Introduction - University College London



THE PROVOST'S GREEN PAPER:

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES RECEIVED

(at 16 April 2004)

Foreword

• This summary takes account of the 132 written responses to the Provost's Green Paper received up to and including 16 April 2004. These include: 29 responses expressing a collective view on behalf of academic departments, faculties or other academic units; nine responses expressing a collective view on behalf of other academic and/or non-academic groups/units, including two trade union groups; individual responses from 73 academic staff, 14 non-academic staff, one student, three UCL alumni (not employed by UCL), one parent of a student, and two others. A full list of respondents is at Annexe 1.

• The format of responses varied. Some explicitly responded to the Green Paper's '20 questions'. Others related to a greater or lesser degree to those questions and/or to the suggested 'Steps for Change' in the Green Paper. A number of issues not raised in the Green Paper also featured in the responses received. Part 1 of this summary presents comments received in response to each of the 20 questions. Part 2 comprises brief summaries of other issues which feature significantly in responses to date.

TIM PERRY

Director of Academic Services

22 April 2004

PART 1:

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO 20 QUESTIONS

1 From the perspective of your department or discipline, what do you believe are the major challenges facing UCL and how far are these captured in the Green Paper?

1.1 The following emerge strongly from responses as major challenges for UCL:

• to achieve long-term financial stability - in the face of continuing underfunding of UK universities

• to remain competitive with other major international universities in a rapidly changing world environment

• to continue to attract, reward and retain excellent staff - in particular younger staff - in the face of inadequate staff salaries and prohibitive housing and living costs in London

• to continue to attract excellent students without compromising UCL’s commitment to widening participation - and to generate funding for increased numbers of student scholarships

• to improve UCL's estate and learning resources (notably the Library and computing infrastructure) to a level appropriate to a major global university

• to ensure effective leadership and efficient management at all levels of UCL

• to generate a much larger endowment income than at present

• to become better known - establishing UCL as a widely recognised world-class university and as the London university.

1.2 Most responses agree that the Green Paper captures the major challenges for UCL - and makes clear:

• that hard choices that will have to be made

• that UCL needs to take a bold and proactive stance in relation to change.

2 Is the vision and the analysis in this paper on the right lines?

2.1 There is broad agreement that the Green Paper achieves a balance of realism and ambition – and widespread endorsement of its vision of UCL as a truly international institution, which should capitalise on its exceptional academic breadth and depth and retain a commitment to access and diversity. Some responses note the risks of a predominantly 'international' way forward, drawing attention to the unpredictability of overseas student numbers and the fierce competition for the best overseas students from major US and EU universities with better scholarship funding and facilities.

2. Several responses take the view that the meaning and implications of being a 'global' player in higher education need to be more clearly defined – and stress the need to spell out how the 'international' objective relates to UCL's mission and how we will measure progress in achieving it. These responses urges a stronger statement of the educational, as well as the financial, rationale for a shift towards international and/or postgraduate students – and of how UCL’s values will influence the achievement of its educational and social objectives once it has achieved sustainable solvency. In this connection, individual responses suggest:

• that UCL needs to be clear whether it sees its essential purpose as: either to provide a service to the nation and the world through research and education; or to develop as a self-sufficient business

• that, for an institution with such a strong liberal tradition, going global for UCL must involve more than attracting high-fee students and the best international scholars: it should also mean promoting a sense of global citizenship, social justice and environmental responsibility

• as well as encouraging international students to study at UCL, we should be ensuring that UK students are able to understand and work seamlessly in a wide range of countries and cultures, and encouraging UCL staff regularly to work abroad in order to improve contacts, internationalise their teaching and research, and keep their minds open and alert to different research cultures and approaches.

2.3 More than one response suggests that globalisation should mean active educational and research links, including reciprocal teaching programmes, with partner universities around the world (especially Europe [see also Part 2:c below], North America and the Far East). The point is made repeatedly that many UCL departments have long been operating within an international framework, aspiring to and often attaining the highest international standards, and enjoying a strong international profile thanks to their staff and students.

2.4 The question of 'balance' between subject sectors - flagged in the Green Paper with particular reference to the growth of biomedicine - is highlighted in several responses as an important and difficult issue for UCL to address in defining its identity and mission. One (biomedical) response notes that concerns about the dominance of biomedicine at UCL should not blind us to the fact that this is a feature of other major international universities, or discourage UCL from strategies which capitalise on the high standing, recognition and competitive edge of UCL Biomedicine but also offer possible benefits to our other subject sectors [see also 18.2/19.3 below].

2.5 In relation to student profile, the point is made that UCL: is a broad-based university with a good balance of undergraduates and postgraduates; as a result, provides a stimulating environment in which to teach and research: and should resist a narrowing of subject focus or a heavy concentration on one type of student.

2.6 Other themes seen by more than one response as essential to the ethos of UCL and/or as needing to feature more explicitly in a vision for UCL include:

• UCL’s core values – ie those of a liberal institution, offering open access to all, across the full range of academic subjects, and pioneering the study of new academic areas

• increasing the opportunities for women's academic career development

• an increasingly crucial responsibility to provide a setting and a platform in which dissent can be articulated and brought to public attention

• UCL’s relationships with business, industry and professional practice – and the need for greater incentives to UCL departments and their staff to be entrepreneurial.

2.7 The need for a stronger emphasis to be given to UCL’s commitment to the promotion of teaching as well as research excellence features in several responses. (One response notes that students can become leading ambassadors for the university at which they were exposed to teaching excellence.) Specific suggestions of how UCL should make explicit this commitment include:

• a clear ambition for improvements in teaching infrastructure

• a well-defined teaching strategy

• rewards to staff for excellence in teaching, including a stronger prospect of promotion to professorial appointments on the basis of teaching activity

• increasing the opportunities for informal discussion among staff about the development of new teaching areas and initiatives.

2.8 More than one response applauds the Green Paper’s recognition of the importance of multidisciplinary approaches – but suggests that the ‘single/multidiscipline conflict’ needs to be faced head on, and that steps must be taken to promote interdisciplinary research and training [see also 18 below].

3 Given the financial implications spelled out in the Green Paper, do you believe that, overall, student numbers should be increased, held steady or reduced?

3.1 There is near consensus that overall student numbers cannot be increased without a radical change in UCL's infrastructure and systems, and probably should be reduced (at least on the undergraduate side) to relieve pressure on the UCL estate and help maintain teaching quality. But arguments are also made for 'focused' growth of student numbers or expansion, in the longer term [see also 19 below]. For example, it is suggested that in Medicine student numbers should not be increased but that certain types of student training – with potential significant international appeal - might be expanded.

