King's College London (KQC) newsletter

WESTF E D ARTS TOJOI WITH KING'SKing's College and Westfield College have recently issued the followingstatement:

'The Principals of King's College and Westfield College have agreed torecommend to the Governing Bodies of their Schools that theacknowledged strengths of the Faculties of Arts of the two Collegesshould be unified within the new institution to be formed from theamalgamation of King's College, Queen Elizabeth College and ChelseaCollege. Westfield College will continue to retain its individuality andits distinctive character as an academically balanced residential campus.It is firmly believed that this development is not only compatible withthe long-term plans of King's (KQCI, but will add significantly to theacademic strengths of the institutions and of the University of London.'

More precise details of plans for unification will emerge as discussionscontinue.

DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITIESA Special Supplement on recent reports.

This edition of the newsletter concentrates on some recent speeches and reportswhich have bearing on the future development of the universities. The Chairmanof the UGC addressed a joint meeting of the UGC and CVCP in March and thetext of his speech is given. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DESrecently visited King's to speak to an annual meeting of University InformationOfficers, as did the Chairman of the CVCP Advisory Committee on Public Relations:their texts are reproduced. The Jarratt Committee have recently published theirfindings on efficiency within universities and an outline of their recommendationsis given. The many views expressed in these reports should be of interest and perhapsprovide an insight into the way in which universities can plan for their future.

The '!on Pe~er Brooke, MP (standing) and the Principal of King's College at theopenmg session of the annual meeting of University Information Officers held atKing's in April.

CVCP meet SirKeith JosephThe Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of theCVCP met the Secretary of State, SirKeith Joseph on 30 April 1985.

Vice-Chancellors told Sir Keith Josephhe could not expect universities to go ondoing more and more for less and less.The universities have been through a per­iod of considerable turbulence. Whatthey now needed was consistency of pol­icy from the Government and sufficientresources to make it effective includingprovision for a reasonable level of acad­emic salaries. It was vain to suppose thatpolicies such as the switch to science andtechnology, selectivity and rationalisationcould be effectively pursued with a con­tinuing and severe decline in grant.

Mr Maurice Shock, Chairman of theCVCP, said the Jarratt Report had giventhe universities a 'good housekeeping'seal of approval but they wou Id never­theless heed the recommendations direct­ed at them. He urged the Government topay attention to the recommendationsdirected at it since failure to do so wouldbe bound to constrain the ability of uni­versities to plan effectively.

The Secretary of State raised his conc­erns about freedom of speech and assem­bly in universities. Vice-Chancellors toldSir Keith that they utterly condemnedany disruptive activities within universit­ies which denied the right of speech toinvited speakers, whatever their politicalpersuasion. But the universities had nopower to deal with serious breeches oflaw and order which were often causedby imported groups with no connectionwith the university. Vice-Chancellors,however, assured Sir Keith that the issuewas being given careful consideration andthat they would do all within their pow­er to uphold the principle of free speech.

Vice-Chan:ellors also brought Sir Keithup-to-date with the work being done bythe Reynolds group on the monitoringof academic standards.

7. 5.85

16. 4.85

15. 4.85

22. 4.85

6 University of London In-Service Pro­gramme for Academic Staff andTeachers in Higher Education(CSDHE)

This is a two-year programme leading tothe award of the University's Diplomain Teaching and Course Development inHigher Education, and is designed spec­ifically to suit in-service, full-time univ­ersity teachers.N. B. All fees are waived for members ofthe University of London.Application forms from the AcademicRegistrar, University of London Instituteof Education. Enquiries to the Secretary,CSDHE, 55 Gordon Square, LondonWCl H ONJ (636 1500 ext 497), orStephen Harrow.

CTAS Library newsLatest additions include:

Given the cloak of secrecy which hasenveloped the Treasury in recent weeks,it is impossible to say how seriously thepension funds were under threat. How­ever, it is clear that a material factor indissuading the Chancellor from anyaction he might have contemplated wasthe very strong reaction from employersand members, many of whom wrote totheir MP's or the National Press.

The University Superannuation Officerhas sent the following letter to Schools:

Dear Colleague,

THE 1985 BUDGET

You will know by now that the Chan­cellor of the Exchequer did not changethe tax regime for pension funds inhis Budget Statement on 19 March.

STAY IN TOUCH WITH CTAS

I am told that the collective postbag ofMP's on this subject was more than7.000 letters, compared with 2,000

the March 1985 issue of Birmingham Uni­versity's newsletter Teaching News'.Principal articles feature recent exper­ience with microcomputer applications inMaths and Science teaching; and the Int­ernational Family Service for Overseasstudents.

copies of the papers presented by EricMottram (from an arts base) and GeorgeEngland (science/technology) to the Sem­inar on Postgraduate Training CTAS ranin February. These thoughtful contrib­utions repay reading and are commendedto those who were not able to attend theSeminar;

2 Management in Colleges16-21 JUNE. STUDY CONFERENCE:INTER-PERSONAL SKI LLS(Organised by and at the Further Educat­ion Staff College, Coombe Lodge, Blagdon jBristol, BS18 6RG). IFurther particulars: FESC on 0761-62503,or Stephen Harrow. I*N.B. this conference will be repeated~rom 24-29 November

4 University of Surrey: Department ofEducational Studies

11-17 SEPTEMBER. ANNUALCOURSE: TEACHING AND LEARN­ING IN HIGHER EDUCATION(Course Organiser: Professor Lewis Elton,Educational Studies Department).Further particulars: Jackie Leeks, Univ­ersity of Surrey. Tel' ext. 619, orStephen Harrow.

5 Centre for Staff Development inHigher Education

16-20 SEPTEMBER: COURSE FORLECTURERS*(To be held at the Institute of Educat­ion).Further particulars: CSDHE on 6361500 ext. 489, or Stephen Harrow.*N.B. This is the University's annual,pre-Sessional course. Five-star value formoney.

3 University of Surrey1~16 JULY. FOLLOW-UP WORKSHOP:LEADERSHIP FOR HEADS OF UNIV­ERSITY DEPARTMENTS(Course Director: John Adair, VisitingProfessor of Leadership Studies, Facultyof Engineering, Surrey University, To beheld at the Centre for International Brief­ing, Farnham Castle, Surrey).

Further particulars: Jenny Grant, Pers­onnel and Training Officer, Universityof Surrey, Guildford, GU2 5XH. Tel:0483 571 281, or Stephen Harrow.

workshops and conferences will be imp­ortant. Remember: CTAS has the moneyto pay all, or at least part of the regist­ration fees. 'Training' need only cost youa little time. The experience of those whohave attended previous training eventssuggests that this will be time well spent.

1 Centre for Staff Development in High-er Education (CSDHE)

~7 JUNE. WORKSHOP: TEACHINGSTUDY SKI LLS(Course tutors: Angela Brew and RoyCox. To be held at the Institute of Educ­ation).Further particulars: CSDHE on 636 1500ext. 497, or Stephen Harrow, AssistantRegistrar, Strand, ext. 2689.

25. 3.8525. 3.85

Miss Louise Temple, RegistryMs Christine Jordan, ClassicsSecretarial AssistantMiss Jacqueline Purcell, Bio­physics Secretarial AssistantMr Martin Hazzard, AssistantHall Manager, Halliday HallMiss Alison Cordover, Admis­sions Assistant, RegistryMiss Tina Finch, AdmissionsSecretary, RegistryMrs Christine Boiling, Secret­ary, Chemistry Department

LIBRARY ASSISTANTS9. 4.85 Ms E. Cornell9. 4.85 Miss A. McAloon9. 4.85 Miss L. Holland

15. 4.85 Miss M. Robinson15. 4.85 Miss C. Padley

7. 5.85 Mrs C. Smith

22. 4.85

COMMITTEE ON TRAINING FORACADEMIC STAFFColleagues! Do you wish you could pub­lish more? Do you wish your teachingwent more smoothly?

Honesty might compel the answer 'yes'to both questions, in which case someor all of the following list of forthcoming

Resignations18. 3.85 Miss Peta Jane Taylor, Ass­

istant, Halliday Hall10. 5.85 Miss Amanda Stenning, Ac­

commodation Assistant10. 5.85 Mrs Bridgett O'Neill, Typing

Pool20. 5.85 Mr A. McCartney, Library

Assistant

Manual appointments22. 4.85 Mr Alfred Norman, Carpent­

er, Works Office22. 4.85 Mrs Sandra Newington, Tel­

ephonist

Academic appointments1. 9.85 Or Ivor A.S. Lewis, Lecturer

in Analytical Chemistry (AnAcademic Initiative post).

1.10.85 Mr William Powrie, Lecturerin Civil Engineering

1.10.84 Mr Peter B. Clarke, Lecturerin the Department of Hist­ory and Philosophy of Rel­igion (An Academic Initiativepost).

Clerical, Secretarial and Academic Rel­ated appointments

King's College

PERSONNEL NEWS

STAFF NEWS

protesting about the possible levying ofVAT on buoks and newspapers.

You may wish to bring this letter to theattention of anyone whom you inform­ed of my earlier letter of 10 January 1985not only to allay any fears that we mayhave aroused, but also to convey theUniversity's thanks to those who tookaction against what might have been amost detrimental change.

RESEARCH GRANT FOR WARSTUDIES

The Department of War Studies hasbeen awarded a small grant fwm theJoseph Rowntree Charitable Trust forresearch on Chemical Warfare and ArmsControl. The research will be conductedby Mrs Valerie Adams who last yearcompleted research for the Departmenton the Falklands and the Media. Thisis now being turned into a book to bepublished by Macmillans.

THE KOC COMPUTER CENTRE

This is an exciting time for ComputingServices generally, and particu larly sofor the newly-forming Computer Centre.We plan the development of a flexibleand user-responsive service for what willbecome one of the largest Colleges ofthe University, with a requirement forcomputing facilities comparable to thatof University College.

Rapid advances in computer and com­munications hardware and software inrecent years have stimu lated interest incomputing and led to additional demandsbeing placed on Computer Centres. Weare now responsible for supporting anddeveloping not only our increasinglyvaried and sophisticated mainframecomputing and communications systemsbut also a wide range of microcomputersand their peripherals. The advice, assist­ance and training that we make availableto all users with the designing, writingand debugging of computer programmesencompasses an ever-wider range of lan­guages; while the specialist areas inwhich we offer in-depth support (suchas Graphics, Statistics, Numerical Analy­sis, Database Management Systems,Scientific Non-numeric computing, Com­puter Assisted Learning and Text/WordProcessing) have all shown dramaticgrowth.

There have also been substantial improve-

Deryn £il.atson, Assistant Director ofthe Computers in the Curriculum proj­ect, demonstrating the application ofcomputers in Humanities teaching.

ments in the sizes and services of datecommunications networks. The JointAcademic Network is now nearing com·pletion and it allows interactive connect­ion to many other University and Res­earch Council computer systems in theUK and, indeed, through 'gateways' tothe British Telecom PSS service, to manyother systems world wide. Local com­munications networks, too, are rapidlydeveloping in power and flexibility andthose at KQC already offer such facilitiesas electronic mail and file transfer bet­ween micros and mainframes. However,they need to be much more widely ext­ended and enhanced before they reachtheir full potential.

In the short term we face a number ofdifficult problems. We have three separ­ate mainframe systems (one incompat­ible with the other two) on the mainCollege sites; we have insufficient staffeven if they were all concentrated onone site, and we are very short of space,particularly on the Strand site. Fortun­ately, the mainframe needs of the newCollege have been recognised by theaward of an additional £800,000 for amainframe upgrade to boost the£250,000 upgrade which King's Collegehas just received. This upgrade will takeplace in approximately two years timeand will establish a hardware base worthyof the new College. There is also a goodchance that we shall receive a further£60,000 thi$ year to enhance intersite

Mrs Watson W3S speaking at a well-atten­ded open day that was held at ChelseaCollege on 28 March by the Education­al Computing section. Throughout theday, lectures and demonstrations were\,iven to illustrate the benefits of comp­uter-assisted learning.

data communications.

As we plan for the future there are anumber of immediate priorities: ourexisting services must be consolidatedand coordinated while appropriate num­bers of support staff to match demandmust be provided on each of the mainCollege sites; support for the Humanit­ies departments needs to be consider­ably enhanced, and all our specialistareas must be further strengthened anddeveloped. For example, our DatabaseManagement Systems Group will developits collaboration with the Library in con­nection with the retrieval and manipul­ation of information from remote andlocal data bases. At the same time, theprocurement exercise for the forthcom­ing main frame upgrade will be carriedout in close consultation with depart­ments. We shall also be investigating howwe might bring about a more rapidenhancement and expansion of our localdata communications network since thisis the principal bottleneck restrictingthe availability of our services and facil­ities.

Finally, I would be very pleased to rec­eive any comments and suggestions fromexisting and potential users on how ourexisting services might be extended andimproved.

Andrew ByerleyDirector of Computing Services

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT

In the next few years 'value for money' will be a centraltheme; and to measure value one needs performance indicatorsDES already regard unit of resource and student/staff ratio asvaluable performance indicators, and are prepared to overlooktheir limitations until better indicators become available; asyet they have no reliable indicators for research. The DESstudy comparing teaching resources in the two sectors reliesalmost entirely on unit of resource: its conclusions do notmake comfortable reading for universities. That study is inad­equate, but it will not be possible simply to dismiss it; DESand Treasury will use it until it is replaced by a more accurateand reliable one. To do that will take a good deal of work;and as universities will be the main gainers from a moreaccurate study, they must be prepared to put in that work. Ifthey do not, no one else will.

The study does allow for the substantial proportion of univ­ersity resources that are devoted to research. Taking accountof this, it suggests that universities have taught more cheaplythan the public sector in the past but that the position islikely to be reversed in the future. The evidence does seem tome to suggest that, at least in experimental subjects, the unitof teaching resource is indeed becoming lower in the publicsector than in the university sector. In academic staff they arebetter off than us, once allowance has been made for research.What makes them cheaper is the gross underprovision of tech­nicians and equipment.

The DES funding comparisons are relevant to the discussionswith NAB, which must soon start, on the division of studentnumbers between the two sectors. I am instructed that theground rules for these discussions are that no money can bemoved between the sectors; but the balance of numbersbetween the two sectors may well affect where cuts fall infuture years. One of the things we need to discuss today iswhat the aims of the UGC should be in these discussions.

