How apt. John Hood, the controversial vice-chancellor of Oxford University, can't get into the divinity school. As he impatiently rattles the knob of the university's impressive medieval building where he will have his photograph taken, a flustered flunkey arrives with a bunch of keys. Hood is not due to step down until September, but, it seems, Oxford has already turned its back on its most unpopular vice-chancellor in living memory.
"There's a symbolism here," I tell the New Zealander, who, five years ago, became the first man recruited from outside the dons' ranks to run the 900-year-old establishment. His dramatic proposals for the university bitterly divided the academics, earning him the moniker "Horrid Hood" among some. In 2006, a crucial vote in which he was defeated over the way the university should be run was viewed by many as a silent sign of no confidence.
Anyway, he's leaving now, and is off to a job running an American foundation. And, it seems, he remains unrepentant. "I have no regrets at all," he says, "It has been an enormous privilege to be here." Still, this is the only interview he will be giving, and when pressed, he admits that "Oxford is a lively, argumentative place".
How did things go awry for a man with a solid 19-year career in business and a stint as head of Auckland University? Arriving in 2004, he was billed as a saviour who would lick a disorganised university administration into financial shape. But part of his mission - to persuade the dons to work together in a new council dominated by businessmen - was resoundingly voted down by the academics, incensed at the attempt to diminish their control over the university.
"He wanted to turn us into a kind of Tesco run by outsiders," said one don furiously. "What made it worse was that he seemed to be complicit with government quangos who kept writing threatening letters saying that our model of governance should be brought into line with that of business, and that if it was not there would be 'consequences'... The general attitude was why should Oxford model itself on crappier institutions? Why should we give outside voices a controlling stake in our affairs? They should be imitating us, not the other way round. "The vote served as an expression of no confidence in his leadership," continued the don. "After that, in my view, there was no way he could stay beyond his first five-year term in office."
Was Hood surprised by how much media prominence the attacks on him were given? "Not really," he shrugs. Many journalists "[seem] to have gone to Oxford, and they all have their favourite don they ring up". Anyway he is keener to talk about his view that, "if Oxford is successful over the ensuing decades in its endowment raising we could see it taking less government money for teaching". However, "it is a more complex debate than simply saying Oxford should go private". Quite aside from anything else, the university could then afford to ignore pressure from meddling ministers to enrol more state school pupils. "We are not in the business of social engineering," he says firmly.
Despite his reputation, it's difficult not to warm to this controlled and careful man. He talks proudly of the four multi-millionaire alumni that he helped persuade to gift their alma mater huge sums. These included the computer whizz kid James Martin, who donated $100m (£62m) to set up a centre to research problems of the 21st century. It's clear that Hood believes Oxford will survive as one of the five best universities in the world only if every tycoon with an Oxford degree absorbs the notion that it is their duty to pay up after they leave. "The future success of this university depends on their generosity," he says. "We must engender a responsibility to maintain Oxford at the top of the world for generations to come." The real rivals are America's Ivy League. "More than 60% of Princeton's alumni give money to their university annually," says Hood. When he arrived, the comparable figure at Oxford was 5%; today it is 14%.
Oxford is already enviably wealthy. Its 38 colleges boast nearly £3 billion in endowments, a figure that has been only slightly dented by the recession. However, this does not alter the fact that our brightest young researchers are still being poached by Ivy League universities. The university press officer, who has sat in on the interview, ticks off examples such as the top computing student who couldn't get funding for his doctorate at Oxford, so left on an American scholarship, and the five politics students who withdrew from Oxford's PhD programme last year to go to the US. "We do run the risk of a significant brain drain," Hood says. Slowly, however, interest in donating is building up. Teams of students ring old boys and girls to ask for money; invitations to gaudies and garden parties encourage loyalty. "At the most successful college, 30% of the alumni gave money. They were offered 33 events," he says.
To help balance the books, every British student will "inevitably" have to pay a lot more in tuition fees than the current £3,000 or so. How much more? He won't be drawn but splutteringly dismisses as "inaccurate" and "scurrilous" a newspaper report that quoted him as saying that fees could rise to £11,000 a year once the government-ordered review is concluded, which won't be, he says, until "after a general election". However, he does say that Oxford and Cambridge will end up with the priciest degrees. "It is inevitable Oxford and Cambridge will end up charging more than the other universities in a free market, though that is a few years away."
The university has tried to maintain a positive spin on a reign described by one don last week as "a disaster". I'm even given a story designed to illustrate how hard- working Hood is - which involves him getting back on his bike after a cycling accident in which he was "nearly killed" in order not to be late for a meeting. He said nothing about the collision for 45 minutes, and then looked down to see his blood pooling under the table. Later, in China, he had to be taken to hospital.
We discuss the recent scandal over the university's election for the chair of poetry, which saw Derek Walcott, the favourite, resign after being accused of being a sex pest, swiftly followed by the winner Ruth Padel, who, it emerged, had been involved in the dirty tricks campaign against her rival. A classic example of just how feral donnish plotting can be, I say. That wasn't the dons, he says, allowing himself the briefest of smiles - that was the poets.
In last week's interview [above] with the retiring vice-chancellor of Oxford University your correspondent gave much space to smug and silly comments by one of Dr John Hood's detractors and none at all to his admirers. Hood is the first vice-chancellor to have been appointed from outside the university, which changed its statutes to make possible the appointment of someone who would bring external skills and experience.
When Hood arrived, there were difficulties with a new computer system, no university-wide management accounts and no capital plans. Cash balances had dropped from £69m to £7m in six months. As he leaves, the university's overall income has increased by 70%, and Oxford leads the UK both on external research income and in its research assessment settlement. Oxford has been top of the Times Good University Guide and The Guardian's university rankings every year for the past five years.
The anonymous don quoted may not recognise it, but successful universities of the size of Oxford do need good management and leadership as well as brilliant academics. As Giles Henderson, master of Pembroke College, said on behalf of heads of colleges at their farewell tribute to Dr Hood: "Heaven knows that we in 2009 have some serious challenges facing us. But heaven knows what shape we would be in now to face them, had it not been for your skill and efforts." Many within Oxford and outside it would echo that statement.
Lord Butler of Brockwell, House of Lords