V – Tom Parry-Jones, L –  Leszek Borysiewicz, TH – Tim Holt, University PR

V: You’ve been in office three months now, and as you say in your New Year message, the country’s universities have begun to face the most fundamental changes for a generation”. In the last few months as well we’ve seen extraordinary protests in the streets of London and around the country, including here in Cambridge. It looks like a whirlwind time to be taking up office. Does it feel that way to you?

L: I... It’s certainly an exciting time in many ways, but that’s not really what matters. We’re dealing with a series of changes which are very important, and in the nature of those changes we must not lose sight of the fundamental principles of what this university is all about. Yes the sector as a whole really matters, but yes also this university matters. And in all of this we’ve got to remember that what we stand for is the quality and excellence of the students and of the staff actually within these institutions, and the academic contribution that we actually make. And that clearly is something that is felt by a variety of different groups to be being resolved or coming under threat, depending on different perspectives. So it’s a time of turbulence in the sector, but it’s also a time of uncertainty and in a way that why it’s so important I believe to actually meet and discuss this and particularly to be able to address the obvious questions that you would have in some of these areas, because you know what the main issues are that you’d like to talk about from your perspective.

V: Yes, and we’ll almost certainly get on to that. I find it interesting that you talk about Cambridge’s interests and [those of] the sector of a whole. To what degree do you believe they are interlinked, higher education in the UK and Cambridge? To what degree do you believe we ‘rise and fall as one’, or that there is a great degree of diversity, perhaps?

L:  Well, there is huge diversity in the higher education sector in the UK. We have the so-called top universities of which I believe Cambridge is the best, and we are the number one university in the UK. We have to lead on behalf, if you like, of the whole United Kingdom sector on the global stage, on the area of us being a global university which carries major responsibilities in the provision of top class facilities for staff and students, and to make sure to also take a huge international perspective because from that angle we are at the internationally very competitive end. Other universities provide a huge bedrock of [pause] teaching and training to many people in the United Kingdom and therefore fulfil a very important role. There is a distinctiveness between those roles, but many of the things that a currently being proposed effect the higher education sector as a whole, so I don’t think we sink or swim together but it is very important and there is a responsibility for what the sector is trying to achieve in the United Kingdom. That said, it is equally important that you don’t get better by neutering the very best, where I believe Cambridge and Oxford and other institutions are at the top, and it is important that Britain retains this position, because it is one of the few things that Great Britain is actually going to be very good at in the global competitiveness that already exists. It’s widely regarded and highly regarded because of that, and I do believe that Cambridge is a very special place because of that even in these times.

V: Yes. I find it interesting that you talk about a responsibility of Cambridge in some way. We’ve seen a great deal of talk in the media and various organs from representatives of students, the NUS, also the Vice-Chancellors of various universities. The University of Cambridge and yourself have remained rather quiet on this issue, in fact a lot of people have criticised you for silence, or ‘meekness’ as [said by] an academic quoted by the BBC on Monday at the silent protest. Was that a considered decision on your part or on the university’s part to not engage in this way? All we’ve seen is the statement of Council on the 8th.

L: Ok. This university is a very democratic institution. We actually... As a vice-chancellor I don’t set all of the policy and direction. I have to reach a consensus between Council. Now when the announcements occurred, and it was very clear that when they were coming in November, at that Council meeting I announced to Council that they would have a period of a month during which time there would be discussions with heads of departments and other ?executive bodies that as these came up that on the 6th of December there would be a major debate and discussion about what the university’s response should be. There had been previous responses from the university before my time, in relationship to the submissions that the university made to the Browne review at that time, and therefore there was a position that was actually very clearly outlined. What we’ve then done, on the 6th of December, is to reinforce what the position of this university has been. In many ways, I have not been requested in many ways to actually to come up and take a public stance on a variety of these issues, but the position that the Council took on December 6th is the position that I would adopt on each of these measure.

V: I think [pause] It’s clear that from some quarters you have been requested to make statements. To what degree do you feel that you missed, or that the university missed a moment to influence a debate here?

