching Ordinance, as set out in Annex A, replacing the existing Ordinances governing student complaints and examination review. Annex B sets out additional consequential changes to Ordinance;
•The General Board will become the body responsible for the approval of the procedures, and explanatory notes on the use of those procedures. The procedures and explanatory notes that would be established by the General Board on the approval of the recommendations of this Report are set out in Annexes C–E. Changes to be introduced in relation to each individual procedure are noted below.
•Confirmation that complaints will normally be considered within a 90-calendar-day timeframe;
•A reduction of the period in which eligible students can submit a formal complaint from 3 months to 28 days;
•The setting of timeframes for the consideration of complaints received at a local (department) level;
•The formal introduction of an initial screening process undertaken by a Case Handler within the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals;
•Explicit reference to a number of good case-handling practices, including consideration of reasonable adjustments, when students can use representatives, and when late submissions will be accepted;
•An expansion of the complaints procedure to encompass any person pursuing a course of study leading to the award of a degree, diploma, or certificate of the University; or a person who had such student status at the time of the circumstances about which the complaint is being made;
•A new review stage to the procedure, limited to a procedural review of the complaint decision.
•There is one procedure for all types of student, with a sub-procedure for more complex cases concerning examinations by thesis and oral;
•The timeframe for graduate students submitting a request has shortened to 28 days so that there is one timeframe applicable to all students;
•The grounds for seeking review have been simplified and now avoid overlap with the impact of personal mitigating circumstances under the procedures of Allowances to Candidates for Examinations and, for graduate students, with the consideration of the impact of personal mitigating circumstances under the procedures of the Board of Graduate Studies for some types of graduate student and candidates for the M.St. Degree (in accordance with Regulation 12 of the General Regulations for Admission as a Graduate Student, or Regulation 15 of the General Regulations for the M.St. Degree). Other types of graduate student remain able to request consideration of personal mitigating circumstances, such as illness, under the revised procedure;
•Explicit reference to a number of good case-handling practices, including consideration of reasonable adjustments, when students can use representatives, and when late submissions will be accepted;
•The formal introduction of an initial screening process undertaken by a Case Handler within the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals;
•Consideration of an Examination Review by an Examination Review Officer with no material involvement in the matters raised;
•An explicit timeframe of normally 45 days from submission of the request to receiving the outcome of the review from the Examination Review Officer;
•The grounds for reviewing the Examination Review decision narrowed to a procedural review;
•As a result of the narrowing of grounds, the Review stage is undertaken by a single Reviewer, in line with the current Student Complaints Procedure and the current Procedure for the Review of Decisions of the Applications Committee of the Council.
•This procedure widens and encompasses the current procedure approved by the Council for the Review of Decisions of the Applications Committee (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 109)1 and certain decisions taken by the Board of Graduate Studies and the Faculty Boards of Clinical Medicine and Veterinary Medicine; Annex B sets out the consequential changes that would be made to individual procedures;
•The procedure ensures consistency of review for decisions and avoids students having to use the non-specific, multiple-staged complaints procedure to seek review of a decision;
•Explicit reference to a number of good case-handling practices, including consideration of reasonable adjustments, when students can use representatives, and when late submissions will be accepted;
•A mechanism to enable the University to review a decision and issue a Completion of Procedures letter;
•The schedule of decisions open to review by this procedure could be widened to include other processes that affect students as procedures are introduced or amended.
6. The Council and the General Board accordingly recommend, with effect from 1 October 2017:
I.That the regulation for Complaints by Students (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 205), the regulations for the Review Procedure for Examinations for Undergraduate and Certain Other Qualifications (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 238), and the regulations for Review of the Results of Examinations for Postgraduate Qualifications (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 426), be rescinded and replaced with the regulations for the Consideration of Complaints and Requests for Review by Students as set out in Annex A to this Report.
II. That, if Recommendation I is approved, consequential changes to Ordinance as set out in Annex B to this Report be approved.
1If the recommendations of this Report are approved, the Council would rescind this procedure.
13 June 2017 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
Nicholas Holmes |
John Shakeshaft |
Chad Allen |
Alice Hutchings |
Sara Weller |
|
Richard Anthony |
Umang Khandelwal |
I. H. White |
|
R. Charles |
Stuart Laing |
Jocelyn Wyburd |
|
Amatey Doku |
Michael Proctor |
||
Nicholas Gay |
Philippa Rogerson |
7 June 2017 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
A. L. Greer |
Helen Thompson |
Chad Allen |
Patrick Maxwell |
Graham Virgo |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
Martin Millett |
Chris Young |
|
Abigail Fowden |
Richard Prager |
||
David Good |
Philippa Rogerson |
1. The General Board shall publish and keep under review the following for the consideration of complaints and examination review by any person who has matriculated as a student and is currently pursuing a course of study in the University, or is pursuing a course of study leading to the award of a degree, diploma, or certificate of the University, or who held such student status at the time of the circumstances about which the complaint is being made:
(a)a procedure and explanatory notes for the review of examination results;
(b)a procedure and explanatory notes for investigating and determining complaints about the University’s action or lack of action, or the provision of service by or on behalf of the University.
2. The General Board shall publish and keep under review a procedure and explanatory notes for the review of decisions made by such University bodies as shall be determined from time to time by the General Board.
3. The procedures under Regulation 1 shall include an informal local stage, a formal stage, and a review stage. During the formal stage, the matter shall be investigated and initial decisions (including whether the complaint should be considered under another procedure in accordance with Regulation 6) shall be taken by a University officer who may:
(a)require any member of the University to provide information and assistance;
(b)seek external advice and assistance.
4. The decision at the conclusion of the formal stage following investigation and at the review stage of the procedures under Regulation 1, and at the conclusion of the review procedure under Regulation 2, shall be taken by a University officer who is a member of the academic staff of the University.
5. The procedures under Regulations 1 and 2 shall be concluded by the issue of a letter to the student who brought the complaint or other matter which confirms, in accordance with guidance published from time to time by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, that the University’s internal procedures have been exhausted.
6. The following shall not be considered under the procedures:
(a)complaints or other matters concerning College provision;
(b)complaints or other matters to which other University procedures apply unless otherwise determined by the relevant University officer under Regulations 3 or 4 above.
7. The University will act reasonably in considering complaints and other matters under the procedures, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case. Every effort will be made to ensure that all parties are treated with fairness and dignity. None of those carrying out the procedures will have any previous knowledge of the case or any material connection with any party to the complaint or other matter. In the event of a conflict of interest arising, the Vice-Chancellor shall have power to appoint other University officers to act in place of, and with the same powers as, those appointed under the procedures.
8. If a complaint or other matter is upheld, the University officer who is a member of academic staff under Regulation 4 shall be empowered to require any member of the University and/or any University institution to take such action as the University officer considers necessary. If the member of the University and/or University institution is unable or unwilling to act, the University officer may refer the matter to the competent authority for the institution concerned.
9. The Council and the General Board shall receive a report annually on the number, type, and outcomes of complaints and other matters considered under the procedures, together with any recommendations concerning those procedures.
1. That the Special Regulations for the Board of Examinations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 118) be amended by adding the following sentence at the end of Regulation 4:
A student may request a review of a decision made by the Board of Examinations under sub-paragraph (c). A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
2. That Regulation 10 of the regulations for University Composition Fees (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 152) be amended by replacing the second sentence with:
A student who is dissatisfied with her or his categorization for the purposes of University Composition Fees may request a review of the decision. A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
3. That the regulations for Allowances to Candidates for Examinations (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 229) be amended by adding Regulation 9:
9. A student may request a review of a decision made under these regulations. A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
4. That Regulation 23 of the regulations for the Law Tripos (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 358), as amended (see Reporter, 6466, 2016–17, p. 540) be revised so as to read:
23. A student may seek review of a decision made by the Faculty Board of Law following application exceptionally for an additional attempt at an examination designated as an Examination for Professional Exemption under Regulation 14. The request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
5. That in the General Regulations for Admission as a Graduate Student (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 421) Regulation 12 be rescinded, the following new Regulation 14 inserted after existing Regulation 14, and the existing regulations renumbered.
14. A student may seek review of a decision made by the Board of Graduate Studies. The request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
6. That Regulation 28 of the regulations for the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 458) be revised to read as follows, and the Appendix, ‘Review of Decisions of the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine under Regulation 28’, be deleted in its entirety:
28. A student may seek review of a decision made by the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine in respect of that student who has applied exceptionally for an additional attempt at a Second M.B., or Final M.B. Examination under Regulations 13 or 21(b); or exceptionally for an extension of time to complete the course under Regulation 20. A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
7. That Regulation 15 of the General Regulations for the degree of Master of Studies (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 537) be rescinded and the remaining regulations renumbered.
8. That Regulation 26 of the regulations for the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 546) be revised to read as follows, and the Appendix, ‘Review of Decisions of the Faculty Board of Veterinary Medicine under Regulation 26’, be deleted in its entirety:
26. A student may seek review of a decision made by the Faculty Board of Veterinary Medicine in respect of that student who has applied exceptionally for an additional attempt at any Part of the Vet.M.B. Examination under Regulations 11 or 19(c). A request for review shall be made under the Procedure for the Review of Decisions of University Bodies established by the General Board.
1.1 In this procedure the following terms shall have the meanings set out below:
Case Handler |
A member of OSCCA who determines whether a complaint is eligible to be investigated and who conducts any subsequent investigation under the Formal Resolution stage |
Complainant |
A Registered Student who has made a complaint under this procedure |
Complaint Officer |
A trained member of academic staff who decides whether a complaint is upheld or dismissed under the Formal Resolution stage |
Completion of Procedures Letter |
A letter that confirms the end of the University’s internal proceedings, following which, a student may be able to raise a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator |
Institution |
The body which the Complainant believes is responsible for the action or lack of action or the provision of the service about which is the subject of the complaint including, but not limited to: Faculties, Departments, non-School institutions, and administrative offices within the Unified Administrative Service |
OSCCA |
The Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals |
Registered Student |
A person who has matriculated as a student and is currently pursuing a course of study in the University; or any person pursuing a course of study leading to the award of a degree, diploma, or certificate of the University; or a person who had such student status at the time of the circumstances about which the complaint is being made |
Responsible Officer |
The person authorized by the Institution to respond to complaints from Registered Students concerning an action or lack of action, or a particular service under the Local Resolution Stage |
Reviewer |
A trained member of academic staff who decides whether a complaint is upheld or dismissed under the Review Stage |
2.1. This procedure applies where a Registered Student wishes to express dissatisfaction, either about the University’s action or lack of action, or the standard of service provided by or on behalf of the University. The University includes all Faculties, Departments, non-School institutions, and administrative offices within the Unified Administrative Service. The procedure has three stages: Local Resolution, Formal Resolution, and Review.
2.2. This procedure also applies to Registered Students who wish to complain directly to the University about a service provided by another organization on behalf of the University, for example, a placement provider.
2.3. This procedure cannot be used to make a complaint relating to the following:
(a)College provision, for which the student should consult the relevant College policies;
(b)A decision made by an academic body regarding student progression, academic assessment or awards, for which the student should consult the examination review and examination allowances procedures;1
(c)Complaints about the Students’ Unions, which should be made to the Students’ Union’s own complaints procedure in the first instance;
(d)Matters covered by other University procedures including but not limited to those concerning student discipline, student harassment and sexual misconduct, fitness to study and fitness to practise.2
2.4. The General Board shall approve and keep under review explanatory notes, to be read in conjunction with this procedure. Those notes shall include a policy on the use of personal information under this procedure. Before making a complaint, Complainants should read the procedure and the explanatory notes on the procedure. All Complainants are encouraged to seek support from a College Tutor, a member of the Students’ Unions’ Advice Service, or other advisor of the student’s choosing.