4 What would be the implications of each of these approaches for your discipline or department?

4.1 Responses naturally reflect, to a considerable extent, the different financial situation and prospects of individual departments. A number of comments stress the need for a review of financial mechanisms to protect departments from the effect of reduced student numbers - or raise the possibility of, eg, maintaining income through more advanced graduate training to replace undergraduate training. Nevertheless, there is broad agreement that reducing numbers would allow concentration on the quality of student experience and enable increased investment in the support of teaching and research. One caveat from a humanities department is that, if numbers are reduced, there will be pressure to reduce the menu of combined studies programmes - and that this would tend to weaken collegiality and detract from the intellectual richness of current provision.

5. What further contribution do you believe your department or discipline is capable of making to the future development of UCL as a global university?

6. What, if any, obstacles stand in the way of it making that contribution?

7 What conditions and incentives could help it achieve that contribution?

Responses to these questions are naturally to a large extent subject-specific. Responses made on behalf of whole academic departments/divisions and which specifically responded to these questions are summarised at Annexe 2.

8 What are the key emergent research themes for the next 10 years in your area in which UCL should be investing?

8.1 Responses are naturally to a large extent subject-specific. However, they underline the extent to which the whole area of genetics will become increasingly important and impact upon decision-making in many walks of life; and the need to apply scientific and technological advances in an ethical way, taking into account societal concerns and aspirations. The promotion of health is also mentioned repeatedly - and in different contexts, eg: the revolution in healthcare arising from advances in understanding and harnessing the life sciences; and in relation to UCL's future NHS partnerships (with the possible refocusing of the NHS from a 'disease'-oriented to a 'health'-oriented service).

2. Perhaps the most striking feature of responses to this question is the interdisciplinary nature of the key themes identified, expressed most explicitly in the comments from the Department of Computer Science:

... At the interface with the life sciences: systems biology, scaling up from genomics and proteomics to the physiome. At the interface with economics, law and public policy: privacy, security and intellectual property. At the interface with engineering: ubiquitous computing and the challenges associated with ultra-cheap computing and connectivity. At the interface with arts and humanities: information retrieval, interpretation and accessibility.

9 What are the key overarching research questions of the first importance to society to which UCL’s multi-disciplinarity capability can bring real value?

9.1 Overarching research questions suggested in responses include:

• impact of environment, sociology and biology and their interaction in causing disease

• HIV research

• genetics and society; understanding, synthesising and exploiting the data that have accumulated through the explosion in molecular biology and genetics

• sustainable development

• climate change

• natural hazards

• supply and management of fresh water

• bringing academic rigour into decision-making on methods of transport and transport infrastructure

• understanding of the human mind both when it is fully functioning in its cognitive and communicative capacities and when it is not

• understanding the nature of interdisciplinarity – and how it can best support intellectual independence, innovation and creativity

• the politics of knowledge; the proper relations of theory to practice; the theory, practice, and ethics of interpretation; the impacts of technology on interpretation

• research into why we do not solve issues of first importance to society, where we have enough knowledge to solve them

• human evolution and what it means to be human

• how to take care of the planet and pass it on in good order while still maintaining a developed society

• the place of belief in the life of the individual and society

• the social and policy implications of science – including environmental science and, potentially, bioscience/health and emerging technologies

• globalisation, multiculturalism and local cultural identities

• ethnic/religious/racial identity in a variety of historical and contemporary contexts

• human rights, democracy and social justice; poverty, inequality and social responsibility, globally and locally

• the interactions between social and cultural change, between gender and culture/society, between technological developments and social/cultural change

• environment, conservation and development

• urban governance; urban development and public space (hyper-density); more effective management of urbanisation

• how to design complex buildings in ways that best promote their primary function (eg a hospital building to facilitate healing, a university campus conducive to the generation and transmission of knowledge)

• how to ensure that our heritage buildings and historic landscapes evolve to meet socio-economic and environmental needs today and in the future

• the interpretation of buildings and the built environment as cultural phenomena

• how to implement a new management culture in construction (eg, in trust, leadership and supply chain management)

• how universities can be significant contributors to initiating and sustaining beneficial change in society

• digital divide and freedom of access to information

• impact of the global information society.

10 What should be the key priorities for funding through UCL’s forthcoming fundraising campaign?

10.1 The following themes feature especially strongly in responses to this question:

• student bursaries / postgraduate scholarships / student hardship funds

• support for younger/junior staff

• improvement of estate

• new local student accommodation

• upgrade of Library (including additional book space)

• new ('blue sky') research ventures

• permanent funding of new Chairs.

10.2 Individual responses also propose, inter alia:

• the Panopticon project [see also (15) below]

• the Race Equality Initiative at UCL

• attracting the best international students (from wherever they might come)

• top class teaching facilities

• an enhanced and enlarged language centre

• projects and new academic staff appointments linked to emerging and interdisciplinary research areas [see also (8) and (9) above]

• an international visitor centre

• postgraduate training

• funded research leave for staff

• providing all students with a lifelong e-mail account to maintain lifelong communication.

10.3 The following are suggested as underlying principles and processes for the fundraising campaign:

• UCL should focus on our interests and not those of our donors - while making clear to potential donors the mutual benefits of sponsorship in areas which UCL wishes to promote (eg scholarships)

• UCL should develop projects with which the public can identify and which thus enhance UCL’s public identity (and should generate more funding)

• enthusiastic academics have an important role to play in fundraising

• (in one response) where there are sufficient numbers of alumni, UCL should encourage the formation of virtual alumni clubs [see also Part 2:b below].

11 If UCL continues to increase its percentage of international students, would the “international” reputation of UCL be enhanced without damaging its image in the UK?

11.1 Most responses take the view that UCL can increase the percentage of international students without damage to its UK reputation - often with provisos and caveats, including the following:

• the increase should be carefully managed with a 'ceiling' for international student numbers (perhaps around 25% of the total student population) clearly in mind

• the international student population needs to be distributed across the full range of disciplines - and a reasonable balance between Home/EU and Overseas students maintained within all faculties

• entrance requirements should not be relaxed nor admissions criteria and processes revised to accommodate international students

• the teaching/learning environment should remain blind to the source of student funding

• international students whose command of English is insufficient require time-consuming teaching

• improved infrastructure, student housing and teaching accommodation will be needed to attract increased numbers of international students.

11.2 A number of responses see the income stream associated with international students now as vital to the continuing success of UCL (no longer as merely a useful supplement to UCL's income) - and stress the need for targeted additional resources to be devoted to international recruitment.

11.3 One response suggests that UCL’s international reputation is driven largely by the quality and competitiveness of its research; and that increasing the percentage of international students, while it may attract further international applicants, will not, in itself, contribute to UCL’s international reputation. A second response goes further in warning that if UCL becomes too ‘international’ in its student recruitment, its appeal to ‘international’ students will in fact be diminshed, as UCL ceases to represent its own UK identity, and all that this stands for in terms of its brand appeal to students from abroad. A third response makes the point that, in some subject areas, international students represent a principal ‘global’ link for UCL.