L: Well I don’t believe that we did miss an opportunity to influence the debate. The issue is what do you actually mean by influencing the debate? If you actually believe that making headlines in the newspapers is actually influencing the debate... There is more than one way to actually influence that debate, in terms of discussion, in terms of taking the messages as I did to meetings at the House of Commons and the House of Lords and elsewhere to inform decision making. Do I believe that the way of getting this message across is to blazon headlines in the newspapers? The answer is no. What is very important is that actually that we can give our considered message and a considered opinion. The university... It is all too easy to stand and make extemporary statements on given areas. What this university does is to take a measured and considered opinion across the spectrum of opinion within a very diverse university, and that diversity is represented by Council. I would remind everybody that that position that Council took was a unanimous view of Council, and that actually means that within the university that position is now cemented down as something that has a strength of purpose and strength of direction, which allows me to utilise that position very firmly in discussions with ministers and with others who propose change in the system. So I think we now operate from a position of strength because we haven’t been seeking to make headlines, but actually considering the impacts of the changes very closely and very carefully.

V: On a number of points in that statement of Council, it says that you will be waiting for the HEFCE letter in March and the government white paper that comes out of this bill, and obviously it’s unusual for a bill to be passed through parliament before a white paper -

L: [interjecting] Absolutely.

V: - Do you feel that it’s perhaps... [pause] it would be a useful way of affecting the debate and engaging in the debate for Council to come to some kind of statement before the white paper, before the HEFCE letter, given that the government are doing things in a way that is perhaps unusual and somewhat out of step, and this might go beyond what you’ve described?

L: Well I... What I would actually state is that Council has been very clear in the points of principle, which is as far as anyone can go. The statements that relate to the white paper are when we come to the specifics as it actually affects Council, that is in debates on where the bursaries, where the widening participation agenda and elsewhere is going to go. Council’s position is very clear, which is what we said, we stand for maintaining the quality and excellence of this institution, we believe that the public funding of higher education is extremely important and it also ensures that people are very clear that we actually wish to take people here who can benefit from our education, regardless of their background in addition to other statements that are equally important on the distribution of support for the arts and humanities alongside other disciplines. Many members of that particular school feel under threat under the current proposals. And I think that those statements of principle are really now thoroughly entrenched, and as far as I’m concerned, beacons going forward as to where Cambridge university is going to stand, so it is very clear to all individuals where Cambridge stands on these issues, and the references downstream deal with the specifics that we as a university are going to have to face as we face the changes in the funding environment.

V: The changes are, as you said, to a great degree now decided, and they’re fairly radical. Obviously there’s been a great deal of austerity but the changes to universities are more fundamental and more structural than that. Do you think they’re favourable to Cambridge?

L: That’s a interesting position, because at the moment the bottom line answer has to be, I don’t know. We can all speculate based on what we’ve seen to the HEFCE letter immediately before Christmas and the implications. There are clearly cutbacks occurring, particularly on the teaching budget, and as Council has said, we actually believe that any reduction in funding to higher education is a detriment to the United Kingdom position in this regard. Thankfully they have retained much of the research budget, on which we are very heavily dependent and that is an important element for the budget going forward for Cambridge. But there is a key issue, and that is the key issue, the principle of the situation which Council addressed, which is the balance between how far the state pays and how far the individual pays, and what we’ve actually stated is very clear, that actually we believe that there is public benefit from individuals attending university over and above the right... the benefit to the individual. And therefore as was said in many of the contributions in the discussion yesterday, it’s very clear that it’s the balance of that that actually has to be struck. Clearly the government is taking a particular position, and we will need to decide on how far we’re going to be able to go to look to the individual to supplement what the government is actually providing.

V: Ok, well let’s go to the issue of the individual then, and one half of these new proposals which is fees. And obviously, Cambridge has had to labour against problems with access for quite some time, and you’ve expressed in your new year’s message a commitment to access, and previously. How do the university hope to ensure that these changes that are being imposed by the government, tuition fees to some degree being set between six and nine thousand pounds, don’t undermine the good work that’s been done hence far – we had 69% in 1980 of state school students which then fell, and we’re now back up to sixty I believe.

