1

A New Tradition: The Rise of Science at the University of Oxford –Its Trends, Causes, and Future (1850-Present)

Chris S. FongHonors 392/397

A NEW TRADITION 2

AbstractOxford, despite its wealth and status, was still a medieval institution in the middle of the

nineteenth century. Yet today, the University of Oxford looks dramatically different from where it was in 1850, when it was very much an institution grounded in the same arts and subjects that had been taught there as far back as 1096. The modern University of Oxford has very much adopted the scientific mantra, curriculum, and research orientation that characterizes many, if not all modern research universities, a distinction conferred in both the UK and the U.S. to institutions offering a broad breadth of STEM curriculum and doctorate-level degrees, and that meet a certain set of criteria related to levels of research activity, research expenditures, and research oriented faculty. This paper seeks to trace the University of Oxford’s evolution from an institution that in 1850 was still largely centered on the traditional liberal arts, to its current status as one of the leading public research universities in the world, while highlighting current trends facing STEM research and education.

MethodologyThe purpose of the project was to examine how science spread at the University of

Oxford, transforming it from an institute for the humanities to a modern research institute that champions the sciences. To do this, we started with a historiographical approach that looked at the state of science in 1850 at Oxford relative to other British Universities and its evolution to the present day. Using primary sources such as government publications, university statements, and criticisms from contemporaries from the nineteenth century onward, we sought to highlight the various trends, both cultural as well as policy-related, that led to the growth of STEM curriculum and research at the University. Furthermore, from data collected from Oxford University registers and archives, we have attempted to chart changing student/faculty demographics in means that we believe will help illustrate internal trends towards STEM curriculum and research at the University. Furthermore, we sought to illuminate the current regimen for STEM and research funding in place, and provide insight into its impact, effects, and future.

Introduction: The University of Oxford and BritainFew institutions of higher learning around the world command the levels of attention and

national introspection that Oxford and its rival Cambridge do in Britain’s national life. Historically, Oxford has enjoyed an almost mythical stature as the oldest of Britain’s ancient universities, tinted by a romanticism painted by many of the University’s most celebrated alums. Writers such as Oscar Wilde and C.S. Lewis, philosophers such as Locke and Hobbes, and the long line of British statesmen such as William Pitt and Tony Blair, whose legacies feature prominently in the annals of British history, have all added to the luster of the University of Oxford. Given the prestige that accompanies its status as the oldest university in the English-speaking world, Oxford has become uniquely situated in the cultural and political life of Britain and the Anglo-American world. It has long served as the archetype for many of America’s most prestigious colleges, and has found itself featuring prominently as both the setting for and inspiration of numerous debates and controversies throughout history. The University has, in its tenure, taken center stage within debates over egalitarianism and meritocracy in British society, faith and reason, and more recently over debates between the sciences and the humanities and the roles of both in a modern university.

A NEW TRADITION 3

British Prime Minister William Gladstone once said “Oxford has long been a national institution, akin to Parliament, the Church, and the Queen.”1 Despite being touted today as one of Britain’s greatest institutions and the place where most of the kingdom’s most notable individuals were educated, the story of Oxford in the modern era is by no means a tale of constant prestige and praise, but one of soul searching and transformation. For much of nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Oxford, despite being home to leading figures in the history of science such as Edmund Halley and Robert Boyle, was nevertheless a bastion of the liberal arts in a world radically changing from the impact of the scientific and industrial revolutions.

Oxford, despite its wealth and status, was still a medieval institution in the middle of the nineteenth century. Yet today, the University of Oxford looks dramatically different from where it was in 1850, when it was very much an institution grounded in the same arts and subjects that had been taught there as far back as 1096. The modern University of Oxford has very much adopted the scientific mantra, curriculum, and research orientation that characterizes many, if not all modern research universities, a distinction conferred in both the UK and the U.S. to institutions offering a broad breadth of STEM curriculum and doctorate-level degrees, and that meet a certain set of criteria related to levels of research activity, research expenditures, and research oriented faculty.2 This paper seeks to trace the University of Oxford’s evolution from an institution that in 1850 was still largely centered on the traditional liberal arts, to its current status as one of the leading public research universities in the world, while highlighting current trends facing STEM research and education.

