King's College London (KQC) newsletter
WESTF E D ARTS TO JOI WITH KING'S King's College and Westfield College have recently issued the following statement: 'The Principals of King's College and Westfield College have agreed to recommend to the Governing Bodies of their Schools that the acknowledged strengths of the Faculties of Arts of the two Colleges should be unified within the new institution to be formed from the amalgamation of King's College, Queen Elizabeth College and Chelsea College. Westfield College will continue to retain its individuality and its distinctive character as an academically balanced residential campus. It is firmly believed that this development is not only compatible with the long-term plans of King's (KQCI, but will add significantly to the academic strengths of the institutions and of the University of London.' More precise details of plans for unification will emerge as discussions continue. DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITIES A Special Supplement on recent reports. This edition of the newsletter concentrates on some recent speeches and reports which have bearing on the future development of the universities. The Chairman of the UGC addressed a joint meeting of the UGC and CVCP in March and the text of his speech is given. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DES recently visited King's to speak to an annual meeting of University Information Officers, as did the Chairman of the CVCP Advisory Committee on Public Relations: their texts are reproduced. The Jarratt Committee have recently published their findings on efficiency within universities and an outline of their recommendations is given. The many views expressed in these reports should be of interest and perhaps provide 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 the openmg session of the annual meeting of University Information Officers held at King's in April.
CVCP meet Sir Keith Joseph The Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the CVCP met the Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph on 30 April 1985. Vice-Chancellors told Sir Keith Joseph he could not expect universities to go on doing more and more for less and less. The universities have been through a period of considerable turbulence. What they now needed was consistency of policy from the Government and sufficient resources to make it effective including provision for a reasonable level of academic salaries. It was vain to suppose that policies such as the switch to science and technology, selectivity and rationalisation could be effectively pursued with a continuing and severe decline in grant. Mr Maurice Shock, Chairman of the CVCP, said the Jarratt Report had given the universities a 'good housekeeping' seal of approval but they wou Id nevertheless heed the recommendations directed at them. He urged the Government to pay attention to the recommendations directed at it since failure to do so would be 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 told Sir Keith that they utterly condemned any disruptive activities within universities which denied the right of speech to invited speakers, whatever their political persuasion. But the universities had no power to deal with serious breeches of law and order which were often caused by imported groups with no connection with the university. Vice-Chancellors, however, assured Sir Keith that the issue was being given careful consideration and that they would do all within their power to uphold the principle of free speech. Vice-Chan:ellors also brought Sir Keith up-to-date with the work being done by the Reynolds group on the monitoring of academic standards.
STAFF NEWS King's College
PERSONNEL NEWS Clerical, Secretarial and Academic Related appointments 25. 3.85 Miss Louise Temple, Registry 25. 3.85 Ms Christine Jordan, Classics Secretarial Assistant 15. 4.85 Miss Jacqueline Purcell, Biophysics Secretarial Assistant 16. 4.85 Mr Martin Hazzard, Assistant Hall Manager, Halliday Hall 22. 4.85 Miss Alison Cordover, Admissions Assistant, Registry 22. 4.85 Miss Tina Finch, Admissions Secretary, Registry 7. 5.85 Mrs Christine Boiling, Secretary, Chemistry Department LIBRARY 9. 4.85 9. 4.85 9. 4.85 15. 4.85 15. 4.85 7. 5.85
ASSISTANTS Ms E. Cornell Miss A. McAloon Miss L. Holland Miss M. Robinson Miss C. Padley Mrs C. Smith
Resignations 18. 3.85 Miss Peta Jane Taylor, Assistant, Halliday Hall 10. 5.85 Miss Amanda Stenning, Accommodation Assistant 10. 5.85 Mrs Bridgett O'Neill, Typing Pool 20. 5.85 Mr A. McCartney, Library Assistant Manual appointments 22. 4.85 Mr Alfred Norman, Carpenter, Works Office Mrs Sandra Newington, Tel22. 4.85 ephonist Academic appointments 1. 9.85 Or Ivor A.S. Lewis, Lecturer in Analytical Chemistry (An Academic Initiative post). 1.10.85 Mr William Powrie, Lecturer in Civil Engineering 1.10.84 Mr Peter B. Clarke, Lecturer in the Department of History and Philosophy of Religion (An Academic Initiative post).
COMMITTEE ON TRAINING FOR ACADEMIC STAFF Colleagues! Do you wish you could publish more? Do you wish your teaching went more smoothly? Honesty might compel the answer 'yes' to both questions, in which case some or all of the following list of forthcoming
workshops and conferences will be important. Remember: CTAS has the money to pay all, or at least part of the registration fees. 'Training' need only cost you a little time. The experience of those who have attended previous training events suggests that this will be time well spent.
6 University of London In-Service Programme for Academic Staff and Teachers in Higher Education (CSDHE) This is a two-year programme leading to the award of the University's Diploma in Teaching and Course Development in Higher Education, and is designed specifically to suit in-service, full-time university teachers. N. B. All fees are waived for members of the University of London. Application forms from the Academic Registrar, University of London Institute of Education. Enquiries to the Secretary, CSDHE, 55 Gordon Square, London WCl H ONJ (636 1500 ext 497), or Step hen Harrow.
1 Centre for Staff Development in Higher Education (CSDHE) ~7 JUNE. WORKSHOP: TEACHING STUDY SKI LLS (Course tutors: Angela Brew and Roy Cox. To be held at the Institute of Education). Further particulars: CSDHE on 636 1500 ext. 497, or Stephen Harrow, Assistant Registrar, Strand, ext. 2689. 2 Management in Colleges 16-21 JUNE. STUDY CONFERENCE: INTER-PERSONAL SKI LLS (Organised by and at the Further Education Staff College, Coombe Lodge, Blagdon j Bristol, BS18 6RG). Further particulars: FESC on 0761-62503, or Stephen Harrow. I *N.B. this conference will be repeated ~rom 24-29 November
3 University of Surrey 1~16 JULY. FOLLOW-UP WORKSHOP: LEADERSHIP FOR HEADS OF UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS (Course Director: John Adair, Visiting Professor of Leadership Studies, Faculty of Engineering, Surrey University, To be held at the Centre for International Briefing, Farnham Castle, Surrey). Further particulars: Jenny Grant, Personnel and Training Officer, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 5XH. Tel: 0483 571 281, or Stephen Harrow. 4 University of Surrey: Department of Educational Studies 11-17 SEPTEMBER. ANNUAL COURSE: TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION (Course Organiser: Professor Lewis Elton, Educational Studies Department). Further particulars: Jackie Leeks, University of Surrey. Tel' ext. 619, or Stephen Harrow. 5 Centre for Staff Development in Higher Education 16-20 SEPTEMBER: COURSE FOR LECTURERS* (To be held at the Institute of Education). Further particulars: CSDHE on 636 1500 ext. 489, or Stephen Harrow. *N.B. This is the University's annual, pre-Sessional course. Five-star value for money.