2.5. A Complainant may be invited to attend a meeting under paragraph 3.2, 4.8, and 4.11 as part of this procedure. A Complainant who is invited to attend a meeting will be entitled to choose whether or not to attend the meeting and to be accompanied or represented by someone of the Complainant’s choosing.
2.6. This procedure is an internal process and does not have the same degree of formality as proceedings in a court of law. It is not normally necessary or appropriate for Complainants or the University to be legally represented at any meetings that form part of the procedure except in exceptional circumstances.
2.7. This procedure can only be used by a Registered Student who has been affected by the subject matter of the complaint. Complaints should be made by Complainants themselves, although in limited circumstances the University will accept a request from a third party acting as the Complainant’s authorized representative. In this circumstance, the University will communicate only with the authorized representative and therefore any reference in this procedure about communication to or from a Complainant includes the Complainant’s authorized representative.
2.8. Group complaints can be submitted, but a group representative must be identified with whom the University will correspond and who will be responsible for liaising with the other Complainants. In such cases, references in this procedure to the ‘Complainant’ shall be construed as referring to more than one person. The University may separate group complaints where it considers that the issues raised impact Complainants differently or where Complainants are seeking different remedies.
2.9. Anonymous complaints will not normally be accepted, as this may limit the investigation and communication of the outcome. Exceptionally, an anonymous complaint may be considered if there is a compelling case, supported by evidence, for the matter to be investigated.
2.10. Complainants will not be disadvantaged for raising a valid complaint. The University will act reasonably in considering complaints under this procedure and decisions will be made fairly and transparently. The Responsible Officer, Case Handler, Complaint Officer, and Reviewer will have had no material involvement in the matters raised as part of the complaint or in the earlier stages of the procedure and will be independent and impartial.
2.11. Any reference in this procedure to a University officer or other named role includes a deputy appointed by that officer or role-holder to exercise the functions assigned to that officer under this procedure.
2.12. Complainants are required to raise a complaint as soon as possible and within the required timeframe (see paragraph 3.1, 4.1, and 5.1). Complaints or evidence submitted outside this timeframe will not be accepted unless there is a valid reason for delay, which will be judged on a case-by-case basis by the Responsible Officer, Case Handler, Complaint Officer, or Reviewer, as appropriate.
2.13. The University aims to process any formal complaint through Formal Resolution and any Review within 90 calendar days. The 90 calendar day timeframe requires Complainants to comply with any timescales set down in this Procedure. There will occasionally be circumstances when, for good reasons, the University will need to extend the timeframe and in these circumstances the Complainant will be notified and kept updated as to the progress of their complaint.
2.14. The University will only share the information and evidence submitted in a complaint with members of staff where it is strictly necessary in order to process, investigate, and consider the complaint. All information received from a Complainant will be handled sensitively and in accordance with the Policy on the use of personal information under the Student Complaint Procedure.
2.15. The Case Handler, Complaint Officer, or the Reviewer may terminate consideration of a complaint if it is considered to be frivolous or vexatious. If a complaint is terminated then the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.16. Complainants, their advisors, and staff of the University are required to communicate respectfully and reasonably at all times whilst using the procedure. Abusive or threatening behaviour and language will not be tolerated. If, following a warning, a Complainant behaves in an unacceptable manner, the Case Handler, the Complaint Officer, or the Reviewer may terminate the Complainant’s request without further consideration. If a request is terminated then the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.17. When using this procedure, Complainants are encouraged to provide details and evidence of any disability and/or any reasonable adjustments which may be appropriate in light of their disability. Where it may be helpful and following the consent of the Complainant, an appropriately trained University staff member may be asked to provide a decision regarding reasonable adjustments.
3.1. Complainants should raise complaints, in writing or in person, with the Institution concerned. It is expected that an issue will be raised as soon as possible and in any event within 28 days of it occurring. Students are normally informed of the name and contact details of the Responsible Officer to approach within handbooks or other written guidance. Where a Complainant is uncertain about the identity of the Responsible Officer, the complaint should be addressed to the person responsible for the management of the service which is the subject of the complaint, or the Head of the Institution.
3.2. The Responsible Officer should respond to the complaint in a timely manner and normally within 21 calendar days of its receipt. The response should be in writing where an investigation has taken place or where the complaint is submitted in writing and should include information about the next stage of the Procedure where the Complainant remains dissatisfied with the response. Where a response cannot be provided within 21 calendar days, the Responsible Officer will write to the Complainant within that period to indicate the reasons for delay and when a response is likely to be provided. The Responsible Officer may invite the Complainant to a meeting as part of an investigation, but is not obliged to hold such a meeting.
4.1. Where a Complainant is either dissatisfied with the outcome of the Local Resolution; or declines to engage with Local Resolution, or where Local Resolution is inappropriate as the issues raised are serious or systemic, the Complainant can raise a complaint under Formal Resolution with OSCCA. Complainants should raise a complaint by submitting the Formal Resolution form (available at http://www.studentcomplaints.admin.cam.ac.uk) within 28 days of either:
(a)the Responsible Officer’s response to the complaint; or
(b)the matter of complaint first arising, where the Complainant reasonably considers Local Resolution is inappropriate.
4.2. The Case Handler shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether the period of 28 calendar days should run from a later date in recognition of a Complainant’s further reasonable attempts at Local Resolution; or whether it is reasonable for the Complainant not to have attempted Local Resolution.
4.3. The complaint should set out the Complainant’s concerns clearly and succinctly and provide evidence to substantiate the issues raised. Evidence may include independent medical evidence, reports by professionals, financial information, or witness statements.
4.4. A Case Handler from OSCCA will consider the submitted Complaint and will make one or more of the following determinations:
(a)the complaint in whole or in part is eligible to be investigated using this procedure;
(b)the complaint in whole or in part should be referred for consideration under an alternative procedure;
(c)the complaint in whole or in part is ineligible to be considered by the University, for example because it is out of time, lacks substantive content, or is considered malicious, vexatious, or frivolous;
(d)the Complainant should attempt Local Resolution before investigation of the complaint under this stage of the procedure.
4.5. Where a determination is made under paragraphs 4.4(b)–(d), the reasons for this and information about the options available to the Complainant will be provided in writing within 7 calendar days. If the Complainant disagrees with the determination under paragraph 4.4, the reasons for the disagreement should be provided by the Complainant, in writing and within 7 calendar days of receiving the decision, to the Head of OSCCA who will review the determination within a further 14 calendar days. Where a complaint cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued. Where matters raised within the complaint would be more appropriately considered under alternative University procedures, the Case Handler will inform the Complainant about which matters will be considered under which procedure. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to suspend one procedure pending the completion of another.
4.6. Some requests may require the University to take swift action, for example where the issues raised have detrimental consequences for the Complainant’s mental health or where external time limits apply, for example, in meeting regulatory requirements for the completion of courses. If this is the case, this procedure may be expedited.
4.7. Where a determination is made under paragraph 4.4(a) the Complainant will be informed and the Case Handler will conduct an investigation, requiring written statements and evidence from witnesses and Institutions concerning the events and applicable procedures, as appropriate.
4.8. A Case Handler may or may not meet individually with the Complainant, the Responsible Officer, or witnesses as part of the investigation, or collect further evidence, at the Case Handler’s discretion and where the Case Handler believes it to be beneficial to do so.
4.9. The Case Handler shall prepare a report setting out the process that has been followed, the information that has been gathered, the conclusions that have been drawn, and any recommendations. The Case Handler should also consider whether mediation or conciliation might be effective at this stage.
4.10. Following investigation, the Case Handler will provide all of the materials to a Complaint Officer, appointed by the Case Handler from a panel of Complaint Officers maintained by the Council.
4.11. The Complaint Officer will consider all of the materials provided. In exceptional circumstances the Complaint Officer may request further written statements, hold a meeting with any individual involved in the complaint, and/or hold a hearing. The Complainant will receive all of the materials considered by the Complaint Officer at least 7 calendar days an advance of any meeting or hearing.
4.12. Following consideration, the Complaint Officer will have the power to make one or more of the following decisions:
(a)that further steps should be taken to resolve the complaint informally (for example, through mediation with the agreement of both parties);
(b)to uphold a complaint in whole or in part and where appropriate require such remedies as necessary;
(c)to dismiss a complaint in whole or in part where it is found that:
i. the University acted reasonably and in line with its procedures and written documentation; and/or
ii. the substance of the complaint was not justified; and/or
iii. the Complainant has not been substantively disadvantaged by any variation in the University’s procedures or written documentation.
4.13. The Complainant will receive confirmation in writing of the Complaint Officer’s decision, the reasons for the decision, and copies of the material considered by the Complaint Officer, normally within 45 calendar days of having submitted the Formal Resolution form.
4.14. Regardless of the decision made, the Complaint Officer may make observations and recommendations to Institutions for consideration following the outcome of a complaint.
5.1. If a Complainant is dissatisfied following the Formal Resolution decision, the Complainant can submit a Request for Review form within 14 calendar days of the Formal Resolution decision being communicated. Alternatively, if the Complainant is dissatisfied with the decision but does not believe the reasons for the dissatisfaction would meet the grounds for a Review, the Complainant can request a Completion of Procedure letter.
5.2. The Review will not usually consider issues afresh or involve a further investigation. A Review can only be requested on the following grounds:
(a)procedural irregularities that occurred during Formal Resolution, which were material or potentially material to the decision reached; and/or
(b)the Formal Resolution decision is unreasonable, in that no reasonable person could have reached the same decision on the available evidence; and/or
(c)the availability of new evidence, which materially impacts the complaint outcome and which, for valid reasons, could not have been submitted at an earlier stage.
5.3. If the request for Review has been made on the specified grounds and within the timeframe, as determined by OSCCA, OSCCA will appoint a Reviewer from a panel of Reviewers appointed by the Council to consider the request for Review. Where a request cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.
5.4. The Reviewer will consider the Complainant’s request, the information considered during Formal Resolution, the decision, and any new information. The Reviewer may request further information.
5.5. Following investigation, the Reviewer will have the power to either:
(a)uphold the complaint in whole or in part and will require such remedies as necessary; or
(b)dismiss the request for Review and confirm the Complaint Officer’s decision.
5.6. The Complainant will receive the Reviewer’s decision and the reasons for the decision, in writing, normally within 28 calendar days of submitting the Request for Review form. This is the final stage of the University’s internal process and therefore the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
6.1. OSCCA will monitor all complaints and decisions made under the procedure and will produce an annual report summarizing the anonymized decisions, remedies, and recommendations (including the implementation of these) made by Complaint Officers and Reviewers. Students’ Unions’ sabbatical officers will be invited to provide feedback on the annual report. The annual report will be submitted to the General Board’s Education Committee.
1Examination Review Procedure, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 000 [as proposed in this Report, p. 637]; Review of decisions of the Applications Committee of the Council, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 109; Regulation 12 of the General Regulations for Admission as a Graduate Student, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 421; or Regulation 15 of the General Regulations for the M.St. Degree, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 537; Review of decisions of University bodies procedure, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 000 [as proposed in this Report, p. 642].
2Discipline, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 191; procedure for handling student cases of harassment and sexual misconduct, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 000 [as approved by Grace 3 of 22 February 2017]; procedure to determine fitness to study, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 225; procedures to determine fitness to practise of preclinical and clinical medical students, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 207; procedures to determine fitness to practise of preclinical and clinical veterinary students, see Statutes and Ordinances, p. 215.
These notes should be read in conjunction with the Student Complaint Procedure. If there is any conflict between these notes and the procedure, the procedure takes precedence.
The paragraph numbers used within this document correspond with the paragraph numbers in the version of the procedure approved on [date].
Any questions about the procedure and these notes should be directed to the Head of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals (OSCCA) in the first instance, at:
Address: |
Head of OSCCA |
Student Registry |
|
4 Mill Lane |
|
Cambridge CB2 1RZ |
|
Tel: |
+44 (0)1223 (7)61816 |
Email: |
2.1. Grounds for complaint may include dissatisfaction with the following:
(a)academic provision (course content; resources; facilities; or information provided about the course);
(b)the standards of service from the Institution, including postgraduate supervision and University tuition;
(c)the behaviour of University staff.