The Roots of Change: Centralization, Secularization, and Academic Reform 1850-1854

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Oxford was a dramatically different institution than what it would become in the twentieth century. At a time when many other institutions of higher education both in the U.S. and Britain were centralizing university governance, growing enrollment, and expanding their reach in the natural and applied sciences, the University of Oxford remained very much a ‘medieval’ university. Bounded by traditional collegiate structures and ties to the Church of England, real authority rested with the twenty colleges whose landholdings and endowments far exceeded that of the University and with the clerics who dominated collegiate and university faculty.3 Furthermore, unlike other British universities such as the University of Manchester and University College London which were founded in the early nineteenth century to further science education and research, Oxford was very much an ecclesiastical institution. In the first half of the nineteenth century, an estimated eighty percent of Oxford undergraduates were destined for Holy Orders.4 The other twenty

1 Gladstone, William. William Gladstone to the Lord President, July 10, 1872 and Ripon’s Reply, July 12, 1872. Letter. House of Lords Sessional Papers 1873. Selborne Commission. xviii. (accessed August 14, 2014)2 For more information on the classification of ‘Research University’ as used in the U.S. please see the Carnagie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s methodology on university classification at http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/methodology/basic.php. For the U.K. designation please see the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise at http://www.rae.ac.uk/ and the 2014 Research Excellence Framework at http://www.ref.ac.uk/.

3 See Appendix A, Figure 1 for figures on college vs university revenues.4 A.J. Engel, From Clergyman to Don: the Rise of the Academic Profession in Nineteenth Century Oxford,

Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983. ref. 4, pg. 177.

A NEW TRADITION 4

percent, according to Edward Stanley, the Bishop of Norwich from 1837 to 1849, were “sons of the idle rich [who] sought merely to extend their adolescence for several more years.”5

The structure of university governance, in conjunction with clerical and gentry culture created numerous challenges for the development of science both at the undergraduate and faculty levels. First and foremost was the cultural and institutional antipathy that existed towards science, particularly applied science, both among faculty members and their upper class pupils. As nineteenth century education historian Michael Brock describes:

The undergraduate syllabus developed at Oxford since the early years of the century was still based largely on Greek and Latin; and it was an article of faith that no other discipline sharpened and enlarged the mind as well as the classics. An education which was the badge of a gentleman suited the aristocracy and the clergy. Fathers of noble or gentle birth were well content to show that their sons had no need to earn their bread by acquiring ‘useful’ information, and, whether from devotion or ambition, an intending ordinand was well advised to study the Greek Testament over the sciences.6

Many individuals and organizations, particularly those engaged in industry and commerce would criticize the University’s curriculum as ill-suited to practical work. Some, like Richard Clarke, a graduate of Clare College, Cambridge and editor of the Financial News from 1860 to 1865, would speak even harsher words, describing Oxford as “a stuffy old place filled with ancient traditions ill-suited to the modern world.”7 The mantra “go to Cambridge for the sciences and Oxford for the arts,” developed during this period when Oxford truly lagged behind its counterparts in the development of modern scientific curriculums and research, still holds sway over many prospective applicants and unfairly colors the University’s reputation at home and abroad.8 Secondly, the nature of Oxford’s collegiate structure, where each of the University’s constituent colleges made independent decisions on internal governance, spending, and hiring, left investment in science faculty and facilities sorely lacking. In 1850, the University of Oxford had a total available income of £9,250 in comparison to the University’s colleges, which earned an income estimated over £85,000.9

The year 1854 marked the beginning of change at Oxford following the passage of the University Reform Act by the government of William Gladstone. The Act of Parliament, which constituted one of the first attempts by the state to regulate the affairs of the University, enacted numerous reforms, including the creation of a new university-wide governing council known as Hebdomadal Council and the easing of religious restrictions placed on members by the Oath of Supremacy.10 These changes, which came about as a result of a royal commission formed in 1850 to inquire into the state, discipline, studies, and revenues of the universities and colleges of

5 Stanley, Edward. Edward Stanley to Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, May 30, 1851. Letter. House of Lords Sessional Papers 1873. Royal Commission, General House Session. (HO 38/50 pgs. 215-19). (accessed August 14, 2014).

6 Brocks, Michael. The History of the University of Oxford: The Nineteenth Century, Part 1. No ed. Vol. VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. pg. 167.

