Leadership Revamp Needed at UM

The University of Oxford and Cambridge in the UK are two well known and world class universities. Tony read PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) at Oxford and I got my MPhil in Economics at Cambridge (after getting my BSc in Economics at LSE). It is hard to question the reputation of these two universities but yet these two universities have come under considerable pressure of the last 10 to 15 years.

Many of their best academics have been poached by leading US universities who can offer more research funding and higher salaries. By many accounts, among the academia, they have been overtaken by the top US universities in many fields and will continue to lose its competitive edge unless something drastic is done.

These two leading universities are hemmed in by a few things. “National service” is one of them since there is significant governmental pressure on Cambridge and Oxford to accept students from a wide variety of backgrounds (read: class). Funding pressure is another one since the maximum amount of school fees that they can charge their students is capped at a ridiculously low level (up to 3000 pounds in 2006) which isn’t anywhere near the cost of providing that education. In addition, because Cambridge and Oxford runs a college-based system of education at the undergraduate level, the cost of education per student is much higher than that of other public universities in the UK.

Both universities have in the recent past, appointed new vice-chancellors to meet these serious challenges. In 2004, Tony’s alma mater, Oxford, appointed Dr. John Hood - a New Zealander -to the VC position. His suggestions for reforms including subjecting academics’ work to closer scrutiny and linking pay to performance as well as introducing external trustees to oversee the governance of the university, has been met with disapproval from many of the Oxford academics. While one may argue against his methods or philosophy, it is clear that the senior leadership at Oxford recognizes the gravity of the situation and the need for reform if Oxford is to continue as a world class university.

Cambridge is watching this ‘experiment’ closely and if the reforms are successful, look for them to follow suit in the not too distant future. In the meantime, they appointed Professor Alison Richard to the position of vice-chancellor in 2003. While she was born in the UK, she has been in the US, specifically Yale, for the past 30 years, including 8 years as Provost (something like a chief academic officer).

Her mandate is not as controversial or extensive as that given to Dr. John Hood. It seems that she was brought back to Cambridge because of her fund-raising skills, an area in which the UK universities are mere amateurs compared to their US counterparts.

But make no bones about it, these two leading UK universities are more than aware of the pressures of international competition. Oxford has been the more daring of the two universities, indicated by their willingness to take on the ‘dons’ there – who some criticize are more interested in preserving and living in the ‘tradition’ that is Oxford rather than producing world class and cutting edge research.

The UM VC should take emulate at least the courage of Dr. John Hood by making real reforms - starting with improving the quality and accountability of the teaching staff – instead of patting himself on the back by erecting huge billboards promoting UM’s world class ‘recognition’. And the prime minister should give him the mandate to initiate these reforms and to see them through. If the UM VC cannot or is not willing to take this responsibility, his job should be given to somebody who will.