After a decade of dominance at the head of our league table, the University
of Cambridge is recognised today as the 2007 Sunday Times University of the
Year.
Any list of the leading academic institutions in the world would include
Cambridge. It currently ranks second to Harvard in the Times Higher
Education Supplement’s world university league table, one place ahead of
Oxford, which it has beaten by the same single-place margin in all 10 of our
league tables since 1998.
On the world stage, Cambridge competes primarily with American institutions.
That it does so on an equal footing, despite a huge disparity in funding, is
a tribute both to the financial efficiency of Cambridge, and of course, its
intellectual capacity.
Vice-chancellor Alison Richard, the first woman to hold the position
full-time, is in a good position to judge Cambridge’s standing, having spent
30 years working in America, at Yale, the last eight of which were spent as
provost, the chief academic and administrative officer behind the university
president.
“We are totally focused on quality,” she says. “We compete with institutions
in the US and we compete with a fraction of their resources at our disposal
and without the infrastructure that our American peers have.”
In schools the length and breadth of Britain, Cambridge represents the
pinnacle of academic achievement, the holy grail sought by more than 14,000
sixth-formers every year. They vie for about 3,300 places, with more than
four applicants chasing each one. Virtually all of the 14,000 are expected
to – and go on to – achieve straight As at A-level or the highest scores in
the international baccalaureate.
The rewards for those who make it are immense. Thirty-six subjects secured top
ratings for the quality of teaching during a decade of reviews conducted by
fellow academics for the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Not
surprising when you consider that many of the academics have written the
text books too.
Students benefit from the unique supervision system at Cambridge, where they
are taught in pairs or small groups by a senior member of staff, usually
from the college to which students belong. Unlike in many modern
universities, the coursework (often essays) is not formally assessed. The
aim is to encourage risk-taking free of the fear that getting it “wrong”
might damage the chances of leaving with a high-class degree.
Of course, many do go on to achieve just that, with one in four students
gaining a first, 86% a first or upper second. Assessment is mostly by
three-hour written examinations.
Fostering a culture of intellectual freedom extends beyond supervisions into
Cambridge’s research work.
Ahead of the university’s 800th anniversary in 2009, the UK’s largest
fundraising campaign has been launched, seeking to raise £1 billion for the
coffers. The aim is to build an endowment that will sprinkle stardust,
offering additional funds across four key areas: Support for students;
Support for staff; Assisting university collections and preserving the
architectural heritage; Fostering the “freedom to discover”.
The university is halfway towards achieving its target and the dividends are
already apparent. Richard sees the appeal as getting back in touch with the
philanthropic spirit that has underpinned much of what Cambridge has
achieved over eight centuries.
“We need more seed capital,” she says. “We call it the freedom to discover,
having the flexibility to test ideas before they are ready to take to the
research councils for funding.”
Another dividend is apparent in the university’s bursary scheme, heavily
revised earlier this month at huge cost. Many universities are still mulling
over their response to the government decision to increase grant provision,
raising the maximum income ceilings to £25,000 and £60,000 respectively for
qualification for full and partial maintenance grants. As many bursary
schemes have been pegged to these thresholds, which have risen from about
£18,000 and £38,500 respectively, the institutions are facing sharply
increased costs.
Cambridge has moved quickly, however, to track the increased income thresholds
for grant qualification. Full Cambridge bursaries of £3,150 will be offered
next year to all students from families with incomes below £25,000, while
smaller bursaries will be given to students from families with incomes up to
£60,000. This will bring about 500 extra students each year onto full
Cambridge bursaries and the overall cost of one of the most generous bursary
packages in the UK will rise by £1m a year to £7m.
The university is determined that nobody be put off from applying on the
grounds of cost.
The application process is probably the aspect of Cambridge that is discussed
most, aside from the excellence of its teaching and research. Both Cambridge
and Oxford have been beaten with a stick for not recruiting enough students
from state schools. The problem has never been the selection process itself,
but the application process that precedes it. The two universities can only
choose from the applications before them. As the Cambridge prospectus puts
it: “We can’t offer you a place if you don’t apply to us.”
A plethora of initiatives, including summer schools, partnerships with local
authorities and schools with little history of progression into higher
education, visits to Cambridge, visiting schools, open days and student
mentoring have all borne fruit. The Cambridge Special Access Scheme is open
to first-generation applicants, those from schools with a poor record of
sending children into higher education, or those whose education has
suffered significant disruption.
The success of these initiatives has produced clear water between Cambridge
and Oxford, helping to lever up the state school intake to 57.9% of all
entrants, according to the most recent figures, which is significantly ahead
of Oxford’s 53.7%.