7 Clarke, Richard. "Oxford, a Modern University Fit for Britain?" Financial News, February 4, 1934, Headline. (accessed August 8, 2014)

8 Howarth, John. Science in Education, Late Victorian Oxford and the Modern University. London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 2001. 15.

9 Stanley, Edward. Report of Commissioners to the House of Lords, May 25 1852, House of Lords Sessional Papers 1873. The Royal Commission of 1850. Report 4; Evidence 245–9.

A NEW TRADITION 5

Oxford, produced dramatic changes, weakening the financial and academic autonomy of Oxford’s constituent colleges while improving finances, and thus central authority at the University level. Increasing authority at the university level would see the creation of new honor schools in Natural Science11, Law, and Modern History, much to the chagrin of the more established arts dons.12 Furthermore, the easing of religious restrictions would enable the admission of increasing numbers of non-Anglicans, whom often had little interest in taking Holy Orders, though Catholics were still barred from entry.13 These reforms left the University more centralized and secular than at any point before in its history, and as a result prepared it for the spirit of academic reform that would strike the University in the 1870s.

Spirit of Reform: Oxford, Society, and Public Sentiment 1865-1880

In 1868 the poet F.T. Palgrave saw Oxford moving into a short ‘plastic’ period, which he described as “one of those rare and precious epochs [when] radical changes are possible.” While the University Reform Act of 1854 had increased the University’s educational efficiency, Oxford remained plagued by the establishment ethos pervading students and faculty alike which continued to elevate the classics, history, and philosophy above the sciences. Despite being the oldest and most prestigious of Britain’s ancient universities, the University between 1870 and 1914 would see a period of turmoil and instability caused by pressures, both internal and external that would push Oxford towards a more modern embrace of the sciences.

A prominent pressure that emerged in the early 1870s was the impact of changing student interests and increasing criticism of the University and its colleges for their almost zealous focus on the arts, which was perceived as coming at the expense of the sciences. Despite the creation of a Natural Science School (NSS) in 1850, Oxford lagged far behind its peers such as the University of Cambridge and the University of Manchester in the development of STEM curriculum and research. At a time when Victorian enthusiasm for all things scientific and technological was at a high, these shortcomings produced a shortage of undergraduate applicants, despite the University’s ability to entice over one-third of them with scholarships and overall nationwide increases in university enrollment.14 When an 1867 committee formed by college dons concerned about the decline in applicants asked the Dean of Christ Church College about this “very large relative falling off, considering the enormously increased number of men of wealth in the country,” the Dean replied “I can only presume that they do not value the kind of education we offer.”15 By the early 1870s criticism of Oxford reached new levels. Oxford’s colleges, despite their resources, were only educating less than 2,000 young men, of whom less than two percent were engaged in the sciences.16

10 The Oath of Supremacy required all members of the University to swear allegiance to the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. These requirements effectively barred all non-Anglicans from the University.11 The Natural Science School was the first attempt at the University of Oxford to formalize an empirical science curriculum which taught a combination of chemistry, physics, and mathematics. For more information see Brocks pg. 168-169

12 Brocks. The History of the University of Oxford: The Nineteenth Century. Clarendon Press. 169.13 Brocks. The History of the University of Oxford: The Nineteenth Century, Clarendon Press. pg. 172.14 Pattison, Mark. Mark Pattison in a Statement to the Devonshire Commission, Nov, 1867. Transcript.

House of Lords Sessional Papers 1873. Devonshire Commission, General House Session. (HO 49/50 pgs. 715-19). (accessed August 15, 2014)

15 Rogers, Thorold. Education in Oxford. No ed. 1861. 197.16 Pattison. Mark Pattison in a Statement to the Devonshire Commission. (HO 49/50 715-19.)

A NEW TRADITION 6

Grant Duff, a graduate of Balliol College, in his inaugural lecture in March 1872 as Lord Rector of Aberdeen University, placed Oxford far below other institutions of higher learning, both in Britain and abroad, noting Oxford had no equivalent to Cambridge and Manchester’s doctorates in engineering and science, and no postgraduate science facilities comparable to the best in Germany or the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. Duff, in his words, compared Oxford to “a great steam-hammer, which costs £150,000 to put up, employed, month after month, in cracking walnuts.”17 For many Victorian critics, Oxford was an institution overly consumed in the past and not focused enough on the future. Critics not only emerged among Oxford alumni but among members of the professional class and men of industry and commerce, who accounted for much of the growth in university enrollment across Britain. In 1877, in a report to the Saturday Review, Ray Lankester, a surgeon and faculty member at the University of Manchester, suggested “medical study has ceased in Oxford because the chief power in the University has been in the hands of the clerics and men of leisure, whose traditions have not favored the progress on any studies which lend themselves to practical work.”18

