Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 13 May 2025

A Discussion was convened by videoconference. Deputy Vice-Chancellor The Rt Hon. Lord Smith of Finsbury, PEM, was presiding, with the Registrary’s deputy, the Junior Proctor, the Junior Pro-Proctor and fifteen other persons present.

Remarks were made as follows:

Remarks on the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 27 April 2025, on reform of undergraduate admissions governance

(Reporter, 6781, 2024–25, p. 534).

Dr M. J. Thompson (Office of Intercollegiate Services and St Edmund’s College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am the current intercollegiate Director of Undergraduate Admissions. In this role I have been working with colleagues across the collegiate University to find a reformed model of the committees overseeing undergraduate admissions which would be acceptable to the 29 undergraduate Colleges, and to the University. The proposals approved by the General Board and the Council are the result of extensive consultation with the Colleges (in Michaelmas Term 2023, Easter and Michaelmas Terms of 2024, and the Lent Term of 2025) and have been unanimously approved by the Senior Tutors’ Committee under delegated authority from the Colleges’ Committee.

The Strategic Review on Admissions and Outreach which reported in July 2021, was set up to deal with perceived problems in the way undergraduate admissions is organised. Its terms of reference included the need to consider the following points relating to governance:

•avoiding duplication in Committee business and membership;

•achieving clear and transparent decision-making;

•determining how College and University interests can be effectively represented at all levels, without multiplicity of effort; and

•whether or not Faculties and Departments should be more involved in admissions.

Four models have been considered. The first two, A and B, were suggested by the Strategic Review in 2021. Further refinements were made to these, resulting in models C and D. The latter two models were considered by the Colleges’ Committee in October 2022. Model D was approved in principle by the General Board on 2 June 2023, and the Colleges’ Committee on 8 July 2023, as the basis for a future model.

The reformed Undergraduate Admissions Committee would act as a discrete decision-making body, where ‘decision-making’ would be constrained by the agreed processes and principles for intercollegiate agreements. The Committee will have a voice from each undergraduate‑admitting College and School, to enable better communication and information-sharing across the intercollegiate University for improved decision-making. Formal reporting would be to the General Board (through its Education Committee) and appropriate College bodies (either directly, or through the Colleges’ Committee in cases of serious dispute) for information and ratification. The joint College/University nature of the current UAC would be preserved, with the reformed UAC now invested with decision-making authority over matters concerning undergraduate admissions. The reformed UAC would also serve as a fourth principal intercollegiate committee for the Colleges, with intercollegiate decisions being ratified there, with discussions informed by the University representatives present.

I would like to thank the many colleagues involved in the Strategic Review, the preparation of the draft terms of reference, and the various consultation exercises.

---

Professor G. R. Evans (Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History), read by the Proctors:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, admission to higher education is currently attracting some attention. The Higher Education Policy Institute has published One Step Beyond.1 During its Annual Conference on 12 June, UCAS’ Chief Executive will discuss ‘The outlook for HE admissions in 2025’ and Nick Hillman, HEPI Director, will lead an ‘In Conversation’ session on the subject with Susan Lapworth, Chief Executive of the Office for Students.2 It is to be hoped that the special features of Cambridge admissions will get a mention there. The University shares the recognised national concerns but has concerns of its own concerning the role of its Colleges.

The Colleges are central to admission to Cambridge. Undergraduates are admitted by the Colleges, and graduate students directly admitted by a Faculty or Department must also choose a College. Applicants who have ‘received or become qualified to receive a degree from another institution of higher education’3 may also be admitted, as Affiliated Students, by Hughes Hall, Lucy Cavendish, St Edmund’s and Wolfson Colleges. The Colleges then present these student members to the University at matriculation and bring them to it to be admitted to their degrees.4

This Report addresses a fundamental question. How can the Colleges work together over admissions, and if they can, should they? The existing Colleges’ Committee5 and its Standing Committee6 have their roles in helping Colleges to act together, but are recognised only in passing in the University’s Statutes and Ordinances. Proposals about a cooperative role for Colleges as independent corporations governed under their own Statutes have been carefully balanced in this Report’s proposals. It is proposed that applications of individual candidates for admission should continue to be considered by Colleges, which are to determine their methods of assessment and set any conditions attached to the offers they make. Nor will the revised Undergraduate Admissions Committee be allowed to exercise ‘authority over which courses are offered at particular Colleges’.

The proposed revised Committee is not to have any ‘automatic power to make decisions binding on – or to represent the views of – the Colleges collectively, unless it is explicitly asked to do so with the agreement of all Colleges, or implicitly may do so as a result of a decision made with the agreement of all Colleges’. Colleges may act collectively to determine intercollegiate policy or strategy, and may choose to cooperate on operational matters. This is expected to be looked for only in limited circumstances which ‘will relate to responding to clear legal, statutory or regulatory requirements set by government, a government agency or a course accreditation body’.

Importantly the Office for Students is not such an ‘agency’ but ‘a non-departmental public body’. Nevertheless it is the Regulator and its first Condition for the Registration of a ‘provider of higher education’ is that it must have an ‘access and participation plan’ designed to encourage applications for admission with regard for equality, diversity and inclusion.

