No 6511
Wednesday 20 June 2018
Vol cxlviii No 35
pp. 701–725
20 June, Wednesday. Congregation of the Regent House at 2.45 p.m. (Honorary Degrees).
25 June, Monday. Easter Term ends.
26 June, Tuesday. Discussion in the Mill Lane Lecture Rooms at 2 p.m. (see below).
27 June, Wednesday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission). Scarlet day.
28 June, Thursday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission). Scarlet day.
29 June, Friday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission). Scarlet day.
30 June, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m. (General Admission). Scarlet day.
10 July, Tuesday. Discussion in the Senate-House at 2 p.m.
17 July, Tuesday. Discussion in the Senate-House at 2 p.m.
20 July, Friday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m.
21 July, Saturday. Congregation of the Regent House at 10 a.m.
The Vice-Chancellor invites those qualified under the regulations for Discussions (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 105) to attend a Discussion in Room 7, Mill Lane Lecture Rooms, 8 Mill Lane, on Tuesday, 26 June 2018 at 2 p.m., for the discussion of:
1. Report of the General Board, dated 6 June 2018 on the establishment and re-establishment of certain Professorships (Reporter, 6510, 2017–18, p. 692).
2. Report of the General Board, dated 6 June 2018, on Senior Academic Promotions (Reporter, 6510, 2017–18, p. 694).
Further information on Discussions, including details on format and attendance, is provided at https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/governance/decision-making/discussions/.
The Vice-Chancellor has agreed to confer upon Professor Graham Virgo, DOW, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Education, the title of Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor from 1 July 2018 until 30 September 2020.
Further to the Council’s Notices dated 23 April and 21 May 2018 (Reporter, 2017–18, 6503, p. 529 and 6507, p. 580), the Council now publishes its response to the Divestment Working Group’s report below.
Climate change is one of the most pressing problems facing humanity. Consistent with its mission to ‘contribute to society’,1 the University of Cambridge has a responsibility to use its position as one of the world’s foremost academic institutions to take a leading role in achieving a carbon neutral future.
The Council welcomes the report from the Divestment Working Group (DWG).2 The report sets out unambiguously how the University could dramatically enhance its role in addressing climate change. The Council greatly appreciates the DWG’s exhaustive efforts to take into account the diversity of views, including expressions of deep concern, and to pose questions about the University’s policies on investment, research, operational sustainability, and engagement with industry and policy makers. The DWG report and this response, together with the Carbon Reduction Strategy3 and a commitment to enhanced reporting for the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF), mark a turning point in engagement of the University.
In alignment with the DWG report, the Council has agreed a three-part strategy – the implementation of which will begin immediately – to help facilitate the transition to a global carbon neutral future. The three parts comprise: the implementation of a policy of considered divestment; a commitment to support further research into the emerging field of ‘environmental impact investment’; and the establishment of a Centre for a Carbon Neutral Future.
There are two significant steps that the Council can – and will – take in relation to its investments to fight climate change. The first is to endorse the DWG’s proposal for the process of considered divestment. In relation to direct equity investments, as a matter of fact, the University currently has few direct equity holdings of any type and none in the fossil fuel sector. The University has already committed that it will have no direct holdings in the most polluting industries, previously defined as thermal coal and tar sands. The Council has now agreed to extend this commitment such that any change to the current position – of no direct equity investment in the fossil fuel sector – must be referred back to the Council. In relation to indirect equity investments, for example through index or managed funds, the Council will continue its policy of keeping indirect investment in the most polluting industries to the bare minimum.
Mindful of its members’ fiduciary responsibilities, the Council takes seriously the need to invest its endowment to ensure sustainability in all its forms for the University.4 The financial sustainability of the University depends on strong returns from its investment strategies and the ability to benchmark these strategies against other investors. The CUEF has significantly outperformed its market benchmarks over the ten years of its existence and so has significantly enhanced the University’s ability to pursue its mission. Those returns are a critical component of the financial resources that underpin research and education activities across the University, including the provision of some financial support for students and the enhancement of education and research facilities.
At this stage, the Council considers that pursuing a strategy that would insist on disengagement from any funds that have even small fossil fuel components, or that would require CUEF to step back from investments in alternative energy initiatives by global companies currently regarded as fossil fuel companies, would result in significant limitations on the CUEF’s ability to invest as successfully as in the past, with consequent reductions in the fundamental support provided by the endowment to the University’s core academic activities.
The second step which the Council has agreed to take is to encourage positive investments that generate measurable environmental benefits as well as financial returns. Done well, environmental impact investment can deliver direct environmental benefits. By demonstrating that attractive returns can be made in the sector, there can be a significant multiplier effect, drawing more companies and investors to similar investments. However, this sector is underdeveloped, with an uneven track record, both in terms of meaningful investments and returns. The Council is fully committed to enabling the University to use its academic leadership to develop expertise in this emerging field, expertise which will not only help other investors but which it will then deploy in its own investment strategies.
As the first step towards this goal, the Investment Office will recruit an Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Officer. With the help of the ESG Officer, and advised by the Investment Board, the Investment Office will then carry out a thorough review of the existing funds and project opportunities that invest to achieve a genuine positive environmental impact. It will then invest where these opportunities deliver attractive risk-adjusted returns consistent with the CUEF’s overarching investment objectives. Recruitment of the ESG Officer will begin immediately.
In parallel, the University will commission research through the Centre for a Carbon Neutral Future (see below), supported by other areas in the University and the Investment Office, to explore how environmental impact investing can help deliver further and faster change, and how the University can best play a role in this developing area. In this way, the University will be bringing together world-class research on climate change and the technologies that will limit future temperature growth, with the ability to fund and co-invest – speeding up implementation and generating good financial returns.
The Council strongly endorses the DWG report’s emphasis on the impact that the University can achieve through academic leadership. To that end, the Council will implement the DWG’s recommendation to create a Centre for a Carbon Neutral Future that will bring together the many strands of research on sustainable energy taking place across the University. The Centre will provide a focal point for evidence-based discussions on carbon policy between the University, the public, global business, and government. It will concentrate on the transition from fossil fuels and help drive technological and social change. By engaging with forward-thinking energy companies which are, themselves, moving in this direction, the Centre will provide academic leadership, across the sciences and social sciences, and amplify the University’s numerous contributions to climate change adaptation and mitigation. The energy- and policy-related academic work undertaken by members of the University, together with the research the University will lead on environmental impact investing (see above), will help to accelerate the transition.
In addition to proposing the creation of a Centre for a Carbon Neutral Future, the Council is committed, through its Carbon Reduction Strategy, to reducing energy use across the University; to replacing existing fossil fuel energy with renewable power wherever it is practicable; and to seeking ways to help staff and students to improve their individual commitments to protecting the environment.
The Council acknowledges that action needs to be taken urgently; addressing these issues cannot wait. The Council has therefore agreed five actions which it will take immediately to implement or otherwise address the DWG’s recommendations. The Council has also agreed two further actions in response to the recommendations (achieving carbon neutrality across the University’s estate and using some of the funding from the forthcoming bond for projects focussing on environmental sustainability) but these will necessarily take longer to implement. Further information about each of these seven actions is set out below.
As a matter of fact, the University currently has few direct equity holdings of any type and none in the fossil fuel sector. The University has already committed that it will have no direct holdings in the most polluting industries, previously defined as thermal coal and tar sands. The Council has now agreed to extend this commitment such that any change to the current position – of no direct equity investment in the fossil fuel sector – must be referred back to the Council.
In addition, the Council mandates the Investment Office to manage its portfolio to avoid funds in which anything more than negligible thermal coal or tar sands investments arise. It is inevitable in a diversified and indirectly managed investment portfolio that some exposure may appear in some funds and therefore it is not possible to demand absolute exclusion. However, exposure will be monitored by the Investment Office – and reported to the Council – to ensure that the proportion of the CUEF with such exposure remains negligible.
