St Antony's 75th Anniversary Logo

St Antony’s and the University of Oxford

Professor Roger Goodman

Many of the most interesting developments at St Antony’s over the past twenty-five years have been related to its changing relationship with the wider University. This has largely been because the University itself has been through what has been possibly its most radical set of reforms since the College was founded in 1950. These reforms led to the establishment of a new Department in the University which represented the interests of the College in a much more powerful manner than had been the case previously. Indeed, it helped to pull many individual Fellows into senior University governance roles to such an extent that in the early 2020s there were more members of the University Council from St Antony’s than from any other college. This was a radically different situation to the first fifty years of the College when, apart from when every thirteen years it was required to send a Proctor or Assessor, the only recorded Fellow of St Antony’s to sit on the University Council was the then-Warden Ralf Dahrendorf in the 1990s.

The North Commission reforms and its effects

In Hilary Term 1994, the University’s Hebdomadal Council (as it was then called) agreed to establish a Commission of Inquiry, to be chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Peter North, to ‘review a wide range of issues concerning the operation and structure of the University of Oxford, and its decision-making machinery’. Peter North in his foreword to the final report, issued in early 1998, was particularly keen to reassure readers that the Commission had not been established ‘because Oxford is in some state of crisis’ but that it was ‘right that, some thirty years after the work of the Commission of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Lord Franks, Oxford should initiate a process of re-examination of its activities and organisation’. Brockliss (2016: 582), in his magisterial historical of the University of Oxford, similarly suggests that the review was in part set up to ‘take advantage of the fact that there was no obvious reason for this to be done’.

In fact, even if Oxford itself was not in crisis (and some would, as we shall see, question that assumption), higher education itself in the 1990s and early 2000s was under an intense spotlight (see Stevens, 2004, Part 2; Kenny and Kenny, 2007: chapter 11; Brockliss, 2016, chapter 13; Evans, 2022, chapter 1).

In 1992, the Further and Higher Education Act had replaced the University Funding Council with four separate national Funding Councils. Oxford found itself reporting to a new body called HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England).

In 1995, the Committee on Standards in Public Life had begun its work under Lord Nolan and in 1996, in its Second Report, produced a list of recommendations specifically aimed at the good governance of universities.

In 1996, the Dearing Commission began its major review of Higher Education in the UK and the North Commission strategically slowed down its work to consider the proposals which came out the following year.

The arrival of the new Labour Government in 1997 saw the abolition of the college fees. These had been paid by local authorities to colleges in Oxford and Cambridge (and to a much lesser extent Durham) for the extra support they provided for undergraduate students through their collegiate systems. These fees were replaced with a rapidly reducing premium paid to those universities for looking after historic buildings.

The Teaching and Higher Education Act (1998) abolished maintenance grants and introduced for the very first time in UK higher education tuition fees. These were initially set at £1000 per year, though it was widely recognised that once the principle of charging for higher education had been accepted the fee level was likely to rise rapidly – as indeed it did.

There were other important legislative changes which effected universities at the same period – such as the Human Rights Act (1998) and the Freedom of Information Act (2000) – and indications of forthcoming government-commissioned reviews which the North Commission might well have had wind of even if they were not produced before it finished its work. These included the Roberts’ Review of Research Assessment (2003), chaired by Gareth Roberts, the President of Wolfson College, which endorsed and strengthened the role of the Research Assessment Exercises which has been started at the end of the 1980s and which decided the destination of increasingly large amounts of untied research funding.

The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, which included a specific demand that Oxford (along with Cambridge) review its governance arrangements and institute a model of a small governing body where the majority of members were externals, was not published until 2003 – but was in line with the so-called ‘Cadbury Principles’ which had been introduced for financial institutions in the early 1990s.

In 2004, the Higher Education Act created the role of the Director of Fair Access for Higher Education which presaged the requirement that Oxford (and Cambridge) should ‘widen access’ to applicants from a broader range of society. The issues behind it had been raised in Oxford by the ‘Laura Spence case’ of 1999.

One of the surprising things when one reads the final report of the North Commission was how little these winds of change appear to have had an impact on the work of the Commission. Evans (2013: 72) says that the Commission acknowledged that Oxford needed to ‘be in a position to react flexibly to changing funding arrangements’ but, as the Commission itself reported, its focus was on responding to internal challenges around ‘the operation and structure of the collegiate University and its decision-making machinery…, including current issues concerning the relationship between different bodies, and between the University and the colleges…,the balance between undergraduate and graduate teaching, and between teaching and research.’