CTAS Library news Latest additions include: copies of the papers presented by Eric Mottram (from an arts base) and George England (science/technology) to the Seminar on Postgraduate Training CTAS ran in February. These thoughtful contributions repay reading and are commended to those who were not able to attend the Seminar; the March 1985 issue of Birmingham University's newsletter Teaching News'. Principal articles feature recent experience with microcomputer applications in Maths and Science teaching; and the International Family Service for Overseas students. STAY IN TOUCH WITH CTAS
The University Superannuation Officer has sent the following letter to Schools: Dear Colleague, THE 1985 BUDGET You will know by now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not change the tax regime for pension funds in his Budget Statement on 19 March. Given the cloak of secrecy which has enveloped the Treasury in recent weeks, it is impossible to say how seriously the pension funds were under threat. However, it is clear that a material factor in dissuading the Chancellor from any action he might have contemplated was the very strong reaction from employers and members, many of whom wrote to their MP's or the National Press. I am told that the collective postbag of MP's on this subject was more than 7.000 letters, compared with 2,000
protesting about the possible levying of VAT on buoks and newspapers. You may wish to bring this letter to the attention of anyone whom you informed of my earlier letter of 10 January 1985 not only to allay any fears that we may have aroused, but also to convey the University's thanks to those who took action against what might have been a most detrimental change.
RESEARCH GRANT FOR WAR STUDIES The Department of War Studies has been awarded a small grant fwm the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust for research on Chemical Warfare and Arms Control. The research will be conducted by Mrs Valerie Adams who last year completed research for the Department on the Falklands and the Media. This is now being turned into a book to be published by Macmillans.
THE KOC COMPUTER CENTRE This is an exciting time for Computing Services generally, and particu larly so for the newly-forming Computer Centre. We plan the development of a flexible and user-responsive service for what will become one of the largest Colleges of the University, with a requirement for computing facilities comparable to that of University College. Rapid advances in computer and communications hardware and software in recent years have stimu lated interest in computing and led to additional demands being placed on Computer Centres. We are now responsible for supporting and developing not only our increasingly varied and sophisticated mainframe computing and communications systems but also a wide range of microcomputers and their peripherals. The advice, assistance and training that we make available to all users with the designing, writing and debugging of computer programmes encompasses an ever-wider range of languages; while the specialist areas in which we offer in-depth support (such as Graphics, Statistics, Numerical Analysis, Database Management Systems, Scientific Non-numeric computing, Computer Assisted Learning and Text/Word Processing) have all shown dramatic growth. There have also been substantial improve-
Deryn £il.atson, Assistant Director of the Computers in the Curriculum project, demonstrating the application of computers in Humanities teaching.
ments in the sizes and services of date communications networks. The Joint Academic Network is now nearing com· pletion and it allows interactive connection to many other University and Research Council computer systems in the UK and, indeed, through 'gateways' to the British Telecom PSS service, to many other systems world wide. Local communications networks, too, are rapidly developing in power and flexibility and those at KQC already offer such facilities as electronic mail and file transfer between micros and mainframes. However, they need to be much more widely extended and enhanced before they reach their full potential. In the short term we face a number of difficult problems. We have three separate mainframe systems (one incompatible with the other two) on the main College sites; we have insufficient staff even if they were all concentrated on one site, and we are very short of space, particularly on the Strand site. Fortunately, the mainframe needs of the new College have been recognised by the award of an additional £800,000 for a mainframe upgrade to boost the £250,000 upgrade which King's College has just received. This upgrade will take place in approximately two years time and will establish a hardware base worthy of the new College. There is also a good chance 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 Chelsea College on 28 March by the Educational Computing section. Throughout the day, lectures and demonstrations were \,iven to illustrate the benefits of computer-assisted learning.