I now turn to my second task, which is to say somethingabout the UGC's allocation process for 1986/87 and futureyears. Part of the case for a major re-examination is that it ismore than ten years since we last conducted one; but there arealso two more fundamental considerations. First, it is desir­able to scrap the concept of the 'unit of resource'. It is mis­leading, because it implies that the amount of research thatshould be supported depends on the number of undergrad­uates to be taught; and from now on it is likely to work

You will recall that in its Strategy Advice the UGC made clearwhat would be the consequences of continuing cuts of themagnitude I have just forecast. Today, I want only to repeatthree of the points made there. First, that the least damagingway of coping with such continuing cuts would be the closureof complete departments. To do this with minimum damageto individuals and minimum disruption will involve co-operat­ion between universities. Second, to emphasise that such clos­ures of departments would be the consequence of the overallcuts; they have nothing to do with our intention of beingmore selective in research funding. Third, to repeat that ifclosure of individual departments turns out to be impractic­able, then the likely consequence will be the closure of somecomplete un iversities.

In the Strategy Advice which we submitted to the Secretaryof State last autumn, we put the best case we could for gen­eral level funding of universities in real terms, together withadditions for certain identified needs. In my judgement, thatcase has been rejected. In his letter of 30 January to me, theSecretary of State made no mention of future funding; thatmust be a bad sign. It is true that the Government talks of acut of only 0.5% per annum, which reflects an expectation ofincreased efficiency; but that description is based on assumedincreases in the costs of pay and non-pay items which arewell below even the Treasury's forecast of inflation. The Gov­ernment, in its Public Expenditure White Paper looks threeyears ahead, and over those three years it sees the UGC grantas rising by less than 3% per year in cash terms. For the restof this decade, the best guess I can provide is that the increasein grant will be 2% per year below inflation. Moreover, theSecretary of State will go on expecting the universities to donew things without extra resources. The universities are get­ting extra money to fund extra students in electronic engineer­ing and allied subjects because we have been able to convincehim that present resources cannot be shifted quickly enough.But he is not committed to preserving on their present scaleall the things that universities do now.

The UGC is not the messenger-boy of the Government, anymore than it is the messenger-boy of the universities. But it ispart of our duty to divine what each side is thinking, and toconvey those messages unvarnished to the other, howeverunwelcome that process may be. Another part of our duty isto provide universities with the best long-term planninghorizon that we can, even if that consists only of our ownassessment of the future. Finance is only one part of the plan­ning horizon, and policies are a more important guide - aswell as being less likely to change. If I confine myself to fin­ance today, it is because I find it hard to say much aboutpolicy until the Green Paper is available.

The following is the text of Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer's address to a joint meeting of the UGC and the CVCP on March 21,referred to by the CVCP Chairman, Mr Maurice Shock, as painting 'a very bleak picture for the universities. Compared with thesudden and traumatic cuts of 1981-84 our future funding prospects are more like a lingering and painful terminal illness.'

In opening this meeting, I have two major tasks. One is to The forecast which I have just made is for the period duringgive as best I can the context within which universities will which the Government expects student numbers in higherhave to plan over the next few years - the likely trends of education as a whole to remain level. After 1992 they stillGovernment funding and the likely themes of Government believe that numbers will fall. Moreover neither the DES proj-guidance. The other is to explain what underlies the UGC's ections nor, I think, any others have allowed for the deterior-proposed reconsideration of its allocation process: what we ation of student grants. The effect of this is hard to quantify,are trying to do and how we hope to do it, insofar as we have but it can only make school-leavers less inclined to entertaken decisions - which is not yet very far. higher education; indeed this seems to be happening already.

The problems of the present decade are enough for the nextyear or two. But we shall need to start planning for the nextdecade the day after the next General Election, and we wouldbe wise to have solved the problems of the present decade bythen.

against the university system rather than in its favour. Second,if the best departments are to continue to do world-classresearch despite the cuts, the research component of thegrant will have to be distributed in a less egali arian way thanit has been hitherto. That statemen does not apply only tothe UGC; it applies within many individual universities as well.In his matter, some universities are already selective; butmany others are no

At the book-keeping level we cannot with confidence split auniversity's expenditure into a teaching component and aresearch component. Indeed, here are some items (such asrates, maintenance of buildings and student facilities) forwhich it is not sensible even to try. But leaving such itemsaside, it does seem to be accepted that nationally about two­thirds of expenditure from the UGC grant plus home studentsfees is attributable to teaching and about one-third to res­earch. (These figures are open to discussions, and they varyfrom one subject to another, but they will serve well enoughfor illustration). It would be reasonable, therefore, for theUGC to distribute two-thirds of its grant on teaching-basedcriteria and one-third on research-based criteria. By an inevit­able abuse of language, this will be described as 'Nationally,two-thirds of the UGC grant is for teaching and one-third forresearch'; but this is indeed an abuse of language.

The research-based criteria raise conceptual problems, whichthe three joint working parties have been wrestling with; sothat side of the operation has had a good deal of publicity.The problems over the teaching-based criteria are essentiallytechnical; consideration of them has so far been entirely in­house and even the need for it has not been widely recognised.So I should emphasise that the two parts of the process mustgo hand in hand; we cannot implement one unless we implem­ent the other also.

I see no reason why the research-based criteria should operatein the same way in different subjects; in particular, I wouldexpect substantial differences between the humanities on theone hand and the experimental sciences on the other. Second,for the system as a whole the Committee do not intend thisto be a means of moving money from the humanities to thesciences; financially, the three working parties should corres­pond to three water-tight compartments. Third, the criteriawill have to be applied to what universities tell us. Part of thatmaterial will be factual, but part - notably the research plans- will consist of hopes and guesses. Such documents arebound to be tinged with optimism, but I hope realism willplay a part too. If a department says that it plans to uncoversome of the major secrets of nature in the next five years, weare bound to ask how many of them it has uncovered in thelast five.

What I say about the teaching-based criteria must be tentative,because this is a topic which the Committee has not yet had achance to discuss. The first approximation has to come froma formula, which takes as data unit teaching cost and plannedstudent numbers in each subject. Note that I say 'plannedstudent numbers' not actual ones; we cannot afford to letuniversities establish an entitlement to more grant merely bytaking more students than the UGC had planned for. This isso, regardless of the degree of control which the UGC exer­cises over actual student numbers. No doullt this first approx­imation will have to be modified in all sorts of ways - toallow, for example, for the support of a museum or of a sub­ject which the UGC wishes to see preserved even though stud­ent demand for it is small. We shall need to list these consid-

erations explicitly but (except for the London Weighting) I dono expect their total effort to be larg"!_ I do not see them asinvolving any assessment of merit, either of the uni ersity orof its students; in any given subject, it should cost no less toteach a studen with 10 points at A-level than one with 15.

Fully implemented, such a system could lead to quite sub­stantial changes of grant as against the present system. But itwould be wrong to bring these changes about quickly. Fewuniversities are in a state to cope with a substantial reductionof grant in real terms, and the UGC will have to put a quitesmall limit on the maximum rate of reduction of grant ­particularly in the first year or two. Moreover, a model asdifferent from its predecessor as this one is will need a gooddeal of adjustment and tuning before it runs smoothly. Itwould be both damaging and embarrassing to make a changein the grant to some university one year and to reverse it thenext. We ought only to make a change if we are sure that wehave the sign right and that we are not overshooting. For agood many universities, the result is likely to be that in thefirst year the grant they get under the new system will be justwhat they would have got under the old one. For those whosegrant does change, the message, for better or worse, will beclear.