12 What would be the implications for your department or discipline of this strategy?

1. While responses vary between subject areas, the majority of comments welcome the prospect of a further shift towards international students, although a number caution that UCL will need to take steps to ensure it is sufficiently competitive to make this strategy a successful one - eg, in making available scholarships to allow us to compete successfully with well-funded US universities.

2. A number of responses warn that, in vocational subjects like medicine and engineering, there is a feeling among associated professional bodies and industry that we should primarily be educating students for the benefit of our own country. The point is also made that, since the Government is committed to strengthening the UK skills base (although without appropriate funding), UCL cannot afford to be seen as ‘turning its back’ on the UK.

12.3 One response suggests that UCL tends to offer ‘UK-centric’ infrastructure and facilities: if the overseas student community is to be enlarged, this will need to be reviewed.

13 What would be the implications for your department or discipline of shifting the balance of its teaching towards postgraduate students?

13.1 Here too, responses vary between subject areas. While some would welcome unequivocally a shift towards postgraduate teaching, others express more qualified support or enter caveats. Several departments warn that postgraduate teaching is more resource-intensive than undergraduate teaching; and responses from a range of subjects stress the continuum of undergraduate teaching, the availability of high quality graduates for postgraduate study and research, and the future health of an academic discipline. These departments make the point strongly that their undergraduate routes and/or teaching methods represent the best source of student quality and provide the most educationally rounded applicants for postgraduate courses.

13.2 Individual responses raise the following points, inter alia:

• while taught Masters are popular internationally, the UK/EU market is uncertain - changes in the funding of UK/EU undergraduate students may make the local postgraduate recruitment market yet more challenging

• a critical review of UCL's existing suite of Master's programmes will be essential if UCL sets itself a goal of increasing postgraduate numbers

• postgraduate student fee levels will need to be reviewed to ensure that UCL is competitive in attracting overseas students in particular

• the Faculty of Arts and Humanities makes the point that some of its departments are better able than others to make this shift, and that some departments have already reached the point where a further shift towards postgraduate students would be inadvisable

• the issue of full-time vs part-time students also needs to be addressed

• if a shift towards postgraduate teaching were to occur, UCL would need first to review the ways in which it rewards departments for teaching Master’s programmes

• a systematic increase in ‘international’ (including EU) graduate numbers will be best be achieved by UCL’s strengthening links with overseas universities, at the level of taught graduate programmes and PhD supervision.

13.3 While UCL’s overseas postgraduate fees are seen by some departments (especially in the engineering area) as uncompetitively high, the point is made in another response that UCL’s postgraduate fees for Home students are too low.

14 How should we develop our relationships with the University of London and the neighbouring Bloomsbury colleges?

14.1 Responses suggest a lack of consensus about the value of UCL's relationship with the University of London. While some see little added value (or any value whatsoever) in this relationship, colleagues in the humanities, in particular:

• stress the crucial importance to their subjects of the University library (although more than one (non-humanities) response suggests that UCL should move to take over the University library)

• stress their valuable links with Institutes of the University's School of Advanced Study.

2. While teaching and research collaborations with other Bloomsbury (and extra-Bloomsbury colleges) are generally seen as valuable and to be encouraged, most responses do not see them as being dependent on (or facilitated by) the University of London structure.

3. There is considerable enthusiasm for increasing collaborations, across a range of subjects, with one or more of our Bloomsbury neighbours (Birkbeck, the Institute of Education, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the School of Pharmacy and the School of Oriental and African Studies are all mentioned); and, outside the University of London, with the British Museum and the British Library. A number of other responses see colleges outside Bloomsbury - Imperial and King's - as more natural partners for UCL in collaborative research. Several responses express the view that it makes no sense for Bloomsbury-based institutions to duplicate each other's educational strengths and/or see scope for greater sharing of resources across Bloomsbury. One response suggests that collaborations should be established on the basis of the shared needs and objectives of scholars and pedagogues working in comparable areas (or areas not previously thought of as comparable) rather than on the basis of more formal strategic alliances. There is very limited enthusiasm for the prospect of further institutional mergers in the immediate future.

14.4 There are differing views about the strength of the University of London name and degree - seen by some as a 'brand' with which UCL should continue to be associated, by others as a hindrance to UCL as it endeavours to promote itself, especially in the international student market.

5. The point is made that the University of London still provides a limited number of administrative services which UCL is not at present resourced to carry out – eg the administration of research degree examinations and support for programmes within the University’s External System, in which UCL’s involvement has recently increased.

15 What should be our priorities for UCL in improving our estate?

15.1 Numerous responses applaud the Green Paper's vision for a 'University Quarter' in Bloomsbury [see also Part 2:m below]. There is widespread support for pedestrianising as much of the surrounding areas as possible, for enhancing and preserving green spaces, and for creating more landscaped and open space throughout the campus where staff and students can socialise.

15.2 There is strong enthusiasm too for the Panopticon project - seen as a way of providing an attractive and welcoming entrance to UCL, making a strong and positive statement about investment in the arts and humanities, and providing a shop window for what goes on at UCL.

3. A number of responses stress the need for UCL:

• to deal with the backlog of long-term maintenance and to bring the existing estate up to a decent standard rather than construct new buildings

• to invest in student facilities - seen as essential if UCL's recruitment of international students (and of UK/EU students) is to be maintained

• to improve and expand teaching and UCL-controlled examinations accommodation.

15.4 Other suggested priorities for improving the existing estate include:

• better Senior Common Room facilities and other settings in which to exchange information and ideas

• a cleaner and more tidy central campus

• enhanced security

• clear and attractive signage

• cycle parking facilities

• better access to Wilkins Building

• improvements to Foster Court

• better utilisation of space (hours of use)

• conference facilities

• improved organisation of dealing with minor repairs, etc (so as to give departments more reliable notice as to when work will start and an opportunity for feedback on completion of the work)

• improved heating and ventilation systems.

15.5 More than one response agrees with the suggestion in the Green Paper that UCL should review which of its operations need essentially to be in London, and whether there are others which could be housed elsewhere.

6. The Bartlett’s response:

• stresses the need for a more modern estate, with a strong sense of cohesion and identity to overcome the problem of UCL’s lacking an identifiable campus

• urges an assessment of UCL’s assets and the development of a ‘masterplan’, for which the Bartlett could provide in-house expert support.

16 What are the main estates issues affecting your department?

16.1 Recurring themes in responses include one or more of the following:

• class sizes - and increasing complaints about the suitability of teaching rooms

• dispersal of parts of the same department on different locations

• the problem of students having to spend time moving between widely dispersed teaching locations

• lack of access for physically disabled students

• concerns about security and proximity to drug-taking ‘neighbours’

• isolation on a non-Bloomsbury campus, associated lack of Bloomsbury support services, and consequent (and expensive) need to develop local services.

