杏吧原创

ASSESSING the state of the UK鈥檚 elite universities is a tricky business. Take a look at any of the various league tables ranking universities around the world and British readers will feel their chests expanding with pride. Oxford and Cambridge are in the top handful, while London鈥檚 University College and Imperial College sit comfortably in the top 25. It would appear that the best of British can stand on an equal footing with the world鈥檚 elite, the likes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tokyo University and the University of California, Berkeley. London, Oxford and Cambridge are a 鈥済olden triangle鈥� of academic success.

But it is not hard to paint an entirely different picture. Embarrassing cracks are beginning to appear in the romantic image of dreaming spires and gleaming laboratory benches. After decades of underfunding, the UK鈥檚 elite universities are stretched to breaking point, their old-fashioned infrastructure filled with shoddy equipment, their researchers overworked and underpaid.

Cambridge is trying to punch above its weight. Oxford鈥檚 labyrinthine system of governance all but paralyses decision making. University College London (UCL) would be hard-pressed to find a broom cupboard for a potential spin-off company. And Imperial鈥檚 status is already on the slide 鈥� last year alone it dropped six places in one influential ranking of the world鈥檚 universities. You can almost hear the reputations crumbling. Forget the golden triangle: the area bounded by London, Oxford and Cambridge seems more like a Bermuda triangle where once-great universities disappear without a trace.

So where does the truth lie? Are the UK鈥檚 elite universities world class, or are they living on the inherited reputation of a bygone age? The issues are complex. There is no doubt that the UK鈥檚 universities have suffered terribly from a lack of investment. 鈥淲e went through a period when Margaret Thatcher quite rightly tried to sort out the universities but that went on far too long. I think a lot of damage was done,鈥� says Imperial鈥檚 rector, Richard Sykes. The problem with underinvestment was compounded, he says, because many US universities were going from strength to strength during the same period. He is also quick to point out that Imperial鈥檚 recent fall in that world ranking was due to a change in the way the ranking was calculated: it now includes social sciences, which Imperial does not cover.

Lack of funding is also the reason why the UK lags behind the US in the salaries it pays, particularly to postdocs and junior lecturers. Salaries are a key factor in attracting the best talent. 鈥淲e need to be able to move salaries up to answer the competition,鈥� says Alison Richard, Cambridge鈥檚 vice-chancellor. She hopes to narrow the gap in coming years by increasing her budget for salaries by 20 per cent. At Oxford, salaries lag behind not just the US but many other places in the UK, although many colleges offer benefits in kind such as accommodation.

But it is not just salaries that attract researchers. Factors such as the teaching burden, the administrative support and the quality of colleagues is also hugely important. 鈥淲e have been stretched,鈥� admits Oxford鈥檚 vice-chancellor, John Hood.

Yet despite the lower pay and the teaching burden, there is little sign of a brain drain. 鈥淢y sense is that we hire as many as we lose and we are getting the very best,鈥� says Richard. And others agree. The golden triangle universities can clearly offer the kind of environment that many researchers are looking for. Part of that may be the lesser pressure on academics in the UK compared with that in some of the top US universities, where a hectic 24/7 work schedule is the norm. Another possibility is the attraction of the cities themselves. 鈥淟ondon remains a very attractive place for the global scientist,鈥� says Malcolm Grant, provost of UCL.

Indeed, some hoped that the Bush administration鈥檚 stance on subjects such as stem cells would cause a reverse brain drain back to the UK. But for the moment, most US stem cell researchers are staying put.

The UK has little difficulty, though, in attracting the best students from abroad. Applications are up across the board, largely because of the restrictive US stance on foreign visas, and nobody is complaining. At undergraduate level, universities can charge foreign students the full cost of their tuition, which can be as much as 拢20,000 a year. This is in stark contrast to the money universities receive for UK students, which is woefully inadequate. 鈥淭here is a shortfall of 拢4000 per year per student,鈥� says Grant. That presents a serious gap in university finances and is one reason why some staff are overburdened with teaching commitments.

Funding for postgraduates is more of a challenge, particularly when they come from abroad. The top US institutions use endowments given by alumni 鈥� a significant source of income for many universities 鈥� to fund scholarships. But the culture in which former students endow universities has never taken hold in the UK.