2.3. The Case Handler will consider these matters in accordance with paragraph 4.4(b).
2.6. In order to ensure that a Complainant’s views are accurately represented it is preferable for the University to correspond directly with the Complainant. However, it is accepted that sometimes this will not be in the best interests of the Complainant, for example, where a Complainant is reluctant to make or receive decisions about a complaint without support, as a result of an underlying medical condition. Where a Complainant would prefer correspondence to be directed through an authorized representative, permission needs to be provided by the Complainant in writing or via a University email account.
2.12. All Complainants using the procedure will need to comply with the prescribed timescales, which enable effective remedies to be provided (such as a change of supervisor or clarification of course guidance) without further disadvantage to the Complainant. Complaints received outside of the permitted timeframe will only be accepted where there is valid reason for the delay, supported by evidence. Revising, studying, seeking advice, or waiting to find out whether academic results have been affected, will not normally be accepted as sufficient reason for delay.
2.15. Examples of vexatious complaints are those which are obsessive, harassing, or repetitive; insist on pursuing unrealistic or unreasonable outcomes and/or requests which are designed to cause disruption or annoyance.
2.16. Unacceptable behaviour includes unreasonable persistence, unreasonable demands, lack of co-operation, or any aggression or threat of aggression.
2.17. The University has a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in certain circumstances. Complainants who require further information about reasonable adjustments should contact the Disability Resource Centre at http://www.disability.admin.cam.ac.uk. When notified of a disability under the procedure, the University will always consider whether reasonable adjustments are required. These will be assessed for each individual and in accordance with the University’s ‘Code of Practice: reasonable adjustments for disabled students’ available at http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/final_cop_2016-17_for_disabled_students_2.pdf.
3.1. Genuine attempts at Local Resolution include asking for an explanation or a solution regarding an issue that has arisen. Repeated requests to the Institution to reconsider its detailed response to a complaint are not considered genuine attempts at Local Resolution. This type of correspondence will be discounted when calculating a Complainant’s timeframe to submit a complaint for Formal Resolution and will therefore shorten the time available for submission or cause a complaint to be considered out of time (see paragraph 4.1).
4.1. The Complainant may be dissatisfied with the outcome of the consideration of the complaint by the Responsible Officer or with a failure to resolve the complaint at Local Resolution within a reasonable timeframe.
The Case Handler will accept a complaint for Formal Resolution without evidence of any attempt at Local Resolution if the complaint raises serious or systemic issues that cannot be addressed at Local Resolution.
Complainants will be required to provide the following information within the Formal Resolution form:
(a)their name, University Student Number, and correspondence details;
(b)the full detail of the complaint;
(c)any action that has been taken to try and resolve the complaint through Local Resolution, or an explanation of the reasons why Local Resolution is considered to be inappropriate;
(d)all evidence they wish to be considered as part of the complaint;
(e)the outcome they are hoping to obtain;
(f)agreement that in order to consider the complaint under the Procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Complainant as detailed in the Policy on the use of personal information under the Student Complaints Procedure.
4.8. Where a Case Handler or Complaint Officer holds a meeting with the Complainant, the Responsible Officer, or a witness, a note-taker will be present. The notes taken will be presented to those in attendance at the meeting for factual clarification, following which the notes will become the formal record of the meeting.
4.12. The appropriate decision will depend entirely upon the nature of the complaint and the relevant remedies available. If, following investigation, it becomes apparent that the complaint was malicious then action may be taken in accordance with the Discipline regulations.
4.12. (a) If mediation is recommended there is no requirement for parties to participate; this may be offered, but can only go ahead if all parties are in agreement.
5.2. Complainants will be required to provide the following information within the Request for Review form:
(a)their name, University Student Number, and correspondence details;
(b)the ground(s) under which they are requesting a Review;
(c)the full reasons for requesting a Review;
(d)all new evidence they wish to be considered as part of the Review;
(e)the outcome they are hoping to obtain;
(f)agreement that in order to consider the complaint under the Procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Complainant in accordance with the Policy on the use of personal information under the Student Complaints Procedure.
5.6. If a Complainant chooses to raise a complaint with the OIA, the Reviewer’s decision will still be enacted unless a review outcome from the OIA recommends otherwise.
6.1. There is student membership on the General Board’s Education Committee.
1. In order to deal with a Complainant’s request it will be necessary for the University to process a Complainant’s personal data in accordance with this policy. The overall purpose of processing personal data in the context of the investigation and resolution of student complaints is to decide what steps can appropriately be taken in response to such complaints. Personal data will be disclosed only to those persons who need to see such data for the purposes of conducting an investigation, responding as part of an investigation, determining or recommending a resolution, or deciding what other steps can appropriately be taken. No person will be told any more about the investigation than is strictly necessary in order to obtain the information required from them. Such persons may include:
•staff within OSCCA, including the Case Handler;
•individuals named or involved in the complaint, such as students, staff, or external bodies;
•authorized representatives of other external bodies involved in the complaint;
•a representative(s) from the Institution which is the subject matter of the complaint;
•the Responsible Officer;
•the Complaint Officer;
•the Reviewer;
•solicitors in the University’s Legal Services Office and/or the University’s external legal advisors;
•the University Advocate (or other relevant officer); and
•a Complainant’s authorized representative.
Documentation generated in the course of an investigation under the procedure will be disclosed in full to the Complainant except where information relates to an individual who has not consented to the disclosure of personal data.
2. The University will seek the Complainant’s written consent before notifying the Complainant’s College Tutor or Graduate Tutor that a complaint has been submitted so that they are aware of the complaint and able to assist in providing support.
3. The University will seek the Complainant’s written consent before liaising with appropriate staff members, including staff of the Disability Resource Centre, regarding support and any reasonable adjustments for disabled students.
4. Following completion of the procedure, the complaint, the documentation generated in the course of the investigation, and the decisions made under the procedure, will be retained securely by the Head of OSCCA for six years following the completion of the complaint. This information will be used for the purposes of responding to any complaints regarding the application of this procedure as well as for compiling anonymous statistics regarding its use. Further, where any complaint is subsequently submitted under this procedure by the same Complainant, this information may be taken into account by the Case Handler, in reaching a decision under paragraph 4.4 or 4.11 of the procedure. The information may also be provided to the University Advocate or other relevant officer if relevant for the purposes of conducting disciplinary proceedings or referral for consideration under another procedure under paragraph 4.4 or 4.11 of this procedure.
5. Nothing in this policy is intended to prejudice any rights of access to personal data which any person may have under data protection legislation as applicable at the time or otherwise.
6. Any questions or concerns about this policy should be directed to the Head of OSCCA in the first instance.
1.1. In this procedure the following terms shall have the meanings set out below:
Academic Judgement |
The decision made by academic staff on the quality of the work itself or the criteria being applied to mark the work, which is not a permitted ground of complaint or appeal |
Case Handler |
Member of OSCCA or the Student Registry who determines whether a request is eligible to be investigated and conducts any subsequent investigation under the reconsideration of Examination Results stage |
Candidate |
A student or former student who has taken a University examination |
Completion of Procedures Letter |
A letter that confirms the end of the University’s internal proceedings, following which a student may be able to raise a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator |
Examination Results |
The final results of an examination that have been agreed by the Examining Body, and subsequently provided to the Candidate, which may be by means of publication on the Candidate’s electronic student record |
Examination Review Officer |
A trained member of academic staff who decides whether a request for the reconsideration of Examination Results is upheld or dismissed; for Candidates for the degrees listed in the Schedule to this procedure, the trained member of academic staff will be a member of the Board of Graduate Studies |
Examining Body |
The University body or bodies responsible for agreeing the Examination Results (a board of Examiners, or a Degree Committee and/or the Board of Graduate Studies, as appropriate) |
OSCCA |
The Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals |
Reviewer |
A trained member of academic staff who considers a Review of the decision following reconsideration of Examination Results under the Review Stage of the procedure |
Student Registry |
Administrative department that manages aspects of student administration including examination arrangements |
Tutor |
The Candidate’s College Tutor or equivalent officer |
2.1. This procedure applies where a Candidate submits a request for the reconsideration of Examination Results. The procedure has two formal stages: Reconsideration of Examination Results; and Review (see Sections 4 and 5). There is also an informal preliminary stage available for requests for the consideration of irregularities in the examination process from Candidates for examinations listed in the Schedule to the General Regulations for Examiners and Assessors1 (see Section 3).
2.2. The procedure allows for the reconsideration of Examination Results on the following grounds:
(a)A procedural irregularity in the examination process that has adversely impacted on the Candidate’s Examination Results;
(b)Demonstrable bias or the perception of bias within the examination process;
(c)(For Candidates for the degrees listed in the Schedule to this procedure) serious illness or other grave cause which has clearly impacted upon the examination itself and of which, for sufficient reason, the Examining Body was not aware.
2.3. The procedure cannot be used for reconsideration of Examination Results relating to:
(a)Arithmetical mark checks unless requested as a result of the permitted grounds; Candidates should liaise with their Tutor if they have informal questions about their marks;
(b)Academic Judgement;
(c)Teaching or supervision arrangements, complaints regarding which, if organized by the College should be submitted under the College’s complaints procedure, or if organized by the University should be submitted under the Student Complaints Procedure.
2.4. The General Board shall approve and keep under review explanatory notes, to be read in conjunction with this procedure. Those notes shall include a policy on the use of personal information under this procedure. Before requesting reconsideration of Examination Results, Candidates should read the procedure and the explanatory notes on the procedure. All Candidates are encouraged to seek support from a College Tutor, a member of the Students’ Unions’ Advice Service, or other advisor of the student’s choosing. Candidates may also choose to discuss the matter informally with their Tutor. Requests for reconsideration of Examination Results should be made by Candidates themselves, although in limited circumstances the University will accept a request from a third party acting as the Candidate’s authorized representative. In this circumstance the University will communicate only with the authorized representative and therefore any reference in this procedure about communication to or from a Candidate includes the Candidate’s authorized representative.
2.5. This procedure is an internal process and does not have the same degree of formality as proceedings in a court of law. It is not normally necessary or appropriate for Candidates or the University to be legally represented at any meetings that form part of the procedure except in exceptional circumstances.
2.6. Candidates will not be disadvantaged for raising a valid request for reconsideration of Examination Results. The University will act reasonably in considering requests under this procedure and decisions will be made fairly and transparently. The Case Handler, the Examination Review Officer, and the Reviewer will have had no material involvement in the matters raised as part of the complaint or in earlier stages of the procedure and will be independent and impartial.
2.7. Any reference in this procedure to a University officer or other named role includes a deputy appointed by that officer or role-holder to exercise the functions assigned to that officer under this procedure.
2.8. Candidates are required to request a reconsideration of Examination Results as soon as possible and within 28 days of the Examination Results becoming available. A request for reconsideration of Examination Results or evidence submitted outside this timeframe will not be accepted unless there is a sufficient reason for delay, which will be judged on a case-by case basis by the Case Handler or the Reviewer, as appropriate.
2.9. The University aims to provide a written response concluding this procedure within 90 calendar days of receipt of a formal request for reconsideration of Examination Results (including any Review). The 90 calendar day timeframe requires Candidates to comply with any timescales set down in this procedure. There will occasionally be circumstances when, for good reasons, the Case Handler, Examination Review Officer, or Reviewer will need to extend the timeframe, and in these circumstances the Candidate will be notified and kept updated as to the progress of their request.
2.10. The University will only share the information and evidence submitted in a request for review with members of staff where it is strictly necessary in order to process, investigate, and consider requests made using this procedure. All information received from a Candidate will be handled sensitively and in accordance with the policy on the use of personal information under this procedure.