L: Yes, I mean, this is not going to be easy. Please do not misunderstand that there is an issue for students from poorer backgrounds who will look at the fees that are being proposed, between six and nine thousand pounds, and will see that this may not be something that they wish to incur in order to pursue a university degree. So firstly, we’ve got an important message to get across. We’ve got to ensure that students from all backgrounds actually see Cambridge as an opportunity for themselves in this context. Now that means that we’ve got to be able, whatever fee is set by Council going forward and looked at by the university as a whole, is actually also offset by a strong proposal in relationship to the bursaries to ensure that we make it as affordable as possible in these circumstances. That affordability has to look at offsets against the fee itself, but also offsets against the maintenance grant that the students are going... the maintenance costs the student actually needs to maintain in this institution. So that’s the first package we have to look at. Secondly, we’ve got the generic which is actually to make sure that students do not misperceive Cambridge as an institution. I’d like to be in a position that whatever happens down the line, it is no more expensive for a student to come to Cambridge than to any other university in the UK. I might love to be in a different position, but at the... in terms of the finances we’ve got to at least achieve that sort of basis.

V: What [position] might you like to be in?

L: Well I’d like to be in a situation that those from poorer backgrounds are able to achieve as far as possible the greatest offset of costs that we can. Obviously, this is going to have to be scaled down. Let me sort of introduce to you the nature of the problem that we have. The current cost as the senior pro-vice-chancellor made clear in the discussion yesterday, is 17,000 pounds for a student. The total amount that we’ll actually bring in at the moment is 8000 pounds per student.

V: But such a shortfall surely is not unusual for an endowed university, which is what Cambridge is. If we want to be Harvard or Yale...

L: But the shortfall has got to be met from somewhere. So what it actually means is that we have to siphon money off that is actually intended for... was earmarked for research and other dimensions, as well as from our endowments. So what we do is we supplement this activity by not carrying out other activities, so we have to be clear that that position will almost certainly continue. The question is, is to what extent we can begin to improve that position so that we can improve the totality of the mission of the university.

V: You’ve spoken about the need to strike a balance between state funding and the contribution of the individual. I mean, obviously the headline fee that’s being bandied around is 9000 pounds. Is that a fair contribution for any individual to make, and if so [i.e not] would the university consider setting its fees at a lower rate than that?

L: Well ultimately it will be for Council and the university to decide what the fee level will be. It will have to be towards the higher end, it’ll certainly have to be higher than 6000 because as you know the position for this university as for many is somewhere between 7.2 and 7.5 thousand to remain in the static position, which is actually no betterment, and remember that has been eroded, because the value of the fee now is actually...

V: So the university would not be prepared to make that [shortfall] up out of their endowment?

L: Well there is a limit as to how much we can... how much the endowment will be able to make up in this area, you know, the endowment itself is not a bottomless pit that we can actually just tap into, and that endowment is already supplementing the undergraduate tuition to a great extent within this university, and there is a limit as to how much is there, it only brings in so much.

V: On the subject of that limit, the other side to the rise of fees that was proposed by the Browne report, which is obviously now law in David Willetts’ proposals, is the cuts proposed by the comprehensive spending review that George Osborne put through last year. Obviously the major cut is to the teaching budget, the university teaching budget, across the sector. Obviously this is a smaller part of Cambridge’s overall budget than many other universities, but what does it mean for Cambridge, and do you think that even if this was a smaller part of our budget [misspeak] such a vast cut is in any way justifiable.

L: Well, what I, we’ve...

V: [interjection] That’s quite strong, isn’t it?

L: ... clearly, Council has been very strong on this issue on the 6th of December. What it actually says, very clearly, is that any cut to higher education is to the detriment of the University and to the University system as a whole.

V: So you understand Council’s statement as condemning that cut?

L: WhatI understand Council’s statement as saying is it is to the detriment of the sector. But Council was also very clear in what it actually says. We have to as a university maintain the quality and excellent of our provision, and that means that we do need to take resources from whatever source that we can to maintain that core mission of the university, which is to maintain the quality and excellence in all that we do, and that also means that when we do take on board that are actually set, we have to do our very best to offset those costs through an appropriate bursary system. Where would I like to be? I’d like to ensure that the costs are no more for a student than for any university... top university in the UK, to come to here, and to make sure that those that aren’t able to pay are getting support from the university through the bursary structure and system, both towards their fees and their maintenance, to make sure we can offset the harshness of the costs that they actually face in coming to university. The other thing that has to be remembered, which is sometimes forgotten in the debate, is that of course this is not an upfront payment, it is a student loan that is actually being offered, so that at the time somebody is a student they are actually not paying, nor are their families paying at that point. It is a deferred payment.

V: This ties into our [misspeak: your] comments about access.

L: Yes, and it ties into the comments about access because I’m concerned that in communities with poorer backgrounds there is a fear of debt that is actually extremely real in those communities.

V: The other side, I guess, of cuts proposed by the comprehensive spending review are cuts to research funding, which is obviously something you’re familiar with in your previous position as head of the MRC. We found in the settlement that sciences are protected, well, they are protected in cash terms, as cuts have fallen on arts, humanities and social sciences for the research budget, the AHRC and ESRC have undergone cuts. Why do you think cuts have fallen in the way they have, and given your mission to protect all six schools in the university, that you professed in your new year’s message and in this interview, what does this mean for your actions with research funding.

L: Well, there are many elements to the question that you have just posed. Firstly, if you look at the overall cuts to the research councils, what you’re faced with is a 4% cut in the Q of R, which is a quality issue which is the budget that comes from HEFCE to the university.

V: Via the RAE?

L: Via the RAE. You’ve then got the budgets of the research councils. What you will see there is that the Medical Research Council is broadly protected in real terms, all of the other cuts [sic] are taking relatively, proportionately, very similar cuts in... your point about... it’s one council that has done very well out of this if you want to put it in those terms.

V: Could you speak, perhaps, as to why?

L: Well, it’s, well the Medical Research Council took on, along with NIHR, a major direction to move to translational medicine, on the basis that this country needs to maintain both the industrial and other commitments that the government has made towards improving the NHS’ position. And it’s that totality that I think is being protected in this instance. Secondly...

V: So it’s being treated almost as part of the NHS?

L: No, it’s not being treated as part of the NHS, it’s essentially entirely separate. We actually spent a lot of our, my time there actually defending that position.

V: But in terms of government policy, it’s being treated as a medical cut?

L: It is. What they actually see is that they see this as a very important sector, and when you actually look at the Lambert proposals and elsewhere, you will actually see that Britain’s lead in both academic terms and others under the Lambert review, as she says, is that it’s in these sectors that the United Kingdom leads, and it wants to protect that lead. On the issue that you are raising over the differential impact of the cuts that have been proposed for arts and humanities, well I have to say that that is probably [properly?] just not true, and you heard yesterday from Professor Franklin that he does not see this as a cut in arts and humanities. What is being proposed is that there is a differential payment that is actually made for the teaching of different specialties, and that certain specialties such as medicine and vetinary science actually have huge on-costs in terms of...

V: But we’ve moved from the research budgets to the teaching budgets....

L: ...to the teaching budgets. But it is important... And therefore the cut is not being disproportionate to the arts and humanities, as the same level cut is being applied to all of them, and it is only the differential between them that is actually applied, so that it is... it doesn’t disproportionately affect it. Now, if you come to Cambridge University itself, we have maintained the budget of the arts and humanities very strongly. As many students as are studying the arts and humanities will continue within this university. And it is very clear that even under resource allocation mechanisms we are moving resources from the sciences to the arts and humanities, somewhere in the order of 6 million pounds a year is actually moved in that way. So there is objective evidence that this university above all has actually served to try to protect the work within the arts and humanities. Why do we do it? We do it because I fundamentally believe that actually you need a broad based university in a university as Cambridge, and the arts, humanities social sciences – they all have a huge amount to contribute to this university, not just through the teaching, and not just through the education, but in the research opportunities they provide for us as a university.

V: I’d like to briefly touch...

TH: Five minutes.

V: Yes. ... on process and you were present in the chair at the discussion at Regent House yesterday, and an academic positively remarked that this ‘was the first time the VC has done that since 2001, two VCs ago!’. Do you think that was significant, and do you forsee a role for Regent House, as the governing body of the university, in making future decisions and taking part in future discussions?

L: Well, the Regent House does. The governance regulations of this university...

V: It hasn’t henceto on this issue.

L: Well, what it has done is that there was a topic of concern that was actually raised, and it was one that has clearly... in the current climate is raising a lot of attention. I felt that it was important that, as it so happened I was actually here, that I was able to attend and to listen to the discussions that were taking place. In fact, I thought that it was a very important mechanism by which the democratic processes of this university were actually given very important... evidence that they are alive and well and will continue.

V: There’s been a great deal of dissent, obviously students occupying buildings last term and a number of... hundreds of academics coming out in support of their positions. Do you feel as vice-chancellor it’s your position to represent those views, or do you feel that you represent those views?

L: Well, let me just... er... take that in a slightly different way. This university has got well-established democratic principles. Yesterday you saw them in terms of the discussion. We have processes whereby we can have a debate. We do not constrain anybody from peaceful protest, so you saw the silent protest that academics had, they took a very strong view, nobody has made any attempt to constrain that particular area. But you do cross a line at a particular point. An occupation which is illegal, which actually does put people at risk, and at significant risk in the building that was actually occupied, have caused problems to staff who are trying to keep... maintain this university going forward, then a certain line in that protest is crossed, and it is at that point that the university has to consider this very carefully indeed.

V: And so, do you regret in any way the way the university handled the events of last November and December?

L: The answer to that, in broad terms, is no. I think that we handled it in a very measured way in comparison with many other institution that faced the same sort of situation at that point, and I believe that it is right that we, I offered to the occupiers that I would meet with them, but I would not meet with them under duress, which actually went beyond the normal democratic processes which are there to enable people to make their viewpoints known. They chose a different way, I do not believe that we should be coerced or bounced into a situation by a group which is essentially self-appointed in this way and takes action in the way that it did.

V: Tim – there are two more questions in my interview. However, my colleagues in the newsroom are writing another article, on a paper from the Organisational and Financial Efficiency Committee, which...  there are essentially two major points which I think it seems fair to present. [inaudible] This would have gone to PCS [misspeak: PRC] and would’ve gone past you, and it’s, obviously, proposals that are being taken forward for ways of economies being made in the university, which of course is the working group’s...

L: So hang on, this paper that you’re referring to is...

V: It was presented at the meeting of the PRC – sorry – yes...

L: So this is an initial paper that working groups that were looking at potential economies...

V: There are two things that I think we are focusing on in the article, that it seems utterly apposite that you get to respond to, that it would be good for both of us, essentially. And the first is that, coming out of the work of the Senior Tutors Committee, a key target that is proposed is a reduction in the number of one-on-one supervisions, and supervisions more generally by establishing norms, that might also lead to a reduction in the number of college teaching officers required. Given your expressed desire to continue the quality... the extremely high quality of education in Cambridge, do you think this in an appropriate place to be finding economies?

L: Ok, let’s, er, just head back a bit. First, remember what this working group is about, it’s about actually asking a question that in cash strapped times, these people are set to look at possibilities where efficiencies can be made.

V: Oh, this is... my question is not if this is going to happen, it is, is this an appropriate place to be looking for efficiencies?

L: It’s an appropriate... any place within the university is an appropriate place to be looking for efficiencies, because remember that every pound that you actually save is a pound back to the university’s mission, nobody is actually appropriating the resource. So the question here is when are we able to provide... how are we best able to provide the efficiencies. Now nobody’s coercing anyone, what the senior tutors are doing in this regard is looking at what the norms are, providing that information, and allowing the faculties and schools that actually have to look at the provision of budgets, as well as colleges to look at the provisions of budgets, to see if that’s the best way in which they can deliver their mission. So in supervisions, sometimes one-to-one is the best, and therefore it should continue.

V: For example, the history faculty prides itself on one-on-one supervisions...

