Leszek Borysiewicz’s grand office in Old Schools sits across the court from the now-symbolic Combination Room. We’re seated, not at his imposing mahogany desk, but in two facing armchairs tucked away in a corner. If not exactly intimate – the University’s head of communications sits to one side, taking notes – it at least suggests this will be a discussion rather than a lecture. The cervical cancer jab pioneer and former head of the Medical Research Council has been in office in Cambridge for three months. I remark that, with extraordinary protests and universities facing what he has called "the most fundamental changes for a generation", he seems to have taken up office in a whirlwind. Does it feel like that to him?

"It’s certainly an exciting time in many ways", he begins, but pauses and adds, "but that’s not really what matters". Far from evading the point, the Vice-Chancellor seems eager to address the "very important" changes to higher education directly, and not merely with regard to Cambridge. In considered tones, he speaks of the University’s need "to lead on behalf, if you like, of the whole United Kingdom." His words seem to reflect a genuine belief in the sector, at one point describing higher education as "one of the few things that Great Britain is actually going to be very good at in the global competitiveness that already exists."

If he feels such a responsibility, how does he reconcile it with the University’s near-silence in the run up to the Commons vote that was so heavily criticised by protesting students and academics? In only issuing a statement of University’s Council on December 8th, does he feel that Cambridge missed a moment to influence the debate? "The issue is what do you actually mean by influencing the debate?" He speaks of his own efforts in the Commons and the Lords, but what becomes clear above all is his distaste for "extemporary statements", particularly in the media, as a way of communicating universities’ interests. "Do I believe that the way of getting this message across is to blazon headlines in the newspapers? The answer is no." Rather, he argues that as a "very democratic" university, Cambridge must "take a measured and considered opinion across the spectrum" and that, following a month of formally announced discussion, this is what Council’s "unanimous" statement represents. With regard to protesters, he argues that the University "do not constrain anybody from peaceful protest", in particular the silent protest on Monday, but that actions such as the "illegal" occupation "do cross a line". Does he regret how the the University handled it? "The answer to that, in broad terms, is no".

On the issue of fees, the Vice-Chancellor seems under no illusion that maintaining access in Cambridge "is not going to be easy". He seems acutely conscious that poorer students may decide the new fees "may not be something that they wish to incur in order to pursue a university degree", and speaks of "the harshness of the costs that they face" and their "fear of debt". Nevertheless, he argues that Cambridge’s as yet undecided fees will "certainly have to be higher than £6000" in order to remain static against the cut in teaching funding. He seems reluctant when asked if the University might make this shortfall up out of its endowment, arguing "there is a limit ... the endowment itself is not a bottomless pit". Yet his overall vision for access and bursaries could be interpreted as very ambitious indeed. "I’d like to be in a position," he declares, "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." When he restates this later in the interview, this becomes "top university", the Vice-Chancellor catching himself mid-sentence. A call for his clarification the next day brings none, only the suggestion from the press office that we got a "good interview".

On the Government’s cuts to public funding, he appears to interpret the statement of Council very strongly. He declares it to mean that "any cut to higher education is to the detriment of the University and to the university system as a whole." He speaks of the specifically "public benefit from individuals attending university", though he falls short of condemning the cuts outright when challenged. In this area he clearly also takes the maintenance of the arts and humanities very seriously, suggesting "moving resources from the sciences" to them, because, "I fundamentally believe that you need a broad based university".

It is this balance of conviction and financial concern that marks many of the Vice-Chancellor’s answers. He takes each question put to him seriously, rather than trying to dodge them, and is at no point clearer than in his open willingness to discuss the leaked report uncovered by the news team, despite a visibly agitated press officer. Whether this calm, methodical but reserved approach enables him to maintain "the best university in the world" in a turbulent, outspoken climate will be the test of his seven-year tenure.