Nevertheless, in the long run the effects are likely to be sub­stantial. The Secretary of State is determined to concentrateresearch funding in the departments that do the best research,though I think he recognises that this will take time to achieve.But if the UGC appears to be making no serious efforts to thisend, he has an alternative. He can shift money, £200 millionfor example, from the UGC to the research councils andleave them to distribute it between universities. One drawbackof this is that it will turn hard money into soft, with all theproblems for management which that implies. But there arealready influential voices advocating this course, and I am sureit is what the Secretary of State will do if he can see no otherway of achieving his aim.

The Standing Conference of University I nformation Officers heldits annual one-day meeting at King's College on April 1st. Themeeting was addressed by two eminent speakers: the Hm PeterBrooke, MP, Under-Secretary of State at the Department ofEducation and Science and Professor John Roberts, Vice­Chancellor of Southampton University and Chairman of theCVCP Advisory Committee on Public Relations. Both menhad much of interest to say about the current state of theuniversity world and their texts, encompassing differentattitudes and viewpoints, are printed below.

THE HON PETER BROOKE, MP

I had hoped that when I stood before you today I wou Id beable to talk in the light of a published Green Paper on a strat­egy for the future development of higher education. It has notyet been possible to publish that paper because of necessarydelay so that it might be aligned more closely with the studentsupport review. The Government hopes that the Green Paperwill issue soon; in the meantime I would like to spend a fewlriinutes today looking a little at the changes which have occur­red in higher education over the last few years, and sharingwith you some of the issues for the future to which theGovernment attaches particular importance.

I suspect that few people expected in 1979 that the suc­cessive years would be ones of quite such upheaval for highereducation. Although the writing had been on the wall for sometime about the need for a real effort to restrain public spend­ing, few read the messages well enough to see what this mightmean for higher education by 1985. It was not one of thoseoccasions when the definition of a typhoon in Royal Navalhandbooks applied. That, you will recall, is to the generaleffect that the first evidence of an impending typhoon is asense on the part of the Captain that all is not well.

I do not in any way wish to minimise the disruption that theneed for a continuous review of spending priorities haswrought, nor the fact that in many universities painful decis­ions have had to be taken on how to adjust to a decline ingrant income. On the other hand, many inside the academicworld would admit that some shake-up was long overdue, andthat without radical financial pressures being exerciseddesirable change would not have come about. Many univers­ities now have a better idea as to where they wish to go in thEfuture, and are beginning to get there. The universities' publicimage - and the realities underlying it - have already beenmuch strengthened, even if stronger efforts are still necessary,both in the development of university relations with the out­side world and in making sure that those outside understanduniversities' achievements and what they have to offer bothindividually and as a sector with many common aims andideals.

Many would suggest that the Government had done little toassist the universities in their period of painful adjustment.But we have done what we can within the available resources.The £100 million 'new blood' and information technology pro­grammes have created over 900 new posts which would nototherwise have existed. I admit that in part this is makinggood in places reductions that came about as a result of thefinancial squeeze, but these programmes were based on comp­etitive application from institutions and thus the new placeswill have gone to departments with demonstrable need anddemonstrable quality. The Chancellor last week announced andKaith Joseph elaborated on this same day a further £43 millionprogramme to boost engineering and technology. There is theadditional provision for the selective enhancement of equip­ment for some of our best research teams. Access to highereducation as a whole has been maintained despite the financialcircumstances, although mainly because of expansion in thepublic sector, where as I think that sector would acknowledgestudent:staff ratios were more generous and there was a gooddeal of spare capacity at the beginning of the 1980s. It is ofcourse a difficult matter to decide at the margin whetherstudents with relatively lower academic qualifications are betteroff, from both their own and an institution's points of view,pursuing courses in universities as opposed to the public sectorof higher education. Ministers have asked the advisory bodiesfor further advice about the optimum future disposition ofstudents between sectors. We hope to announce the first phaseof the engineering and technology programme very shortly.

There have also been marked changes over the last 5 years inthe way that higher education is managed nationally. We haveestablished an advisory body for the public sector of highereducation, which for the first time allows for some coherentplanning in that sector and makes it easier for the Governmentto consider questions that relate to higher education as awhole. The Government is now increasingly taking a lead insetting national priorities for higher education through pub­lished guidance from the Secretary of State to the Chairmen of

the advisory bodies (of which I, of course wearing another hat,am one). There has I think also been an acceptance of the con­cept, although I am sure that some still hold reservationsabout this, that it is right for rather more of the resourcesbeing made available to higher education to be bid for on acompetitive basis between institutions and allocated with a

I greater measure of selectivity than has hitherto been the case.

The Government has also funded to the tune of over £300,000a major efficiency study of universities, undertaken under theaegis of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, tohelp institutions examine their financial management structu resand to identify areas where economies may be forthcoming.The importance of the Jarratt study is in the assistance itwill give institutions the better to pursue their goals withintight financial restraints. The determination of this Governmentto secure value for money from every sector into which publicmoney flows is not merely - although it is quite properly ­based on a wish to spend as little as possible of the taxpayer'smoney. It is also based on a belief that those who live on thetaxpayer's money shou Id share and be able to demonstrate adetermination to obtain value for it. Ministers will thereforebe anxious to ensure that there is adequate follow-up andmonitoring of the specific recommendations of the report andof the impetus that it will give to the pursuit of these con­cepts in the universities generally. I am sure these objectiveswill be shared by the CVCP and by the universities.

Turning now to issues for the future to which the Govern­ment attaches particular importance, it will not surprise youif I begin with the relationship between higher education andthe economy. Nobody here I hope would ar[jUe with the obj­ective of ensuring that highe r education is making the maxim­um contribution possible to the development and improvementof the UK's economic base. But how this is best achieved is farfrom straightforward. The relationship between the nature andextent of higher education and the country's economic perf­ormance is a matter of considerable speCUlation. It is sadly alesson of the last 20 years that merely having more highereducation is not a sufficient condition for greater economicgrowth. But this is not to bel ittle the contribution that theexpansion and its continued manifestation have made to theeconomic and to the cultural fabric of our society. However,on the economic side at least this has clearly not been suffic­ient and the Government makes no apologies for seeking totry to steer higher education more towards industrial andeconomic interests.

Clearly higher education plays a significant role in providingmany types of skilled manpower for industry. It also has amajor function in performing fundamental and applied res­earch, and in contributing to technology transfer, so thatacademic expertise is translated into products in the marketplace. We have not been so good at this translation in the past;I bel ieve we are now getti ng better at it and hope that itsimportance will be even further recognised.

Many universities have of course already been deeply engagedfor many years in constructive and productive links withindustry. We know this is not something this Government hasinvented. Nevertheless when I visit universities I am impressedby the scope both for an increase in university activity in theseareas, and the perceived need for British industry to be fasteroff the mark in cashing in on academic expertise for newproduct ideas, for research and development, and for consult­ative and other services. The Government is encouraging bothpartners to be more forthcoming in these areas, and will con-

tinue to do so.