2.11. The Case Handler, the Examination Review Officer, or the Reviewer may terminate the reconsideration of Examination Results or Review if it is considered to be frivolous or vexatious. If a request is terminated then the Candidate will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.12. Candidates, their advisors, and staff of the University are required to communicate respectfully and to behave reasonably at all times whilst using the procedure. Abusive or threatening behaviour and language will not be tolerated. If, following a warning, a Candidate continues to behave in an unacceptable manner, the Case Handler, Examination Review Officer, or the Reviewer may terminate the reconsideration of Examination Results or Review without further consideration. If a request is terminated then the Candidate will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.13. When using this procedure, Candidates are encouraged to provide details and evidence of any disability and/or any reasonable adjustments which may be appropriate in light of their disability. Where it may be helpful and following the consent of the Candidate, an appropriately trained University staff member may be asked to provide a decision regarding reasonable adjustments.
3.1. This informal stage applies only to requests for the consideration of irregularities in the examination process received from Candidates for examinations listed in the Schedule to the General Regulations for Examiners and Assessors.
3.2. Where a Candidate becomes aware of an irregularity, this should be reported within 5 calendar days of the examination to the Student Registry using the Representations to the Examiners form.
3.3. Where a form is received by the Student Registry, or the Student Registry becomes aware of an irregularity, it shall be communicated to the Chair of Examiners and considered by the Examiners at their final meeting. Following consideration, the Examiners shall take whatever action they think fit in the light of the representations. The consideration of the form and any action that has been taken will be recorded in the minutes of the Examiners’ meeting.
3.4. The Chair of Examiners shall communicate the outcome of any review under this section of the procedure to the Student Registry who will confirm the outcome to the affected Candidates.
3.5. Due to the short timeframe between the examinations taking place and confirmation of the list of successful candidates, Candidates are not required to raise irregularities before receiving their Examination Results and may request reconsideration of Examination Results (Section 4 of this procedure) if the Examiners have not previously considered the matter under this informal stage.
4.1. Candidates may request reconsideration of their Examination Results by submitting the Examination Review form to OSCCA within 28 calendar days of receiving notification of their Examination Results (which may be communicated via their electronic student record).
4.2. A Case Handler will consider the request and will make one or more of the following determinations:
(a)the request in whole or in part is eligible to be investigated using this procedure;
(b)the request in whole or in part should be referred to an alternative procedure;
(c)the request is ineligible to be considered by the University, for example because it is out of time, questions academic judgement, or is vexatious.
4.3. Where a determination is made under paragraphs 4.2(b) and (c), the reasons for this and information about the options available to the Candidate will be provided in writing within 7 calendar days. Where matters raised within the request would be more appropriately considered under alternative University procedures, the Case Handler will inform the Candidate about which matters will be considered under which procedure. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to suspend this procedure pending the completion of another.
4.4. If the Candidate disagrees with the determination under paragraph 4.2, the reasons for disagreement should be provided by the Candidate, in writing and within 7 calendar days of receiving the decision, to the Head of OSCCA who will review the determination within 14 calendar days. Where, in the opinion of the Head of OSCCA, a request cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.
4.5. Some requests may require the University to take swift action, for example where the issues raised have detrimental consequences for the Candidate’s mental health or where external time limits apply for example in meeting regulatory requirements for the completion of courses. If this is the case, this procedure may be expedited.
4.6. Where a determination is made under paragraph 4.2(a) the Candidate will be informed and the Case Handler will conduct an investigation, requiring a factual statement and any relevant evidence from the Chair of the Examining Body.
4.7. Following receipt of the evidence requested, the Case Handler will provide all of the materials to an Examination Review Officer, appointed by the Case Handler from a panel of Examination Review Officers appointed by the Board of Examinations or nominated by the Chair of the Board of Graduate Studies.
4.8. The Examination Review Officer will consider all of the materials provided. In exceptional circumstances the Examination Review Officer may request further written statements and/or will have discretion to hold a meeting or hearing.
4.9. Following consideration of all of the evidence and whether any of the grounds under paragraph 2.2 have been met, the Examination Review Officer will have the power to make one or more of the following decisions:
(a)for Candidates for the degrees listed in the Schedule to this procedure, uphold the Candidate’s request where at least one of the grounds has been met and refer the matter to the Board of Graduate Studies for reconsideration in accordance with the Board’s written rules and guidance;
(b)uphold the Candidate’s request where at least one of the grounds has been met and refer the matter back to the Examining Body for reconsideration in accordance with the Examining Body’s written rules and guidance, or require the Examining Body to re-examine the Candidate in conditions considered appropriate to the Examination Review Officer including:
(i)to require the Examining Body to examine or re-examine the Candidate;
(ii)to require new Examiners to re-examine the Candidate;
(iii)to permit the Candidate to submit a revised dissertation or other assessment;
(iv)to require one or more additional Examiners to make an independent report or reports on the work submitted by the Candidate;
(v)to require the Examining Body to set the Candidate new examination papers or other assessments.
(c)dismiss the Candidate’s request where it is found that none of the grounds under has been met.
4.10. The Candidate will receive confirmation in writing of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and copies of the evidence considered by the Examination Review Officer, normally within 45 calendar days of having submitted the Examination Review form.
4.11. Regardless of the decision made, the Examination Review Officer may make observations and recommendations to the Examining Body for consideration following the outcome of a review of Examination Results.
5.1. If a Candidate remains dissatisfied following the decision of the Examination Review Officer, the Candidate can submit a Request for Review form within 14 calendar days of the decision being communicated. Alternatively, if the Candidate is dissatisfied with the decision but does not believe the reasons for the dissatisfaction would meet the grounds for a Review under paragraph 5.2, the Candidate can request a Completion of Procedures letter.
5.2. The Review will not usually consider issues afresh or involve a further investigation. A Review can only be requested on the following grounds:
(a)procedural irregularities that occurred during the reconsideration of Examination Results which were material or potentially material to the decision reached; and/or
(b)the Examination Review Officer’s decision (and/or that of the Board of Graduate Studies under paragraph 4.9(a)) is unreasonable, in that no reasonable person or body could have reached the same decision on the available evidence; and/or
(c)the availability of new evidence, which materially impacts on the Examination Review Officer’s decision and which, for valid reasons, could not have been submitted at an earlier stage.
5.3. If the request for Review has been made on the specified grounds and within the timeframe, as determined by OSCCA, OSCCA will appoint a Reviewer from a panel of Reviewers appointed by the Council, to consider the request for Review. Where a request cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.
5.4. The Reviewer will consider the Candidate’s request for Review, the information considered by the Examination Review Officer and the decision reached by the Examination Review Officer, including the consideration of whether any of the grounds under paragraph 2.2 have been met. The Reviewer may request further information.
5.5. Following the consideration under paragraph 5.4, the Reviewer will have the power to make one or more of the following decisions:
(a)uphold the request for Review, in whole or in part, either referring the request back to the Examination Review Officer, the Board of Graduate Studies, and/or the Examining Body for reconsideration, or requiring the Examining Body to re-examine the candidate on conditions considered appropriate to the Reviewer including:
(i)to require the Examining Body to examine or re-examine the Candidate;
(ii)to require new Examiners to re-examine the Candidate;
(iii)to permit the Candidate to submit a revised dissertation or other assessment;
(iv)to require one or more additional Examiners to make an independent report or reports on the work submitted by the Candidate;
(v)to require the Examining Body to set the Candidate new examination papers or other assessments.
(b)dismiss the request for Review and confirm the decision of the Examination Review Officer (and/or the decision of the Board of Graduate Studies under paragraph 4.9(a), as appropriate).
5.6. The Candidate will receive the Reviewer’s decision and the reasons for the decision in writing, normally within 28 calendar days of submitting the Request for Review form. This is the final stage of the University’s internal process and therefore the Candidate will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
6.1. OSCCA will monitor all reconsiderations of Examination Results and decisions made under the procedure and will produce an annual report summarizing the anonymized decisions, remedies, and recommendations (including the implementation of these) made by the relevant University bodies and Reviewers. Students’ Unions’ sabbatical officers will be invited to provide feedback on the annual report. The annual report will be submitted to the General Board’s Education Committee.
Examinations, including progress examinations approved under Regulation 9 of the General Regulations for Admission as a Graduate Student, leading only to the following qualifications:
B.D. Degree
M.D. Degree
Vet.M.D. Degree
Ph.D. Degree
Ph.D. Degree by special regulations
Bus.D. Degree
Eng.D. Degree
M.Sc. Degree
M.Litt. Degree
M.Phil. Degree by dissertation
Certificate of Postgraduate Study
These notes should be read in conjunction with the Examination Review Procedure. If there is any conflict between these notes and the procedure, the procedure takes precedence.
The paragraph numbers used within this document correspond with the paragraph numbers in the version of the procedure approved on [date].
Any questions about the procedure and these notes should be directed to the Head of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals (OSCCA) in the first instance, at:
Address: |
Head of OSCCA |
Student Registry |
|
4 Mill Lane |
|
Cambridge CB2 1RZ |
|
Tel: |
+44 (0)1223 (7)61816 |
Email: |
2.1. For the purposes of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, this is an academic appeal procedure.
2.2. See paragraphs 4.9 and 5.4.
2.4. See the policy on the use of personal information under this procedure. In order to ensure that a Candidate’s views are accurately represented it is preferable for the University to correspond directly with the Candidate. However, it is accepted that sometimes this will not be in the best interests of the Candidate, for example, where a Candidate is reluctant to make or receive decisions about their request for review without support, as a result of an underlying medical condition. Where Candidates would prefer correspondence to be directed through an authorized representative, permission needs to be provided by the Candidate in writing or via a University email account.
2.8. All Candidates using the procedure will need to comply with the prescribed timescales, which enable effective remedies to be provided (such as re-examination or re-submission where a retained knowledge of the examination is required) without further disadvantage. Requests received outside of the permitted timeframe will only be accepted where there is a valid reason for the delay, supported by evidence. Revising, studying, or seeking advice will not normally be accepted as sufficient reason for delay.
2.11. Examples of vexatious requests are those which are obsessive, harassing, or repetitive; insist on pursuing unrealistic or unreasonable outcomes; and/or requests which are designed to cause disruption or annoyance.
2.12. Unacceptable behaviour includes unreasonable persistence, unreasonable demands, lack of co-operation, or any aggression or threat of aggression.
2.13. The University has a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in certain circumstances. Candidates who require further information about reasonable adjustments should contact the Disability Resource Centre at http://www.disability.admin.cam.ac.uk. When notified of a disability under the procedure, the University will always consider whether reasonable adjustments are required. These will be assessed for each individual and in accordance with the University’s ‘Code of Practice: reasonable adjustments for disabled students’ available at http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/final_cop_2016-17_for_disabled_students_2.pdf. Such reasonable adjustments for disabled students might include but are not limited to allowing a Candidate to appoint a representative to correspond and make decisions about a request for review on the Candidate’s behalf.
3.4. Such communication will help to minimize requests for reconsideration of Examination Results by affected Candidates simply because they are unaware of action already taken by the Examining Body.
4.1. Candidates will be required to provide the following information within the Examination Review form:
•their name, University Student Number, and correspondence details;
•the ground(s) of the request;
•the full reasons for requesting reconsideration of Examination Results;
•any action that has been taken to try and resolve the issue;
•all evidence they wish to be included in reconsidering their Examination Results;
•the outcome they are hoping to obtain;
•agreement that in order to consider the request under the procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Candidate as detailed in the policy on the use of personal information under this procedure.
4.9. The Examination Review Officer will normally make contact with the Chair of the Examining Body, and the Chair may decide to consult with that body before submitting a response to the request for reconsideration of Examination Results. The appropriate remedy will depend on the circumstances of the case. If, following investigation, it becomes apparent that the request was malicious then action may be taken under the University’s disciplinary procedure.