Like many other catalysts for reform the impetus for further change at Oxford in the latter half of the nineteenth century was war. Following Britain’s involvement in the Crimea War from 1853-1856 up to 1914, Britain was struck by a sense of national insecurity as numerous wars fueled perceptions of declining British power and emerging rivals such as the United States and Prussia (later Germany) grew in power. The Crimean War in particular, which left Britain with over 21,000 war dead and implanted in the memories of Britons moments such as “The Charge of the Light Brigade,” became an iconic symbol not only of Britain’s military failures, but her technical and scientific ones as well. As figures like Florence Nightingale emerged as heroes for pioneering modern medicine on the battlefield, and the use of rail, telegraph, and modern weaponry impressed on Britain a sense of the might of modern science, the death of over 18,000 British soldiers from preventable deaths and diseases called to calls for change.

By the late 1860s until 1914, Oxford was embroiled in one of the most tumultuous times in its history coming under fire for the many larger perceptions of failure not only in the war, but in British society as a whole. As Britain faced increasing competition from Germany and the U.S., critics quickly laid blame on Oxford as a symbol of the nation’s educational failures. By the 1870s a dramatic cultural reversal was taking place, not only at the University level but in public sentiment. In 1841 Thomas Arnold, Regius Professor of History at Oxford and headmaster of Rugby, one of Britain’s most famous secondary schools, famously stated “[he] had not minded if his pupils at Rugby thought ‘that the sun went round the earth… the one thing needful…[was] Christian, and moral and political philosophy.19 In contrast, his son Thomas in 1865 produced a pamphlet in which Britain’s breakdown during the Crimean War was attributed to “our superior [Oxford] education failing to illuminate the professions with the light of scientific thought.”20 As Britain recovered from the memories of Crimea, the decline of British power appeared eminent as the nation faced increasing economic competition and failures in Crimea and later the Boer Wars were contrasted with Prussia’s victory in the war against France, which proved “the effectiveness of the German university system.”21

17 Duff, Grant. Grant Duff in a statement to the University of Aberdeen Convocation, Sep 17, 1872. University of Oxford History of Science Archives. (accessed August 14, 2014

18 Lankester, Ray. Universities in their Relation to Professional Education. The Saturday Review (Edinburgh, 1877), pg. 25.

19 Arnold, Thomas. Thomas Arnold to W. A. Greenhill, 9 May 1841: Stanley, Arnold, ii. pg. 32.20 Arnold, Thomas the younger, The Revival of the Faculties at Oxford. 1865. (n. 19), pgs. 7–8.21 Arnold, Thomas the younger, The Revival of the Faculties at Oxford. 1865. (n. 19), pgs. 7–8.

A NEW TRADITION 7

Changing public sentiment coupled with this emerging sense of competition would drive the dramatic growth of the natural and applied sciences at Oxford during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The Examination Statute of 1863, which abolished the requirement that science students test in the classics was passed by Convocation despite fierce resistance from arts dons. In 1870 Parliament ordered a Royal Commission on scientific instruction and scientific advancement known as the Devonshire Commission in response to increasing worries about economic and scientific competition from the United States and an emerging Germany. The Commission, which centered heavily on England’s two ancient universities, Oxford and Cambridge produced numerous conclusions regarding the state of British science over its five year inquiry. Unsurprising was the praise levied on Cambridge for its scientific curriculum and basic research, which was contrasted with a litany of Oxford defects. The Commission concluded that at Oxford:

The teachers were too few, and on the whole were inadequately paid. In several instances the accommodation was insufficient and the equipment incomplete. The number of students and particularly of research students was in some subjects lamentably small, and in spite of brilliant exceptions the output of work was less than should be expected from a University possessing such great opportunities.22

During this period, which saw the growth and expansion of schools such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., the Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine in London, and numerous other universities with a decidedly scientific and technical focus, the University of Oxford was increasingly finding itself lagging behind more ‘modern’ institutions.