I know that these activities can put some pressure on the trad­itional functions of academic teaching and research as well asenhancing them. But I do not think that the organisation ofpriorities can be managed anywhere else but in the institutionsthemselves. Many universities are recognising that real progresson liaison with industry and commerce requires commitmentand involvement throughout the institution. Some wouldargue that the management structures of institutions are notsuited to dealing directly with industrial activity and this is oneof the reasons for the growth in wholly or partly owned univ­ersity companies to manage such enterprise. Again it is forinstitutions to decide, no doubt learning valuable lessons fromthe examples of others, how best to organise themselves in thisarea. I am confident the adaptation will be effective, not leastbecause everything I have read suggests that, among all theclasses in the Kingdom, dons were the most effective of all inadjusting to new tasks in the Second World War.

Industrial and commercial liaison can also be furthered throughstronger links generally with the local community. The localrole of a university is something which institutions, all ofwhich naturally aspire to being prestigious national and inter­national bodies, can sometimes neglect to their detriment.Some institutions are of course better placed, geographicallyand by virtue of their nature and facilities, than others tobuild up their local and regional activities. But all institutionsshould think carefully about their role and reputation in thisrespect.

The Government also wishes to help ensure that higher educ­ation courses do nothing to blunt the entrepreneurial spirit; Ithink the problem is that this can happen as an unintendedby-product of ethos and approach rather than through anydeliberate action. More positively institutions can and do enc­ourage the application of energy and creativity across all theiractivities so that students are motivated to make a productiveimpact on their environment. What the country desperatelyneeds is for universities to produce more of the creative man­agers and innovators who will boost the economy and them­selves create new jobs. No one has a magic formula for creat­ing enterprise, but the Government is trying to foster theconditions which can assist its growth.

The Government believes that two elements will help in creat­ing those conditions. The first is for rather more students tobe pursuing scientific and technological subjects. The secondis for more students in all subjects to have some knowledgein skills that are relevant to industry. This is not easy. Muchof it goes back to examination choices made in the schools,and our proposals for AS-levels and the school curriculumshould do something to help here. We also particularly hopethat more of the brightest girls will choose to do science andengineering A-levels than have traditionally done so. The newindustrial revolution is one of brain-power more than muscle­power, and WISE is not to be a one-year wonder.

As I said earlier the Government's latest initiative .. is a£43m programme to create extra university places in techn­ology from the next academic year. But industry also has arole to play. Employers are not always very clear about whatexactly their needs are, and actual recruitment policies andsta~ting salaries are not always designed to send the desiredsignals to institutions and aspiring students. But majoremployers are showing themselves willing to associate them­selves more closely with the higher education which they

uniquely benefit from, and I believe that there are encour­aging signs that constructive developments are on the way.

Another priority area for improved links between universitiesand business I haven't touched on is that of continuingeducation, and particularly post-experience vocationaleducation. For nearly 3 years this area of professional,industrial and commercial updating has been promotedand given direct help by the DES's PICKUP programme;PI CKUP stands for professional, industrial and commer­cial updating. So far, for a variety of reasons, the mainfocus of this programme has been the polytechnics andlocal colleges. This year, however, we hope to involvethe universities far more and an invitation to take partin a new scheme of PI CKUP projects in the universitieshas recently been sent to Vice-Chancellors.

The Government recognises that universities facespecial difficulties in expanding ..this.. market whichis aimed at adults in work. One of these is caused bydepartmental or faculty boundaries which can limitthe scope and flexibility of updating programmeswhich are designed for, and which have to be soldto, the far less compartmentalised world of industryand commerce. we also recognise that universitieswill need to build up and direct their marketingand market research efforts if they are to success­fully compete with other bodies and agencies inoffering updating provision at full-cost. Even thoseuniversities which are already well on the way tomeeting many of these prerequisites for growth willneed extra help if they are to develop new adult up­dati ng cou rses.

Fot these reasons the DES has invited the universitiesto send us their proposals for a short but we hopesharp injection of funds to tackle these infrastructure,marketing and pump-priming barriers to PICKUP inthe universities. The first round of project support willinvolve allocating sums of approximately £20,000 to eachsuccessful university, bid from an initial overall allocationof ten times that figure. This will cover the period fromSeptember 1985 to April 1986. A further round, orrounds, of support may follow later. That, of course,will depend in part on how successful this important,if modest, infusion of extra funds is.

So what might we be looking for - what actions mayfollow as part of this new scheme? Without I hopecompromising the imagination of your universities, thereare three areas in which action is likely to prove particul­arly effective. One is to create a single, well-publicisedpoint of access for potential clients to all universitydepartments and faculties. A second is the designationof PICKUP co-ordinators who could act as a bridgebetween departments and marshall the university's totalresources, perhaps also acting as the single point ofaccess I have just mentioned. And the third is setting upmechanisms to create closer collaboration in the provisionof updating for industry and commerce between theuniversity and further and higher education institutionsin the locality.

You will no doubt be aware of the joint recommendation ofthe UGC and the NAB in their respective recent advice docum­ents that continuing education should be recognised as a fifthtask of higher education - to be added to Lord Robbins' orig-

inal four. This is a sign that continuing education and trainingis beginning to be taken seriously by the higher education ins ­itutions themselves. The Government too is taking this increas­ingly important area of provision seriously. Our commitmentto the PI CKUP programme is a measure of our intent.

The Government also believes hat academic independence isbest served by universities returning 0 a situa ion where arather greater proportion of their income is derived fromsources outside Government. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Hail­sham, giving the first Edward Boyle Memorial Lecture at theRoyal Society of Arts last month, made out the case both forthe acceptance of an element of utility in any responsible viewof higher education and for the importance of alternativesources of income. He noted that a major change in highereducation in recent times has been the increasingly predomin­ant part played by organs of the State in funding, and statedhis view that 'a multiplicity of funding sources and, in partic­ular, the existence of substantial endowments, is the indis­pensable foundation of academic or any other independence'.Industrial activity is one element in this but fund-raising gen­erally goes much wider.

A number of universities are I think surprising themselveswith their success in attracting private funds. Many have suc·ceeded in increasing their income from non-Governmentsources by 15-20% and this is a remarkable achievement. It hasneeded and continues to need effort and commitment. I com­mend to you an excellent paper about fund-raising written forLeeds University by Sargent Whittier. Sargent Whittier makesclear that fund-raising is not a thing apart. It requires a pro­gramme of external relations deeply rooted in the institution.

It requires real additional effort of time, energy and resources,and a recognition that constructive external relations dependon both sides giving and receiving. 'The basic concern of fund­raising is not money: it is people .. .' Lay participants will beable to advise on how the university is seen from outside, andwhen a lay leader speaks on behalf of a university that test­imony has a special value.

I have concentrated much on the role of higher education inthe economy. I do not apologise for that. Enoch Powell hassaid that this is 'the sound of barbarism'. Quintin Hailshamhas matched that argument with a scholarship and eleganceworthy of Mr Powell's own. To those of us who rememberMatthew Arnold, Powell's accusation was really one of Philist­inism not of Barbarism, (though I understand his own source)but it is nonetheless invalid for that. Arnold's Philistines sawthe pursuit of wealth as an end in itself rather than seeing howit was related to 'the whole intelligible law of things and tofull human perfection'. Arnold urged the importance of sweet­ness and light but even he, I hope, understood that the Oxfordthat was dear to Arnold, the Cambridge that nurtured MrPowell, and all our other institutions of higher education, dep­end for their existence and continuation on the creation ofwealth. In urging greater attention to the creation of wealthhope none will accuse us of decrying the importance of thesweetness and light it can provide.