“There is no magic bullet, no single issue that will solve the problem we have
in terms of applications. It is an aspirational problem. We have to convince
them to give it a try – and we work on many fronts to do that,” says Richard.
But she is adamant that this should never translate into favouring applicants
from one sector over another, dismissing the theory that in a changed world
removing a child from an independent school and putting them into a state
sixth form could increase the chances of their application to Cambridge
succeeding.
Cambridge’s contribution to the world across its 798-year history is
staggering. There have been 81 affiliates of the university awarded the
Nobel Prize since 1904; Cambridge academics have been at the forefront of
advances throughout the centuries.
The development of the jet engine (Frank Whittle) and the unlocking of the
structure of DNA (Francis Crick and James Watson) are just two of the
defining moments of the 20th century that can be laid at the door of this
giant of the academic world.
Our University of the Year award, however, is not an acknowledgment of
Cambridge’s illustrious past; it is a recognition of how the university is
tackling issues of the moment and building for a future where it will
continue to be a dominant force in world academia.
The publication of the 2008 research assessment exercise in December next year
will confirm Cambridge’s preeminence in research terms. The £50m Cancer
Research UK Cambridge Research Institute, opened by the Queen in February,
is typical of the research initiative that will keep Cambridge at the
cutting edge. More than 300 scientists in up to 30 research groups will be
based there, dedicated to finding the causes of cancer and developing
treatments.
Richard is particularly pleased with The Sunday Times award. “I am absolutely
delighted that we have won this award. I am pleased and proud that we have
occupied first place in this table for the past 10 years, but that is only
one aspect of what is important. We are being recognised not merely for
being top of the league table, but for the education we provide and the
contribution we make.”
The students recognise this contribution, too, taking part in the national
student (satisfaction) survey for the first time, they placed it second only
to the small, private University of Buckingham.
St Andrews, winner of our University of the Year title in 2002, ran Cambridge
closest for this year’s award, the nearest a former winner has come to
repeating the trick.
No longer can the good times at St Andrews be ascribed to the good fortune of
having Prince William study there. Only five multifaculty universities have
returned higher levels of satisfaction.
Teaching and research is of the highest standard, graduate unemployment is low
and the level of entry qualifications held is only just below that of
Oxbridge. This combination of excellence has helped St Andrews rise in our
table from 14th to 10th to sixth in successive years.
Three other universities make our shortlist. The most remarkable is Queen’s
University Belfast, a casebook study of how a university can help drive the
regeneration of the city and region in which it is located.
Under vice-chancellor Peter Gregson, Queen’s has been reborn. Free of the long
shadow cast by the Troubles, it is now recruiting academics from the world
stage to boost its research profile. Admission to the research-led Russell
Group of universities – the British equivalent of the Ivy League in the US –
recognises the turnaround in its fortunes.
The University of Leicester earns its shortlisting for all-round strength and
excellence. Only Oxbridge and Loughborough, among multifaculty institutions,
get higher ratings in the national student survey. A £300m development plan
will transform the city centre campus.
Harper Adams University College, which offers primarily land-based courses
from its Shropshire base, is the final shortlisted institution. Included in
our league table for the first time, it debuts ranked 44=, well above the
leading modern university, Oxford Brookes (53). It has the lowest rate of
graduate unemployment, a dropout rate running at about half the expected
level and some of the happiest students in the UK, judging by its
outstanding performance in this year’s national student survey.
The University of Glasgow is our Scottish University of the Year.
You spelt struggling wrong. The reason they have lots of money is because they have been around for longer. Also it is good the 'talent' are at one place; better cooperation which means more accelerated progression.
Dave, Cambridge,
I do hate to correct you but no, cambirdge is just marginally ahead.
John, Southend,
Why, oh why did I ever pick Lancaster?
Joe, York,
The continued dominance of Cambridge and Oxford at the top of these absurd tables is no surprise. They are enormously wealthy collections of institutions in their own right AND they receive all the usual revenue funding for teaching and research from HEFCE that all universities in the U.K. do. How can they not fail to remain at the top with their massive financial advantages? They distort the acadmic profile of the country by sucking talent (students and staff) from the English regions, and thereby restrict the possibilities for other universities. I say - remove their wealth or divert their HEFCE funding to struggliing institutions in the north, midlands and other areas. These resource injustices must be exposed.
don craigton, wakefield, u.k.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Oxford Britain's best university
Emma, South Wales,
With a vice-chancellor who says things like "We are totally focused on quality", and "we need more seed capital", I suspect that students who are looking for the British Athens will try elsewhere. Or are there no more philosophers, only management consultants?
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK