First amongst equals
THE SYSTEM OF autonomous colleges, with ingrained traditions and distinct characters, has always been a treasured hallmark of the Oxbridge way. But in the wake of angry student protests over stealth rises in battels, allegations in an OUSU report that the nature of the collegiate system renounces Oxford's status as a 'university' at all, and of course the controversies surrounding Pembroke's 'cash-for-places' scandal some weeks ago, the issue of inequalities in college funding is playing on the minds of all Oxford students.
The OxStu has investigated the truth behind the statistics and asks if we can realistically declare that the 130-year-old college contribution scheme unworkable and obsolete, in favour of a more egalitarian scheme for the redistribution of endowments from the rich colleges to the poor. The essential financial issues have to be directly addressed: how should the changes be implemented, and crucially, would such a sweeping re-evaluation of the collegiate financial system in fact secure the potential for prosperity in the long term, rather than merely a stopgap measure to alleviate the current strain.
The OUSU report of 23rd April categorically asserted that Oxford students' academic performance varies according to the wealth of their college, corroborating the findings of the North Report of 1997, which was instigated with a remit to review the activities and organisation of Oxford University. The conclusion was that 'radical change' to the entire system of Oxford finance was required.
OUSU's 'Report into the Provision of Equitable Standards in a Collegiate University' compiled a substantial body of statistics in areas including fellow to student ratios, library provision, accommodation, hardship and grants, and teaching, demonstrating striking disparities in all fields. The upshot is that a student at St. Johns or Christ Church, due to greater accessibility to books, resources, and teaching, is likely to achieve better results than their counterparts at Pembroke or Teddy Hall.
Such a verdict is not to be taken lightly. Oxford University's 2002-3 Prospectus claims that "all colleges are alike in offering good sports, music, computing and library facilities as well as accommodation to their students" and furthermore that students "should not be deterred from coming to Oxford for financial reasons". However, the latent disparities in all of these fields, which the report has dubbed 'injustices' inherent in the collegiate system, appear to fundamentally undermine any purported homogeneity of academic opportunities across the university. Should the unique 'Oxford Experience', sold wholesale to fresh-faced prospective applicants, in fact be relegated to myth?
The statistics in the report elucidate some of the picture. Library expenditure is a case in point of how relative college wealth translates into differentiation of resources available to undergraduate students, graduates and academics. Magdalen, for example, topping the table with an annual expenditure of £266,628, in comparison to Teddy Hall's £73,931.
Probably the most significant preoccupation for students is housing., however. Living in college-owned accommodation is obviously significantly cheaper than living in the private rented sector, and as the North Report showed, while almost eighty percent of second year undergraduates were able to live in college accommodation, the same applied to only 44% of students at poorer colleges.
Such an inequality is reinforced by the fact that while students at poorer colleges tend to live out, they have less substantial access to college hardship funds, which exist for the purpose of alleviating the financial burden of living in the private sector. Whereas Christ Church distributes £324,764 per annum on grants (an average of £560 per capita), Harris Manchester's annual expenditure is only £3941 (£29 per capita).
The impact of wealth on teaching provision is particularly marked, with 21.5 students per tutorial fellow at Pembroke compared to 12.1 at Magdalen. The pay per capita of tutorial fellows in different colleges ranges from £33,220 to only £8,821 at Harris Manchester. This figure is emphatically not a salary as it does not account for faculty pay or other benefits, and was dismissed by the academic bursar at the latter as "completely ridiculous".
However, the implication for the availability of tutorial and pastoral resources is self-evident, as is the ability of the colleges in the long term to attract and sustain a fellowship of the highest academic standard. In the light of worries over the 'brain drain' to the United States, this is no trifling matter across the board, not just for the poorer colleges, as the reputation for the university as a whole will suffer.
The report cites Ethernet connections in college rooms as "perhaps the single most obvious demonstration of a disparity of wealth between colleges". The lowest coverage is found in Mansfield, St. Hilda's and Pembroke. These colleges have in common high rates of vacation residence and above average battels.
The kinds of stealthy raises in battels attempted in St. Hugh's and Wadham, and a unanimous vote in Christ Church JCR to oppose any future raises at above 4.1%, are testament to the fact that arbitrary rent rises cannot be employed as a measure to combat current financial strain.
But what of the proffered solutions? James Rowlands, OUSU VP (Welfare), has highlighted how OUSU's preferred solution to funding inequality would involve allowing colleges to spend the money they get through the current redistribution scheme as income, rather than using them to build up an endowment as they do at present. This should successfully alleviate the current differentials in standards between colleges, and allow some short-term improvements for students as poor colleges.
However, this is ostensibly a short-term measure. An alternative, and more long-term, solution would continue the use of transfer payments as endowments rather than income, but would simply increase the magnitude of these payments. Under this solution, the long-term goal would be to provide all colleges with endowments of sufficient strength to allow them to provide services to common, university-wide standards.
Despite differences in perspective, both solutions have in common a federalisation of college funding, to ensure that when a student applies to Oxford, they can expect uniform academic standards and provisions irrespective of the college to which they apply, or get allocated.
This is not simply an appeal to the richer colleges to be altruistic; each college has a vested interest in ensuring that all colleges can provide academic excellence and comfortable living standards. If the poorer colleges continue to totter on the brink of bankruptcy, to the extent that they resort to sacrificing standards, both academic and moral, by offering places for money, the reputation of Oxford, as a whole, looks tentative. This is not a novel problem, nor at the moment an irretrievable one, but the need for all colleges to be less insular in their concerns, and more sensitive to the bigger picture, is a pressing one.
Winners: Christ Church 7,822,692 St Johns 7,287,755 Magdalen 5,872,675 Merton 5,521,951
Losers: St Peters 3,212,750 Oriel 3,130,781 Mansfield 1,947,377 HMC 1,066,505
Winners: Christ Church 160,000 Magdalen 100,000 New 100,000 Oriel 100,000
Losers: St Edmund Hall 50,000 Harris Manchester 40,000 Wadham 40,000 Keble 40,000
Winners: Queens 33,330 Merton 33,220 St Hilda's 26,572 St John's 24,969
Losers: St Edmund Hall 13,215 St Catz 11,876 Mansfield 11,246 HMC 8,821
9th May 2002