Report of Discussion

Tuesday, 3 June 2025

A Discussion was scheduled by videoconference with Deputy Vice-Chancellor Lieutenant General Douglas Chalmers, EM, presiding, and the Registrary’s deputy, the Senior Pro‑Proctor and the Junior Pro-Proctor as the attending officers.

Remarks were received as follows:

Remarks on the Joint Report of the Council and the General Board, dated 19 May 2025, on a revised approach to examination allowances

(Reporter, 6784, 2024–25, p. 560).

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

Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the possibility of Cambridge permitting ‘resits’ has attracted some press interest and is central to this Report.1 Some radical ‘remedies’ short of allowing resits are proposed in the case of the Tripos, including ‘to disregard examination components worth up to and including 25%’ and ‘calculate the candidate’s results on the basis of the remaining components’, with the Chair of Examiners, after consulting with at least two other Examiners, to determine the candidate’s overall degree classification. This could prompt challenge by students whose class of degree affects their being able to proceed to their intended careers, but time will tell.

It is a pity that the opportunity was not taken to include in the Report allowances and possible resitting of examinations for postgraduate degrees. An application for an M.Phil. degree may be assessed solely by thesis or by a combination of dissertation, exams, coursework, projects, reports, seminars and essays. It is not obvious that a ‘resit’ would be possible through all those routes. Nor are the thesis-based Ph.D., Bus.D., Ed.D., M.D., Vet.M.D., M.Sc., and M.Litt.2 considered, though a call for a resit may arise for those too, where it may take the form of permission to revise the thesis and resubmit it for ‘further examination’.3 For Higher Doctorates the examiners may offer the applicant the option to accept an M.Sc. or M.Litt. There is a possibility of ‘resits’ in the form of resubmissions, but only after a five-year period ‘before an unsuccessful applicant’ may reapply so as ‘to reduce premature repeat applications’.

The examination requirements for Higher Doctorates lack provision for making ‘allowances’. It seems timely to note that the University is embarking on a review conducted through a Postgraduate Committee Consultation on possible revision to Higher Doctorates degrees and also the surviving degree of Bachelor of Divinity. Cambridge like Oxford has Higher Doctorates in the historic subjects of Divinity (D.D.), Civil Law (D.C.L.), Divinity (D.D.) and Music (D.Mus.), with Letters (D.Litt.), Science (D.Sc.) added a century ago. This is relevant because Cambridge Higher Doctorates may be granted by incorporation from the Higher Doctorates of Oxford (as mine was) or Dublin.4 Their comparability remains important.

Oxford is having a rethink too. It notes that in Cambridge there have been requests from Degree Committees including withdrawal of these degrees or to withdraw them at least ‘to any new applicants’.5 The Regulations for – and the administration of – Oxford’s own Higher Doctorates have hit a roadblock, following a review in 2016 with a post-implementation review in 2021–22. The Oxford Gazette of 4 May 2023 announced that nominations for higher doctorates from the 2023–24 round onwards were to be suspended ‘while further work is undertaken to determine the future direction’. There was an update on 28 March this year continuing the suspension to 2025–26.6 A Divisional Consultation on Higher Doctorates is taking place during Trinity term with the outcomes expected not to be reported ‘before Michaelmas Term 2025’. Meanwhile it seems to remain the case that ‘nominations may remain under consideration for several years’.7

In Cambridge a Consultation with Degree Committees about Higher Doctorates closed yesterday.5 It is proposed to ‘revise the eligibility criteria to limit candidature to current or recently retired staff’ so as to recognise ‘academic eminence within the institution’. It is stressed that ‘the degrees are not a recognised step in the University’s promotion processes, nor are they used to reward lifetime academic achievements of staff’ therefore ‘the strategic purpose of the Higher Doctorate degrees is unclear’. Perhaps the Council will explain in its Notice in Response to this Discussion on ‘examination allowances’ what is meant by ‘strategic purpose’ and the reason for discounting ‘lifetime achievements’, though those are clearly relevant to the grant of other degrees?

The Consultation brief asks whether it would be fitting to exclude candidates whose research achievements have not ‘taken place at or in collaboration with the University’ or those who no longer have ‘an active relationship with the University’. That would surely sit uncomfortably with considerations of sheer merit? It might also rule out ‘resits ‘for some?

There are practical concerns. It is suggested that transfer of responsibility from the Postgraduate Committee to the Degree Committee would ‘improve timelines and reduce administration in line with other doctoral degrees’, but retaining the Postgraduate Committee as the deciding authority for the award of a Higher Doctorate. Yet is admitted that ‘Degree Committees are finding it challenging to identify willing Referees and secure reports from them within a reasonable time’, perhaps because the fee paid is the same as that paid to Ph.D. examiners although the volume of publications to be read is much greater than a single Ph.D. thesis. The reluctance of Referees contributes to a drawn-out assessment with an average of twelve months from application to outcome. Should the fee be reconsidered? Might there usefully be ‘a limit on the volume of published work submitted, to reduce the burden on referees’? It is suggested that a longer summary would ‘aid the Referees’ by providing a clearer ‘articulation’ of the ‘claim to the degree’ with a CV at the outset ‘to aid the initial Assessor’.

Should an applicant’s fee be refunded if it proves impossible to ‘engage Referees within a reasonable period of time’? That is not unlikely given the described natural reluctance to judge eminent peers despite ‘doing so anonymously’.

Benefits to the University of awarding Honorary Higher Doctorates are listed, including seeing it as ‘an alumni benefit’, and a means to ‘re-establish relationships with notable alumni’. Are those proper reasons for the award of a degree? With the Honorary Degrees ceremony coming up on 25 June are the Honorands, perhaps reading the Report of this Discussion when it is published before that date, going to wonder why they were chosen?

With ‘examination allowances’ for the Tripos under consideration is there a case for taking a fresh look at examining for the University’s higher degrees, including its highest? It would be a pity to allow these historic Doctorates to dwindle and ultimately die away in Cambridge leaving them only in ‘Honorary’ form.