5.1. Candidates will be required to provide the following information within the Request for Review form:
•their name, University Student Number, and correspondence details;
•the ground(s) under which they are requesting a Review;
•the full reasons for requesting a Review;
•all new evidence they wish to be considered as part of the Review;
•the outcome they are hoping to obtain;
•agreement that in order to consider the request under the procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Candidate as detailed in the policy on the use of personal information under the Examination Review Procedure.
5.2. This will normally be a paper-based review which considers the evidence received by the Examination Review Officer.
5.6. If, on receipt of a Completion of Procedures letter, a Candidate chooses to raise a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) (or seek a remedy in a court of law), it will not have the effect of suspending the Reviewer’s decision, which will still be enacted unless the OIA (or a court of law) requires the University to do otherwise.
6.1. There is student membership on the General Board and on the General Board’s Education Committee.
1. In order to deal with a Candidate’s request it will be necessary for the University to process a Candidate’s personal data in accordance with this policy. The overall purpose of processing personal data in the context of the investigation and resolution of examination reviews is to decide what steps can appropriately be taken in response to such requests. Personal data will be disclosed only to those persons who need to see such data for the purposes of conducting an investigation, responding as part of an investigation, determining or recommending a resolution, or deciding what other steps can appropriately be taken. No person will be told any more about the investigation than is strictly necessary in order to obtain the information required from them. Such persons may include:
•staff within OSCCA or the Student Registry, which includes the Case Handler;
•the Examination Review Officer;
•the Examining Body;
•the Reviewer;
•solicitors in the University’s Legal Services Office and/or the University’s legal advisers;
•the University Advocate (or other relevant officer); and
•a Candidate’s authorized representative.
Documentation generated in the course of an investigation under the procedure will be disclosed in full to the Candidate except where information relates to an individual who has not consented to the disclosure of personal data.
2. The University will seek the Candidate’s written consent before notifying the Candidate’s College Tutor or Graduate Tutor that a request for examination review has been submitted so that they are aware of the request and able to assist in providing support.
3. The University will seek the Candidate’s written consent before liaising with appropriate staff members, including staff of the Disability Resource Centre, regarding support and any reasonable adjustments for disabled students.
4. Following completion of the procedure, the request for review, the documentation generated in the course of the investigation, and the decisions made under the procedure, will be retained securely by the Head of OSCCA for six years following the completion of a request for reconsideration of Examination Results or Review. This information will be used for the purposes of responding to any complaints regarding the application of this procedure as well as for compiling anonymous statistics regarding its use. Further, where any request for review is subsequently submitted under this procedure by the same Candidate, this information may be taken into account by the Case Handler, in reaching a decision under paragraph 4.2 of the procedure (or review of that decision by the Head of OSCCA under paragraph 4.4). The information may also be provided to the University Advocate or other relevant officer if relevant for the purposes of conducting disciplinary proceedings or referral for consideration under another procedure.
5. Nothing in this policy is intended to prejudice any rights of access to personal data which any person may have under data protection legislation as applicable at the time or otherwise.
6. Any questions or concerns about this policy should be directed to the Head of OSCCA in the first instance.
1.1. In this procedure the following terms shall have the meanings set out below:
Case Handler |
A member of OSCCA who determines whether a request for Review is eligible to be investigated under the procedure |
Complainant |
A person who has received a decision listed in the Schedules to this procedure and has chosen to request a review of the decision |
Completion of Procedures Letter |
A letter that confirms the end of the University’s internal proceedings, following which a student may be eligible to raise a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator |
OSCCA |
The Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals |
Reviewer |
A trained member of academic staff who decides whether a complaint is upheld or dismissed. |
2.1. This procedure applies where a person who has received a decision listed in the Schedules to this procedure wishes a review of the decision to be undertaken. The Procedure has one stage: Review.
2.2. The Review will not usually consider issues afresh or involve a further investigation. The procedure allows for a decision listed in the Schedules to be reviewed on the following grounds:
(a)procedural irregularities that occurred during the decision-making process, which were material or potentially material to the decision reached; and/or
(b)the decision is unreasonable, in that no reasonable person or body could have reached the same decision on the available evidence; and/or
(c)the availability of new evidence, which materially impacts on the outcome and which, for valid reasons, could not have been submitted at an earlier stage.
2.3. The General Board shall approve and keep under review explanatory notes, to be read in conjunction with this procedure. Those notes shall include a Policy on the use of personal information under this procedure. Before making a request for Review, Complainants should read the procedure and the explanatory notes on the procedure. All Complainants are encouraged to seek support from a College Tutor, a member of the Students’ Unions’ Advice Service, or other advisor of the student’s choosing.
2.4. This procedure is an internal process and does not have the same degree of formality as proceedings in a court of law. It is not normally necessary or appropriate for Complainants or the University to be legally represented at any meetings that form part of the procedure except in exceptional circumstances.
2.5. This procedure can only be used by the person who has received a decision listed in the Schedules. The request for Review can only be made by the Complainant themselves, although in limited circumstances the University will accept a request from a third party acting as the Complainant’s authorized representative. In this circumstance the University will communicate only with the authorized representative and therefore any reference in this procedure about communication to or from a Complainant includes the Complainant’s authorized representative.
2.6. Complainants will not be disadvantaged for raising a valid complaint. The University will act reasonably in considering requests under this procedure and decisions will be made fairly and transparently. The Case Handler and the Reviewer will have had no material involvement in the matters raised as part of the complaint or in earlier stages of the procedure and will be independent and impartial.
2.7. Any reference in this procedure to a University officer or other named role includes a deputy appointed by that officer or role-holder to exercise the functions assigned to that officer under this procedure.
2.8. Complainants are required to raise requests for Review as soon as possible and within 14 calendar days of the decision to be reviewed being communicated. Requests or evidence submitted outside of this timeframe will not be accepted unless there is a valid reason for delay, which will be judged on a case-by-case basis by the Case Handler or Reviewer, as appropriate.
2.9. The University aims to process any request for Review within 90 calendar days. The 90 calendar day timeframe requires Complainants to comply with any timescales set down in this procedure. There will occasionally be circumstances when, for good reasons, the University will need to extend the timeframe and in these circumstances the Complainant will be notified and kept updated as to the progress of their request.
2.10. The University will only share the information and evidence submitted in a request for Review with members of staff where it is strictly necessary in order to process, investigate, and consider the request for Review. All information received from a Complainant will be handled sensitively and in accordance with the Policy on the use of personal information under the Review of Decisions of University Bodies procedure.
2.11. The Case Handler or the Reviewer may terminate a Review if it is considered to be frivolous or vexatious. If a Review is terminated then the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.12. Complainants, their advisors, and staff of the University are required to communicate respectfully and to behave reasonably at all times whilst using the procedure. Abusive or threatening behaviour and language will not be tolerated. If, following a warning, a Complainant behaves in an unacceptable manner, a Reviewer may terminate the Complainant’s Review without further consideration. If a request is terminated then the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
2.13. When using this procedure, Complainants are encouraged to provide details and evidence of any disability and/or any reasonable adjustments which may be appropriate in light of their disability. Where it may be helpful and following the consent of the Complainant, an appropriately trained University staff member may be asked to provide a decision regarding reasonable adjustments.
3.1. If a Complainant is dissatisfied following a decision listed within the Schedules to this procedure, the Complainant can submit a Request for Review form within 14 calendar days of the decision being communicated. Alternatively, if the Complainant is dissatisfied with the decision but does not believe the reasons for the dissatisfaction would meet the grounds for a Review, the Complainant can request a Completion of Procedure letter.
3.2. If the request for Review has been made on the specified grounds and within the timeframe, as determined by the Case Handler, OSCCA will appoint a Reviewer from a panel of Reviewers appointed by the Council to consider the request for Review. Where a request cannot be considered further by the University a Completion of Procedures letter will be issued.
3.3. The Reviewer will consider the Complainant’s request, the information considered in reaching the decision, the decision itself, and any new information. The Reviewer may request further information.
3.4. Following consideration of the materials, the Reviewer will have the power to either:
•uphold the request for Review in whole or in part, either referring back to the decision-making body for reconsideration, or where this would be unsuitable, requiring such remedies as necessary; or
•dismiss the request for Review and confirm the original decision.
3.5. The Complainant will receive the Reviewer’s decision and the reasons for the decision, in writing, normally within 28 calendar days of submitting the Request for Review form. This is the final stage of the University’s internal process and therefore the Complainant will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter.
4.1. OSCCA will monitor all reviews of decisions made under the procedure and will produce an annual report summarizing anonymized decisions, remedies, and recommendations (including the implementation of these) made by Reviewers. Students’ Unions’ sabbatical officers will be invited to provide feedback on the annual report. The annual report will be submitted to the General Board’s Education Committee.
Decisions taken by the Standing Committee on Applications of the Council in respect of individual students in the exercise of:
(a)its powers under the regulations for Allowances to Candidates for Examinations;
(b)its powers in respect of allowances of terms (exceptional permission to go out of residence, permission to return into residence, and allowance of terms for the purpose of being in standing to take examinations or proceed to the B.A. Degree) under the regulations for Residence and the Precincts of the University.
Decisions of the Board of Graduate Studies taken in respect of individual students in the exercise of its powers.
Decisions taken on behalf of the Board of Graduate Studies in respect of individual students where, following consideration, those decisions have been ratified by the Board of Graduate Studies.
Decisions of the Faculty Board of Clinical Medicine taken in respect of individual students who have applied exceptionally for an additional attempt at a Second M.B. or Final M.B. Examination under Regulations 13 or 21(b), or who have applied exceptionally for an extension of time to complete the course under Regulation 20 of the regulations for the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery.
Decisions of the Faculty Board of Veterinary Medicine in respect of individual students who have applied exceptionally for an additional attempt at any Part of the Vet.M.B. examination under Regulations 11 or 19(c) of the regulations for the degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine.
Decisions of the Board of Examinations in respect of candidates who for special reasons apply to be examined under conditions other than the ordinary conditions, or at other times than those previously advertised, or in respect of the conditions under which such permission is given or withheld.
Decisions of the General Board in respect of an individual candidate in exercise of its powers regarding reasonable adjustments.
Decisions of the Faculty Board of Law concerning applications exceptionally for an additional attempt at an examination designated as an Examination for Professional Exemption under Regulation 14 of the regulations for the Law Tripos.
Decisions not to allow a student who has completed the requirement of the B.A. Degree to progress to that Part of a Tripos required for the M.Eng. or the M.Math. or the M.Sci. Degree.
These notes should be read in conjunction with the Review of Decisions of University Bodies Procedure. If there is any conflict between these notes and the procedure, the procedure takes precedence.
The paragraph numbers used within this document correspond with the paragraph numbers in the version of the procedure approved on [date].
Any questions about the procedure and these notes should be directed to the Head of the Office of Student Conduct, Complaints, and Appeals (OSCCA) in the first instance, at:
Address: |
Head of OSCCA |
Student Registry |
|
4 Mill Lane |
|
Cambridge CB2 1RZ |
|
Tel: |
+44 (0)1223 (7)61816 |
Email: |
2.3. In order to ensure that a Complainant’s views are accurately represented it is preferable for the University to correspond directly with the Complainant. However, it is accepted that sometimes this will not be in the best interests of the Complainant, for example, where a Complainant is reluctant to make or receive decisions about their request for Review without support, as a result of an underlying medical condition. Where Complainants would prefer correspondence to be directed through an authorized representative, permission needs to be provided by the Complainant in writing or via a University email account.
2.8. All Complainants using the procedure will need to comply with the prescribed timescales, which enable effective remedies to be provided (such as amendment to decisions made regarding examination conditions or allowances) without further disadvantage. Requests received outside of the permitted timeframe will only be accepted where there is valid reason for the delay, supported by evidence. Revising, studying, or seeking advice will not normally be accepted as sufficient reason for delay.
2.11. Examples of vexatious requests are those which are obsessive, harassing, or repetitive; insist on pursuing unrealistic or unreasonable outcomes; and/or requests which are designed to cause disruption or annoyance.
2.12. Unacceptable behaviour includes unreasonable persistence, unreasonable demands, lack of co-operation, or any aggression or threat of aggression.
2.13. The University has a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in certain circumstances. Complainants who require further information about reasonable adjustments should contact the Disability Resource Centre at http://www.disability.admin.cam.ac.uk. When notified of a disability under the procedure, the University will always consider whether reasonable adjustments are required. These will be assessed for each individual and in accordance with the University’s ‘Code of Practice: reasonable adjustments for disabled students’ available at http://www.educationalpolicy.admin.cam.ac.uk/files/final_cop_2016-17_for_disabled_students_2.pdf.
3.1. Complainants will be required to provide the following information within the Request for Review form:
(a)their name, University Student Number, and correspondence details;
(b)the ground(s) under which they are requesting a Review;
(c)the full reasons for requesting a Review;
(d)all new evidence they wish to be considered as part of the Review;
(e)the outcome they are hoping to obtain;
(f)agreement that in order to consider the request under the procedure it will be necessary to share certain personal information about the Complainant in accordance with the Policy on the use of personal information under the Review of Decisions Procedure.
3.5. If a Complainant chooses to raise a complaint with the OIA, the Reviewer’s decision will still be enacted unless a review outcome from the OIA recommends otherwise.
4.1. There is student membership on the General Board’s Education Committee.
1. In order to deal with a Complainant’s request it will be necessary for the University to process a Complainant’s personal data in accordance with this policy. The overall purpose of processing personal data in the context of the investigation and resolution of reviews is to decide what steps can appropriately be taken in response to such requests. Personal data will be disclosed only to those persons who need to see such data for the purposes of conducting an investigation, responding as part of an investigation, determining or recommending a resolution, or deciding what other steps can appropriately be taken. No person will be told any more about the investigation than is strictly necessary in order to obtain the information required from them. Such persons may include:
•staff within OSCCA;
•the Reviewer;
•solicitors in the University’s Legal Services Office and/or the University’s external legal advisers;
•the University Advocate (or other relevant officer); and
•a Complainant’s authorized representative.
Documentation generated in the course of an investigation under the procedure will be disclosed in full to the Complainant except where information relates to an individual who has not consented to the disclosure of personal data.
2. The University will seek the Complainant’s written consent before notifying the Complainant’s College Tutor or Graduate Tutor that a request for Review has been submitted so that they are aware of the request and able to assist in providing support.
3. The University will seek the Complainant’s written consent before liaising with appropriate staff members, including staff of the Disability Resource Centre, regarding support and any reasonable adjustments for disabled students.
4. Following completion of the procedure, the request for review, the documentation generated in the course of the investigation, and the decisions made under the procedure, will be retained securely by the Head of OSCCA for six years following the completion of a request for Review. This information will be used for the purposes of responding to any complaints regarding the application of this procedure as well as for compiling anonymous statistics regarding its use. Further, where any request for review is subsequently submitted under this procedure by the same Complainant, this information may be taken into account by the Case Handler, in reaching a decision under paragraph 2.10 of the procedure. The information may also be provided to the University Advocate or other relevant officer, if relevant for the purposes of conducting disciplinary proceedings or referral for consideration under another procedure under paragraph 2.10, 3.2, or 3.4 of this procedure.
5. Nothing in this policy is intended to prejudice any rights of access to personal data which any person may have under data protection legislation as applicable at the time or otherwise.
6. Any questions or concerns about this policy should be directed to the Head of OSCCA in the first instance.
The General Board begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The senior academic promotions exercise in respect of promotions to take effect from 1 October 2017 has been completed. The General Board, at its meeting on 7 June 2017, considered recommendations from the Main Senior Academic Promotions Committee in respect of promotion to personal Professorships, Readerships, and Senior Lectureships. With the recommendations the Board received an extensive report, which provided the Board with an account of the procedure followed for the evaluation and comparison of the evidence for all applicants. The Board was able to see how recommendations had been arrived at so that, without repeating the entire exercise, it could either approve the recommendations or, if it so wished, consider the basis on which any of the recommendations had been made.
2. The contents of the report were as follows:
•minutes of the Main Committee and Sub-Committees;
•summary lists of Faculty Promotions Committee and Sub-Committee evaluations and bandings, indicating adjustments and any special or non-standard aspects of applications;
•summary tables giving names of applicants in priority order by Sub-Committee for each of the senior academic offices;
•funding and statistical information;
•equal opportunity report on all applications received;
•feedback statements.
3. The Board now recommends the establishment of 42 Professorships from 1 October 2017, as set out in Recommendation I. The establishment of these Professorships is proposed on condition that in each case where the person currently holds a permanently established office, that office should be placed in abeyance during the tenure of the Professorship
4. The Board also proposes the establishment of 60 Readerships from 1 October 2017, as set out in Recommendation II. The establishment of these Readerships is proposed on condition that, with the exception of Dr Stella Panayotova, in each case where the person currently holds a permanently established office, that office should be placed in abeyance during the tenure of the Readership. In proposing the establishment of a Readership for Dr Panayotova, the Board has agreed that it should be tenable for so long as Dr Panayotova continues to hold the office of Keeper of the Fitzwilliam Museum. The Board has accordingly agreed to recommend, under the provisions of Statute C I 7, that Dr Panayotova should hold her current office concurrently with the proposed Readership.
5. In order to avoid delay in publishing the Report, the Board has put forward its recommendations before the titles of the Professorships and Readerships have been agreed. The Board will announce these titles at a later date, after consultation with the individuals concerned.
6. The Board has also agreed, in accordance with Special Ordinance C (ix) 1 and the special regulation for University Senior Lectureships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 735) to appoint the 23 individuals listed in the Schedule to this Report to University Senior Lectureships.
7. The estimated total additional cost to central funds in the first year of the proposals for promotion to personal Professorships and Readerships and of the appointments to University Senior Lectureships of the persons named in this Report will be approximately £935,245.
8. The General Board recommends:
I. That, with effect from 1 October 2017, Professorships be established for each of the following named persons for one tenure, placed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (vii) 1, and assigned to the Faculty, Department, or Institution named in each case, as follows:
Dr Katherine Bennison, M, assigned to the Department of Middle Eastern Studies
Dr James Warren, CC, assigned to the Faculty of Classics
Dr Robert Douglas Hedley, CL, assigned to the Faculty of Divinity
Dr Mari Jones, PET, assigned to the Department of French
Dr Anna-Leena Korhonen, assigned to the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
Dr Luca Pellegrini, assigned to the Department of Biochemistry
Dr Francis Jiggins, EM, assigned to the Department of Genetics
Dr Ian Brierley, assigned to the Department of Pathology
Dr Laura Itzhaki, N, assigned to the Department of Pharmacology
Dr Jennifer Nichols, assigned to the Department of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience
Dr John Gibson, CL, assigned to the Department of Veterinary Medicine
Dr David Savage, assigned to the Department of Clinical Biochemistry
Dr David Jayne, assigned to the Department of Medicine
Dr Ketan Patel, CAI, assigned to the Department of Medicine
Dr Kenneth Ong, JN, assigned to the Department of Paediatrics
Dr Antonis Antoniou, DAR, assigned to the Department of Public Health and Primary Care
Dr Nita Forouhi, assigned to the Department of Public Health and Primary Care
Dr Michael Nicholson, assigned to the Department of Surgery
Dr Vasco Pereira Marques de Carvalho, JE, assigned to the Faculty of Economics
Dr Mary Laven, JE, assigned to the Faculty of History
Dr Marta Mirazón Lahr, CL, assigned to the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology
Ms Nicola Padfield, F, assigned to the Faculty of Law
Dr Richard Harrison, CTH, assigned to the Department of Earth Sciences
Dr Bhaskar Vira, F, assigned to the Department of Geography
Dr Julia Gog, Q, assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Dr Eric Lauga, T, assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Dr Anthony Challinor, Q, assigned to the Institute of Astronomy
Dr Stuart Clarke, JE, assigned to the Department of Chemistry
Dr Sophie Jackson, PET, assigned to the Department of Chemistry
Dr Erwin Reisner, JN, assigned to the Department of Chemistry
Dr James Elliott, F, assigned to the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy
Dr Ben Gripaios, K, assigned to the Department of Physics
Dr Jennifer Howard-Grenville, Q, assigned to the Judge Business School
Dr Francesco Stajano, T, assigned to the Computer Laboratory
Dr Simone Teufel, K, assigned to the Computer Laboratory
Dr Richard Fenner, W, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Janet Lees, JN, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Mate Lengyel, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Michael Sutcliffe, CTH, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Silvana Cardoso, PEM, assigned to the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology
Dr Alexander Routh, CAI, assigned to the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology
Dr Jochen Zeitler, CAI, assigned to the Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology
II. That, with effect from 1 October 2017, Readerships be established, as follows, and that the General Board be authorized to appoint to each Readership the person for whom its establishment is proposed:
Dr James William Patrick Campbell, Q, assigned to the Department of Architecture
Dr Yaron Peleg, JE, assigned to the Department of Middle Eastern Studies
Dr Heather Webb, SE, assigned to the Department of Italian
Dr Ioanna Sitaridou, Q, assigned to the Department of Spanish and Portuguese
Dr Michaela Frye, assigned to the Department of Genetics
Dr Suzanne Turner, HH, assigned to the Department of Pathology
Dr Alberto Cardona Torrens, assigned to the Department of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience
Dr Kristian Franze, JN, assigned to the Department of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience
Dr Uta Paszkowski, JN, assigned to the Department of Plant Sciences
Dr Denes Szucs, DAR, assigned to the Department of Psychology
Dr Marta Zlatic, T, assigned to the Department of Zoology
Dr Ragnhildur Karadottir, assigned to the Department of Veterinary Medicine
Dr Menna Clatworthy, PEM, assigned to the Department of Medicine
Dr Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Q, assigned to the Department of Public Health and Primary Care
Dr Ferdia Gallagher, CAI, assigned to the Department of Radiology
Dr Sara Horrell, MUR, assigned to the Faculty of Economics
Dr Robert Karner Rendahl, CC, assigned to the Faculty of Economics
Dr Kristine Black-Hawkins, assigned to the Faculty of Education
Dr Hilary Cremin, F, assigned to the Faculty of Education
Dr Lucy Delap, MUR, assigned to the Faculty of History
Dr Nicholas Guyatt, TH, assigned to the Faculty of History
Dr Paul Warde, PEM, assigned to the Faculty of History
Dr Christopher Bickerton, Q, assigned to the Department of Politics and International Studies
Dr Joanna Page, R, assigned to the Department of Politics and International Studies
Dr Ayse Zarakol Jajich, EM, assigned to the Department of Politics and International Studies
Dr Hazem Kandil, CTH, assigned to the Department of Sociology
Dr Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, K, assigned to the Faculty of Law
Ms Joanna Miles, T, assigned to the Faculty of Law
Dr Philippa Rogerson, CAI, assigned to the Faculty of Law
Dr Elisabete Silva, R, assigned to the Department of Land Economy
Dr Poul Christoffersen, MUR, assigned to the Department of Geography
Dr Anders Hansen, PET, assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Dr Ulrich Sperhake, assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Dr John Ryan Taylor, JN, assigned to the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Dr Oscar Randal-Williams, K, assigned to the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics
Dr Henry Wilton, T, assigned to the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics
Dr Madhusudhan Nikku, assigned to the Institute of Astronomy
Dr Ian Parry, assigned to the Institute of Astronomy
Dr Silvia Vignolini, JE, assigned to the Department of Chemistry
Dr Howard Stone, Q, assigned to the Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy
Dr Sarah Bohndiek, CC, assigned to the Department of Physics
Dr David Buscher, PEM, assigned to the Department of Physics
Dr Alexander Mitov, EM, assigned to the Department of Physics
Dr Suchitra Sebastian, T, assigned to the Department of Physics
Dr Xin Chang, DAR, assigned to the Judge Business School
Dr Alastair Beresford, R, assigned to the Computer Laboratory
Dr Paula Buttery, CAI, assigned to the Computer Laboratory
Dr Mateja Jamnik, W, assigned to the Computer Laboratory
Dr Andrew Rice, Q, assigned to the Computer Laboratory
Dr Adam Boies, T, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Ioannis Brilakis, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Michael de Volder, JN, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr John Durrell, PEM, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Tawfique Hasan, CHU, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Alexandre Kabla, EM, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Per Kristensson, T, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Athina Markaki, R, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Sumeetpal Singh, CHU, assigned to the Department of Engineering
Dr Spike Bucklow, assigned to the Fitzwilliam Museum (Hamilton Kerr Institute)
Dr Stella Panayotova, N, assigned to the Fitzwilliam Museum*
* For so long as she holds the office of Keeper of the Fitzwilliam Museum.
7 June 2017 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
A. L. Greer |
Philippa Rogerson |
Philip Allmendinger |
Patrick Maxwell |
Helen Thompson |
|
Abigail Fowden |
Martin Millett |
Graham Virgo |
|
David Good |
Richard Prager |
Chris Young |
|
1Included under the Sub-Committee for Arts and Humanities in the statistical summary.
The General Board has agreed to appoint the following to University Senior Lectureships, with effect from 1 October 2017 to the retiring age.
Dr Laura Moretti, EM |
Department of East Asian Studies |
Dr Ioannis Galanakis, SID |
Faculty of Classics |
Dr Daniel Weiss, DAR |
Faculty of Divinity |
Dr Alexandra da Costa, N |
Faculty of English |
Dr Paulina Sliwa, SID |
Faculty of Philosophy |
Dr Ewan Smith, CC |
Department of Pharmacology |
Dr Timothy Weil, PEM |
Department of Zoology |
Dr Katherine Hughes, G |
Department of Veterinary Medicine |
Dr Petra Geraats, JN |
Faculty of Economics |
Dr Sara Baker, DAR |
Faculty of Education |
Dr Yongcan Liu, CC |
Faculty of Education |
Dr Andrew Arsan, JN |
Faculty of History |
Dr Christopher Meckstroth |
Faculty of History |
Dr Pedro Ramos Pinto Oliveira da Silva, TH |
Faculty of History |
Dr Martin Worthington, JN |
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology |
Dr Christopher Brooke, HO |
Department of Politics and International Studies |
Dr Monica Moreno Figueroa, DOW |
Department of Sociology |
Dr David Erdos, TH |
Faculty of Law |
Ms Amy Goymour, DOW |
Faculty of Law |
Dr Xiaohui Bao, N |
Department of Land Economy |
Dr Charlotte Lemanski, R |
Department of Geography |
Dr Mohammed Elshafie, R |
Department of Engineering |
Dr Jerome Jarrett, TH |
Department of Engineering |
Attached as Annex A to this Report is a statistical summary of the number of successful and unsuccessful applications for promotions by Professorships, Readerships, and Senior Lectureships.
Sub-Committee |
Successful |
Unsuccessful |
Total |
|||
Arts and Humanities |
5 |
(2M 3F) |
6 |
(4M 2F) |
11 |
(6M 5F) |
Biological and Medical Sciences |
13 |
(10M 3F) |
11 |
(10M 1F) |
24 |
(20M 4F) |
Humanities and Social Sciences |
4 |
(1M 3F) |
3 |
(3M 0F) |
7 |
(4M 3F) |
Physical Sciences |
10 |
(8M 2F) |
0 |
(0M 0F) |
10 |
(8M 2F) |
Technology |
10 |
(6M 4F) |
3 |
(3M 0F) |
13 |
(9M 4F) |
Total |
42 |
(27M 15F) |
23 |
(20M 3F) |
65 |
(47M 18F) |
Sub-Committee |
Successful |
Unsuccessful |
Total |
|||
Arts and Humanities |
6 |
(3M 3F) |
9 |
(6M 3F) |
15 |
(9M 6F) |
Biological and Medical Sciences |
11 |
(5M 6F) |
7 |
(6M 1F) |
18 |
(11M 7F) |
Humanities and Social Sciences |
15 |
(6M 9F) |
4 |
(3M 1F) |
19 |
(9M 10F) |
Physical Sciences |
14 |
(11M 3F) |
4 |
(2M 2F) |
18 |
(13M 5F) |
Technology |
14 |
(11M 3F) |
4 |
(3M 1F) |
18 |
(14M 4F) |
Total |
60 |
(36M 24F) |
28 |
(20M 8F) |
88 |
(56M 32F) |
Sub-Committee |
Successful |
Unsuccessful |
Total |
|||
Arts and Humanities |
5 |
(2M 3F) |
3 |
(2M 1F) |
8 |
(4M 4F) |
Biological and Medical Sciences |
3 |
(2M 1F) |
5 |
(2M 3F) |
8 |
(4M 4F) |
Humanities and Social Sciences |
12 |
(7M 5F) |
6 |
(4M 2F) |
18 |
(11M 7F) |
Physical Sciences |
1 |
(0M 1F) |
0 |
(0M 0F) |
1 |
(0M 1F) |
Technology |
2 |
(2M 0F) |
0 |
(0M 0F) |
2 |
(2M 0F) |
Total |
23 |
(13M 10F) |
14 |
(8M 6F) |
37 |
(21M 16F) |
The General Board begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. The General Board recommends the re-establishment of a Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Professorship of Finance as set out in paragraph 2 below. The funding arrangements were approved by the Resource Management Committee by circulation on 10 May 2017.
2. The Board has accepted an academic case from the Faculty Board of Business and Management and the Council of the School of Technology for the re‑establishment for a single tenure, from 1 October 2017, of a Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Professorship of Finance in the Judge Business School. The salary costs of the Professorship will be funded from the capital and income of the Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Fund for Finance (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 797) and any shortfall will be met from existing resources available to the Judge Business School. The Professorship was originally established, by Grace 4 of 18 July 2007, for a ten-year period from 1 October 2007. It is proposed that the holder of the re-established Professorship will be Professor Raghavendra Rau, the current holder of the Professorship, who was appointed from 1 March 2011 until retirement.
3. The General Board recommends:
I. That a Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Professorship of Finance be established in the University, for a single tenure for Professor Raghavendra Rau from 1 October 2017, placed in the Schedule to Special Ordinance C (vii) 1, and assigned to the Judge Business School.
7 June 2017 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
A. L. Greer |
Philippa Rogerson |
Philip Allmendinger |
Patrick Maxwell |
Helen Thompson |
|
Abigail Fowden |
Martin Millett |
Graham Virgo |
|
David Good |
Richard Prager |
Chris Young |
The General Board begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. This Report proposes that the six Departments within the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages (French; German and Dutch; Italian; Slavonic Studies; Spanish and Portuguese; Theoretical and Applied Linguistics) should be dissolved, their members remaining part of the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages.
2. The recommendations of this Report are supported by the General Board, its Education Committee, the Council of the School of Arts and Humanities, and the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages. There has been wide consultation on the proposals and they are supported by the staff of the individual Departments within the Faculty.
3. A Learning and Teaching Review of the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages completed in 2014–15 noted the high quality of teaching within the Faculty and made a number of specific recommendations, including a recommendation that the governance structure of the Faculty should be reviewed, with support and guidance from the General Board and the Council of the School of Arts and Humanities. A working party was established in 2015 by the General Board’s Education Committee with the aim of implementing the outcomes of the Learning and Teaching Review. The working party, chaired by Professor Steve Connor of the Faculty of English, reported its recommendations to the Education Committee on 10 May 2017.
4. The proposed reorganization of the Faculty will enable the Faculty Board to take a more strategic view of its finances and planning, and make more effective use of the Faculty’s administrative staff and other resources, by consolidating administrative functions at Faculty level, whilst retaining distinct processes where there are perceived benefits.
5. Arrangements have been agreed to smooth the transition to the new structure. No new Heads of Departments will be appointed from 1 October 2017 and instead Directors in each language/subject area will be appointed, who will serve on the Faculty’s Planning and Resources and Research Strategy Committees, and on the Faculty Board. The other duties of Heads of Departments will be distributed amongst other roles, including officers with responsibility for undergraduate and graduate teaching and examining.
6. It has been agreed by the Faculty Board and with the constituent Departments within the Faculty that the Faculty should be renamed to reflect the presence of linguistics within the Faculty. Once further consultation has taken place and the new name of the Faculty has been agreed, the Faculty Board will submit a proposal to the General Board for the renaming of the Faculty.
7. The General Board is satisfied that these changes will provide better support to the Faculty’s research endeavours, the teaching of the Modern and Medieval Languages, History and Modern Languages, and Linguistics Triposes, and the conduct of graduate studies within the Faculty. There shall continue to be one Degree Committee for the Faculty.
8. The General Board recommends:
I. That, with effect from 1 October 2017, the six Departments within the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages (French, German and Dutch, Italian, Slavonic Studies, Spanish and Portuguese, and Theoretical and Applied Linguistics) be dissolved.
II. That, if Recommendation I is approved, with effect from the same date consequential changes as set out in the Annex to this Report be approved.
7 June 2017 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
A. L. Greer |
Helen Thompson |
Chad Allen |
Patrick Maxwell |
Graham Virgo |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
Martin Millett |
Chris Young |
|
Abigail Fowden |
Richard Prager |
||
David Good |
Philippa Rogerson |
A. By amending Regulation 1(a) of the regulations for the Cambridge Committee for Russian and East European Studies (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 138) to read as follows, deleting sub-paragraph (b), and renumbering the remaining sub-paragraphs:
(a)three persons appointed by the General Board, at least two of whom shall be appointed from among the teaching officers in Slavonic Studies in the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages;
B. In the Special Regulations for Professors and Professorships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 677) by replacing references to the assignment of the Professorships to the individual Departments with references to the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages.
C. In the regulations for Payments Additional to Stipend (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 669), by removing the references to the individual Departments from the Schedules.
D. In the regulations for the following trust funds:
(i)By amending Regulation 2 for the Robert Daglish Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 795) so as to read:
2. The Managers of the Fund shall be three persons appointed by the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages in the Michaelmas Term to serve for two years from 1 January following their appointment, one of whom shall be appointed Chair from among the teaching officers in Slavonic Studies in the Faculty.
(ii)By amending Regulation 2 for the German Endowment Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 818) so as to read:
2. The Managers of the Fund shall be four persons appointed by the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages for such period as the Board shall determine; three shall be teaching officers in German in the Faculty, one of whom shall be appointed Chair, and one shall be a teaching officer in the Faculty.
(iii)By amending Regulation 2 for the Gibson Spanish Scholarship (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 819) so as to read:
2. The administration of the Fund shall be entrusted to four Electors who shall be four persons appointed by the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages in the Michaelmas Term to serve for three years from 1 January following their appointment, one of whom shall be appointed Chair from among the teaching officers in Spanish in the Faculty. Three Electors shall form a quorum.
(iv)By amending Regulation 2(b) for the D. H. Green Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 821) so as to read:
(b)the holders of any other Professorships in German established in the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages;
(v)By amending the second sentence of Regulation 2 and the first clause of Regulation 3 for the Tiarks German Scholarship Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 960) so as to read:
The Electors shall be the Managers of the German Endowment Fund.