We have therefore seen changes in the nature of our educationinstitutions, in the way they are managed nationally, and inthe way in which they perceive their role in our economic,commercial and community life. You might think that is quiteenough for one decade. But it will not surprise you that theGovernment expects more. We are concerned that - whilemaintaining and upholdinQ university autonomy and academic

freedom - everything should be done to ensure that standardsand quality in higher educa ion are main ained and where pos­sible enhanced, and hat his should be seen to be done byhose who may have doubts abou the justification for the

enormous sums 0 axpayers' money currently inves ed inhigher education and research - well over £3.5 billion in thecurrent year.

There is one aspect of the wider question of quality and stand­ards that I would like to draw your attention to in particular.This is the question of complaints against universities - fromstudents, staff or the public. Such complaints come in avariety of shapes and sizes - unfair treatment in examinations,academic inadequacy or neglect, financial extravagence, politic­al bias in teaching. Universities too often react in a negative ordefensive way that does them no good whatever the substanceof the complaint. Universities are privileged institutions with alery significant degree of self-government. It is important thatthey should take complaints seriously and be seen to do so.This calls for openness, for scrupulous detachment, and for awillingness to seek assistance outside the university in somecircumstances so that justice may be seen to be done.

The Government has made no secret of the fact that it seesenormous challenges ahead for higher education. This is truein terms of its coping with the complex demands of an inc­reasingly technological society. It is also true in the less palat­able terms of its participation in sensible adjustment to dem­ographic trends into the 1990's if these appear to be leadingto some decline in demand for higher education which shouldsensibly be met by a trimming of provision. I cannot thereforepromise you any relief in the pressures. But I think what isalso on offer is the opportunity for higher education toassume the very prominent place in our national life whichperhaps it has not occupied, rightly or wrongly, for somelittle time.

PROFESSOR JOHN ROBERTS

E ffeetive public relation for universities

At the moment I believe it to be true that policy and prejudiceare main restraints on the development of effective public rel­ations for the universities as a whole. I formed this convictionvery soon after I became a Vice-Chancellor in 1979, but it wasa secondary conclusion, derived from a much more immediateimpression - the impression that very little in the way of pub­lic relations work was done on behalf of the university systemas a whole.

That impression, as I discovered on learning more of the work­ings of the CVCP, was not quite so wholly justified as I hadfelt at first. I soon learnt that the Chairman and SecretaryGeneral (like their successors) spent much time and thought inpresenting the universities' business to ministers, civil servants,and, from time to time, politicians. There was contact withthe press and even occasionally with editors of newspapers.Some senior vice-chancellors, too, spent time they could onlywith difficulty spare from their other duties in supplementingand reinforcing these efforts. Such efforts continue. Theycannot be ineffectual, or so intelligent a body of men wouldhave given them up long since. But it is difficult to feel thatthey have disposed of all the questions that might be askedabout the universities' public relations.

Let me be more blunt, since facts soon began to strike mewith their own bluntness as I took my first tottering steps asan infant vice-chancellor - let me draw your attention to twobodies of fact. First, some very rough-and-ready measurements.When I took up office, the university sector was absorbingdirectly something just over a billion pounds per year of pub­lic funds. To that we can add the inflow of contract andresearch money from other sources. In the case of my ownuniversity, 'earned' money of this sort now accounts for overa quarter of our turnover, but that is exceptionally high:nevertheless, the national sum is substantial - let's call itanother £350 millions. Then there are - important in the caseof some universities, insignificant in others - endowments andbenefactions. Put it all together, add something for inflation,and we have a university system now ticking over at between2 and 2Y2 bi 11 ion a year.

What industrial concern with a turnover of that size wouldleave its public relations to forty-odd branch managers, and,at the centre, to such time as can be spared from their otherconcerns by a few board members, the chief administrativeofficer, and one harassed lady who combines a responsibilityfor public relations with many other tasks?

That was the first set of facts which struck - indeed almoststunned - me.

The second was a matter of history. In 1980 the clouds gath­ered faster than ever and in 1981 they burst. Many of mycolleagues, perhaps most ( I do not speak of vice-chancellors,but of the whole academic profession), were shocked andtaken aback not just by the magnitude of the practical prob­lems which they were suddenly forced to confront, but by theimplications. The whole world of assumptions within whichthey lived was soon in question. The rules of the game hadchanged. Priorities and practices long taken for granted wereto be scrutinised. Immunities and taboos were cast down: theunspeakable was spoken, the unutterable uttered. Senates metand gnashed their teeth in vain; the onslaught could at best beslowed down, not halted, and it has continued since.

I remember those reactions well. I sympathised with some ofthem, though not all. But I was also struck by somethingwhich underlay them all - that there was virtually no-one inthe university system and academic profession who was notutterly unprepared for the public reaction to those events.Forward stepped the drum-major of the CVCP and AUT tolead the procession of protest - and hardly a member of thepublic fell in behind them. We suddenly discovered that wewere not loved, were even sometimes disliked. At one point Ihad ventured to write a letter to The Times which gently (wellI thought it was gently) questioned the methods, though notthe aims, of governmental policy. It provoked a number ofmembers of the public to write to me but I cannot recall onewriting in a sympathetic sense. Instead, they drew attention tofamiliar themes in the demonology of educational debate:ivory towers, long holidays, unjustified security of employ­ment, time-wasting and turbulent students - you can guesswhat the letters and postcards said.

But that was only the tip of the iceberg. To sum up - what Ibelieve was shown in 1981 was that the mass of British pub­lic opinion was unsympathetic to, and alienated from, theuniversities.

Many questions could be asked about the historic roots ofthis situation. But It cannot, surely, be denied that some part

of this alienation could have been avoided by conscious careat an earlier date for the public image and public relations ofthe universities? I must be clear. I do not believe that publicrelations (or the inadequacy of them) explains the differencebetween the generally positive and supportive approach ofNorth Americans to university education, and the indifferenceseasoned with outright distrust with which our own fellow­citizens have responded to the universities' appeals for sym­pathy. But that contrast - and many others - persuades methat there was something grievously lacking in the public rel­ations of the university system. That it could be remedied wasmy next thought.

Let me give an example of what might have been done betterin 1981, but could not be done because we lacked technique,experience, resources and expertise - and, I believe the will todraw up a public relations strategy. A couple of months ago, asmall but very influential section of the popu lation of whom Iam one - the better-eff parents of university students - bec­ame very agitated over the danger that changes were on theway which would throw onto their shoulders heavier chargesfor the support of their children. Many of those in the univ­ersities felt - for various reasons - that this was their cause,too. In the event, the lobby succeeded triumphantly. Nowwhy was it that such a coalition was not there in 1981? Whydid the middle-class dog not then bark in the night? It wasnot that similar interests were not at stake. But the potentialof parental anxiety was not tapped then. A few months ago,it did not need to be tapped: it was self-activated by a clear,felt threat and needed no fanning of the flames, no educationof opinion, no reinforcement of existing potentials wereneeded. What would have been the effect in 1981 of a directappeal to interest, fear and emotion - something along thelines of 'what a pity little Samantha won't get to the univers­ity as her older sister did: there won't be a place for her'?