The embarrassing exposé of the University’s deficiencies by the Devonshire Commission of 1870 and the expansion of university science in London and the provinces was the most palpable threat to the status of Oxford as the ‘nation’s’ university. From 1870 to the eve of the First World War, Oxford displayed increased attention to the sciences as displayed by the construction of the Clarendon physics laboratory, which was intended to match the Cavendish laboratory at Cambridge and built at a cost of more than £45,000 in 1872.23 Furthermore, from 1870 to 1914, the University added seven academic departments in the sciences including zoology (1872), physics (1872), biology (1877), physiology (1882), geology (1888), metallurgy (1895), and engineering (1908), formalizing funding and undergraduate curriculums in areas that had long been neglected. Yet despite these efforts Oxford continued to fall behind Cambridge and other institutions in the sciences as money was always short. One notable example of this occurred when in 1887 R. B. Clifton, Professor of Experimental Philosophy sought £4,800 on an electricity laboratory at the Clarendon. Convocation refused on the grounds that there were too few physics students. By the time that Clifton stepped down from the chair of Experimental Philosophy in 1919, the Clarendon was still not connected to the main electrical grid.24

In 1886, Cambridge had 18 professors and 16 lecturers in the sciences as opposed to Oxford respective 13 professors and 16 lecturers. While in 1870, both universities had

22 Royal Commission on the Scientific Instruction and Scientific Advancement. A Catalogue of the Oxford’s Defects. Report. pg. 114.23 Roche, John. The History of the University of Oxford: The Nineteenth Century, Part 2. No ed. Vol. VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. pg. 987.

24 Clifton, Roger B. Letter to Hebdomadal Council, 1887. Report. University of Oxford Archives. (accessed August 18, 2014

A NEW TRADITION 8

comparable numbers of undergraduates in the sciences, between 1881 and 1904, Cambridge’s National Science School produced more than twice as many graduates as Oxford’s.25 Nevertheless, the period between 1870 and 1914 saw a permanent reorientation towards the sciences at Oxford as government scrutiny, public sentiment, and external competition drove university dons to reform. By 1910 to 1914, 13.7 per cent of Oxford graduates were reading Natural Science, which had become the third largest school (Table 1A).26 More jobs were created for scientists too: by the eve of the war about sixty members of Congregation were engaged in teaching or research in the sciences.27 But ‘Cambridge for Science’ had entered conventional wisdom—and at a time when the market for and importance of science education was expanding.

Oxford and the War Years (1914-1945)

Britain’s entrance into the First and later Second World War would again have a transformative impact on the University of Oxford as already strained finances would be furthered stretched and shaped by the demands of war. On the eve of 1914, Oxford’s net-budget remained stagnant at approximately £119,000, a figure that had remained relatively unchanged since the 1905.28 Following the outbreak of war, university revenue plummeted to approximately £56,000 as students and faculty rushed to volunteer for the war effort.29 The ensuing financial instability experienced at the University led to pleas to the state for funds, which responded with an annual grant of £30,000 beginning in 1915, contingent on the fact that the University’s resources be directed towards the war effort.30 Throughout the conflict, Oxford’s scientists would be presented with research and funding opportunities previously unavailable to them during peacetime. Under the Notable contributions were led by chemists such as H.B Hartley, a fellow at Balliol College who headed Britain’s chemical warfare program, W.H. Perkin, who led research into commercial dyes, and Andrea Angel, a tutor at Christ Church College who led munitions research. Physicists, such as H.T. Tizard, a fellow at Oriel were drafted in aeronautical research while zoologists such as A.C. Hardy employed their talents in camouflage research.31 Countless other undergraduate scientists would find positions working in research and industry related to the war effort, which presented many students and faculty with opportunities unavailable in the past. By the end of the war, state funding for Oxford and other British universities would be normalized through the creation of the University Grants Committee, an advisory body that served as an intermediary between the state and universities and laid the foundation for increasing state intervention at Oxford.

The impact of the war left a markedly changed Oxford. Research schools had appeared and begun awarding doctorates, which were available from 1919, and research for many

25 University of Oxford, Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1715-1914. 1870-1904.

26 University of Oxford, Alumni Oxonienses. 1910-1914.27 Roche, John.  History of the University of Oxford: The Nineteenth Century, Part 2.Clarendon Press 987.28 University of Oxford. University Calendar Data 1904-1905. University of Oxford Archives. (accessed

August 19, 2014).29 University of Oxford. University Calendar Data 1914-1915. University of Oxford Archives. (accessed

August 19, 2014).30 House of Commons. Debate on the State of Oxford University Finances, May 7th, 1915. (HO 87/112 pgs.