3. The income of the Fund shall be used to provide the following awards, the holders of which shall undertake advanced study or research in German language or literature, under the direction of a teaching officer supporting the teaching of German within the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages, according to a scheme to be approved by the Electors:
(vi)By amending Regulations 2 and 4 for the Ukrainian Studies Endowment Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 967) so as to read:
2. The Managers of the Fund shall be the Chair of the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages or her or his deputy, a teaching officer in Slavonic Studies, and one other person appointed by the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages in the Michaelmas Term to serve for five years from 1 January following her or his appointment provided that, if the Chair of the Faculty Board of Modern and Medieval Languages is a teaching officer in Slavonic Studies and is serving as a Manager, the Faculty Board shall instead appoint one additional Manager who is not a teaching officer in Slavonic Studies. The Managers may co-opt up to two more Managers as required. Co-opted Managers shall serve until 31 December of the year following that in which they are co-opted.
4. After provision has been made in accordance with Regulation 3, the income of the Fund shall be applied to support related activities in Slavonic Studies, at the discretion of the Managers.
(vii)By amending Regulation 2 for the Ukrainian Studies Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 967) so as to read:
2. The Fund shall be administered by the Managers of the Ukrainian Studies Endowment Fund.
The General Board begs leave to report to the University as follows:
1. Following the recommendations made in the Learning and Teaching Review of the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science in Lent Term 2016, this Report proposes that the governance arrangements for the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology within the Faculty be revised to re-establish a Department of Social Anthropology, and to rename the existing Department of Archaeology and Anthropology as the Department of Archaeology. The new Department of Social Anthropology would include the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology as a sub-department, and the retitled Department of Archaeology would incorporate the existing Division of Biological Anthropology and continue to include the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
2. The Review Committee submitted a report which was considered by the General Board in December 2016. The Review Committee made a number of recommendations which the General Board accepted. The recommendations of this Report have been the subject of extensive consideration by the Council of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, which has accepted the academic case for restructure. There is broad agreement that a new configuration of academically distinct Departments will better reflect the disciplinary interests of the constituent Departments’ staff and students.
3. For a number of years, it has been accepted that intellectually and pedagogically Archaeology and Social Anthropology have diverged. This has been recognized in the separation of an Archaeology Tripos from the Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos (as approved by Grace 2 of 4 November 2015). Archaeology has transformed conceptually and methodologically, expanding its global and deep-time remit through approaches that range from ancient genomics to digital technologies, material culture theory, and critical analysis of ancient texts. It finds increasing common ground with Biological Anthropology in the key fields of human evolution and human ecology, thereby creating new synergies with the natural sciences and specifically zoology, genetics, and biomedical research.
Social Anthropology has undergone similarly far-reaching developments, both in the nature of its ethnographic methods and the range of settings in which anthropologists study. It is no longer confined to studying societies, but instead takes as its remit the full range of cultural and institutional diversity of human societies and ways of life: the nature and limits of human variability in terms not only of political institutions and forms of livelihood but also the fundamentals of human thought, belief, and ethics. In place of the Victorian pairing with archaeology, then, research synergies for Social Anthropology range from environmental sciences through experimental psychology and political theory to theology and philosophy.
4. If the recommendations of this Report are approved, members of academic staff within the institutions concerned will be formally assigned to the appropriate Department. Wherever appropriate, routine administrative functions will continue as arranged currently. Academic leadership, strategy, and planning and resource functions will be discharged at the departmental level. All members of staff have been kept informed about the plans for the new Departments, through School, Faculty, and Department meetings, and ongoing consultation will be maintained.
5. The officers in the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences have begun to progress the proposed reorganization by undertaking meetings within the institutions concerned. The School has confirmed that consolidation of administrative support at the Faculty level, covering such functions as financial operations, human resources, research grant administration, computing and IT support, will continue as constituted currently.
6. The General Board is satisfied that there are no negative implications for the provision of teaching within the Departments. The Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos will continue under the management of a newly configured Committee of Management. Master’s Degree courses will not be affected. There will continue to be two Degree Committees within the Faculty, one for the Departments of Archaeology, Social Anthropology, and Sociology, and one for the Department of Politics and International Studies.
7. A further recommendation of the Review Committee was that the Faculty of Human, Social and Political Science be dissolved and its duties and responsibilities be devolved to the existing and newly constituted Departments; the Faculty Board and the Council of the School agree that this should be implemented one year from the date of the establishment of the new Departments. The General Board will be invited to consider a further Report during Michaelmas Term 2017 proposing the dissolution of the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science and new governance arrangements, including the establishment of Department Boards which will assume the duties and authorities currently undertaken by the Faculty Board.
8. The General Board supports these proposals and now commends them to the University for approval.
9. The General Board recommends:
I. That, with effect from1 October 2017, the Department of Social Anthropology, and the Sub-department of the Museum of Archeology and Anthropology within the Department of Social Anthropology, be established, and the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology retitled as the Department of Archaeology.
II. That, if Recommendation I is approved, with effect from the same date consequential changes to regulations as set out in the Annex to this Report be approved.
7 June 2017 |
L. K. Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor |
A. L. Greer |
Helen Thompson |
Chad Allen |
Patrick Maxwell |
Graham Virgo |
|
Philip Allmendinger |
Martin Millett |
Chris Young |
|
Abigail Fowden |
Richard Prager |
||
David Good |
Philippa Rogerson |
A. By replacing the following references to the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology by reference to the Departments of Archaeology and of Social Anthropology:
(i)Regulation 2(a) of the regulations for the Council of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 581)
(ii)Schedule 2 of the regulations for Payments Additional to Stipend (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 669)
(iii)Schedule I of the regulations for Secretaries and Superintendents (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 740)
B. By replacing the following references to the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology by reference to the Department of Social Anthropology:
(i)Regulation 18(d), (i), and (k) of the regulations for the Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 345)
(ii)Regulation 1(a) of the Special Regulations for the examination in Social Anthropology for the M.Res. Degree (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 535)
(iii)In the Special Regulations for Professors and Professorships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 677):
William Wyse Professor of Social Anthropology
Sigrid Rausing Professor of Social Anthropology
Professor of Social Anthropology (2014)
Professor of Historical Anthropology
Professor of Social Anthropology (2015)
(iv)In the Special Regulations for Readers and Readerships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 734):
Readership in Social Anthropology
(v)In the following trust fund regulations:
Regulation 2 of the regulations for the Fortes Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 811)
Regulations 2 and 3 of the regulations for the Richards Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 917)
Regulation 2(d) of the regulations for the Rivers Lectureship in Social Anthropology (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 918)
C. By replacing the following references to the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology by reference to the Department of Archaeology:
(i)All references to the Department in the regulations for the Archaeology Tripos (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 259)
(ii)Regulations 13(ii) and (iii), 18(a), (b), (f), and (g), and 19 of the regulations for the Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 345)
(iii)Regulations 1 and 3(e) and (g) of the regulations for the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 611)
(iv)In the Special Regulations for Professors and Professorships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 677):
Disney Professor of Archaeology
George Pitt-Rivers Professor of Archaeological Science
Leverhulme Professor of Human Evolution
Professor of Geoarchaeology
Professor of European Prehistory
Professor of Prehistoric Europe and Heritage Studies
Jennifer Ward Oppenheimer Professor of the Deep History and Archaeology of Africa
(v)In the regulations for Endowed University Lectureships (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 743), by assigning the Eric Yarrow Lectureship Fund to the Department of Archaeology
(vi)Regulation 2(b) of the regulations for the Assistant Directors of Development Studies (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 736)
(vii)In the following trust fund regulations:
Regulation 2(b) of the regulations for the Anglia Television Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 750)
Regulation 2(b) of the regulations for the David L. Clarke Lectureship (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 785)
Regulation 2 of the regulations for the Glyn Daniel Award (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 795)
Regulations 2(b) and (c) of the regulations for the Egyptology Endowment (Thompson Bequest) Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 801)
Regulation 2(b) of the regulations for the Isbel Fletcher Garden Fund and Scholarship (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 813)
Regulation 2 of the Mark Gregson Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 822)
Regulations 2(f) and (g) of the D. M. McDonald Grants and Awards Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 867)
D. By rescinding the regulations for the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 610) and replacing them with the following:
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology>
1. The Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology shall be a Sub-department of the Department of Social Anthropology.
2. The Museum shall be under the general control of a Committee of Management which shall consist of:
(a)the Head of Department of Social Anthropology, or a deputy, who shall be the Chair of the Committee;
(b)the Curator and Director of the Museum;
(c)the Head of the Department of Archaeology, or a deputy;
(d)a Professor of the Department of Social Anthropology appointed by the Council of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences;
(e)the President of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, or a deputy;
(f)two persons appointed by the Council of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences;
(g)two members of the University in statu pupillari from among those students who are candidates for any Part of the Human, Social, and Political Sciences Tripos, or the Archaeological Tripos, or from among those students who are graduate students within the Department of Archaeology, or the Department of Social Anthropology;
(h)not more than four persons co-opted by the Committee, provided that it shall not be obligatory for the Committee to co-opt any person or persons.
3. Members in class (g) shall be appointed in the Michaelmas Term to serve for one year from 1 January following their appointment. Members in classes (d), (f), and (h) shall serve for four years in the first instance following their appointment.
4. The Committee shall meet at least once in each term of the academical year. Five members of the Committee shall form a quorum.
5. Subject to the powers of the General Board, and the Faculty Board of Human, Social, and Political Science, the duties of the Committee shall be:
(a)to ensure the due performance by the Director of the Museum and the Senior Curators of their duties;
(b)to determine the hours of attendance in the Museum of members of the staff of the Museum;
(c)to review and approve policies and plans as required by Museum Accreditation;
(d)to oversee planning and resource management for the Museum, including the generation of funding and the use of income allocated for the purposes of the Museum;
(e)to oversee and authorize use of income from the Crowther-Beynon Fund, subject to consultation with the Faculty Board and approval of the General Board where necessary, and use of other moneys devoted to the purposes of the Museum;
(f)to consider and approve where appropriate, on the recommendation of curators, short and long-term loans of museum holdings to touring exhibitions and other museums;
(g)to consider and approve where appropriate, on the recommendation of curators, applications for permission to carry out destructive experiments on museum artefacts;
(h)to consider and approve where appropriate, on the recommendation of curators, the alienation of any object, except that (i) books and other objects which have come into the possession of the University through the Cambridge Antiquarian Society shall not be alienated without the sanction of the Council of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, and may be alienated only in accordance with any conditions agreed between the Council of the Society and the Committee of Management; (ii) objects incorporating human remains may not be alienated without the approval of the General Board acting on the advice of the University’s Human Remains Advisory Panel, to which the Committee of Management will offer advice as required;
(i)to make an Annual Report on the Museum to the General Board.
6. The Cambridge Antiquarian Society shall be allowed free of charge, for meetings and for occasional conferences, the use of a suitable room in the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology or in some other University building.
7. The provisions of Special Ordinance A (vii) concerning Reserved Business shall apply to the Committee of Management as if it were a body constituted by Statute.
1. There shall be the following University offices of the staff of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology:
(a)an office of Curator, the holder of which shall also be entitled Director of the Museum;
(b)such number of offices of Senior Assistant Curator or Assistant Curator as the General Board shall from time to time determine.
2. Appointments and reappointments to the University office of Curator and Director of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, which may be held concurrently with another University office, shall be made by the General Board on the advice of a committee specially constituted for the particular occasion.
3. Under the general control of the Committee of Management, the Curator and Director shall
(a)be responsible for the care, management, and exhibition of the collections, and promote the use of the collections and Museum for teaching, research, and public engagement;
(b)be the official Head of the Museum for all administrative purposes.
4. Appointments and reappointments to an office of Senior Assistant Curator shall be made by the Appointments Committee for the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science, with the Curator and Director of the Museum as an additional member for this purpose.
5. The holders of University offices on the staff of the Museum shall be members of the Faculty of Human, Social, and Political Science under Regulation 1(b) of the regulations for Faculty Membership.