No, I am not suggesting that the answer is Saatchi and Saatchi.Much more is involved in the establishment of a climate whichwill hear our message, let alone a climate likely to respondfavourably to it. Nevertheless, we shall never know what mighthave been done: we had no machinery to use in 1981, notradition within which to use it had we had it. And the pos­ition is still the same in 1985.

Policy and prejudice are, I suggested, the two obstacles to theeffective management of the public relations of the universitysystem. It was against the background of the facts I've brieflyreleased that I came to that conclusion and set about doingsomething about them. Let me conclude by saying a wordabout what is now under way.

Last year my colleagues in the CVCP agreed to set up a work­ing-party composed in the main of people from outside theuniversity system. With a wide brief we set to work justbefore Christmas, dividing ourselves into two sub-groups. Weshall meet again as a body in about three week's time and, Ihope, will then be able to present an interim report to theCVCP.

I see the body's task as one of persuading the CVCP thatsomething can usefully be done both about policy and pre­judice and the time has come for me to say what I mean bythat.

'Policy' is shorthand for practical steps. The identification ofgoals and the provision of machinery to achieve them. Manypossibilities arise and I do not want to speculate at this stage.

Let me simply say that I believe that whatever we do at thecentre of the system will require money, access to outsideexpertise, reliable information about the attitudes of relevangroups, specialisation within the CVCP's own structures. Theidentifica ion of goals is crucial to decisions about scale andpace. Should we seek to influence many or few, in the short­term or he long-run? Obviously: in each case, both. But weare very unlikely to have the resources to start on everythingat once. We shall have to choose. That choice will be thefundamental decision on which the working-party can offerguidance.

By 'prejudice' I mean to draw attention to the tangle of oftendeeply-rooted assumptions, beliefs and value-judgementswhich make action in this field difficult. They are widelyshared throughout the universities. At their most defensiblethey embody concern about the diversion or corruption oftraditional scholarly and scientific purposes, they recognisethe difficulties of collective action by universities in this area,and they fear the waste of resources. At their worst, theydissolve into self-regarding complacency and snobbery. It willbe difficu It to change these attitudes, but it is essential that itbe done if the universities are to operate an effective publicrelations effort.

Many of the difficulties are inherent in the nature of theCVCP itself. We needs love the highest when we see it, and,bless its heart, the CVCP is not only the highest expression

JARRATT COMMITTEE REPORTSSir Alex Jarratt, Chairman of the Steering Committee forEfficiency Studies in Universities, revealed his committee'sfindings to the CVCP at the end of March.

The committee acknowledged that good universities are'vitalto Britain's cultural life and prosperity' and that their preserv­ation and nourishment shou Id be a national priority. However,the resources necessary for this task were unlikely to beavailable automatically. Therefore, universities 'need to be sel­ective to put to best use the resources they command'. Theywould have to cope with uncertainty, and be willing to takehard decisions, or risk squandering their strength and theirfuture.

The public have to be assured that their money is well spent,Sir Alex pointed out. Although only a minority of the popul­ation benefit directly from a university education, individuallythey contribute significantly to the cost of our universitiesthrough taxation. So institutions, collectively and singly,should have 'clear and appropriate objectives... and achieve themaximum value from the resources made available to them'.

For the foreseeable future, the Committee predicted, moneywill be scarce compared to aspirations. The Public ExpenditureWhite Paper indicates that state funds will rise less than therate of inflation, so universities will have to continue to workwithin limited funds. The Committee found that the crisiscaused by the 1981 cuts'left some institutions weak and mostout of balance'. In order to resolve the potential conflict bet­ween their financial and academic priorities, universities needto improve their efficiency and effectiveness through planningand use of resources. Government and the UGC have a resp­onsibility to help the universities achieve this end; the recomm­endations of the Steering Committee are therefore addressedto all three.

of the collective personality of the universities, it is the onlyone. So we shall have to start there, with all its handicaps, forthe task. It is, after all, a committee of individuals - it doesnot represent except for he salary area, far less can it act forthe universities. I is an assembly of men who hold certainoffices and have, therefore, certain common interests and con­cerns, the main one being the receipt by their institutions ofpublic funds via the UGC. But it has no General Will: itcannot bind. It is not a unitary, not even a federal system:the historians among you may sense its nature if I say thatthough it is not like the United States under the Articles ofConfederation, nor like a Polish szlachta, where one veto canbring everything to a halt, there is nothing it can do to binduniversities. So do not expect too much of the CVCP. Theuniversities are autonomous in constitution and their vice­chancellors will have to be persuaded of the need to allowsome further extension of the responsibility of the CVCP tospeak on their behalf. Given the differences between univers­ities that will not be easily achieved.

Let us, nonetheless, begin. And let us not forget one otherthing. Whatever can be done to improve the central manage­ment of the public relations of the university system as awhole, in the slow modification of public opinion and in theday-to-day improvement of the image of that system, nothingis more important than what is done by individual universitiesthemselves, in their international, national, regional and localpresentation of themselves and thei r work.

Governmentshould provide broad policy guidelines within which the UGC

and individual universities can undertake strategic andlong term planning;

consider what action can be taken to restore a longerfunding horizon for universities in view of the disinc­entives to strategic planning inherent in the presentsystem;

avoid thrusting crises on universities through suddenshort term changes of course;

be prepared to provide funds to meet the whole orthe greater part of the realistic cost of future staffingreductions agreed between individual institutions andthe UGC;

commission an examination of the role, structure andstaffing of the University Grants Committee.

The University Grants Committeeshould provide and make known its views about the prospects

and directions for higher education;

increase the frequency and scope of informal and con­fidential discussions between individual Vice-Chancel­lors and the UGC Chairman and Sub-CommitteeChairmen;

encourage further inter-institutional collaboration;

agree with each university within the next 12 monthsa programme for implementing the recommendationsin this Report and the relevant findings of the SpecialStudies, and to take progress into account when alloc­ating grants.

The UGC and CVCP jointlyshould develop a range of performance indicators, covering

inputs and outputs, designed for use within individualuniversities and for making comparisons between inst­itutions.

All universitiesshould examine their structures and develop plans within thenext twelve months to meet certain key requirements. Theseinclude;

Councils to assert their responsibilities in governingtheir institutions, notably in respect of strategic plansto underpin academic decisions, and structures whichbring planning, resource allocation and accountabilitytogether into one corporate process linking academicfinancial and physical aspects;

Senates to continue to play their essential role in co­ordinating and endorsing detailed academic work andas the main forum for generating an academic viewand giving advice on broad issues to Council;

developing a rolling academic and institutional plan,which will be reviewed regularly and against whichresources will be allocated;

recognising the Vice-Chancellor not only as academicleader but also as chief executive for the university;

establishing a planning and resources committeestrictly limited in size reporting to Council and Sen­ate with the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman and withacademic and lay members.

budget delegation to appropriate centres which areheld responsible to the planning and resources com­mittee for what they have achieved against their bud­gets;

developing reliable and consistent performance indic­ators, greater awareness of costs and more full costcharging;

appointing Heads of Department by Councils, on therecommendation of the Vice-Chancellor after approp­riate consultation, with clear duties and responsibilityfor the performance of their departments and theiruse of resources;

introducing arrangements for staff development, ap­praisal and accountability;

saving academic and other time by having fewer com­mittee meetings involving fewer people, and moredelegation of authority to officers of the university ­especially for non-academic matters.