L: And if it decides that... that is an important area, it is right for it to continue. In my own discipline when I was here, I have to tell you, I preferred to do supervisions at six-to-one, because I happen to like the group dynamic. So it’s a matter of people looking, asking the question ‘what are norms that are being used throughout the college system?’, so that there isn’t an expectation that this is best, it is just providing that information to them, and putting it to people that if efficiencies can be made, money can be recycled and used elsewhere to deliver the same mission. So it’s actually about ensuring that we’re making... getting good value for money out the purse.

V: So a reduction in the number of one-on-one supervisions would not necessarily mean a fall in the quality of education, is what you’re saying?

L: Well, I absolutely believe that, because remember, what we stand for most of all is the quality of the delivery that we have, so it’s not a matter of attacking the quality that is likely to be delivered, it is actually saying that, are we delivering it in the optimum way to maintain that quality?

V: The second point is a rather short one...

TH: [interjecting] Yes, very quick.

V: It will be very quick. ...and it just seems an example of infelicitous language. I’ll quote: “There is perhaps some scope for closing MPhils which attract small numbers of students, but it is recognised that not all masters courses are designed to be income generators.” Is it appropriate for any masters course, or any degree course in the university to be described as “designed to be an income generator”?

L: The... well... ok, I’m not going to defend the language, which is actually with the author of the paper, but the issue here is that masters courses, in particular, are courses which very often, in certain circumstances and in certain disciplines – I’m particularly thinking of civil engineering and law – lead to considerable income benefits to the individuals concerned, and it is not unreasonable in such circumstances that the beneficiaries of those should actually ensure that the university also benefits appropriately. Remember, that resource that comes in from areas such as that can then be used to support other aspects of the university’s mission.

V: The issue is with the word ‘designed’ – are the... are the content of these courses, or any courses at the university, being fitted to the amount of money that is being charged for them?

L: No no no, courses have to be designed and are approved through the normal process of the General Board and others for their academic achievement and quality. The question here is, is can you actually run a course efficiently and well, deliver the quality that is actually expected of a Cambridge course, and to ask the question ‘which courses are actually really important?’ Sometimes a course with very small numbers can deliver very many student who are then – particularly in the arts and humanities – who can go on to higher degrees and study. I’m very keen on maximising the number who go into research degrees because I believe that’s of fundamental importance to maintaining the international position of this university. There are some courses which are career-based course, and the faculties I would particularly choose are law where major courses in law, in one year courses, offer specialised training which then translated to immediate benefit for the individuals who’ve attended that course. That’s why there are differential charges on courses in terms of what’s being delivered. The quality of what’s being delivered, and the content, is decided on by price, the content is decided by academic content.

TH: Thank you.

V: Ok, that’s my colleagues in news... happy. Would it be possible to have a closing question? It’s a... It’s... It’s...

L: Go on.

V: Thank you. Cambridge has been declared the best university in the world by... one or two league tables this year, but... League tables are not hugely interesting, what is interesting is, what do you think makes a university? And what make a university great?

L: Firstly... A university is an academic establishment first and foremost. That means that it has to be able to deliver the highest quality of education, academic activity, and research. It has to maintain the integrity of its position, and ensure that it’s delivering the very best quality. Its quality is determined in part by the quality of the students that are within that university, and the staff that we’re able to attract, and the advances that are made in both science, arts, humanities, go across all of the disciplines, and the capacity of students to take advantage of that education in order to be able to achieve their own goals. And that’s why I believe Cambridge is the best university in the world, because it is able to deliver both the quality of the educational commitment, alongside some of the very best research in the world. And as we’ve already seen, our academics engage in many of the really important issues, and give quite reasoned and important debate to the issues that affect us today. And that’s what I think universities are about – it’s about the education and academic achievement of that institution. The trouble with league tables is they tend to measure only small parts of that in those table. But do I believe that they’ve got it right when they put Cambridge as the best university in the world? Yes I do, because I do believe this is the best university in the world.

V: Ok. Thank you very much

L: Yes...

V: There’s a great deal more that I’d love to ask you

L: Yes, I’m sure you can follow up on another occasion.

V: Wonderful.