The challenges which the internal structures of the University created in the 1990s for academics were essentially of two kinds: the lack of material or financial incentives to introduce changes, and the complexity of introducing change when people decided to do so despite such disincentives.

The financial model on which the University was operating in the 1990s meant that most of the funds that the University received (apart from specific endowments) went into a central pot (still quaintly known as the ‘Chest’, as it had been since medieval times). These were then distributed out to the Faculties (English, Law, Social Studies) and inter-faculty committees (African Studies, Development Studies) by a body called the General Board. The General Board was populated by sixteen academics elected either by Congregation or, in the case of the Proctors and Assessor, by individual Colleges. Faculties and inter-faculty committees generally received the same budget as the previous year plus an historic, inflation-linked, uplift. There was little material incentive to ‘earn’ more money by doing more teaching or more research. In fact, there were rather strong disincentives. If academic staff took on more students, the extra fee income went into a central pot – they did the teaching, but other people shared the money. If an academic won a big research grant, they did the research, but other people got a share of the overheads. If despite these disincentives, an academic or group of academics decided to go ahead and start a new course or set up a new research institute, the decision-making process to enable this to happen was opaque at best and obstructionist at worst.

These issues were most famously and publicly exposed when the inaugural Dean of the Said Business School, John Kay, resigned after two years citing them as the primary cause. In an excoriating critique on Oxford’s decision-making structures, from someone who was not an outsider but had spent the whole of his academic career in the institution, Kay drew on both Francis Cornford’s famous 1908 Microcosmographia Academica, being a guide for the young academic politician (citing The Principle of the Wedge; the Principle of Dangerous Precedent) and the review produced for the North Commission itself by the management consultants, Coopers and Lybrand. This had reported, with an element of astonishment, that ‘it is an agreed convention that in recognition of the budgetary pressures on the University, no new initiative will today be considered unless it is claimed by its proposers that it requires the expenditure of no additional resources.’

In short, the financial and decision-making structures in the 1990s were rapidly rendering the university sclerotic. It was very difficult to close down any existing activities and equally difficult to start up any new ones.

In truth, the North Commission members was probably better constituted to consider the internal issues facing Oxford than it was the external pressures which were building up on higher education. Apart from Peter North, an academic lawyer by background, the Commission had seven other members. Two were external to Oxford: the philosopher Onora O’Neill, Principal of Newnham (Cambridge), and the geologist Ronald Oxburgh, Rector of Imperial College of Science. George Radda, a Professor of molecular cardiology at Oxford but, since 1996, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, could be considered an ‘internal-external’. Fully ‘internal’ members of the committee were the economist and Rector of Worcester College, Dick Smethurst; the mathematician, Nick Woodhouse; and the scholar of medieval English, Anne Hudson. The final member of the committee was AJ (Tony) Nicholls, pioneering historian of modern Germany, Fellow of St Antony’s since 1961 and a major contributor to the official history of the first fifty years of St Antony’s, authored by his wife, Christine. Tony Nicholls was added to the Commission membership at the insistence of the then-Warden of St Antony’s, Ralf Dahrendorf, who pointed out, when the original membership was put to the Hebdomadal Council of which he was a member, that there was no-one there to represent the graduate colleges. Given that the Commission met a total of 47 times (13 of those meetings taking place on a residential basis over two days) as well as spawning several sub-committees, it can be understood why Nicholls sometimes joked that he was never sure if he should be thanking or cursing his Warden for having nominated him.

The conclusions and recommendations of the North Commission on one reading do not appear very radical, a set of incremental reforms rather than revolutionary change, best exemplified by the set of six principles proposed to underlie Oxford’s future development:

In terms of size, the Committee recommended that the increase in student numbers should be limited to a maximum of 1% a year.

Some of the other proposals, however, which also at first glance may have appeared as not particularly radical set off a chain of events which had very major impacts on the how the University operated. It is not clear though to what extent these were foreseen, desired, predicted (or even predictable) by some or all of the members of the Commission, the Council that endorsed them or the Congregation which ultimately passed them after a year of debates in the Sheldonian under the aegis of Peter North’s successor as Vice-Chancellor, Colin Lucas.

Key among the decisions of the North Commission which were instituted in the Year 2000 was the process of ‘Divisionalisation’. Independent Divisions (five originally, later reduced to four) were established and ‘Faculties’ (which had received funds directly from the centre) were changed into ‘Departments’ (which were responsible for their own income generation and expenditure), although the Humanities Division insisted that its new Departments continued to be called ‘Faculties’. According to Brockliss (2016: 553), ‘the aim was to make the University more efficient and proactive while retaining the sovereignty of Congregation’. Colin Lucas, when he demitted as Vice-Chancellor, summarised well how the North Commission reforms hoped to achieve that aim:

‘We have reformulated the governance structure of the University. We have introduced a resource allocation method which…is the first attempt to treat the University’s income and expenditure as a whole and to apportion it on a transparent basis. We have sought to give the initiative in designing academic plans and developments to those closest to the realities and opportunities. We have tried as best we can to devolve budgets to the divisional level to meet academic activities and development.’

In the new world of Divisionalisation and devolved budgets, Departments were incentivised to increase their teaching load and research income. This had two major impacts over the following few years. The first was that in just over a decade, the University research income quadrupled (Brockliss, 2016: 767). By around the year 2010, it constituted around 60% of all of its income whereas the undergraduate fee income, considered a generation earlier as a major source of external funding, was reduced to just 6%. A direct consequence of this was the huge increase in short-term researchers employed to work on the numerous time-limited projects for which funding had been obtained. The growth of such researchers was exponential. In 1975, there had been only 400 contract research staff across the whole university (Brockliss, 2023: 120). By 2006, around 60% of the whole university academic payroll were on non-permanent contracts (Kenny and Kenny, 2007: 65-66). By 2016, the number had grown to just under five thousand and constituted 75% of the whole academic payroll (Brockliss, 2023: 120). In the Medical Sciences it was around 93%. The fact that such appointees did not have an entitlement to a college attachment greatly changed the relationship between the university departments and the colleges which now guaranteed a ‘home’ to scarcely a fifth of all the academics in the university.

The second impact of the new incentive structure was the rapid growth in postgraduate student numbers. There was no material incentive for colleges – which still admitted and thereby in effect controlled the numbers of undergraduates – to increase their undergraduate numbers. The UK government had fixed the undergraduate fee at £9,000 per year while the colleges calculated that the full cost of the tutorial-based undergraduate education system per student was closer to £18, 600 (Kenny and Kenny, 2007: 66). This was especially significant when colleges seemed to feel an obligation to continue to focus their recruitment on UK students (who constituted around 85% of all undergraduate students in Oxford), when other Russell Group universities, such as the London School of Economics, Imperial College and St Andrew’s, had moved to a much more international intake with around half of all their students from outside the EU, paying whatever fees the institutions decided the market could bear.

While Colleges controlled undergraduate admissions in Oxford, Departments controlled graduate admissions and there was now a big material as well as academic incentive for them to recruit more graduate students. They could set their own fees, free of government control, and, while there was a feeling in many departments that they should set lower fees for UK and EU students than those from outside the UK, the fact that they were not bound by the exigences of the tutorial system meant that even UK student fees were larger than the cost of the teaching and supervision provided. This was in part of course because the overhead costs of running a department with buildings rented from the central university were much less than those of maintaining a college. In practice also, the postgraduate intake had also always been much more cosmopolitan than the undergraduate one: 65% of all postgraduate students for the past decade have been over overseas. At St Antony’s, the figure has generally been around 85%.

Departments in the new Social Sciences Division were particularly quick to take advantage of the world in which they now found themselves and set up a huge raft of new one-year (MSc) and two-year (MPhil) master’s programmes. Since most science undergraduate courses were four-year courses incorporating a Master’s, this was less easy for the new Division of Maths, Physics and Life Sciences. The resistance to following a similar route initially in Humanities seems to have come from more ideological grounds as well as the fact that they had many more undergraduate students to teach. The number of graduate students rose from 4931 in 2000/1 (the first year of Divisionalisation) to 9621 ten years later, while the number of undergraduate students remained essentially static (Brockliss, 2016: 760). By 2018, Oxford was, for the first time, a majority-graduate university.

