Oxford University's proposals for a new academic strategy followed a "reputation audit" revealing that outsiders fail to appreciate its strength and attempts to widen access.
This week's publication by Oxford of a "green paper" on the university's future came after a three-month audit found that "policymakers and influencers" were under the false impression that the institution no longer ranked among the world's top research universities.
The paper says that a recent benchmarking exercise by consultants McKinsey had confirmed the findings of The Times Higher's world university rankings, which placed Oxford in fifth position. But the audit found that not all policymakers were aware of this fact. It found that many people knew little of the university's recent efforts to improve access and admissions policies.
John Hood, Oxford's vice-chancellor, told The Times Higher this week that the green paper was the first step in a campaign to improve the university's image in the light of the audit findings. There are concerns that unless Oxford improves its image, it will not be able to attract the extra private investment it needs or to justify raising tuition fees if the £3,000-a-year cap is lifted in 2009.
The green paper, which outlines proposals for a new academic strategy, warns that the university will struggle to maintain its present world ranking unless it raises more money to counter "chronic underfunding". Bill MacMillan, Oxford's pro-vice-chancellor (academic), said the audit showed that the university needed to work harder on getting the facts across to key figures and the general public.
He said: "In the past, we felt that all we had to do was to refine our processes. We recognise now that we have to have processes that are demonstrably fair, and persuade people that we are doing things in the most professional and open way that we can." The green paper says that with a £95 million deficit in teaching and research in 2003, the university has been forced to rely on a £20 million annual "dividend" from Oxford University Press to help with running costs.
Dr Hood told The Times Higher that with the prospect of higher top-up fees from 2009 and the Government's decision to cover the full costs of research, the university's financial prospects were looking brighter. Oxford also plans to sell £80 million worth of non-academic land it owns in the next two to three years, and to increase its proportion of full fee-paying overseas students from 8 to 15 per cent. Meanwhile, home undergraduate numbers look set to fall and postgraduate intake to increase. "I think it is important for us to stress that the direction of travel on funding is now positive," Dr Hood said.
But the paper warns that unless Oxford gets to work on its image, its ambitions may still not be realised. It says: "the ability of the university to sustain or improve its academic performance is conditional on its success in persuading alumni, Government and the wider world that it is capable of doing so."|
Oxford University's green paper (above), which has caused a predictable stir this week, is a remarkably open document. It admits that, among other failings, "nearly all of the university's core activities lose money", that there is a "loose connection" between academic strategy and resource allocation, a shortage of academic stars in some areas and a "tail" of underqualified students in others, and that Oxford's many successes are not widely recognised. It is, of course, easier for new vice-chancellor to voice such criticisms, but the analysis is still commendably frank. That is probably essential to convince the more conservative elements in the university that change is needed: the downside is that it presents an easy target for those outside.
The paper presents a picture of a world-class university succeeding against the odds: home tuition fees are too low, research not fully funded, a culture of giving yet to be established. But universities that have made painful economies will ask why Oxford cannot learn to live within its means, and those who espouse a more radical agenda will see it as confirmation that severing ties with the state is the only possible route to solvency. Both may be right, but Oxford's proposals deserve to be examined on their own terms. The nuclear (full privatisation) option may eventually be unavoidable, but the university is not ready for it yet. The green paper aims to keep Oxford on an even keel until it is clear whether changes in the "external environment" allow the university to remain internationally competitive. That may mean marginally fewer UK undergraduates - although balanced by increases at postgraduate level - some property sales, slightly larger tutorial groups and a lot of cross-subsidisation.
In the long run, however, Oxford and Cambridge will be able to maintain their unique positions only if the cap on undergraduate tuition fees is lifted and they are much more successful at fundraising. Neither is by any means certain, and higher fees alone would not bridge the gap. The biggest conrast between Harvard and Oxford is not in fee income, but in the £200 million a year lead that Harvard enjoys in alumni and corporate donations. In any case, a Labour government led by Gordon Brown, or even a Tory administration, might be less willing than Tony Blair to allow a fees free-for-all in 2010. The ancient universities, which already receive extra assistance through college fees, would be left hoping that their status as national treasures would demand further special treatment.
In short, a lot needs to go right for the green paper prescription to secure Oxford's long-term future as a world-beater. But, at a time of frightening uncertainty throughout higher education, a holding position is understandable. If implemented, the proposals would bring about some valuable improvements for students and staff.
Oxford University should follow the example of Yale and Harvard universities and establish a single in-house "investment club" to make better use of its £2.1 billion in assets, two influential figures said this week. Had it done so in the mid-1980s, when its Ivy League rivals took the step, it would now be at least five times richer and better placed to go private or to offset the impact of top-up fees with more scholarships for poor students, said Richard Lofthouse, a Corpus Christi fellow who sits on Oxford's budget and finance committee. Dr Lofthouse's comments are backed by Fram Dinshaw, bursar of St Catherine's College.