17 How best can UCL promote a greater sense of internal coherence: the “single UCL” objective?

17.1 Many responses see the Green Paper consultation exercise, in itself, as a means of promoting the sense of a 'single UCL' - and a refreshing way of engaging the whole UCL community in debate about our future. (One response describes the Green Paper exercise as 'a model of consultation for a complex insitutution such as UCL'.) These and other responses stress the value of keeping decision-making as collegiate and democratic as possible and of ensuring that the UCL community is kept informed of decisions made.

2. The latter point links with a widely expressed view that UCL needs to achieve better use of IT (including video-communications) to create a more integrated information environment.

17.3 One response suggests that a more focused and unified identity is important both for the UCL community and for UCL’s international image.

4. The following themes and needs recur especially strongly in responses to this question (as to other questions in the Green Paper):

• an improved and more congenial working environment and better pay for staff

• an administrative structure which is essentially supportive to academic staff and seeks to minimise distractions from the core functions of a university [see also Part 2:d/f below].

17.5 A variety of other possibilities are suggested in responses, including:

• shared studentships

• cross-disciplinary research initiatives [see also 18 below]

• lunch hour lectures and events (like 'UCL Minds')

• more community-enhancing social events.

17.6 Some members of the UCL community beyond the Bloomsbury Campus express the need for their contributions and perceptions to be better articulated, represented and supported.

17.7 Several responses suggest a possible tension between the diversity of which UCL is justly proud and the 'single UCL' objective – and warn against confusing internal coherence with uniformity. Others take the view that UCL has become too ‘balkanised’. There is broad consensus that UCL should aim for greater standardization of administrative processes - in support of diverse and innovative academic activities; and that UCL needs greater harmonisation and efficiency in its operations, at all levels, to perform well as the large enterprise that it now is.

8. One response suggests that the challenge presented by a main objective like ‘globalisation’ might in itself provide an opportunity to develop a sense of shared purpose within UCL – and allow the involvement of a wide range of creative views in pursuing this objective.

18 In what areas of academic activity is there potential for developing closer working relationships within UCL?

1. There is broad consensus that opportunities exist for increased academic synergies, in both research and teaching, that build on the excellence in many different departments and faculties of UCL [see also (8) above]. A number of responses suggest that closer working relationships need to occur organically but can be facilitated (not least through conversation in the Senior Common Room - if staff have time to use it).

2. Specific suggestions for closer interaction include:

• the arts and medicine

• life sciences with clinical sciences

• anthropology with: medical departments; law and public policy; archaeology; genetic medicine

• chemistry with biology

• mathematics with all areas in science and engineering

• connections between political and social philosophy and engineering

• expanding work in the area of speech technology, in collaboration with engineering sciences departments, including computer science

• a more integrated group of visual culture historians - in The Bartlett, History of Art and SSEES

• law, philosophy, economics, planning, public health and social services -perhaps through a reconceived School of Public Policy

• a Centre for Non-linear Mechanics - as the focus for a number of departments working on various aspects of non-linear solid and fluid mechanics

• multidisciplinary use of collections for teaching and research.

3. One response suggests that UCL should: consider introducing incentives for inter-departmental working, eg by particularly encouraging applications from departments for joint appointments; lobby research councils to do the same, eg by introducing research programmes where proposals have to demonstrate expertise in more than one discipline.

18.4 The need for greater financial incentives to encourage interdisciplinary projects on the teaching and training as well as the research side is stressed in more than one response.

19 Should the balance for the next 10 years be shifted more towards consolidation than additional growth?

19.1 The large majority of responses agree that the balance should shift towards consolidation. A number of these point out that growth would be damaging; and that, as the Green Paper makes clear, recent years have seen growth which has been sustained but which is no longer sustainable.

2. However, a good many responses stress that a 'strategy of consolidation' must not be a recipe for stasis or stifle innovation and development at UCL. More than one response warns that 'an institution that does not plan to grow is planning to contract'; another that ‘the world moves too rapidly for us to ignore changing trends and pressures’.

19.3 There is widespread agreement that consolidation is urgently necessary in certain areas - eg to bring about more efficient working processes, improve organisational cohesiveness, and progressively renovate the UCL estate and infrastructure. Nevertheless, several responses stress the need for organic and planned growth when this can be academically justified and properly resourced. The point is made, eg, that, as a multi-faculty university, UCL could bring real value to the crucial interaction between biomedicine and policy-making – and that in order for this to occur expertise in relevant areas of social science needs to grow.

20 Should we consider advertising internationally for appointment as Deans, Directors, and Heads of Department?

1. There is much, though not unanimous, support for the view that UCL should move towards advertising internationally - but with differences of opinion as to whether this approach should be adopted for all senior academic management posts or apply only in certain subject areas and according to the size of the academic unit concerned. More than one response notes that successfully implementing international advertising will naturally depend on UCL’s being able to offer internationally competitive conditions of appointment. The point is also made that, in the case of Heads of Department particularly, advertising externally would be likely to entail considerable additional costs for UCL unless the appointment was linked to the filling of a vacant Chair.

2. One response suggests that 'the more these roles involve managerial and financial responsibility, and the less they involve engaging with a specific discipline, the stronger the argument for an external search'. However, more than one response warns against creating a caste of managers who are non-functioning academics. The point is made that these posts need to be sufficiently well resourced to allow those holding them to remain at the top of their academic discipline while tackling complex management issues.

3. It is suggested that, in moving increasingly to external and international advertising of senior academic management appointments, UCL should not lose sight of the need to support and develop the management capabilities of its own staff, and that this should include effective succession planning. One response suggests that the preference should be to appoint an ‘insider’ who is radical enough to make changes.

4. More than one response suggests that Vice-Provost posts might also be advertised internationally.

PART 2:

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE 20 QUESTIONS;

OTHER ISSUES

a Academic and non-academic divide

A number of responses see the focus of the Green Paper as strongly oriented towards the academic side of UCL, with little mention of the contribution of support services and the need to develop and better manage certain areas within the Central Administration [see also e below]. The academic/non-academic staff divide is seen by some respondents as damaging to a sense of collegiality and common purpose. Responses also note that there is often the sense that academic departments and central services are working to different agendas - but are at the same time duplicating each other's workload.

b Alumni base

Comments are made that the idea of an endowment requires vigorous pursuit of alumni contacts and that UCL’s relative lack of an alumni base hampers our competitiveness - particularly in relation to US universities. The cultural differences between the UK and the US, 'where collective giving is part of everyday life', are recognised. One suggestion made is that UCL should explore the possibilities for following a trend in US universities to use sporting activity (eg running a university football team) to promote alumnus support and eventual endowment.