865-73). (accessed August 16, 2014).31 Oxford and the War. Report. Asquith Commission. 1922. University of Oxford Archives. (accessed

August 19, 2014.)

A NEW TRADITION 9

scientists became a norm as important as teaching. The sheer numbers of undergraduates involved in research and industry also left a particularly acute impact, leading to an expansion of postgraduates studying in the sciences [table 1]. The impact of the war on the culture of the university furthermore left physical evidence in the creation of the science area in 1934, dedicated to the expansion of the research conducted during the war. Perhaps most symbolic of this change was the fact that space for this area was taken from the University Parks, a long protected area of University lands.32 While state funding for the University continued through the UGC, which continued to make small grants of £20,000 for the sciences, in addition to £100,000 of unconditional funding per year33, substantial sums increasingly flowed from private benefactors and donors whom sought to expand the sciences. Between 1937 and 1939 £4,000,000 was donated to the University’s science and engineering departments from Lord Nuffield of the newly founded Nuffield College, Shell, British Oxygen, and chemical corporations such as Imperial Chemical Industries and Albert and Wilson.34

The outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 further exacerbated the trends established by the First World War, as military needs lent a new prominence to the natural sciences. During the war, Oxford scientists would find themselves engaged in research of the greatest strategic importance in three areas: the atomic bomb, radar and penicillin, as well as many other projects involving the development of respirators, signal flares, anti-malarial pills and aircraft fuels. 35 These wartime achievements provided Oxford science with both prestige and a firm financial base from which to respond to the worldwide post-war expansion in science. The post-war period would see the number of Oxford’s undergraduates and postgraduates in all the sciences grow as the Second World War made Britain acutely aware of the importance of science and technology. Modern marvels such as radar, jet propulsion, rockets, and atomic bombs garnered popular support for the science, and in 1942, the British government set up a Science Advisory Council to select and fund strategic projects. After the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, the British government would increasingly tie scientific research to national security, and directed the UGC to present British universities with a package of fiscal incentives to expand medical education, technical education, and scientific research.36

Figure 1A. Broad Subject Area Studied by Oxford Undergraduates, 1860-2013 (percent) 1860 1890 1923 1938 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2013

Arts/Social Studies 96 90 80 81.6 73.7 78.9 60.7 61.8 60.5 56.2 54.6 STEM 4 10 20 18.2 26.2 31 39.1 38 39.3 43.8 45.4

Sources: Oxford University Gazette Supplement Student Numbers 2001-2013, Oxford University Gazette 1995d:1336-37, Hebdomadal Council Papers 1963d, Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1715-1914.

Figure 1B: Subjects Studied by Postgraduates in Oxford, 1928/9–1964/5 (percent)

1928/9 1938/9 1948/9 1958/9 1963/4 1964/5Arts/Social Studies 86.6 72.4 66.9 67.6 59.4 60.0

32 Roche, John. The History of the University of Oxford: The Twentieth Century. No ed. Vol. VIIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. pg. 29.

33 University Grants Committee. Funding for University of Oxford 1934-1935. University Grants Committee Papers 1919-1949. Pgs. 51-52

34 Roche. The History of the University of Oxford: The Twentieth Century. Clarendon Press, 2002. pg. 31.

35 Roche, John. The Non-Medical Sciences at Oxford 1939-1970. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. pg. 16.36 University Grants Committee. National Funding Priorities. University Grants Committee Papers. 1944.

A NEW TRADITION 10

1928/9 1938/9 1948/9 1958/9 1963/4 1964/5Natural Science 11.8 23.5 28.5 25.1 33.5 31.9Applied Science — 1.3 0.5 1.0 2.1 3.0Agriculture 1.4 1.7 3.1 3.1 1.5 1.8Medicine 0.3 1.1 1.0 3.2 3.5 3.3Total number 357 536 1,071 1,263 1,845 2,153

Source: Franks Report. 1965. ii, 13.37

Science and the State: Research, Funding and Continued Growth (1945-1979)