GENERAL NEWS~-~---

AUDIO VISUAL UNIT(Strand Campus)

I would like to redefine our lecture roomprovision policy particularly as it mayaffect lecturers coming to the Strandcampus from Chelsea or Kensington.

We provide to lecturers, free of charge,a wide range of audio visual equipmentfor undergraduate teaching purposes.Booking for equipment should be madeon one of our printed booking forms,giving 24 hours notice. Our technicianswill set up the equipment, but with theexception of cine will not generally stayto use the equipment.

I would advise all users to book allequipment that they will require. Al­though we have a large pool of equip­ment, and are quite happy for peopleto use it unbooked, it may well beremoved to fulfil a booking made byothers.

Outside bodies, student societies, post­graduates, conferences and seminarsmay well be charged for audio visualservices, as indeed will lectures takingplace outside of normal office hours.

Despite the foregoing, I hope the A VUnit are flexible enough to deal withcrises, so please contact us even atshort notice. We may groan a little,but can probably help.

Nick BuggManager, AV Unit

KING'S PRIZEWINNERDavid 80tsford; a history student atKing's has recently come third in theLloyds Bank/Spectator Young WritersAward. His prize was a cheque of £50for himself and of £12.50 for the Collegeto spend on books. David will be pres­enting a book of his choice to the librarylater in the term.

THANK YOU KING'·C;

Dear Friends,

I wish to thank you all for the Radioand cheque I received on my retirement.You can be sure they will both be putto good use.

Once again, thank you all for your kindthoughts and gifts.

Ena Harvey

KING'S THEOLOGICAL REVIEWJournal of the Faculty of Theologyand Religious Studies

The Spring 1985 edition is now availableand includes articles by Peter Byrne(Lecturer in the Philosophy of Religion)- Could God Explain the Universe?',Charles Brock on 'Freud, Scapegoat andEucharist', L10yd Caddick on Berdyaevand Martin Forward on 'Luke-Acts andthe World of Religions'. There arealso book reviews, including a reviewarticle on R R Reuther's Sexism and God­Talk.

The Review is available from the Faculty

of Theology and Religious Studies office,price £2 (£1 for students of KQC)

ACCOMMODATION FOR 1985­86 SESSION

Places are available in College housesin Ealing for postgraduate couples(without children) for the 1985/86session. Please contact Claire Kelleyin the Accommodation Office for details

DATES FOR YOUR DIARY

LORD MOUNTBATTEN CONCERT1n the Presence of The Chancellor,Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne

The Barbican Hall, Barbican CentreFriday 14 June 7.45 pm

The concert will celebrate the openingof the Lions International Earl Mount­batten Blood Research Laboratory atKing's College School of Medicine andDentistry.

The soloists will be Andrei Gavrilov,winner of the Tchaikovsky Prize in1974; Emma Johnson, Young Musicianof 1984 and Sarah Brightman. The pro­gramme will include works by Elgar,Bach and Mendelssohn.

Booking will open on 4 May. Ticketsranging in price from £10 to £50 will beavailable from Keith Prowse (tel. 01 7419999) or from the Barbican Centre BoxOffice (tel. 01 628 8795)

All other enquiries should be directed

FILM SOCNew Theatre, Strand, 6.00 pm

Thurs 23 May 2.15pmHOW MANY POINTS ARE THERE ONA LINE? by Or M Tiles

LONDON MARATHON 1985

A Report from the Strand

Two thirds of last year's intrepid tnocompeted in the 5th London arathonon April 21, Bill Harvey (Maths) decidingto save himself for he much ougherIsle of ight Marathon hree weekslater.

John Thomas from the Buildings Officerunning in his 38th marathon improvedon his best time by over 4 minutes tofinish in 2hrs. 32mins 56secs. PeterSaunders (Zoology) in his 13th Marathonfinished in 2hrs. 44mins. 46secs. just37 secs. outside his best time.

Members of the College sponsored Johnand Peter in their efforts and approx.£60 was raised for the Ethiopian appeal.The winner of the bottle of whisky forguessing closest to their aggregate timeswas Ann Phillips from the Secretary'sOffice.

'New Blood' appointment David Leake(Pharmacology) could himself have donewith some new blood as he also set outto face the challenge of the marathonfor the first time. His effort was acreditable 4 hrs. 8 mins. and he says hewill be back next year. Colleagues inhis department also sponsored him forthe Ethiopian Appeal.

COMMENT is produced by the King'sCollege London (KQC) InformationOffice on the Strand Campus.

King'scomment ....

HOBBES: AMES AND REALlS byProfessor J E McGuire, University ofPittsburgh

Tues 14 May 5.30pmAn Inaugural Lecture in the Chair ofChristian DoctrineTHE ONE, THE THREE AND THEMANYby Professor Colin Gunton, MA, D.Phil

PUBLIC LECTURES IN THENEW THEATRE, STRAND

COPY DATE: Friday May 31

Publication in the week of June 10

LUNCHTIME MUSIC AT CHELSEA

on 13 ay 1.20pm: Lightfoot HallCollege House, anressa Road

A PIANO RECITAL by SI ON MURPHY

Dohnanyi Four Rhapsodies Op. 11Beethoven - Sonata Op. 2 No. 2 in

A Major

NEXT EDITION

Admission is free without a ticketAll interested are welcome to attend

Tues 21 May 5.30pmA Public Lecture in the Department ofWar StudiesTHE GOVERNMENT AND THE SECRETINTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY:THEPROBLEM OF ACCOUNTABILITYby Or Christopher Andrew, CorpusChristi College, Cambridge

Thurs 23 May 5.30pmAn Inaugural Lecture in the Chair ofFrench Language and LiteratureRETURNING TO XANADU:THEPROGRESS OF THE IRRATIONALby Professor Norma Rinsler, BA. PhD

The Go-Between

Danton

13 May

20 May

CHELSEADept of History and Philosophy ofScience SeminarsRoom N25 Chemistry BuildingManressa RoadThurs 16 May 2.15pmCRYSTALLOGRAPHY AND BIOLOGYThe Problem of Protein Structureby Or H Kamminga

to the LI BRA Office in the Departmentof Haematology at King's College Schoolof edicine and Dentis ry (tel. 01 7370430)

Temporary membership £1.00 per pres­entation. As time and venue are liable toalteration at short notice, please consultthe Filmsoc noticeboard in the B-corridor

SEMINAR IN HUMANITIESCOMPUTING

Tues 14 May 6.00pm Westfield CollegeGOLDSMITH'S ESSAYS: A COMPUTER-AIDED STUDY OF THE CANONby Professor Peter Dixon, WestfieldCollege

HRH The Princess Anne, Chancellor ofthe University will open the Lions Int­ernational Earl ountbatten BloodResearch Laboratory at 3.15pm of thesame day.

Thu rs 30 May 2.15pmVON NEUMANN, QUANTUM MECH­ANICS AND CONTINUOUS GEOMET­Ry by Professor J Bub, University ofWestern Ontario

NEVERNEVERLANDAs part of the American Festival, Never­neverland, a play written and directedby Gary Robertson, is to be performedin the New Theatre. Billed as 'a darkpassionate romance that blazes a magicalmystery journey through the regions ofmurder, music and redemption', theplay will run until 18 May. Eveningperformances begin at 7.30, Saturdaymatinees at 2.30; tickets cost from £2.50- £4.50.

Thurs 6 June 2.15pm Peter Saunders in action