c Bologna

Responses from staff in various subject areas see the implications of Bologna as an opportunity for (i) greater interchange between universities in Europe and (ii) a move towards more advanced graduate teaching - and indicate support, in principle, for running taught Master's and PhD programmes together as a five-year 'package'. At the opposite extreme, other responses raise the question of whether UCL might (unilaterally) reject the Bologna process and have the confidence to press for European systems to adapt themselves to the UK's. Although the Green Paper focuses on PhD training, it is noted that the central issue arising from Bologna is the employability of all our graduates, including Bachelor's and Master's graduates, beyond the UK: increasing the numbers of international undergraduates and postgraduate students will not be an option if our degrees are regarded as sub-standard as a result of Bologna standards becoming an established norm. There is also a suggestion that the implementation of a European consensus on degree programmes arising from Bologna will increase the time staff must devote to teaching relative to the time available for research.

d Bureaucracy

One response suggests that, whenever a new policy (whether externally driven or originating within UCL) imposes requirements which will generate additional workload for UCL departments, a 'UCL ombudsman' should examine the initiative - and act as an intermediary between those who have imposed the policy and those who will have to implement it. This response goes on to suggest that, if the new policy offers no perceived benefits, UCL should be prepared to lobby external agencies, including Government, if necessary.

e Capital investment

The lack of a comprehensive option appraisal process in respect of capital programmes as a whole is noted; a more ‘multi-factorial’ approach to capital investment decisions – informed by UCL’s broad strategic aims as well as financial considerations – is suggested, including measures such as:

• the extent to which a project will realise broader efficiency improvements

• the extent to which a project will increase the perception of value and UCL’s efforts to increase market share in target areas

• how the project will enhance collaborative culture

• how the project will enhance UCL’s image and branding

• the extent to which the project will improve UCL’s overall cost to income ratio.

f Central Administration

There is an acknowledgement that regulation, audit, monitoring, etc, in teaching, research and in non-academic issues (such as health and safety, equal opportunities, and race equality) are largely externally driven [see also d above]. However, comments are made that UCL Central Administration:

• must seek to minimise the workload on academic departments - and recognise academic departments' anxieties at what they perceive as continuing devolution of workload from the centre to departments

• improve communications with academic departments;

and that:

• more transparency on central costs is needed

• these costs need to be reviewed to ensure cost-effectiveness of certain areas

• a less conservative approach to new academic initiatives is needed

• decentralising administrative support, provided it is carefully planned, could result in positive support rather than the risk averse structure currently in place.

One response from a central administrative division makes the point that investment in infrastructure and support services must be seen as an essential concomitant of the academic quality of UCL.

g Child care

A submission signed by the large majority of staff and students of the UCL Day Nursery acknowledges the high standard of child care provided by the Nursery staff but stresses that the financial resources available are not sufficient to provide the quality of educational curriculum now expected by OFSTED in a pre-school facility; and urges UCL to increase its investment in the Nursery both in the short term (by subsidising Nursery places) and in the longer term (by investing in a new Nursery facility).

h 'Commercialising' the UCL campus

A small number of responses suggest there is scope for exploiting on-site retail and catering opportunities to provide goods and services to staff and students.

i Committee system

Responses range from a suggestion that there are too many committees (with overlapping agendas) to expressions of regret that the abolition of committees during the 1990s reduced both the transparency of UCL decision-making and the opportunities for staff from different subject areas to interact. The point is also made that the committee-driven approach to oversight of teaching and research infrastructure and support services is unsatisfactory.

j Communications

In addition to improving internal and external communications by the use of new technology, a number of comments urge UCL to be more forthright in communicating its successes to London, the UK and the world. One response suggests that 'UCL is the best kept secret in higher education'; another that UCL needs to develop more control of people’s perceptions of what UCL is and does – and thereby raise its public profile.

k Curriculum development

There are suggestions that:

• as well as Bologna, UCL should take account of recently proposed changes in the UK 14-19 curriculum, including the possibility of over-arching diplomas, with a study skills core, which might render students insufficiently prepared for UCL's demanding three-year honours Bachelor's degrees

• UCL needs to review the balance between the amount of course unit choice available to undergraduate students when they are constructing their programmes and the expense associated with delivering that choice: reducing the number of course units could free up academic staff time for research and scholarship which would enable the quality of teaching to be enhanced yet further. There would also be associated cost and space savings.

• the Bartlett notes an increased impediment to students taking modules outside their own departments as professional programmes become increasingly inflexible.

l Financial management and devolution

Numerous responses urge an immediate review of the current resource allocation model. While there is widespread support for a move towards greater transparency, ‘opting out’ of central services and ‘managed autonomy‘, the risks inherent in more devolved financial management are also highlighted in some responses - as is the need for devolution to be accompanied by a clear and accountable management structure. One response from the Central Administration, noting the economies of scale which can be achieved by central provision of services, warns that a high degree of administrative devolution will tend both to increase demands for additional resources at departmental and faculty levels and reduce collegiality.

m Information Strategy

The point is made that UCL's Information Strategy needs to be directly linked to institutional objectives and to identify the current and future information needs of UCL. Implementation of the Information Strategy should include the commissioning of analysis to establish the processes and information systems which are most appropriate to deliver UCL's objectives.

n London dimension

Numerous responses urge UCL to emphasise more strongly the positive aspects of the London dimension - a London university that does not address the resources and habits that give London its metropolitan distinctiveness will be less able to be a global player. As indicated above [see Part 1: 10/15], plans for the Panopticon and the Green Paper proposal to enhance Bloomsbury as London’s ‘University Quarter’ are welcome but it is suggested that UCL can go further in exploiting its location. The point is made that UCL should be the major focus for intellectual stimulation and learning in London, capable of taking the lead in a huge range of disciplines, and providing a unique range of specialist courses and seminars to industry, commerce and government. Other responses on this theme suggest that:

• a stronger emphasis needs to be given to the potential of our central London estate for raising external funding

• UCL should retain and expand its links with the London community, particularly with local schools and colleges – not least in order to diversify the social and ethnic composition of UCL’s student intake

• we do not make full use of the educational and research opportunities that the London population - extraordinary in terms of its social mix and ethnic diversity - offers us

• London is a ‘laboratory’ for study of the urban environment - and should be used as such by UCL.

o Management information

Responses highlight the poor (if now slowly improving) quality of corporate data - seen as a serious drain on the efficiency and cohesion of UCL and as needing a sharper, more integrated focus.

p Medical charities research income

More than one response from biomedical areas argues that this income stream, ‘which the UCL centre regards as uneconomic’, has important local benefits for teaching and research – by (inter alia): providing funds for teaching programmes and, in particular, the equipment needed for teaching of modern experimental techniques to undergraduates; supporting the research fellows and postdoctoral researchers who provide supervision and generate research activity which allows departments to remain competitive for PhD studentships.

q Privatisation

One response suggests that UCL’s long-term future would best be served by UCL’s becoming a private university on the US model, although it is recognised that this option ‘is not possible at the moment because of external barriers which might be insurmountable’.

r Staff and student residential accommodation

Responses include suggestions for:

• more halls of residence for students, perhaps by converting existing UCL or other local property [see also Part 1: 15 above]

• provision of accommodation for staff, perhaps through an equity-sharing scheme.

s Student fees

The point is made that, in terms of student fees, the issue is not simply 'should we charge high?'. There is also the issue 'how do we respond to the competition offered by the development of many new degree programmes, at very good universities, taught in English, at little or no cost?' In some European countries (eg Germany) there are no fees associated with postgraduate programmes. In Ireland, undergraduate fees are similar to the UK for overseas students but postgraduate fees are much lower [see also Part 1: 13 above].

t Structure of academic year

One response urges a review of UCL term dates - and standard term dates across the University of London. Another notes that UCL, like much of UK HE, is out of kilter with continental Europe in terms of academic year structure - with teaching concentrated in only six months of the year and staff teaching for only two out of three teaching terms.

u Workload and working hours

Numerous responses express serious concern about staff workload, especially administrative workload for academic staff. One department draws attention to the fact that maintaining staff-student ratios – so that staff can provide a proper education for students while remaining research active – depends heavily and increasingly on the employment of graduate teaching assistants and urges UCL to address the issue of casualisation of teaching and the funding of part-time teaching. One (individual) response details the heavy and stress-inducing workload sometimes imposed on probationary academic staff. Another academic department asks UCL to make a statement as to many hours per week it actually expects staff to work.

trp

n:\greenpaper\gpcompositesummary220404.doc

22.04.04

Annexe 1

PROVOST'S GREEN PAPER - RESPONSES RECEIVED AT 16 APRIL 2004

|Name |Department |Date of response/ |

| | |response received |

|ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS / DIVISIONS/ FACULTIES| | |

|(Professor Katherine Homewood) |Department of Anthropology |19.03 |

|(Professor Peter Ucko) |Institute of Archaeology |29.03 |

|(Jane Fenoulhet) |Faculty of Arts and Humanities |31.03 |

|(Professor Mike Hoare) |Department of Biochemical Engineering |02.04 |

|(Professor David Saggerson) |Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |29.03 |

|(Professor Christine Hawley) |Faculty of the Built Environment/The Bartlett |30.03 |

|(Professor Alan Jones) |Department of Chemical Engineering |30.03 |

|(Professor Richard Catlow) |Department of Chemistry |01.04 |

|(Professor Anthony Finkelstein) |Department of Computer Science |23.03 |

|(Professor John Platt) |Department of Earth Sciences |25.03 |

|(Professor Henry Woudhuysen) |Department of English |02.04 |

|(Professor Chris Pitt) |Faculty of Engineering Sciences |12.03 |

|(Professor Richard Munton) |Department of Geography |05.04 |

|(Professor Simon Hornblower) |Department of Greek and Latin |01.04 |

|(Dr Ada Rapoport-Albert) |Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies |02.04 |

|(Professor Julian Hoppit) |Department of History |26.03 |

|(Dr Tom Gretton) |Department of History of Art |19.03 |

|(Professor Gloria Laycock) |Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science (School of Public |16.04 |

| |Policy) | |

|(Professor Michael Bridge) |Faculty of Laws |15.04 |

|(Professor Susan Hockey) |School of Library, Archive and Information Studies |29.03 |

|(Bella Malins) |Faculty of Mathematical and Physical Sciences |23.03 |

|(Professor David Larman) |Department of Mathematics |19.03 |

|(Professor Patrick Vallance) |Division of Medicine (Faculty of Clinical Sciences) |26.03 |

|(Professor Jo Wolff) |Department of Philosophy |16.04 |

|(Dr Valerie Hazan) |Department of Phonetics and Linguistics |18.03 |

|(Tessa Rickards) |Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences |07.04 |

|(Dr David Henn) |Department of Spanish and Latin American Studies |26.03 |

|(Professor Humphrey Hodgson) |Royal Free Campus Management Committee |02.04 |

|(Professor Geoffrey Hosking) |SSEES - History |25.03 |

|OTHER GROUPS / UNITS | | |

|(Tom Silverlock) |AUT/UNISON |31.03 |

|(Dr Gary Lye) |Day Nursery parents |17.03 |

|(Helen Matthews) |Departmental Administrators’ Forum |02.04 |

|(Toni Griffiths) |Education and Professional Development |26.03 |

|(Dr Nick Merriman) |Museums and Collections |26.03 |

|(Dr Andrew Faulkner) |Non-Professorial Academic Board Members |31.03 |

|(Michael Edwards) |UCL AUT |31.03 |

|NON-ACADEMIC UNITS | | |

|(Nigel Percival) |Educational Liaison Department (Registrar's Division) |27.03 |

|(Martin Butcher) |Registrar’s Division |07.04 |

|INDIVIDUALS: ACADEMIC STAFF | | |

|Dr Rhiannon Ash |Greek and Latin |08.04 |

|Professor Janette Atkinson |Psychology |08.03 |

|Rodney Austin |Laws |18.03 |

|Dr A W Barrett |Eastman Dental Institute |10.03 |

|Professor Mike Batty |Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis |09.03 |

|Professor Richard Begent |Oncology |02.04 |

|Professor Steven Bishop |Mathematics |12.03 |

|Professor David Bogle |Chemical Engineering |22.03 |

|Professor Richard Bruckdorfer |Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |30.03 |

|Dr Joe Cain |Science and Technology Studies |14.03 |

|Professor Peter Campbell |(Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry) |04.03 |

|Dr Stefano Casalotti |Institute of Laryngology and Otology |11.03 |

|Dr Janina Chowaniec |Surgery |31.03 |

|Professor David Colquhoun |Pharmacology |01.03, 02.04 |

|Professor Hal Cook |Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine |18.03 |