The Council is supportive of the concept of ESG investment. However, it notes that it is a relatively immature field. The Council therefore is committed to enabling the University to play a leading role specifically in the development of environmental impact investment. It will provide resource to establish a programme of research, to include the Investment Office, the Centre (see below), and other parts of the University, to determine how best to achieve the twin investment goals of positive environmental impact and attractive financial returns. The Council expects the research to be completed within 18 months (with progress reports in the interim). The Council will then act promptly on the outcome of the research in respect of an appropriate proportion of the University’s own funds.
As a complementary initiative, the Council will mandate the Investment Office to appoint an ESG Officer. The ESG Officer must be of sufficient stature to ensure that the University is at the leading edge of developments in this field. The person appointed must be able to provide sophisticated advice to the Investment Office and to the Council. In particular, the ESG Officer will:
•ensure that environmental, social, and governance risks are factored into valuation models;
•increase understanding of how fund managers treat ESG concerns in their investment processes;
•act as a liaison with the Centre for a Carbon Neutral Future in particular and other parts of the University on ESG issues more broadly;
•work with the University research programme to develop the concept and practice of ‘environmental impact investment’; and
•report regularly to the Council (see further below).
The Council also confirms that it expects the University to join one or more multiparty organizations such as the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) to ensure that the University’s voice is heard most effectively. The Council will ask the ESG Officer to make recommendations in this regard.
The Investment Office will report to the Council on an annual basis. This will include a report from the ESG Officer on engagement with fund managers and, crucially, on current research into the immature but fast developing market for environmental impact investing. If they so request, Council members will also be invited annually to a seminar on the work of the Investment Office.
The Council has instructed the Investment Office, with additional resources from the University, to enhance significantly its public reporting, including on the University’s website, so as to make information much more readily accessible.
The Council asks the General Board, which has already endorsed the proposal in principle, to consider in detail, and by the end of Michaelmas Term 2018, how the University can establish and develop a Centre for a Carbon Neutral Future. The detailed proposal must clearly define the objectives of the Centre and must include provision for developing a high-level dialogue directed at policy makers and industry leaders. It must also explain how the Centre will co-ordinate and, where appropriate, integrate existing activity across the University to ensure maximum impact; how the University will, through teaching and research, drive technological change; and how the University’s role as a leader in sustainability will, as a consequence of these initiatives, be amplified. The Council confirms it will provide additional resource for the Centre, subject to the approval by the General Board and the Council of a viable academic and financial plan for the Centre.
The Council understands that the measures it will adopt in response to the DWG report are only part of an overall strategy moving the University towards greater sustainability. It strongly encourages the Environmental Sustainability Strategy Committee (ESSC) to propose stronger initiatives to reduce the carbon consumption of the University. These might include initiatives such as the creation of an internal carbon tax, more aggressive energy saving measures in relation to lighting, heating, etc., and the establishment of a green suppliers’ strategy.
In addition, the Council will promote voluntary targets for the University’s staff and students to improve environmental actions and will develop a more proactive and integrated communication strategy that consistently reports on, encourages and, where possible, facilitates the uptake of environmental initiatives across the University.
The Council has already committed to ensuring that the University’s operations will become carbon neutral. However, the timing of when that can be achieved and the costs of doing so will need to be carefully considered. While wishing to be ambitious, the Council also wants to base any commitment on evidence of capability. The Carbon Reduction Strategy, developed by the ESSC and very recently approved by the Council, commits to carbon neutrality by 2050. The Council now asks the ESSC to consider bringing this target forward to 2040, carefully considering the cost and other implications (including for its interim targets).
The Council is also committed:
•to harnessing existing and future research in renewables and to making better use of the University’s estate, while recognizing that the long-term financial implications also need to be taken into account; and
•to continuing to explore renewable solutions to replace existing fossil fuel-driven energy wherever it is practicable, including generation on or near site, and asks the ESSC to continue to pursue this aim.
