The battle for Oxford’s future

Simon Holder

It would be good if the apostrophe in the slugline on the web missive was there: I don't expect errors like that from The Spectator. You wrote, 'The Battle for Oxfords Future'. How many Oxfords are there?

nicholas partridge

The remark that there is not a single German University in the top 50 universities in the world is not credible. It also raises many questions abut the means by which these rankings occur.Perhaps it's time to write a series of articles that explains the presuppositions upon which such claims are made.

Timothy

Oxford and Cambridge share two rare features: they have a collegial organization and they have scientists of significant stature willing to speak on controversial topics: Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins are excellent examples.

The recent defense of Nobelist James Watson by these two Oxford academics is exemplary. As is the defense by Oxford of legitimate animal research.

Unlike the university, the colleges are not dependent on the government. Their members can therefore, given college support, speak freely on matters in which society is ill-informed.

With all but one UK university dependent on the government for the vast bulk of its funds, the college structure seems more essential to free academic speech than ever.

With the exception of Oxford and Cambridge, all other leading universities have seen dramatic curtailments in the role of Senate (the body of professorial oversight).

This was noted by the current head of the Medical Research Council, a highly visible supporter of reducing collegial oversight who recently reduced the size of the MRC council, citing as evidence for this being "best practice" the fact that all universities baring "two notable exceptions" had done likewise. Is it churlish to note that the MRC head, just three years ago made £22 million on a £130,000 investment in private finance buyout in the nation's defense laboratory? Support from this corner seems weak in this week of revelations on the importance of Governance and propriety in public affairs.

Note too that, far from the reordering of the academic universe we might expect if these reforms are so important, the reformed universities adhere more closely than ever to the views of their government funders (recent hyperbolic comments on obesity are apposite), with the only measured increase in efficiency being increases in the salaries of their Principals.

And still Oxford and Cambridge thrive. These two "notable exceptions" of Oxford and Cambridge lead the UK pack by large margin in not only teaching and research distinction but also in academic freedom.

So, perhaps the Colleges are right, and Lord Patten and Chancellor Hood are wrong.

More straightforwardly, and contra Patten's quote of Lampedusa, ‘If we want things to stay as they are, some things must not be changed.’

Kayode Samuel

Not having attended one myself, I can only hazard a guess on the intricacies of trying to re-position an old institution in terms of governance. It could really be a frustrating job for as the saying goes, it's tough learning to be left-handed in old age.

Benjamin Kirby

I think Chris Patten's question of how to keep up with the Americans is the key one. And yet Oxford and Cambridge have done so up to now without the same funding. As someone who used to work in one of those institutions, I have no doubt that it is the lack of central control that makes the difference and attracts good staff despite the poor salaries and awful standard of living. I feel sorry for John Hood. He was brought in to do a job and he failed. He failed because he went about it the wrong way in a clumsy and bullying manner. And yet it is a good thing that he failed. Copying the University of East Anglia is not the way forward. Oxford wasted years in pointless argument over a reform that was not worth considering for more than two minutes. It is impossible to have strong colleges and a strong central University. Mr Patten must know this. The only policy worth following was more money which must mean full fees on UK and EU students. Mr Hood wasted time on a pointless exercise in deferring to the red tape, box ticking, pseudo-management ethos of Whitehall when he should have been lobbying for real reform. What Oxford and Cambridge need is the power to charge what their degrees are worth.

John NAGENDA

Sagaciously plain, albeit with bracing "this and that" sprinkled with "yes, but on the other hand" too; and informed of governance from the toppest of drawers (Hong Kong, cabinet, Chancellor), did the great man, Chris Patten, once or twice attain a whiff of Polonius? But all the same, and rightly, one speaks as an admirer.