One aspect of University governance that was not examined by the North Commission was what to do with the old inter-faculty committees which had overseen and looked after the interests of area and development studies areas. After a brief period of continuing them under the new Humanities and Social Sciences Divisions, the inter-faculty committees were effectively disbanded and the individual academics were placed in disciplinary departments. It became clear almost immediately, however, that if something was not done very quickly, the activities of both area studies and development studies would be seriously threatened. The paradigmatic exemplar of this issue was what came to be called by some as the ‘Chinese economist problem’.

When Cyril Lin, a leading economist of China and Fellow of St Antony’s, resigned his post in Oxford in 2001, the Economics Department decided to replace him not with a postholder who worked specifically on China, but with a mainstream economist. The Chinese studies community in Oxford suddenly found itself without an economist and it was realised that if a home to protect posts in area and development studies was not established very quickly then the same could happen with other vacant posts. It was in this context that Laurence Whitehead, Rosemary Thorp and Roger Goodman went to see the two recently-appointed Heads of the new Divisions, Ralph Walker at Humanities and Donald Hay at Social Sciences, who immediately understood their concerns. Some of the area studies posts in Middle Eastern and Asian studies, they pointed out, were already protected by the existence of the Faculty of Oriental Studies (as it was then called) in Humanities, but it was agreed that a new Department for Area and Development Studies (ADS) should be set up in the Social Sciences Division to protect those which were not.

ADS was formally established in 2002 and Lawrence Whitehead appointed as its first Head. For various complicated reasons (discussed here by Valpy Fitzgerald), what had been established as a marriage of convenience between the two groups proved to be unsustainable and, in 2004, it was decided that ADS should split into two separate departments, which subsequently came to be known as the School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies (SIAS) and the Oxford Department for International Development (ODID).

The establishment of the School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies (SIAS)

Roger Goodman was in Japan on sabbatical when the decision to split ADS was taken. He received an email from Donald Hay asking if he would consider being the inaugural head of the new area studies department. It was planned that the new Department would come into being in October of that year and it had been allocated 12 Bevington Road as a new home (which was in a very grotty state as the University had been planning on selling it).

Establishing any new department in Oxford, even under the new post-North Commission governance structures, was always going to be a complicated process, but developing one for area studies brought several challenges of their own. At the time, not many of the research-intensive universities in the UK had area studies programmes, although many of the new universities did. In general, especially in the Anglophone world, such programmes had a mixed academic reputation and were often seen as not academically robust, especially by the disciplinary departments which tended to look down on them. Even the large and extremely well-funded area studies units in top US universities, such as those at Harvard, faced this prejudice. It was important to challenge these prejudices from the very beginning.

Accordingly, during the summer of 2004, a core group met several times to agree on a name for the new department. After much discussion, it was decided to go with the School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies (SIAS). It was felt that it was key (in order to refute some of the negative perceptions of area studies departments elsewhere) to make the point that the academics in the school were primarily disciplinary scholars (anthropologists, economists, political scientists, sociologists) who were bringing their different disciplinary skills to bear on understanding different areas of the world (Africa, Japan, Russia).

A set of ‘School principles’ were also agreed in those meetings. One was that, as far as possible, academic appointments should be joint appointments with disciplinary departments. This was in part to ensure that disciplinary departments recognised the quality of the work done by their area studies colleagues, in part also so that academics in the new School could contribute area studies options to disciplinary department courses to help defray some of the salary costs of the School’s appointments. At first, it was assumed that these posts would always be shared 50/50, but over time different ratios were negotiated depending on the requirements and financial position of each department.

Another key principle was the institution of limited but transparent financial cross-subsidies between the School’s sub-units in the belief that SIAS collectively would always only be as good as its ‘weakest’ unit. This principle underscored that SIAS was a single School, not just a set of units that happened to share a departmental home. The main beneficiary of this in the early years was African Studies which was able to inaugurate its first-ever taught graduate course in 2005 and quickly went from strength to strength in terms of both its teaching and research profile.

Another principle was that the master’s courses in the School should have a shared, compulsory research methods programme, and that methods should be taken seriously – again to differentiate SIAS Area Studies programmes from ‘less rigorous’ course elsewhere. Similarly, it was decided that master’s programmes that worked on regions with so-called ‘difficult’ languages should include language training. It was felt, for example, that it should not be possible to get a master’s in Japanese studies from the University of Oxford if one could not use original Japanese sources.