data communications. As we plan for the future there are a number of immediate priorities: our existing services must be consolidated and coordinated while appropriate numbers of support staff to match demand must be provided on each of the main College sites; support for the Humanities departments needs to be considerably enhanced, and all our specialist areas must be further strengthened and developed. For example, our Database Management Systems Group will develop its collaboration with the Library in connection with the retrieval and manipulation of information from remote and local data bases. At the same time, the procurement exercise for the forthcoming main frame upgrade will be carried out in close consultation with departments. We shall also be investigating how we might bring about a more rapid enhancement and expansion of our local data communications network since this is the principal bottleneck restricting the availability of our services and facilities. Finally, I would be very pleased to receive any comments and suggestions from existing and potential users on how our existing services might be extended and improved. Andrew Byerley Director of Computing Services
SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT 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 the sudden 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 give as best I can the context within which universities will have to plan over the next few years - the likely trends of Government funding and the likely themes of Government guidance. The other is to explain what underlies the UGC's proposed reconsideration of its allocation process: what we are trying to do and how we hope to do it, insofar as we have taken decisions - which is not yet very far. The UGC is not the messenger-boy of the Government, any more than it is the messenger-boy of the universities. But it is part of our duty to divine what each side is thinking, and to convey those messages unvarnished to the other, however unwelcome that process may be. Another part of our duty is to provide universities with the best long-term planning horizon that we can, even if that consists only of our own assessment of the future. Finance is only one part of the planning horizon, and policies are a more important guide - as well as being less likely to change. If I confine myself to finance today, it is because I find it hard to say much about policy until the Green Paper is available. In the Strategy Advice which we submitted to the Secretary of State last autumn, we put the best case we could for general level funding of universities in real terms, together with additions for certain identified needs. In my judgement, that case has been rejected. In his letter of 30 January to me, the Secretary of State made no mention of future funding; that must be a bad sign. It is true that the Government talks of a cut of only 0.5% per annum, which reflects an expectation of increased efficiency; but that description is based on assumed increases in the costs of pay and non-pay items which are well below even the Treasury's forecast of inflation. The Government, in its Public Expenditure White Paper looks three years ahead, and over those three years it sees the UGC grant as rising by less than 3% per year in cash terms. For the rest of this decade, the best guess I can provide is that the increase in grant will be 2% per year below inflation. Moreover, the Secretary of State will go on expecting the universities to do new 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 convince him that present resources cannot be shifted quickly enough. But he is not committed to preserving on their present scale all the things that universities do now. You will recall that in its Strategy Advice the UGC made clear what would be the consequences of continuing cuts of the magnitude I have just forecast. Today, I want only to repeat three of the points made there. First, that the least damaging way of coping with such continuing cuts would be the closure of complete departments. To do this with minimum damage to individuals and minimum disruption will involve co-operation between universities. Second, to emphasise that such closures of departments would be the consequence of the overall cuts; they have nothing to do with our intention of being more selective in research funding. Third, to repeat that if closure of individual departments turns out to be impracticable, then the likely consequence will be the closure of some complete un iversities.
The forecast which I have just made is for the period during which the Government expects student numbers in higher education as a whole to remain level. After 1992 they still believe that numbers will fall. Moreover neither the DES projections nor, I think, any others have allowed for the deterioration of student grants. The effect of this is hard to quantify, but it can only make school-leavers less inclined to enter higher education; indeed this seems to be happening already. The problems of the present decade are enough for the next year or two. But we shall need to start planning for the next decade the day after the next General Election, and we would be wise to have solved the problems of the present decade by then. In the next few years 'value for money' will be a central theme; and to measure value one needs performance indicators DES already regard unit of resource and student/staff ratio as valuable performance indicators, and are prepared to overlook their limitations until better indicators become available; as yet they have no reliable indicators for research. The DES study comparing teaching resources in the two sectors relies almost entirely on unit of resource: its conclusions do not make comfortable reading for universities. That study is inadequate, but it will not be possible simply to dismiss it; DES and Treasury will use it until it is replaced by a more accurate and reliable one. To do that will take a good deal of work; and as universities will be the main gainers from a more accurate study, they must be prepared to put in that work. If they do not, no one else will. The study does allow for the substantial proportion of university resources that are devoted to research. Taking account of this, it suggests that universities have taught more cheaply than the public sector in the past but that the position is likely to be reversed in the future. The evidence does seem to me to suggest that, at least in experimental subjects, the unit of teaching resource is indeed becoming lower in the public sector than in the university sector. In academic staff they are better 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 discussions with NAB, which must soon start, on the division of student numbers between the two sectors. I am instructed that the ground rules for these discussions are that no money can be moved between the sectors; but the balance of numbers between the two sectors may well affect where cuts fall in future years. One of the things we need to discuss today is what the aims of the UGC should be in these discussions. I now turn to my second task, which is to say something about the UGC's allocation process for 1986/87 and future years. Part of the case for a major re-examination is that it is more than ten years since we last conducted one; but there are also 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 that should be supported depends on the number of undergraduates to be taught; and from now on it is likely to work
against the university system rather than in its favour. Second, if the best departments are to continue to do world-class research despite the cuts, the research component of the grant will have to be distributed in a less egali arian way than it has been hitherto. That statemen does not apply only to the UGC; it applies within many individual universities as well. In his matter, some universities are already selective; but many others are no At the book-keeping level we cannot with confidence split a university's expenditure into a teaching component and a research component. Indeed, here are some items (such as rates, maintenance of buildings and student facilities) for which it is not sensible even to try. But leaving such items aside, it does seem to be accepted that nationally about twothirds of expenditure from the UGC grant plus home students fees is attributable to teaching and about one-third to research. (These figures are open to discussions, and they vary from one subject to another, but they will serve well enough for illustration). It would be reasonable, therefore, for the UGC to distribute two-thirds of its grant on teaching-based criteria 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 for research'; but this is indeed an abuse of language. The research-based criteria raise conceptual problems, which the three joint working parties have been wrestling with; so that side of the operation has had a good deal of publicity. The problems over the teaching-based criteria are essentially technical; 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 must go hand in hand; we cannot implement one unless we implement the other also. I see no reason why the research-based criteria should operate in the same way in different subjects; in particular, I would expect substantial differences between the humanities on the one hand and the experimental sciences on the other. Second, for the system as a whole the Committee do not intend this to be a means of moving money from the humanities to the sciences; financially, the three working parties should correspond to three water-tight compartments. Third, the criteria will have to be applied to what universities tell us. Part of that material will be factual, but part - notably the research plans - will consist of hopes and guesses. Such documents are bound to be tinged with optimism, but I hope realism will play a part too. If a department says that it plans to uncover some of the major secrets of nature in the next five years, we are bound to ask how many of them it has uncovered in the last five. What I say about the teaching-based criteria must be tentative, because this is a topic which the Committee has not yet had a chance to discuss. The first approximation has to come from a formula, which takes as data unit teaching cost and planned student numbers in each subject. Note that I say 'planned student numbers' not actual ones; we cannot afford to let universities establish an entitlement to more grant merely by taking more students than the UGC had planned for. This is so, 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 - to allow, 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 do no expect their total effort to be larg"!_ I do not see them as involving any assessment of merit, either of the uni ersity or of its students; in any given subject, it should cost no less to teach 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 it would be wrong to bring these changes about quickly. Few universities are in a state to cope with a substantial reduction of grant in real terms, and the UGC will have to put a quite small limit on the maximum rate of reduction of grant particularly in the first year or two. Moreover, a model as different from its predecessor as this one is will need a good deal of adjustment and tuning before it runs smoothly. It would be both damaging and embarrassing to make a change in the grant to some university one year and to reverse it the next. We ought only to make a change if we are sure that we have the sign right and that we are not overshooting. For a good many universities, the result is likely to be that in the first year the grant they get under the new system will be just what they would have got under the old one. For those whose grant does change, the message, for better or worse, will be clear. Nevertheless, in the long run the effects are likely to be substantial. The Secretary of State is determined to concentrate research 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 this end, he has an alternative. He can shift money, ÂŁ200 million for example, from the UGC to the research councils and leave them to distribute it between universities. One drawback of this is that it will turn hard money into soft, with all the problems for management which that implies. But there are already influential voices advocating this course, and I am sure it is what the Secretary of State will do if he can see no other way of achieving his aim.