Sykes believes that big changes are needed. 鈥淯niversities need to be able to operate in a free market, to charge students the real cost of their education.鈥� He believes the endowment culture in the US has matured because students pay through the nose for their education and this makes them value their alma maters. 鈥淥ver here people say: 鈥楾he government, or the taxpayer, paid for my education. Why should I give money back to my university?'鈥�

聯I鈥檇 rather be here than in some of the US universities where work dominates everything聰

Given the gravity of the problems universities face, the prevailing mood is surprisingly upbeat. Talk to any of the academic chiefs at the golden triangle universities and you don鈥檛 have to wait long to hear about the UK government鈥檚 new-found commitment to pay the real economic cost of research. In the past, government agencies and others have made varying contributions towards the direct cost of research but more or less ignored indirect costs such as depreciation and administrative costs, which have had to be met from other sources. That is all set to change. By 2010, the government is committed to paying the full cost of research, including office rental charges, depreciation, infrastructure investment, equipment, travel and the cost of all the staff working on the project, including technical and administrative staff. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a big step forward,鈥� says Grant.

But it is only part of the changes that these elite universities have been making to remain competitive. Cambridge, for example, has invested 拢415 million in the past decade on its infrastructure. UCL plans to spend 拢77 million between 2006 and 2008 and to raise another 拢300 million. And Oxford has recently completed a warts and-all review of its role and the way it operates. The result is a comprehensive and sometimes painfully honest evaluation of how the university can build for the future. Oxford has set the ball rolling by simplifying its complicated system of governance to allow more effective decision making. There is a widespread belief that, despite the privations of the past, the elite universities have somehow managed to stay competitive and are now moving from strength to strength. 鈥淚t鈥檚 been quite a battle,鈥� admits Grant.

Other developments are beginning to pay off, too. One is technology transfer, turning ideas from the university into commercially viable concerns. The university that sets the bar in this area is California鈥檚 Stanford University, in the heart of Silicon Valley. The relationship between Stanford and the companies surrounding it is one that many universities eye enviously. It has provided the technology and many of the founding teams for hundreds of global companies, from Cisco Systems to Google. And it has supplied a continuous stream of highly trained researchers to all kinds of companies in the area. But it would be wrong to think of Stanford as the key to Silicon Valley鈥檚 success. It is only part of a phenomenal infrastructure that provides office space, ancillary services such as lawyers and accountants, good transport links and an entrepreneurial culture unrivalled anywhere in the world. It鈥檚 a mix that is hard to reproduce.

Though not for lack of trying. Isis Innovation at Oxford helps researchers with the legal, financial and administrative challenges of setting up a spin-off company. 鈥淚sis Innovation is probably the leading technology-transfer organisation of its kind on the UK,鈥� says Hood. It has been responsible for almost 50 spin-off companies since it was formed in 1997 and Oxford now boasts science parks around the city to attract new businesses.

Even more successful is the area around Cambridge that has come to be known as Silicon Fen. It is one of the fastest-growing biotech areas in the world, in 2003 alone attracting an estimated 10 per cent of the venture capital invested in the whole of Europe. Not bad for an area with only 0.1 per cent of Europe鈥檚 population. The imaging company Kodak has recently announced it is setting up a lab in the area, as has the US biotech giant Genzyme. 鈥淭he university is a magnet for these companies,鈥� says Richard.

For researchers at universities in London hoping to commercialise their ideas, life is harder. Despite high costs and limited space, the city has managed to attract dozens of biotech companies that cluster around the universities and research hospitals. And in 2001 the London BioScience Innovation Centre 鈥� a facility set up by the Royal Veterinary College to 鈥渋ncubate鈥� new biotech companies 鈥� opened its doors. But the reality is that many new ventures set up shop elsewhere. 鈥淢any end up in science parks at Oxford and Cambridge,鈥� says Malcolm Grant of UCL.

The other side of that geographical coin is that Oxford, Cambridge and London are close enough to each other to make the triangle a common pool of personnel. 鈥淚f you hire someone from Oxford they may not even have to move house,鈥� says Imperial鈥檚 Sykes.

The triangle is, of course, 鈥済olden鈥� in more than ways than one: the four together bag the lion鈥檚 share of UK research funding. But this doesn鈥檛 imply unfair advantage. 鈥淲e are institutions that have invested in excellence and we just happen to be located in the south-east of England,鈥� says Grant. 鈥淚t鈥檚 really a geographical coincidence.鈥