There was also the question of critical mass. Much of the summer of 2004 was spent trying to persuade colleagues in the different interfaculty area studies groupings to move, at least partially, onto the payroll of the new School so that it had a critical mass of members by the time it opened. One of the most distinctive features of the membership of SIAS when it opened, however, was that around 85% of its inaugural faculty were fellows of St Antony’s. Alan Angel, William Beinart, Leslie Bethell, Paul Chaisty, Jenny Corbett, Malcolm Deas, Roger Goodman, Carol Leonard, Ian Neary, Alex Pravda, Mark Rebick, Philip Robins, Rosemary Thorp, Vivienne Shue and Ann Waswo. Looked at the other way around, fifteen (40%) of the thirty-eight fellows of St Antony’s became members of SIAS when it first started. Subsequently, all of the Heads of Department in the first twenty years of the School have been fellows of the College: Roger Goodman, William Beinart, Joe Foweraker, Ian Neary, Rachel Murphy, Tim Power, Chris Gerry, Paul Chaisty, Diego Sanchez-Ancochea (listed in chronological order). It is doubtful that any University department has ever had such a close relationship with a single college.

The reason for this pre-dominance of Antonians was, of course, that, in many ways, the new School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies was an extension of the area studies centres which St Antony’s had nurtured from their very beginnings in a manner well described in Christine Nicolls’ (2000: 44) account of the first fifty years of the college: ‘The development of regional or area studies in St Antony’s was a gradual process,.. more haphazard and opportunist than deliberately planned.’ The founding of SIAS in 2004 was an opportunity to put some structure, order, and long-term sustainability into these developments.

As a result of taking on the responsibility for so many academic salaries, when the new School opened in October 2004 its budget for its first year of operation showed a deficit of over £0.25 million. At the time, SIAS’ income came mainly from a small number of endowments and the fees of the second- and third-year doctoral students who were being supervised by SIAS faculty in other departments since SIAS did not have its own doctoral programme. From the beginning, and encouraged by the Head of Division, SIAS therefore looked to developing new income streams from master’s programmes. Over the first five or so years, it set up new area studies master’s courses in African, Modern Chinese, Modern Japanese and South Asian studies and greatly increased the size of its already existing courses (Latin American and Russian East European studies). In 2004, SIAS had an intake of 38 new students; as the table below shows, twenty years later in 2024, it had an admissions target of 155 (for which it had 641 applications).

OSGA Admissions 2024

Course Original Quota Quota after Viring Total Apps Total Offers (including deferrals from last year) Final Take-up Deferrals to 24
MSc in African Studies 26 26 90 54 26 0
MSc in Contemporary Chinese Studies 23 23 134 41 23 2
MPhil in Modern Chinese Studies 9 4 23 9 4 0
MSc in Japanese Studies 11 14 43 19 13 1
MPhil in Japanese Studies 3 1 7 2 2 0
MSc in Latin American Studies 13 15 33 29 13 2
MPhil in Latin American Studies 4 4 7 7 2 0
MSc in Russian and East European Studies 11 12 65 21 12 0
MPhil in Russian and East European Studies 9 10 30 20 9 1
MSc in Modern South Asian Studies 17 19 57 35 10 1
MPhil in Modern South Asian Studies 6 4 18 8 4 0
DPhil in Area Studies 8 8 71 19 4 1
MPhil Global and Area Studies 15 15 66 25 9 1
TOTALS 155 155 644 289 131 9

As with most new projects in Oxford, the School faced some prejudices in its early days. For example, some of the older colleges were reluctant about taking students from the School’s new master’s programmes or increasing their numbers if they already took them from those that existed. A very large number of SIAS students therefore ended up going to St Antony’s whose student body grew by around 35% over the next few years.

As with setting up new courses, a lot of effort also went into increasing research income. Early in its first year of existence, SIAS held a meeting for all staff to discuss joint cross-regional, interdisciplinary research projects. Colleagues were placed in groups depending on their research interests (rather than regional speciality) and asked to produce a potential project by the end of the day. Five separate project proposals were produced from that event, of which two were successful in getting research funding with major overheads. Over the next few years, the School’s deficit began to go down.