The Standing Conference of University I nformation Officers held its annual one-day meeting at King's College on April 1st. The meeting was addressed by two eminent speakers: the Hm Peter Brooke, MP, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Science and Professor John Roberts, ViceChancellor of Southampton University and Chairman of the CVCP Advisory Committee on Public Relations. Both men had much of interest to say about the current state of the university world and their texts, encompassing different attitudes and viewpoints, are printed below.
THE HON PETER BROOKE, MP I had hoped that when I stood before you today I wou Id be able to talk in the light of a published Green Paper on a strategy for the future development of higher education. It has not yet been possible to publish that paper because of necessary delay so that it might be aligned more closely with the student support review. The Government hopes that the Green Paper will issue soon; in the meantime I would like to spend a few lriinutes today looking a little at the changes which have occurred in higher education over the last few years, and sharing with you some of the issues for the future to which the Government attaches particular importance.
I suspect that few people expected in 1979 that the successive years would be ones of quite such upheaval for higher education. Although the writing had been on the wall for some time about the need for a real effort to restrain public spending, few read the messages well enough to see what this might mean for higher education by 1985. It was not one of those occasions when the definition of a typhoon in Royal Naval handbooks applied. That, you will recall, is to the general effect that the first evidence of an impending typhoon is a sense on the part of the Captain that all is not well. I do not in any way wish to minimise the disruption that the need for a continuous review of spending priorities has wrought, nor the fact that in many universities painful decisions have had to be taken on how to adjust to a decline in grant income. On the other hand, many inside the academic world would admit that some shake-up was long overdue, and that without radical financial pressures being exercised desirable change would not have come about. Many universities now have a better idea as to where they wish to go in thE future, and are beginning to get there. The universities' public image - and the realities underlying it - have already been much 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 understand universities' achievements and what they have to offer both individually and as a sector with many common aims and ideals. Many would suggest that the Government had done little to assist the universities in their period of painful adjustment. But we have done what we can within the available resources. The ÂŁ100 million 'new blood' and information technology programmes have created over 900 new posts which would not otherwise have existed. I admit that in part this is making good in places reductions that came about as a result of the financial squeeze, but these programmes were based on competitive application from institutions and thus the new places will have gone to departments with demonstrable need and demonstrable quality. The Chancellor last week announced and Kaith Joseph elaborated on this same day a further ÂŁ43 million programme to boost engineering and technology. There is the additional provision for the selective enhancement of equipment for some of our best research teams. Access to higher education as a whole has been maintained despite the financial circumstances, although mainly because of expansion in the public sector, where as I think that sector would acknowledge student:staff ratios were more generous and there was a good deal of spare capacity at the beginning of the 1980s. It is of course a difficult matter to decide at the margin whether students with relatively lower academic qualifications are better off, from both their own and an institution's points of view, pursuing courses in universities as opposed to the public sector of higher education. Ministers have asked the advisory bodies for further advice about the optimum future disposition of students between sectors. We hope to announce the first phase of the engineering and technology programme very shortly. There have also been marked changes over the last 5 years in the way that higher education is managed nationally. We have established an advisory body for the public sector of higher education, which for the first time allows for some coherent planning in that sector and makes it easier for the Government to consider questions that relate to higher education as a whole. The Government is now increasingly taking a lead in setting 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 reservations about this, that it is right for rather more of the resources being made available to higher education to be bid for on a competitive basis between institutions and allocated with a greater measure of selectivity than has hitherto been the case. The Government has also funded to the tune of over ÂŁ300,000 a major efficiency study of universities, undertaken under the aegis of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, to help institutions examine their financial management structu res and to identify areas where economies may be forthcoming. The importance of the Jarratt study is in the assistance it will give institutions the better to pursue their goals within tight financial restraints. The determination of this Government to secure value for money from every sector into which public money flows is not merely - although it is quite properly based on a wish to spend as little as possible of the taxpayer's money. It is also based on a belief that those who live on the taxpayer's money shou Id share and be able to demonstrate a determination to obtain value for it. Ministers will therefore be anxious to ensure that there is adequate follow-up and monitoring of the specific recommendations of the report and of the impetus that it will give to the pursuit of these concepts in the universities generally. I am sure these objectives will 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 you if I begin with the relationship between higher education and the 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 improvement of the UK's economic base. But how this is best achieved is far from straightforward. The relationship between the nature and extent of higher education and the country's economic performance is a matter of considerable speCUlation. It is sadly a lesson of the last 20 years that merely having more higher education is not a sufficient condition for greater economic growth. But this is not to bel ittle the contribution that the expansion and its continued manifestation have made to the economic 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 to try to steer higher education more towards industrial and economic interests. Clearly higher education plays a significant role in providing many types of skilled manpower for industry. It also has a major function in performing fundamental and applied research, and in contributing to technology transfer, so that academic expertise is translated into products in the market place. 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 its importance will be even further recognised. Many universities have of course already been deeply engaged for many years in constructive and productive links with industry. We know this is not something this Government has invented. Nevertheless when I visit universities I am impressed by the scope both for an increase in university activity in these areas, and the perceived need for British industry to be faster off the mark in cashing in on academic expertise for new product ideas, for research and development, and for consultative and other services. The Government is encouraging both partners 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 as enhancing them. But I do not think that the organisation of priorities can be managed anywhere else but in the institutions themselves. Many universities are recognising that real progress on liaison with industry and commerce requires commitment and involvement throughout the institution. Some would argue that the management structures of institutions are not suited to dealing directly with industrial activity and this is one of the reasons for the growth in wholly or partly owned university companies to manage such enterprise. Again it is for institutions to decide, no doubt learning valuable lessons from the examples of others, how best to organise themselves in this area. I am confident the adaptation will be effective, not least because everything I have read suggests that, among all the classes in the Kingdom, dons were the most effective of all in adjusting to new tasks in the Second World War. Industrial and commercial liaison can also be furthered through stronger links generally with the local community. The local role of a university is something which institutions, all of which naturally aspire to being prestigious national and international bodies, can sometimes neglect