The Council therefore charges the ESSC to develop concrete plans of action to further these objectives. The plans should be presented to Council by the end of the next academical year.
These projects could be in renewable energy generation or in energy efficiency where the project company takes a proportion of the cost savings it has achieved as its revenues. In making this commitment, the Council notes the imperative of ensuring that suitable governance and business cases are in place to ensure that there is a financial as well as, where appropriate, a carbon return on funds invested from the bond.
Recommendation 1: Direct Equity Investment: ‘The Investment Office should be mandated to invest in a manner consistent with a carbon neutral future in any directly held equities. This should include, but is not limited to, undertaking as a matter of policy not to invest in carbon intensive tar sands or thermal coal.’
Recommendation 2: Indirect Investment: ‘The University should expect that no investment in thermal coal or tar sands be made by any party with whom it invests.’
Recommendation 3: Environmental, Social, and Governance: ‘There should be the allocation of a part of the University’s indirectly held investment into dedicated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) funds consistent with a carbon neutral future. We recommend that 10% of indirect investment should be placed with funds embracing ESG and rising through a determined and deliberate move towards a greater emphasis on assessable environmentally responsible funds in the relatively short term; the Investment Board to set out a timetable for this process to be reported to Council.’
Recommendation 4: United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI): ‘The University should commit to the UN Principles of Responsible Investment.’
Recommendation 5: Reporting to the Council: ‘The Investment Office should, as recommended by ACBELA, regularly report to Council on how environmental and social concerns are incorporated and reflected in investment management practice and include how fund managers have executed the University’s investment policies.’
Recommendation 6: Transparency and Public Reporting: ‘The transparency of the investment processes of the Investment Office should be increased e.g. by the introduction of an informative website. An annual report, including information on environmental and social concerns, and the manner in which ESG is accountably reflected in the portfolio should be reported to Council. An appropriate update should be published for the Regent House and provided on the University’s website.’
Recommendation 7: Behaviours: ‘The Council should consider, at least annually, the relative weight of ESG investments in investment returns and against performance benchmarks in accordance with their fiduciary responsibilities.’
Recommendation 8: Resource: ‘Additional resource should be provided to the Investment Office to permit the employment of a person to provide research engagement with fund managers and to engage with relevant researchers to provide coherent and authoritative positions on investment assets.’
Recommendation 9: Investor Engagement with Industry: ‘The University should join the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) or an alternative equivalent grouping, as soon as possible, to ensure it lends its voice and authority in engagement with industry, even where it holds funds indirectly.’
Recommendation 10: Leadership and Co-ordination: ‘The University should establish a Centre for a carbon neutral future which will bring together the disparate areas of research on energy production and use, climate, sustainability (and other associated fields as appropriate) as well as policy. Additionally the Centre should seek to collaborate with partners on appropriate campaigns to change climate policy.’
Recommendation 11: Research and Policy Communication: ‘A proactive communication strategy should be developed to support the promotion of research and policy work being done towards a carbon neutral future across the University and appropriate resourcing should be provided to enable maximisation of the impact of this work.’
Recommendation 12: Dialogue and Advice: ‘An integrated and high level dialogue should be developed, directed at policy makers and industry leaders, and co-ordinated by the new Centre in collaboration with the Institute for Public Policy.’
Recommendation 13: The Estate: ‘The University should commit to be carbon neutral by 2040.’
Recommendation 14: Implementing Targets: ‘To ensure the University achieves its 2040 goal, the Environmental Sustainability Strategy Committee should be mandated to agree and implement the necessary targets. It should report directly to Council regularly on the determination and implementation of interim targets towards this goal.’
Recommendation 15: Renewable Energy Sources: ‘The University should source 100% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.’
Recommendation 16: Green Bond: ‘The University should consider issuing a Green Bond to fund its environment and climate actions. For example, to fund the purchase and development of alternative renewable energy sources to supply electricity to the University’s buildings in line with recommendation 15.’
Recommendation 17: Individual Actions: ‘The University should agree and implement targets for the University’s staff and students to improve environmental actions.’
