Wrong about Oxford
From Bill Troop
Sir: Oxford’s new prize-winning graduate ‘Charlie’ Boss evidently did not learn enough during his time there (‘Is Oxford about to get rid of its Vice-Chancellor?’, 4 November). If he had, he would know that it is folly to encourage the American system, where the actual teaching is done by inexperienced graduate assistants because the distinguished professors are usually too busy with their lucrative research to do anything so pedestrian as to teach students.
Mr Boss is also wrong to conflate Oxford’s deficit with its emphasis on teaching time and its rule by dons. The simple fact is that it is much easier for universities to raise colossal sums of money in New World countries than in Britain. The reason, as everyone knows, is that the newly rich in New World ‘classless’ societies all wish to aggrandise themselves socially, and the most acceptable way to do it in these countries is by endowing universities and, to a lesser extent, hospitals.
In Britain, by contrast, ambitious parvenus have more choice. At present they are more likely to throw their lucre at the entity best calculated to secure them a title, namely, whichever political party is then in power.
Bill Troop London W6
From Karl Sternberg
Sir: Rather than becoming a sports journalist, Charlie Boss should apply for a job as the VC’s PR guru. He describes Congregation as ‘somewhat motley’. But this is the same motley crew that has just spent three years teaching him. The same motley crew that got Oxford a third ranking in the global league. To suggest that it is Hood’s achievement after two years focused on governance in an 800-year-old institution is absurd.
Does Mr Boss really think that any of the motley crew disagree that financial resource is key to the future? Does he really think that any of the motley crew would be against fundraising? This is about means, not ends. To applaud the addition of businessmen to the university’s governance structure makes an uncritical assumption that the commercial world is better governed. In fact the corporate world has very little to teach Oxford about governance. It is the other way around.
Oxford enjoys the benefits of an oldfashioned partnership, without the drawbacks of the separation of ownership and control in the corporate world. If they were not owners, the motley crew would have to be paid like commercial employees.
Is Oxford about to get rid of its VC? If they do, it will be for good reasons; not because they are backwoodsmen.
Karl Sternberg London SW7
Previous page