to their detriment. Some institutions are of course better placed, geographically and by virtue of their nature and facilities, than others to build up their local and regional activities. But all institutions should think carefully about their role and reputation in this respect. The Government also wishes to help ensure that higher education courses do nothing to blunt the entrepreneurial spirit; I think the problem is that this can happen as an unintended by-product of ethos and approach rather than through any deliberate action. More positively institutions can and do encourage the application of energy and creativity across all their activities so that students are motivated to make a productive impact on their environment. What the country desperately needs 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 the conditions which can assist its growth. The Government believes that two elements will help in creating those conditions. The first is for rather more students to be pursuing scientific and technological subjects. The second is for more students in all subjects to have some knowledge in skills that are relevant to industry. This is not easy. Much of it goes back to examination choices made in the schools, and our proposals for AS-levels and the school curriculum should do something to help here. We also particularly hope that more of the brightest girls will choose to do science and engineering A-levels than have traditionally done so. The new industrial 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 ÂŁ43m programme to create extra university places in technology from the next academic year. But industry also has a role to play. Employers are not always very clear about what exactly their needs are, and actual recruitment policies and sta~ting salaries are not always designed to send the desired signals to institutions and aspiring students. But major employers 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 universities and business I haven't touched on is that of continuing education, and particularly post-experience vocational education. For nearly 3 years this area of professional, industrial and commercial updating has been promoted and 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 main focus of this programme has been the polytechnics and local colleges. This year, however, we hope to involve the universities far more and an invitation to take part in a new scheme of PI CKUP projects in the universities has recently been sent to Vice-Chancellors. The Government recognises that universities face special difficulties in expanding ..this.. market which is aimed at adults in work. One of these is caused by departmental or faculty boundaries which can limit the scope and flexibility of updating programmes which are designed for, and which have to be sold to, the far less compartmentalised world of industry and commerce. we also recognise that universities will need to build up and direct their marketing and market research efforts if they are to successfully compete with other bodies and agencies in offering updating provision at full-cost. Even those universities which are already well on the way to meeting many of these prerequisites for growth will need extra help if they are to develop new adult updati ng cou rses. Fot these reasons the DES has invited the universities to send us their proposals for a short but we hope sharp injection of funds to tackle these infrastructure, marketing and pump-priming barriers to PICKUP in the universities. The first round of project support will involve allocating sums of approximately ÂŁ20,000 to each successful university, bid from an initial overall allocation of ten times that figure. This will cover the period from September 1985 to April 1986. A further round, or rounds, 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 may follow as part of this new scheme? Without I hope compromising the imagination of your universities, there are three areas in which action is likely to prove particularly effective. One is to create a single, well-publicised point of access for potential clients to all university departments and faculties. A second is the designation of PICKUP co-ordinators who could act as a bridge between departments and marshall the university's total resources, perhaps also acting as the single point of access I have just mentioned. And the third is setting up mechanisms to create closer collaboration in the provision of updating for industry and commerce between the university and further and higher education institutions in the locality. You will no doubt be aware of the joint recommendation of the UGC and the NAB in their respective recent advice documents that continuing education should be recognised as a fifth task of higher education - to be added to Lord Robbins' orig-
inal four. This is a sign that continuing education and training is 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 commitment to the PI CKUP programme is a measure of our intent. The Government also believes hat academic independence is best served by universities returning 0 a situa ion where a rather greater proportion of their income is derived from sources outside Government. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, giving the first Edward Boyle Memorial Lecture at the Royal Society of Arts last month, made out the case both for the acceptance of an element of utility in any responsible view of higher education and for the importance of alternative sources of income. He noted that a major change in higher education in recent times has been the increasingly predominant part played by organs of the State in funding, and stated his 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 themselves with their success in attracting private funds. Many have suc路 ceeded in increasing their income from non-Government sources by 15-20% and this is a remarkable achievement. It has needed and continues to need effort and commitment. I commend to you an excellent paper about fund-raising written for Leeds University by Sargent Whittier. Sargent Whittier makes clear 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 depend on both sides giving and receiving. 'The basic concern of fundraising is not money: it is people .. .' Lay participants will be able to advise on how the university is seen from outside, and when 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 in the economy. I do not apologise for that. Enoch Powell has said that this is 'the sound of barbarism'. Quintin Hailsham has matched that argument with a scholarship and elegance worthy of Mr Powell's own. To those of us who remember Matthew 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 saw the pursuit of wealth as an end in itself rather than seeing how it was related to 'the whole intelligible law of things and to full human perfection'. Arnold urged the importance of sweetness and light but even he, I hope, understood that the Oxford that was dear to Arnold, the Cambridge that nurtured Mr Powell, and all our other institutions of higher education, depend for their existence and continuation on the creation of wealth. In urging greater attention to the creation of wealth hope none will accuse us of decrying the importance of the sweetness and light it can provide. We have therefore seen changes in the nature of our education institutions, in the way they are managed nationally, and in the way in which they perceive their role in our economic, commercial and community life. You might think that is quite enough for one decade. But it will not surprise you that the Government expects more. We are concerned that - while maintaining and upholdinQ university autonomy and academic
freedom - everything should be done to ensure that standards and quality in higher educa ion are main ained and where possible enhanced, and hat his should be seen to be done by hose who may have doubts abou the justification for the enormous sums 0 axpayers' money currently inves ed in higher education and research - well over 拢3.5 billion in the current 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 - from students, staff or the public. Such complaints come in a variety 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 or defensive way that does them no good whatever the substance of the complaint. Universities are privileged institutions with a lery significant degree of self-government. It is important that they should take complaints seriously and be seen to do so. This calls for openness, for scrupulous detachment, and for a willingness to seek assistance outside the university in some circumstances so that justice may be seen to be done. The Government has made no secret of the fact that it sees enormous challenges ahead for higher education. This is true in 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 leading to some decline in demand for higher education which should sensibly be met by a trimming of provision. I cannot therefore promise you any relief in the pressures. But I think what is also on offer is the opportunity for higher education to assume the very prominent place in our national life which perhaps it has not occupied, rightly or wrongly, for some little time.