The end of the Second World War would see the State emerge as the dominant player in Oxford’s reorientation towards the sciences as successive British governments increasingly tied the success of British science to larger societal concerns such as economic growth and national security. And naturally as symbols of the nation’s educational system, Oxford and Cambridge were expected to lead the way in scientific research. Oxford's overall growth in the natural sciences during this era is reflected in the ambitious building programs of the period. Between 1939 and 1970, various governments, both labor and conservative embarked on the largest expansion of science facilities at the University. In 1939 Oxford would be home to approximately 300,000 square feet of science space. By 1970 that figure would more than triple to 900,000.38 The substantial building projects undertaken during this time included laboratories for forestry (completed in 1950), botany (1951), physiology (1953), metallurgy (1959), engineering (1963), biochemistry (1964), mathematics (1966), nuclear physics (1970), and the zoology and psychology building complete in 1971. (fig. 2)39 From 1950 to 1970, the University had received more than £30,000,000 to finance construction of the science park.

In all science departments laboratory equipment grew in quantity, sophistication and expense, both for undergraduates and postgraduates. Research funding came mainly from government research bodies such as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and the Science Research Council (SRC), some of which set up their own research units or institutes on campus. Between 1939 and 1968 the science departments’ annual research publications grew from about 500 to about 1,800 and Oxford boasted six Nobel prizes won in the sciences during this period.40 Furthermore, faculty numbers in the sciences had grown dramatically since 1939, constituting nearly half the university’s faculty by 1974 (fig 3). By 1970, the University had Oxford had achieved the status as one of the premier public research universities in the world.

37 Franks, Sir Oliver. Report of the Commission of Educational Inquiry, March 6, 1965. Hebdomadal Council Papers, vol. 247, March 11: pgs.521-530.

38 Roche, John. The Non-Medical Sciences at Oxford 1939-1970. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. pg. 16.39 Roche, John. The History of the University of Oxford: The Twentieth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

2000. pg. 364.40 Franks, Sir Oliver. Report of the Commission of Educational Inquiry, March 6, 1965. Hebdomadal

Council Papers, vol. 247, March 11: pgs.521-530.

A NEW TRADITION 11

Figure 2: Expansion of the Science Park at Oxford 1914-197041

Figure 3. University of Oxford Faculty by Broad Academic Field, 1860-2013 (percent)1860 1890 1914 1923 1953 1963 1974 1990 2001 2013

Arts/Social Studies 91 81 77 73 70 65 67 42 38 36STEM 9 19 23 27 28 35 48 58 62 64

Sources: Oxford University Gazette Calendar (various years), Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1715-1914, University of Oxford Personnel Services Staffing Figures 1990-2013.

Notes: 1. Percentages are rounded. 2. Data from 1860-1914 collected from Alumni Oxonienses, a record book of students and faculty. 3. Data from 1923-1953 collected from Oxford University Gazette Calendar (various years). 4. Data from 1990 to 2013 compiled from University of Oxford Personnel Services.

Science Funding and the University of Oxford (Post 1970)

The spread of science- notably clinical, lab-based, and “high-cost sciences”- at the University of Oxford fundamentally changed the student experience, diversifying not only what was available for students to study but also their potential career paths, creating distinct changes in the distribution of students per subject area. The change occurred rapidly, with undergraduates enrolling in the sciences at an exponentially increasing rate over the next century42.

However, trends in student majors at this particular University seem like paltry nuances when viewed in contradistinction to the grander ambitions of higher level scientific education advocates, whose policies exponentially increased the popularity within and funding available for fields such as the applied sciences, theoretical sciences, and medicine. In fact, while student

41 Roche. The Non-Medical Sciences at Oxford 1939-1970. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. pg. 16.

42 Darwin, J.G. A World University. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 1-26.

A NEW TRADITION 12

predilections (as evidenced through data trends on student majors by the turn of the 20th century) indicate a centrifugal shift away from the humanities at Oxford University, holistic approaches reveal that the move is motivated by an impetus to expand the STEM fields on an institutional level, through science-conducive research funding policies, government penchants towards STEM fields, and immense subsidies from private funding organizations.

