A report from the University’s Planning and Resource Committee obtained by Varsity proposes drastic changes to the way in which students at Cambridge are taught.

The leaked document, which Varsity received on Tuesday, was prepared by the Working Groups on Organisational and Financial Efficiency in an effort to "identify efficiencies" in the university, including in undergraduate and postgraduate education. Economizing measures being considered include a reduction of one-to-one supervisions, and culling some smaller MPhils currently running at a loss.

The Groups were set up to form a contingency plan, following what The Reporter describes as the "bleak outlook" of the 2010 budget report. The content of the leaked report was discussed at the Planning and Resources committee meeting on the 24th November 2010

It shows that currently around 13% of supervisions in Cambridge take place on a 1:1 basis. By increasing the student-staff ratio to 2:1, the Groups estimate that the niversity could save £600,000 per year in payments to supervisors. When asked in an interview with Varsity whether this was an appropriate area in which to attempt cost-saving measures, the Vice-Chancellor replied:

"Any place within the university is an appropriate place to be looking for efficiencies, because every pound that you save is a pound back to the university’s mission, nobody is actually appropriating the resource."

He emphasized that these discussions are taking place with the cooperation of academic departments. "Nobody’s coercing anyone, what the senior tutors are doing is looking at what the norms are 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."Varsity raised the issue of the History department, which prides itself on offering one-to-one tuition to all undergraduates. Could it continue to do so? "If it decides that... that is an important area, it is right for it to continue."

The Vice Chancellor however maintaned that he "absolutely" believed that a reduction in the number of one-on-one supervisions would not necessarily mean a fall in the quality of education. "It’s not a matter of attacking the quality that is likely to be delivered", he argued, but rather a question of whether the university is delivering teaching "in the optimum way to maintain that quality." He added that when he taught at Cambridge, "I preferred to do supervisions six-to-one, because I happen to like the group dynamic".

In another section which explored the possibility of closing MPhil courses which attract small numbers of students – a move that could save the university £100,000 per year for each course closed – the report noted that "not all Master’s courses are designed to be income generators". When questioned as to whether any course should be considered an ‘income generator’, the Vice-Chancellor said that, while he could not "defend the language" in which the issue was phrased, some courses are "career-based", and students who "immediate benefit" financially from them should "ensure that the university also benefits appropriately". He categorically denied that courses are ‘designed’ to make money, insisting that the sole criterion is "academic achievement and quality". When Varsity asked Professor John Rallison, chair of the report committee, to clarify this statement he said:

"Some courses operate at a significant financial loss, but the university runs them because they are considered particularly important, or have a particular effect on our research effort. Other courses must generate income … At a time when economies are needed, the balance must be reassessed."

The suggested closure of smaller courses is just one of the ways in which research is in jeopardy following the government’s cuts. The report’s initial proposal of unpaid sabbatical leave for fellows was dismissed as the Groups admitted that this would have “a serious detrimental effect”. However, the report encourages “changing expectations that leave covered by grants should be in addition to the standard University entitlement instead of in place of it”.

The report also investigates other areas in which efficiencies could be made such as the University Computing Service. Bruce Beckles, a member of the UCS comments that the figures included within the report related to the ratio of computer officers to academic staff are “irrelevant”.

The report states that the University currently employs 386 computing support staff, approximately one for every four members of academic staff. However, this assumes that the service only supports academics, whereas in fact it is used by a wide range of staff working in the University. Beckles shows that the ratio of Computer Officers to staff is probably closer to 1:14. Bizarrely, the report does not take students into account either when making these calculations. Once students are accounted for, the real proportion is approximately 1:64.