PROFESSOR JOHN ROBERTS E ffeetive public relation for universities
At the moment I believe it to be true that policy and prejudice are main restraints on the development of effective public relations for the universities as a whole. I formed this conviction very soon after I became a Vice-Chancellor in 1979, but it was a secondary conclusion, derived from a much more immediate impression - the impression that very little in the way of public relations work was done on behalf of the university system as a whole. That impression, as I discovered on learning more of the workings of the CVCP, was not quite so wholly justified as I had felt at first. I soon learnt that the Chairman and Secretary General (like their successors) spent much time and thought in presenting the universities' business to ministers, civil servants, and, from time to time, politicians. There was contact with the press and even occasionally with editors of newspapers. Some senior vice-chancellors, too, spent time they could only with difficulty spare from their other duties in supplementing and reinforcing these efforts. Such efforts continue. They cannot be ineffectual, or so intelligent a body of men would have given them up long since. But it is difficult to feel that they have disposed of all the questions that might be asked about the universities' public relations.
Let me be more blunt, since facts soon began to strike me with their own bluntness as I took my first tottering steps as an infant vice-chancellor - let me draw your attention to two bodies of fact. First, some very rough-and-ready measurements. When I took up office, the university sector was absorbing directly something just over a billion pounds per year of public funds. To that we can add the inflow of contract and research money from other sources. In the case of my own university, 'earned' money of this sort now accounts for over a quarter of our turnover, but that is exceptionally high: nevertheless, the national sum is substantial - let's call it another ÂŁ350 millions. Then there are - important in the case of some universities, insignificant in others - endowments and benefactions. Put it all together, add something for inflation, and we have a university system now ticking over at between 2 and 2Y2 bi 11 ion a year. What industrial concern with a turnover of that size would leave its public relations to forty-odd branch managers, and, at the centre, to such time as can be spared from their other concerns by a few board members, the chief administrative officer, and one harassed lady who combines a responsibility for public relations with many other tasks? That was the first set of facts which struck - indeed almost stunned - me. The second was a matter of history. In 1980 the clouds gathered faster than ever and in 1981 they burst. Many of my colleagues, perhaps most ( I do not speak of vice-chancellors, but of the whole academic profession), were shocked and taken aback not just by the magnitude of the practical problems which they were suddenly forced to confront, but by the implications. The whole world of assumptions within which they lived was soon in question. The rules of the game had changed. Priorities and practices long taken for granted were to be scrutinised. Immunities and taboos were cast down: the unspeakable was spoken, the unutterable uttered. Senates met and gnashed their teeth in vain; the onslaught could at best be slowed down, not halted, and it has continued since. I remember those reactions well. I sympathised with some of them, though not all. But I was also struck by something which underlay them all - that there was virtually no-one in the university system and academic profession who was not utterly unprepared for the public reaction to those events. Forward stepped the drum-major of the CVCP and AUT to lead the procession of protest - and hardly a member of the public fell in behind them. We suddenly discovered that we were not loved, were even sometimes disliked. At one point I had ventured to write a letter to The Times which gently (well I thought it was gently) questioned the methods, though not the aims, of governmental policy. It provoked a number of members of the public to write to me but I cannot recall one writing in a sympathetic sense. Instead, they drew attention to familiar themes in the demonology of educational debate: ivory towers, long holidays, unjustified security of employment, time-wasting and turbulent students - you can guess what the letters and postcards said. But that was only the tip of the iceberg. To sum up - what I believe was shown in 1981 was that the mass of British public opinion was unsympathetic to, and alienated from, the universities. Many questions could be asked about the historic roots of this situation. But It cannot, surely, be denied that some part
of this alienation could have been avoided by conscious care at an earlier date for the public image and public relations of the universities? I must be clear. I do not believe that public relations (or the inadequacy of them) explains the difference between the generally positive and supportive approach of North Americans to university education, and the indifference seasoned with outright distrust with which our own fellowcitizens have responded to the universities' appeals for sympathy. But that contrast - and many others - persuades me that there was something grievously lacking in the public relations of the university system. That it could be remedied was my next thought. Let me give an example of what might have been done better in 1981, but could not be done because we lacked technique, experience, resources and expertise - and, I believe the will to draw up a public relations strategy. A couple of months ago, a small but very influential section of the popu lation of whom I am one - the better-eff parents of university students - became very agitated over the danger that changes were on the way which would throw onto their shoulders heavier charges for 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. Now why was it that such a coalition was not there in 1981? Why did the middle-class dog not then bark in the night? It was not that similar interests were not at stake. But the potential of 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 education of opinion, no reinforcement of existing potentials were needed. What would have been the effect in 1981 of a direct appeal to interest, fear and emotion - something along the lines 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 which will hear our message, let alone a climate likely to respond favourably to it. Nevertheless, we shall never know what might have been done: we had no machinery to use in 1981, no tradition 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 the effective management of the public relations of the university system. It was against the background of the facts I've briefly released that I came to that conclusion and set about doing something about them. Let me conclude by saying a word about 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 the university system. With a wide brief we set to work just before Christmas, dividing ourselves into two sub-groups. We shall meet again as a body in about three week's time and, I hope, will then be able to present an interim report to the CVCP. I see the body's task as one of persuading the CVCP that something can usefully be done both about policy and prejudice and the time has come for me to say what I mean by that. 'Policy' is shorthand for practical steps. The identification of goals and the provision of machinery to achieve them. Many possibilities arise and I do not want to speculate at this stage.