Recommendation 18: Reporting Progress: ‘The University should have a more proactive and integrated communication strategy that both consistently reports on and encourages the uptake of environmental initiatives across the University.’
Recommendation 19: Sharing and Dissemination: ‘The new Centre should be equipped with the necessary resource to seek out and create opportunities for sharing learning, disseminating information, and promoting collaboration between the University’s researchers and the estates’ division.’
1The University’s mission is ‘to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.’
2https://www.governance.cam.ac.uk/committees/divestment-wg/OtherPapers/DWG-Report-2018.pdf
3http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2017-18/weekly/6507/Carbon-Reduction-Strategy-2018.pdf
4The University’s Statement of Investment Responsibility can be found at https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2015-16/weekly/6430/section1.shtml#heading2-5
As Trustees of this University, we feel unable to consent to the approach set out in this response. We believe that Cambridge is taking a reputational, financial, and ethical risk by not fully divesting. If Cambridge is to be a leader in terms of its environmental impact, we must take the brave choice to divest. It is part of the duty of charity trustees to take into account the impacts of our investments, and we as trustees do not believe it is consistent with Cambridge’s mission for us to profit from industries that contribute to climate breakdown. Further, given the uncertain future of the fossil fuel industry, this would be a financially prudent decision. Far from disengaging the fossil fuel industry, we feel that sending a clear message through divestment would spark new conversations and engagement with the most polluting industries about their impact. We urged the Council to take this opportunity and we hope they will return to the issue in future. Meanwhile, we welcome the fact that Council has agreed to hire an ESG Officer and set up a Centre for a Carbon Neutral Future. We also hope that the Council will continue to be ambitious in its plans for reducing our carbon footprint. These initiatives are incredibly important and we stand behind action on this.
Whilst we welcome the broad objectives of the DWG report and Council’s responses we dissent from the proposals concerning disinvestment of CUEF from fossil fuel companies. It is noteworthy that a submission from the Sainsbury Family Charity Trusts was received by the DWG but disregarded. Their response to the DWG report includes this comment: ‘…the report is mistaken in not recommending full divestment, nor examining the underlying financial and legal reasons for it. It fails to articulate the financial risks to investors of fossil fuel companies, it gives an impression that the practicalities of full divestment are more complicated than they actually need to be and it falsely assumes that full divestment undermines the ability of the University to influence companies and wider society’.
Repeated requests to the Chief Investment Officer by Council members for information about the identity of the secondary fund managers used by CUEF and the composition of their portfolios have been refused. These secondary investments probably contain almost all CUEF’s exposure to fossil fuel companies so the proposed measures relating to direct investments are a distraction that will fool nobody. As members of Council we share fiduciary responsibility for the University and yet we are denied the information required to make an informed decision about disinvestment.
It is stated that holdings in fossil fuel companies within the secondary investments of CUEF are about 3.5%. Of note 45% of CUEF is said to be in illiquid assets, such as private equity, distressed debt and property that are unlikely to have much exposure to fossil fuels. The rest will presumably be a mix of equities selected by the anonymous fund managers, the composition of which could easily be detailed by the Investment Office.
The proposal of the DWG for ‘enhanced reporting’ by CUEF is unlikely to be effective because of the prevailing culture of secrecy and hostility to oversight within the Investment Office. Equally the idea that the CUEF has ‘significantly outperformed its market benchmarks over the ten years’ is overstating the issue: the figures available show it as 1% above the benchmark which although creditable could not be regarded as spectacular.
In conclusion in our opinion it should be possible to disinvest from fossil fuels over a period of five years without affecting returns. If 96.5% of CUEF is not in fossil fuels at the moment it will have little impact on returns if we move to 100% disinvestment.
|
11 June 2018 |
Nick Gay |
Alice Hutchings |
The Council has received the remarks made at the Discussion on 12 June 2018 (p. 714) regarding the topic of concern to the University on Grace 3 of 10 May 2018 (proposed University nursery building) (Reporter, 6507, 2017–18, p. 578). The Council notes that a ballot has been called on this Grace and that voting will open at 10 a.m. on Friday, 22 June 2018 and close at 5 p.m. on Monday, 2 July 2018.