|Dr Frank Cooke |Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |25.03 |

|Professor Ingemar Cox |Electronic and Electrical Engineering |19.03 |

|Professor Michael Crawford |History |24.03 |

|Professor Jim Croll |Civil and Environmental Engineering |17.03 |

|Professor Wendy Davies |History |22.03 |

|Professor Ronald Dworkin |Laws |24.03 |

|Professor Lewis Elton |Education and Professional Development |20.03 |

|Marco Federighi |Faculty of Engineering Sciences |29.02 |

|Dr Roger Flower |Geography |23.03 |

|Dr Matthew Gandy |Geography |01.04 |

|Dr Tony Gardner-Medwin |Physiology |18.03 |

|Professor Mark Geller |Hebrew and Jewish Studies |05.03 |

|Dr David Green |Psychology |26.03 |

|Dr Paul Greening |Civil and Environmental Engineering |25.03 |

|Dr Tom Gretton |History of Art |09.03 |

|Professor Julian Hunt |Space and Climate Physics |19.03 |

|Professor David Ingram |CHIME |21.03 |

|Professor Steve Jones |Biology |24.03 |

|Dr Suzanne Keene |Institute of Archaeology |22.03 |

|Professor James Mallet |Biology |10.03 |

|Professor Helen Margetts |School of Public Policy |31.03 |

|Professor Timothy Mathews |French |05.04 |

|Dr Nicholas Maxwell |(Emeritus Reader) |05.03 |

|Dr David McAlpine |Physiology |19.03 |

|Dr Tony Michael |Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |31.03 |

|Dr Hugh Montgomery |Medicine |01.03 |

|Babar Mumtaz |Development Planning Unit, The Bartlett |01.04 |

|Professor Richard Munton |Geography |19.03 |

|Dr Chris Nightingale |Mechanical Engineering |11.03 |

|Professor Santa Jeremy Ono |Institute of Ophthalmology |01.03 |

|Professor Roger Ordidge |Medical Physics and Bioengineering |10.03 |

|Dr David Patterson |Medical School (Whittington Campus) |17.03 |

|Dr Andrew Plested |Pharmacology |16.03 |

|Professor Allyson Pollock |School of Public Policy |29.03 |

|Professor David Price |Earth Sciences |15.03 |

|David Proud |Slade School of Fine Art |30.03 |

|Dr Anisur Rahman |Medicine |14.03 |

|Dr Alexander Samson |Spanish and Latin American Studies |05.03 |

|Dr Ralf Schoepfer |Pharmacology |17.03 |

|Andrew Scott |Management Studies Centre |15.03 |

|Professor David Shanks |Psychology |03.03 |

|Professor Aubrey Sheiham |Epidemiology and Public Health |19.03 |

|Dr Richard Simons |Civil and Environmental Engineering |16.03 |

|Professor Mike Spyer |Vice-Provost (Biomedicine) |15.04 |

|Dr James Thompson |Mental Health Sciences |01.03 |

|Dr Andrea Townsend-Nicholson |Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |03.03 |

|Dr Nicholas Tyacke |History |31.03 |

|Professor Nick Tyler |Civil and Environmental Engineering |04.04 |

|Professor Heather van der Lely |Human Communication Science |28.03 |

|Professor Anne Warner |CoMPLEX |29.03 |

|Dr Martin Welch |Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences/Institute of |15.03 |

| |Archaeology | |

|Hugh White |Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |26.03 |

|Dr David Whitmore |Anatomy and Developmental Biology |10.03 |

|Dr Mark Williams |Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |14.04 |

|Dr Roger Wotton |Biology |29.03 |

|Professor Moira Yip |Phonetics and Linguistics |22.03 |

|Professor John Yudkin |Medicine |26.03 |

|INDIVIDUALS: NON-ACADEMIC STAFF | | |

|Malcolm Bailey |Management Systems Department |26.03 |

|Mark Burgess |Finance Division |26.03 |

|Dr Anna Clark |UCL Business |31.03 |

|Peter Daybell |Estates and Facilities Division |15.03 |

|Richard Furter |Estates and Facilities Division |05.04 |

|Rebecca Hurst |Science and Technology Studies |26.03 |

|Dr Bijan Kermani |UCL Business |19.03 |

|Dr Alisdaire Lockhart |Development Office |29.03 |

|Pamela Manfield |Immunology and Molecular Pathology |18.03 |

|Helen Matthews |History |30.03 |

|Dan Stowell |Information Systems/Faculty of Life Sciences |07.04 |

|Bob Swan |Procurement Services |09.03 |

|Judith Taylor |Staff Development and Training Unit |25.03 |

|Peter Woollard |Estates and Facilities Division |02.04 |

|INDIVIDUALS: UCL STUDENTS | | |

|Pablo Bonelli |Laws |23.03 |

|INDIVIDUALS: UCL ALUMNI | | |

|June Effemey | |18.03 |

|Morris Greenberg | |26.03 |

|John Howe | |18.03 |

|INDIVIDUALS: PARENTS OF UCL STUDENTS | | |

|David Nixon | |31.03 |

|ET ALIA | | |

|Professor Hilary Downes |Birkbeck |03.03 |

|Robert Naylor |UCLH NHS Trust |30.03 |

|Note of meeting with Trade Union | | |

|representatives | | |

|Note of meeting of staff of Central | | |

|Administration | | |

|Academic Board – (unconfirmed) Minute | | |

|(17.03) | | |

|Finance Committee – (unconfirmed) Minute | | |

|(15.03) | | |

Annexe 2

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES OF ACADEMIC DEPARTMENTS, ETC, TO QUESTIONS (5), (6) AND (7) OF THE GREEN PAPER

(5) What further contribution do you believe your department or discipline is capable of making to the future development of UCL as a global university?

(6) What, if any, obstacles stand in the way of it making that contribution?

(7) What conditions and incentives could help it achieve that contribution?

|Department, etc |(5) |(6) |(7) |

|Department of Anthropology |UCL Anthropology is very unusual in its breadth and|Financial constraints, limiting our ability to |Main conditions and incentives are already in |

| |vigorous internal interdisciplinary culture - its |develop joint posts with collaborating units, and |place, as they rely chiefly on the human resources |

| |centre of gravity is located at the meeting point |to attract, retain and reward the best staff; |currently available in Anthropology, in |

| |of biological, psychological and socio-cultural |heavy workloads, exacerbated by spiralling |collaborating units within UCL, and institutions |

| |perspectives in the social and natural sciences. |bureaucratic demands; the deteriorating condition |across London and elsewhere. |

| |It is a natural catalyst for and participant in a |of infrastructure and facilities; UCL-wide unmet | |

| |wide range of collaborative natural, medical and |need for increased social science statistics | |

| |social science initiatives. |training provision. | |

|The Bartlett |Tackling the major global problems of urbanisation,|Lack of scholarships to assist able students who |Allowing the Bartlett to make a judgment about its |

| |particularly at the interface between |otherwise may not be able to afford HE. |future size based on sound academic reasoning and |

| |socio-technical disciplines: the Bartlett has | |suitable resources. |

| |produced a unique, flexible structure to facilitate|Lack of adequate space and high quality teaching | |

| |cross-disciplinary problem-based research and |facilities. |A new building with appropriate space allocation. |

| |teaching in a profitable way. | | |

| | |Need for additional funding for the endowment of |Transparent and equitable distribution of |

| | |Chairs. |resources. |

| | | | |

| | |Need for additional support for research (in the |A more flexible and responsive administrative |

| | |form of sabbaticals, staff time, pump-priming |approach that better enables the Bartlett to tackle|

| | |funds). |global needs and concerns. |

| | | | |

|The Bartlett – Development Planning Unit |The DPU already makes a considerable international |UCL (understandably) tends to take UK-centric view |A more flexible, responsive (administrative) |

| |impact – we need to increase awareness of that |in its treatment of students (including advertising|approach that allows us better to tackle and |

| |impact in UCL as a whole. We also need to make UCL|and admissions) and image projection; demands on |address global needs and concerns, projecting a |