When, moreover, the School informally approached the research councils, especially the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), about what it felt was a bias against interdisciplinary area research proposals, it found itself knocking at a half-open door. It was invited to convene a two-day conference, funded jointly by the ESRC and the AHRC, entitled The Future of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, which was held in 2005. The conference was attended by over seventy leading area studies scholars from across the UK and addressed by a range of high-profile individuals from various walks of life – NGOs, charities, the media, government, diplomacy, industry – who discussed what their sectors wanted from Area Studies. This turned out to be highly informative. A well-known national journalist, for example, told the conference that area studies academics were the last people he would turn to if he wanted speedy and unambiguous advice on any regionally-based story, because of their reluctance to say anything definitive about the present let alone predict the future. More encouragingly, however, the event turned out to be strategically significant since a key consequence of the conference, which had been attended throughout by senior official from the research councils and the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE), was that the ESRC and the AHRC were commissioned by HEFCE to fund a 10-year (later shortened because of the 2008 financial crash) Language-Based Area Studies Programme. This was the biggest injection of funding into area atudies that the UK had seen since the 1980s, with funding for four ‘centres of excellence’ in Chinese Studies, Japanese Studies, Arabic Studies and Eastern European Studies. All universities in the UK were invited to bid to host these, with Oxford being awarded Chinese Studies and (jointly with Birmingham University) Russian and East European Studies. As a direct consequence, national awareness around area atudies was raised significantly and SIAS was definitively put on the map.

SIAS has gone from strength to strength over the past twenty years. A recent QS survey ranked it the number one department of area studies in the world. It has proved to be highly successful in every national research evaluation exercise since it was set up. In terms of research power (measured by the quantity of top-quality research produced), it has come top every time since it was established. Of at least equal significance is how SIAS has worked increasingly closely with colleagues in humanities departments. All Chinese and Japanese studies’ colleagues across the social sciences and humanities, for example, who had previously been in separate buildings now have offices in the same home (namely the China Centre at St Hugh’s and the Nissan Institute at St Antony’s), and students are taught in joint rather than separate Chinese and Japanese MSc and MPhil courses.

Over its first twenty years, SIAS has also undergone several reforms. The School’s name has changed to the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies (OSGA). A doctoral programme has been established. A more incremental change was that the School was gradually unable to maintain the principle of joint appointments. They became too complicated and time-consuming to negotiate and increasingly appointments were made that were SIAS/OSGA only.

A further change has been the huge growth in postdoctoral researchers (as the School successfully won major research grants) and of department lecturers (as the number of courses and students continued to increase). Such staff now constitute over 40% of all those on the School’s academic payroll. Those who do not have a permanent contract are not entitled to a college attachment, and it has been to try to reduce the sense of their being two classes of academics in the School that St Antony’s now offers through the Platt Programme (generously funded by a legacy from Christopher Platt, the former Professor of Latin American Studies at St Antony’s and his widow, Sylvia) the option of becoming a three-year ‘College member’ with the role of college advisor in return for free lunches and some free high tables. This has proven to be very popular and today virtually all non-permanent, as well as most permanent, members of OSGA’s academic staff are part of the St Antony’s family.

Bibliography

Brockliss, L W B, The University of Oxford: A History, Oxford University Press, 2016.

Brockliss, L W B, The University of Oxford: A Brief History, Bodleian Library Publishing, 2023.

Carasso, Helen, UK Higher Education: Policy, Practice and Debate during HEPI’s First 20 Years, HEPI Report 161.

Evans, G. R., The University of Oxford: A New History, I. B. Tauris, 2013.

Evans, G. R., After ‘North’: Two decades of change at Oxford University, self-published 2022.

Kenny, Anthony and Kenny, Robert, Can Oxford be Improved: A View from the Dreaming Spires and Satanic Mills, Imprint Academic 2007.

Nicholls, C.S., The History of St Antony’s College Oxford, 1950-2000, Macmillan/St Antony’s, 2000.

North Commission of Inquiry, Report, Oxford, 1998.

Stevens, Robert, University to Uni: The Politics of Higher Education in England since 1944, Politico, 2004.

 

Roger Goodman, August 2025

Contact us

alumni.office@sant.ox.ac.uk