The Council agrees with the comments noting the importance of excellent nursery provision, and notes that both current University nurseries, at West Cambridge and Edwinstowe Close, are considered by Ofsted to have ‘Outstanding’ provision (their highest possible rating). It is the aspiration that all University workplace nurseries achieve the highest rating. If the recommendations of this Report are approved, provision at the Harrison Drive Nursery would go out to tender in due course; no decision has been made about the provider to date.
The Council notes the number of comments in favour of increasing the level of nursery service provision, and the need for the University to address this directly.
The Council notes comments in respect of the size of the nursery, and can confirm that it will meet Ofsted space norms. The very high cost of nursery provision in Cambridge is noted, and this is the main driver in pursuing the construction of a new workplace nursery for University staff. Substantial cost savings for parents are available through the ‘salary sacrifice’ scheme, which would be available for staff at a workplace nursery. It is not the intention of the University to make a profit from the provision of nursery services. The Harrison Drive Nursery will be a very positive step to help the University meet the increasing need for childcare provision.
Traffic and parking surveys were conducted within University term times. The proposal will include 96 cycle spaces, and further covered space for four non-standard bicycles. Disabled parking spaces will continue to be available. An evaluation of the impact of traffic on the site will in any case form part of the Local Planning Authority’s assessment of the suitability of the site for the nursery.
The Council notes that consultation has been undertaken with the Faculty of Education, including representation of the Faculty on the membership of the Nursery Project Board.
The Council has considered the remarks made at the Discussion on 29 May 2018 (Reporter, 6509, 2017–18, p. 682) about the above Report (Reporter, 6505, 2017–18, p. 556). The Council has consulted with the General Board in submitting this response.
The Council notes the supportive comments of Professor Ferran, Professor Jones, and Professor Virgo, emphasizing that the proposals in this Report represent the first steps towards implementing an Academic Career Pathway Scheme (ACP) in future, which would replace the current Senior Academic Promotions (SAP) scheme.
Dr Cowley raises a concern that the proposed level of flexibility in the weighting of research, teaching, and general contribution is not as extensive as was recommended by the original Working Group. The Council comments that, as stated in the Report, this level of flexibility was not supported by consultation responses, hence the more limited flexibility proposed. However, the Report confirms that the operation of scoring flexibly would be kept under review and if it worked well could be expanded in the evolution of the ACP Scheme. The Council also notes and agrees with Dr Cowley’s comments that minor changes to the Scheme should be at its discretion but that more substantive changes should be the subject of a Report.
Dr du Bois-Pedain’s concerns about the absence of a commitment by the University to promote all its deserving staff members when they are ready to be promoted, and the budget available operating as a limited factor, are noted. Professor Evans’s comments about the competitive nature of the current scheme and budgetary constraints are also noted. The Council comments, as stated in the Report, that making appropriate budgetary provision so that deserving candidates receive appropriate recognition and reward is a key principle which is proposed for the next stage, when moving to implementation of an ACP Scheme. The Council also confirms that changes to the SAP Scheme, and in due course the implementation of an ACP Scheme, will be informed by the best current thinking on good equality and diversity practice to widen inclusion. The evaluative criteria to be proposed when taking forward full implementation of an ACP Scheme should aid transparency and fairness concerning the required standards for promotion, aided by examples of excellence which reflect Faculty norms. In response to Dr du Bois-Pedain’s concern about increasing the weighting of teaching, the Council confirms that the SAP Scheme and, in due course, the ACP Scheme, will be informed by best current thinking on the different forms of evidence that can be used to measure teaching achievement.