| |more aware of global issues (poverty, diversity) so|staff (time and resources devoted to |better image (including the name of UCL, improving |

| |that as a university we can better address these |administration). |estate and facilities). |

| |and therefore impact more as a truly global | | |

| |university. | | |

|Department of Chemical Engineering |Inherently interdisciplinary nature of subject has |Resource limitations – which are sometimes a |The ability to control and manage more of the |

| |allowed the Department to pioneer |barrier to interdisciplinary working. |Department’s own resources and invest more of its |

| |internationalisation – eg, a highly successful MSc | |surplus locally. |

| |in Chemical Process Engineering which attracts |Increasing administrative burden on both | |

| |students from all over the world. The Department |departments and individual staff is reducing | |

| |sees real potential for significantly increasing |productive time available for research and |Reduction of administrative overload. |

| |number and quality of high fee-paying postgraduate |teaching. | |

| |students. | |More local control of the level of postgraduate |

| | |High level of overseas postgraduate tuition fees |student fees. |

| | |(compared with Imperial, the Department’s direct | |

| | |competitor). | |

|Department of Computer Science |Computing, and hence computer science, is central |A short-term approach that uses the Department as a|A resource allocation model that allows departments|

| |to many if not all the large scientific and |cash cow and under-invests in success. |greater freedom of action and control over their |

| |engineering challenges of the twenty-first century.| |own destiny. |

| |It also provides the technical substrate for much | | |

| |of our cultural life. | | |

|Department of Earth Sciences |Skills and expertise that bear on challenges vital |Fragmentation of activities among different |Establishment of cross-disciplinary research |

| |to humanity - in the areas of resource supply and |departments and faculties - and of physical space |centres addressing specific issues; provision of |

| |management, and anthropogenic influences on the |even within the Department. |coherent dedicated space for the Department; an |

| |environment. | |intelligently designed resource allocation model. |

|Department of English Language and Literature |Maintaining current (5**) RAE rating and continuing|Burden of administration; poor pay and conditions |Improved pay and facilities for staff; more |

| |to produce a large body of excellent undergraduate |for staff; the difficulty of attracting excellent |generous financial assistance for graduate |

| |students and a smaller body of first- rate graduate|graduate students in competition with more |students; improved support from Central |

| |students. |generously endowed universities. |Administration. |

|Department of Geography |Geography straddles the traditional distinctions |Full Economic Costing presents a difficulty if | |

| |between the natural and social sciences and the |progress is not made by central government on | |

| |humanities. At the same time, it brings |overheads for charity and EU funding. | |

| |distinctive perspectives to bear on this | | |

| |interdisciplinarity (these centre upon the | | |

| |significance of place, the relations between places| | |

| |and geographical scales, and environment/society | | |

| |relations, including the science that underpins | | |

| |these relations). UCL Geography thus has much to | | |

| |offer the research agenda of a multi-faculty | | |

| |institution like UCL. | | |

|Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies |Programmes focusing on ethnic/religious/racial |Shortage of teaching and office space; inadequate |Graduate student ‘packages’ (including fees, |

| |conflict in both European and global contexts, |IT support; cumbersome central services provision;|subsistence and teaching assistantship); improved |

| |attracting excellent North American and Central |lack of financial resources for graduate |space, facilities and services; improved salaries |

| |East European graduate students (if financial |recruitment, research fellowships, etc. |for recruitment and retention of staff. |

| |support could be offered to them). Wide range of | | |

| |Hebrew and Jewish Studies courses could offer a | | |

| |good substitute for a JYA in Israel. | | |

|Faculty of Laws |UCL Laws, which already enjoys a strong |Staff turnover; a poor staff-student ratio; a |Elimination of these obstacles. |

| |international profile in its staff and students, is|poor library; a badly conceived financial system. | |

| |increasingly entering into joint programmes with | | |

| |other law schools. | | |

|School of Library, Archive and Information Studies |SLAIS’s subject – information - is a global |Understaffing. |More academic and administrative staff. |

|(SLAIS) |commodity; SLAIS has a range of international | | |

| |students who return to their own countries to |Inadequate accommodation and UCL infrastructure. |Devolved budgeting arrangements. |

| |become academics or senior managers in, eg, | | |

| |archives and records management. |Too much paperwork – which could be reduced and | |

| | |automated if UCL had better information systems. | |

| | | | |

| | |Lack of funding streams for research. | |

| | | | |

| | |Current budgeting system for departments inhibits | |

| | |innovation and investment. | |

|Division of Medicine |Develop links to improve training and research |Lack of funds needed to move quickly to attract the|Developing core technical resources will be |

| |capability in developing countries; encourage the |best young post- doctoral research scientists, |increasingly important and would reverse a pattern |

| |best young international researchers to build a |especially from the US. (This will need a change |that has emerged over the last decade in which |

| |career at UCL. |in attitude in funding bodies, many of which will |technical posts have disappeared. |

| | |only fund UK or EU citizens.) | |

|Museums and Collections |Exploit the international nature and importance of |Lack of clear integration into UCL structures; |A clear commitment by UCL to invest in the |

| |UCL collections to provide an international |inadequate accommodation and funding; generally |development of its museums and collections (beyond |

| |perspective to research and teaching; raise UCL’s |the size and importance of the collections merits |the Panopticon) because it sees their value in |

| |profile nationally and internationally through the |the development of a properly resourced service, |research, teaching and Widening Participation |

| |Panopticon project and associated outreach work; |either a single university museum (cf Manchester) |terms, as well as signalling its status as a global|

| |act as an attractive ‘shop-window’ for the |or a series of specialist museums (cf Oxford or |university; clear constitutional and reporting |

| |university for London and its visitors. |Cambridge). |arrangements; and a dedicated allocation of |

| | | |central accommodation. |

|Department of Philosophy |Largely through our research and teaching of |Lack of funds for research trips and conference |Dedicated research funds under individual |

| |research students: the UCL Philosophy ‘brand’ is |travel, and the bureaucratic procedures necessary |discretion; reduction in administrative tasks. |

| |strong and growing in strength, with staff spending|to obtain funds. | |

| |time at universities around the world, through | | |

| |academic visits and conferences. This will be a |Lack of resource to host visitors to the | |

| |continuing feature for the future. |Department; lack of facilities for research | |

| | |assistants and research fellows (who would further | |

| | |invigorate research culture, as well as improve the| |

| | |Department’s ability to compete for the increasing | |

| | |discretionary funding coming in to the Arts and | |

| | |Humanities). | |

|Department of Phonetics and Linguistics |Exploit cross-disciplinary opportunities arising |Geographical separation works against |High quality conference facilities would allow UCL |

| |from UCL's unique breadth and depth of expertise in|collaborations that naturally develop from daily |to exploit its London location more. |

| |all areas of human communication science. |contacts between researchers from connected | |

| | |disciplines. | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download