Let me simply say that I believe that whatever we do at the centre of the system will require money, access to outside expertise, reliable information about the attitudes of relevan groups, specialisation within the CVCP's own structures. The identifica ion of goals is crucial to decisions about scale and pace. Should we seek to influence many or few, in the shortterm or he long-run? Obviously: in each case, both. But we are very unlikely to have the resources to start on everything at once. We shall have to choose. That choice will be the fundamental decision on which the working-party can offer guidance. By 'prejudice' I mean to draw attention to the tangle of often deeply-rooted assumptions, beliefs and value-judgements which make action in this field difficult. They are widely shared throughout the universities. At their most defensible they embody concern about the diversion or corruption of traditional scholarly and scientific purposes, they recognise the difficulties of collective action by universities in this area, and they fear the waste of resources. At their worst, they dissolve into self-regarding complacency and snobbery. It will be difficu It to change these attitudes, but it is essential that it be done if the universities are to operate an effective public relations effort. Many of the difficulties are inherent in the nature of the CVCP itself. We needs love the highest when we see it, and, bless its heart, the CVCP is not only the highest expression
JARRATT COMMITTEE REPORTS Sir Alex Jarratt, Chairman of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities, revealed his committee's findings to the CVCP at the end of March. The committee acknowledged that good universities are'vital to 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 be available automatically. Therefore, universities 'need to be selective to put to best use the resources they command'. They would have to cope with uncertainty, and be willing to take hard decisions, or risk squandering their strength and their future. 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, individually they contribute significantly to the cost of our universities through taxation. So institutions, collectively and singly, should have 'clear and appropriate objectives... and achieve the maximum value from the resources made available to them'. For the foreseeable future, the Committee predicted, money will be scarce compared to aspirations. The Public Expenditure White Paper indicates that state funds will rise less than the rate of inflation, so universities will have to continue to work within limited funds. The Committee found that the crisis caused by the 1981 cuts'left some institutions weak and most out of balance'. In order to resolve the potential conflict between their financial and academic priorities, universities need to improve their efficiency and effectiveness through planning and 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 addressed to all three.
of the collective personality of the universities, it is the only one. So we shall have to start there, with all its handicaps, for the task. It is, after all, a committee of individuals - it does not represent except for he salary area, far less can it act for the universities. I is an assembly of men who hold certain offices and have, therefore, certain common interests and concerns, the main one being the receipt by their institutions of public funds via the UGC. But it has no General Will: it cannot bind. It is not a unitary, not even a federal system: the historians among you may sense its nature if I say that though it is not like the United States under the Articles of Confederation, nor like a Polish szlachta, where one veto can bring everything to a halt, there is nothing it can do to bind universities. So do not expect too much of the CVCP. The universities are autonomous in constitution and their vicechancellors will have to be persuaded of the need to allow some further extension of the responsibility of the CVCP to speak on their behalf. Given the differences between universities that will not be easily achieved. Let us, nonetheless, begin. And let us not forget one other thing. Whatever can be done to improve the central management of the public relations of the university system as a whole, in the slow modification of public opinion and in the day-to-day improvement of the image of that system, nothing is more important than what is done by individual universities themselves, in their international, national, regional and local presentation of themselves and thei r work.
Government should provide broad policy guidelines within which the UGC and individual universities can undertake strategic and long term planning; consider what action can be taken to restore a longer funding horizon for universities in view of the disincentives to strategic planning inherent in the present system; avoid thrusting crises on universities through sudden short term changes of course; be prepared to provide funds to meet the whole or the greater part of the realistic cost of future staffing reductions agreed between individual institutions and the UGC; commission an examination of the role, structure and staffing of the University Grants Committee. The University Grants Committee should 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-Committee Chairmen; encourage further inter-institutional collaboration; agree with each university within the next 12 months a programme for implementing the recommendations in this Report and the relevant findings of the Special Studies, and to take progress into account when allocating grants. The UGC and CVCP jointly should develop a range of performance indicators, covering
inputs and outputs, designed for use within individual universities and for making comparisons between institutions. All universities should examine their structures and develop plans within the next twelve months to meet certain key requirements. These include; Councils to assert their responsibilities in governing their institutions, notably in respect of strategic plans to underpin academic decisions, and structures which bring planning, resource allocation and accountability together into one corporate process linking academic financial and physical aspects; Senates to continue to play their ordinating and endorsing detailed as the main forum for generating and giving advice on broad issues
essential role in coacademic work and an academic view to Council;
developing a rolling academic and institutional plan, which will be reviewed regularly and against which resources will be allocated; recognising the Vice-Chancellor not only as academic leader but also as chief executive for the university;
AUDIO VISUAL UNIT (Strand Campus) I would like to redefine our lecture room provision policy particularly as it may affect lecturers coming to the Strand campus from Chelsea or Kensington. We provide to lecturers, free of charge, a wide range of audio visual equipment for undergraduate teaching purposes. Booking for equipment should be made on one of our printed booking forms, giving 24 hours notice. Our technicians will set up the equipment, but with the exception of cine will not generally stay to use the equipment. I would advise all users to book all equipment that they will require. Although we have a large pool of equipment, and are quite happy for people to use it unbooked, it may well be removed to fulfil a booking made by others. Outside bodies, student societies, postgraduates, conferences and seminars may well be charged for audio visual services, as indeed will lectures taking place outside of normal office hours. Despite the foregoing, I hope the A V Unit are flexible enough to deal with crises, so please contact us even at short notice. We may groan a little, but can probably help. Nick Bugg Manager, AV Unit
establishing a planning and resources committee strictly limited in size reporting to Council and Senate with the Vice-Chancellor as Chairman and with academic and lay members. budget delegation to appropriate centres which are held 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 cost charging; appointing Heads of Department by Councils, on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor after appropriate consultation, with clear duties and responsibility for the performance of their departments and their use of resources; introducing arrangements for staff development, appraisal and accountability; saving academic and other time by having fewer committee meetings involving fewer people, and more delegation of authority to officers of the university especially for non-academic matters.