Cambridge duly has one, intended to serve the purpose until 2029.7 It begins with the promise that the University ‘will address barriers to equality of opportunity across the undergraduate student lifecycle, encompassing admissions, on-course experiences and progression to further study or employment’. What is the scope of the ‘equality’ to be protected? This is a matter recently touched on by the Vice-Chancellor. ‘In 2022 nearly half of our undergraduate students came from those areas, while just 7.7% of applications came from the north-west’, she noted. She wanted the University to ‘serve the UK as a whole’. The BBC drew attention to her remarks on 26 February.

Any North–South divide in applications tends to be associated with the confidence of schools in encouraging their able pupils to apply and prepare them to engage with the process.8 Having been an Admissions Tutor for a College I well remember the difficulty of balancing distinctions among candidates in that regard. If Colleges are to be encouraged to take into account anything other than the merits of the candidate or the specific needs of a College, that surely needs further consideration by the Regent House.

‘Admission’ also includes admission to a degree. This seems a convenient opportunity to draw attention to a difficulty Oxford has been addressing which Cambridge shares. A Supplement to the Oxford Gazette of 8 May published a recent debate of Congregation with the result of a vote.9 Concerns had been raised that the current wording for presenting candidates uses the two grammatical genders Latin allows. The change proposed was to remove reference to ‘conspicuously gendered terms’ and replace it with the phrase hic adstantem to identify the ‘scholar’ being presented for the degree. Cambridge’s Latin faces a similar challenge in the presentation of viri mulieresque at a degree ceremony. The Praelector presenting the graduand holds the candidate by his or her right hand to present hunc virum or hanc mulierem. Perhaps it is timely for that wording to be reconsidered in the interests of meeting contemporary expectations?

Remarks on the Report of the Council, dated 28 April 2025, on the disposal of the Mill Lane North site to King’s College

(Reporter, 6781, 2024–25, p. 538).

Professor S. Srinivasan (Department of Politics and International Studies and King’s College):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the proposal to purchase the Mill Lane North site has strong support within King’s from across the Fellowship, and links to our core aspirations as a College committed to widening participation and to building an integrated academic community. As anyone who walks through King’s will be well aware, the main College site allows very little space for an expanded estate. Mill Lane North is thus a hugely attractive space for King’s to develop. Our plans for the site are predominantly focused on undergraduate (and to a lesser extent postgraduate) accommodation, as well as the need to create additional space dedicated to teaching and research. The College is eager to protect this site for the benefit of the collegiate University and the wider Cambridge community. It is very much the intention to retain and indeed develop some publicly accessible spaces within the site, whilst also ensuring a safe and productive environment for our students. Development of the site will take a number of years, and the College will do its utmost to be a considerate neighbour, particularly to the adjacent Pembroke development and to the other nearby Colleges as it pursues the project.

---

Mr J. J. Humbles (Peterhouse):

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Report states that the proposed disposal will involve the ‘relocation of the current occupants’. If I understand correctly this would presumably entail the termination of leases or licences of non-University occupants of parts of the site, including at least three popular and well-used businesses, namely The Anchor pub, S&G Cycles, and Café Aristo. I for one would be sorry to see the Regent House authorising the expulsion of these facilities. In particular, I wonder how the wilful expulsion of one of the last centrally‑located bicycle shops in Cambridge would fit into the University’s commitment to green travel.

---

Mr B. B. Knight (Christ’s College), read by the Proctors:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, I am speaking today to raise three questions around the proposed disposal of the Mill Lane North site to King’s College.

First, it would be helpful to clarify how relocations will occur. The most recent comparable disposal may be that of the set of buildings adjoining Mill Lane South, where the Notice on the disposal (Reporter, 6640, 2021–22, p. 161) assured the University that the Programme Board for Education Space had seen and agreed alternative arrangements for all teaching and that the University Centre could absorb the demand on 12 Mill Lane. In this instance, by contrast, we are advised that the relocation will form ‘a strategic academic priority’; however, it is still to be planned by a Programme Board.

This brings me to my second concern: where this project fits into Reshaping our Estate. Reshaping our Estate has promised a 20-year financial capital plan and a strategic estates framework.1 However, neither of these are yet available. As a result, it is opaque to the University how this disposal fits into a broader rethinking of our estate and it is difficult to assess whether the trade-off in future opportunities best facilitates our long-term aims.

Finally, recent pressures on teaching space in the city centre have been influencing the construction of the timetable in ways that many students are dissatisfied by. At the same time, the Teaching Review, recently approved by the General Board, wishes to move the University towards a bounded teaching day and urges departments to create ‘‘buffer’ areas in all timetables’.2 However, the disposal of a central site limits our options to realise this, and, without more information from the Reshaping our Estate programme at this stage, the path towards this vision remains unclear.

None of this is to say that the disposal is not appropriate, nor to contest that the alternatives would be very costly, but I do hope that the Council can provide more information, to explain its reasoning, before a Grace is submitted to the Regent House.

---

Dr G. R. Tett (Provost of King’s College), read by the Proctors:

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, King’s is excited by the prospect of renewing the Mill Lane North site and is delighted to be working collaboratively with the University on its acquisition. We are committed to ensuring that Mill Lane North remains a vibrant part of collegiate Cambridge far into the future. King’s proposed purchase of the site presents a wonderful opportunity for the College to provide student-centred facilities in a location very close to its main site. We appreciate the excellent adjacent development recently completed by Pembroke, and King’s envisages creating similarly attractive new spaces and significantly improving the built environment around Silver Street and Mill Lane.