Dr Mentchen’s and Dr Basso’s concerns that the development of a career progression scheme for senior teaching-only staff was mentioned only at the end of the Report, and Dr Gagne’s and their additional concerns about the delay in taking forward a career structure for Language Teaching Officers, further to a review of their arrangements in the School of Arts and Humanities, are noted. The Council wishes to confirm that it is planned that proposals for senior teaching-only staff will be put forward during the 2018–19 academical year and that these proposals will take account of the recommendations made further to the review of language teaching arrangements.
The Council is submitting a Grace (Grace 1, p. 711) for the approval of the recommendations of this Report.
The Council proposes fees for certain other postgraduate courses in 2019–20 which have been recommended by the relevant bodies as set out in Schedule 1.
The fees for a new course announced on 7 March 2018 (Reporter, 6498, 2017–18, p. 444) are set out in Schedule 2.
Corrections have also been made to the fees for two courses in Schedule 3, previously published in a Notice dated 12 March 2018 (Reporter, 6499, 2017–18, p. 448).
The Council is submitting a Grace to the Regent House (Grace 2, p. 711) for the approval of the fees set out in the Schedules attached to this Notice.
Postgraduate fees
|
Qualification |
Fee for the course (£) (for all students) |
|
2019–20 |
|
|
M.B.A. Degree (one-year course) |
55,000 |
|
Executive M.B.A. (two-year part-time course) |
|
|
2019 intake1 |
69,200 |
|
M.Fin. Degree (one-year full-time course) |
45,975 |
|
M.Acc. Degree (two-year part-time course)1 |
49,000 |
|
Bus.D. (four-year course) |
|
|
2019 intake2 |
230,000 |
|
Annual fee (£) |
||
|
Qualification |
Home 2019–20 |
Overseas/International 2019–20 |
|
M.Phil. Degree3 |
||
|
Geographical Research |
9,537 |
22,080 |
|
Polar Studies |
9,537 |
22,080 |
1Fees for the 2019 intake will be 60% of the full fee for the first year, and 40% for the second year.
2Fees for the 2019 intake will be £80,000 for the first year, and £50,000 for each of years 2 to 4.
3The fees in this table for one-year full-time courses are also the fees for the course for part-time students studying for the same qualification. The fee payable in each of two part-time years is half the full-time fee chargeable in the year of entry.
|
Annual fee (£) |
||
|
Qualification |
Home 2019–20 |
Overseas/International 2019–20 |
|
M.A.St. Degree: |
||
|
Courses leading to examination in: |
||
|
Earth Science |
10,368 |
27,867 |
|
Annual fee (£) |
||
|
Qualification |
Home 2019–20 |
Overseas/International 2019–20 |
|
M.St. Degree: two-year part-time courses in |
||
|
Entrepreneurship |
||
|
Course commencing in October 2019 |
16,869 |
16,869 |
|
Social Innovation |
||
|
Course commencing in October 2019 |
15,900 |
15,900 |
The Council has received the following report from the Colleges Fund Committee which under Regulation 4 of the special regulations for the Fund (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 1059) it now publishes to the University.
1. The amount available in the Fund for distribution in 2018 is £4.505m.
2. The Colleges Fund Committee has approved the following grants to be added to the endowment of Colleges to be paid in June 2018:
|
£'000 |
||
|
Clare Hall |
123 |
|
|
Darwin |
55 |
|
|
Fitzwilliam |
349 |
|
|
Hughes Hall |
844 |
|
|
Lucy Cavendish |
844 |
|
|
Robinson |
602 |
|
|
St Edmund’s |
844 |
|
|
Wolfson |
844 |
3. These grants have been calculated by taking account of the model of a ‘standard’ College with a basic requirement for endowment. The figures take account of the endowment requirements of the relevant Applicant College as estimated by the Committee’s model having reference to numbers of undergraduates, full-time equivalent graduates, Fellows, and College Teaching Officers.
4. The Committee has again placed a cap on the grant made to any one College. It has limited the maximum grant to 150% of the average grant. Four Colleges have had grants limited in this way.
5. The Colleges Fund Committee has not approved any exceptional grants in addition to the endowment-based grants listed above.