KING'S PRIZEWINNER David 80tsford; a history student at King's has recently come third in the Lloyds Bank/Spectator Young Writers Award. His prize was a cheque of £50 for himself and of £12.50 for the College to spend on books. David will be presenting a book of his choice to the library later in the term.
of Theology and Religious Studies office, price £2 (£1 for students of KQC)
ACCOMMODATION FOR 198586 SESSION Places are available in College houses in Ealing for postgraduate couples (without children) for the 1985/86 session. Please contact Claire Kelley in the Accommodation Office for details
THANK YOU KING'·C; Dear Friends, I wish to thank you all for the Radio and cheque I received on my retirement. You can be sure they will both be put to good use. Once again, thank you all for your kind thoughts and gifts. Ena Harvey
KING'S THEOLOGICAL REVIEW Journal of the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies
DATES FOR YOUR DIARY LORD MOUNTBATTEN CONCERT 1n the Presence of The Chancellor, Her Royal Highness The Princess Anne The Barbican Hall, Barbican Centre Friday 14 June 7.45 pm The concert will celebrate the opening of the Lions International Earl Mountbatten Blood Research Laboratory at King's College School of Medicine and Dentistry. The soloists will be Andrei Gavrilov, winner of the Tchaikovsky Prize in 1974; Emma Johnson, Young Musician of 1984 and Sarah Brightman. The programme will include works by Elgar, Bach and Mendelssohn.
The Spring 1985 edition is now available and includes articles by Peter Byrne (Lecturer in the Philosophy of Religion) - Could God Explain the Universe?', Charles Brock on 'Freud, Scapegoat and Eucharist', L10yd Caddick on Berdyaev and Martin Forward on 'Luke-Acts and the World of Religions'. There are also book reviews, including a review article on R R Reuther's Sexism and GodTalk.
Booking will open on 4 May. Tickets ranging in price from £10 to £50 will be available from Keith Prowse (tel. 01 741 9999) or from the Barbican Centre Box Office (tel. 01 628 8795)
The Review is available from the Faculty
All other enquiries should be directed
to the LI BRA Office in the Department of Haematology at King's College School of edicine and Dentis ry (tel. 01 737 0430) HRH The Princess Anne, Chancellor of the University will open the Lions International Earl ountbatten Blood Research Laboratory at 3.15pm of the same day.
SEMINAR IN HUMANITIES COMPUTING Tues 14 May 6.00pm Westfield College GOLDSMITH'S ESSAYS: A COMPUTER -AIDED STUDY OF THE CANON by Professor Peter Dixon, Westfield College
FILM SOC New Theatre, Strand, 6.00 pm 13 May
Temporary membership £1.00 per presentation. As time and venue are liable to alteration at short notice, please consult the Filmsoc noticeboard in the B-corridor
HOBBES: AMES AND REALlS by Professor J E McGuire, University of Pittsburgh
LONDON MARATHON 1985 A Report from the Strand
Two thirds of last year's intrepid tno competed in the 5th London arathon on 13 ay 1.20pm: Lightfoot Hall on April 21, Bill Harvey (Maths) deciding College House, anressa Road to save himself for he much ougher Isle of ight Marathon hree weeks A PIANO RECITAL by SI ON MURPHY later. Dohnanyi Four Rhapsodies Op. 11 John Thomas from the Buildings Office Beethoven - Sonata Op. 2 No. 2 in running in his 38th marathon improved A Major on his best time by over 4 minutes to finish in 2hrs. 32mins 56secs. Peter Saunders (Zoology) in his 13th Marathon PUBLIC LECTURES IN THE finished in 2hrs. 44mins. 46secs. just NEW THEATRE, STRAND 37 secs. outside his best time. LUNCHTIME MUSIC AT CHELSEA
Tues 14 May 5.30pm An Inaugural Lecture in the Chair of Christian Doctrine THE ONE, THE THREE AND THE MANY by Professor Colin Gunton, MA, D.Phil
Members of the College sponsored John and Peter in their efforts and approx. £60 was raised for the Ethiopian appeal. The winner of the bottle of whisky for guessing closest to their aggregate times was Ann Phillips from the Secretary's Office.
'New Blood' appointment David Leake (Pharmacology) could himself have done Tues 21 May 5.30pm with some new blood as he also set out A Public Lecture in the Department of to face the challenge of the marathon War Studies for the first time. His effort was a THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SECRET creditable 4 hrs. 8 mins. and he says he INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY:THE will be back next year. Colleagues in PROBLEM OF ACCOUNTABILITY his department also sponsored him for by Or Christopher Andrew, Corpus the Ethiopian Appeal. Christi College, Cambridge
NEVERNEVERLAND As part of the American Festival, Neverneverland, a play written and directed by Gary Robertson, is to be performed in the New Theatre. Billed as 'a dark passionate romance that blazes a magical mystery journey through the regions of murder, music and redemption', the play will run until 18 May. Evening performances begin at 7.30, Saturday matinees at 2.30; tickets cost from £2.50 - £4.50. CHELSEA Dept of History and Philosophy of Science Seminars Room N25 Chemistry Building Manressa Road 2.15pm Thurs 16 May CRYSTALLOGRAPHY AND BIOLOGY The Problem of Protein Structure by Or H Kamminga Thurs 23 May 2.15pm HOW MANY POINTS ARE THERE ON A LINE? by Or M Tiles 2.15pm Thu rs 30 May VON NEUMANN, QUANTUM MECHANICS AND CONTINUOUS GEOMETRy by Professor J Bub, University of Western Ontario
Thurs 23 May 5.30pm An Inaugural Lecture in the Chair of French Language and Literature RETURNING TO XANADU:THE PROGRESS OF THE IRRATIONAL by Professor Norma Rinsler, BA. PhD Admission is free without a ticket All interested are welcome to attend
King's comment ....
COMMENT is produced by the King's College London (KQC) Information Office on the Strand Campus. NEXT EDITION
COPY DATE: Friday May 31 Publication in the week of June 10
Thurs 6 June
Peter Saunders in action
More precise details of plans for unification will emerge as discussions continue. DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE OF THE UNIVERSITIES A Special Supp...