The Impact of Government Funding Post-1980

The evolution of science at Oxford University can be explained partially through the distribution of its funding. Oxford University’s funding sources actually reveal a heavy reliance on governmental funding, with approximately 18 percent of its revenue43 distributed as a block grant under the auspices of Britain’s Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the working arm of the British government’s policy machine. Although in steep decline from previous years (with funding comprising about 20 percent of the University’s income in the previous year 2011- a ten million pound decrease44), this funding amount remains sizable enough to constitute heavy dependency45. Excluding the remaining income sources (which as of 2013, was 18 percent tuition fees, 3 percent investment income, 5 percent donations, and 5 percent from the press)46 governmental and external sources47 of funding have been integral to the university and the progression of science in the debate between science and the humanities, fostering both fierce competition for funding and tension between research that is “practical” and studies with no relation to the state of the economy. Such tensions can be subtle, but are frequently brought to the fore when Oxford University receives far more funding for the sciences than the humanities, from both the government and external sources of funding.

Before arriving at the obvious conclusion that science at Oxford receives funding exponentially greater than the humanities, intrinsic (that is, self-contained within each particular field) factors must be considered. In fact, the emergence of increased funding for the sciences in the field of research did not occur on a whim, but is actually grounded in the reality that the cost of funding education within the STEM fields costs more, as evidenced by “cost weights” (fig 4)48

Figure 4. Cost Weights for Teaching

Price Group Description Cost WeightA The clinical stages of

medicine and dentistry 4

43 HEFCE. "Higher Education Funding Council for England Spending Guide, 2011-12." Higher Education Funding Council for England. November 3, 2008. Accessed August 8, 2014.

44 Oxford University Press. "University of Oxford: Financial Statements 2012-2013." Financial Statements. January 1, 2013. Accessed August 11, 2014.

45 To clarify, although government funding may have decreased as a percentage of the overall income, it remains important to note that the quantity of funding (in pounds) received has decreased very little relative to the remaining sources of income, with private research councils contributing greater amounts each year.

46 Oxford University Press. "University of Oxford: Financial Statements 2012-2013." Financial Statements. January 1, 2013. Accessed August 11, 2014.

47 Independent research from private councils and organizations, as well as contracts contained therein are considered to be “external sources”, and comprise forty percent of the University’s income, which is the largest by far.

48 Table taken from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) Guidelines, 2007-08. The figures have changed very little since the original assessment.

A NEW TRADITION 13

courses and veterinary science

B Lab-based subjects (science, pre-clinical stages of medicine and dentistry, engineering and technology)

1.7

C Subjects with a studio, lab, or fieldwork element

1.3

D All other subjects 1

To this end, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) expressed concerns over the costs of clinical and lab-based sciences relative to “all other subjects”, and made a point of illustrating this sentiment in their 2008-2009 funding report, opining that “different subjects require different levels of resource: some subjects need laboratories and workshops while others are taught wholly in lecture theatres and seminar rooms. We have defined four broad groups of subjects (price groups) for funding, and have set relative cost weights for each based on expenditure and student FTE (full-time equivalents) data by cost center”.49 Such sentiments are codified in HEFCE’s actual allocation practice, where cost weights are applied to each price group and funding multipliers are granted to fields of clinical medicine and lab-heavy sciences. Particularly alarming about clinical and lab sciences is that the costs of funding range from seventy to four-hundred percent more than counterparts within the humanities.

As previously affirmed, scientific funding at the University of Oxford historically has cost more, and HEFCE’s concerns are not without merit. K.J. Laidler, a pioneer in chemical kinetics in the mid-20th century at Oxford, affirms in “Chemical Kinetics” that “the original chemistry laboratory, which is still recognizable today, accommodated 16-20 students who were expected to provide themselves with expensive chemicals and perishables such as test tubes. All who worked in the laboratory were unanimously agreed as to its inconvenience”.50 When the original chemistry lab was used in 1860 it was more expensive to study science, and the data becomes especially compelling when contrasting the growth in fields of scientific study with the humanities. In fact even in 1950 chemistry had only 396 undergraduates enrolled compared to the monolithic history department, which boasted 1036 undergraduates51. Still, the amount of students enrolled – while important – tells only part of the story, since HEFCE’s cost multipliers have demonstrated that funding a history department and a chemistry department are completely different. In fact, while archives and libraries are suitable for research in the history department, chemistry requires labs, safety equipment, research facilities, and instruments that mandate extra funding in order to maintain cross-departmental funding equity. Finally, the number of staff required for each department is significantly different as well, with the current percentage of STEM faculty at a monolithic 74 percent, significantly more than the nine percent of the

49 HEFCE. "Higher Education Funding Council for England Spending Guide, 2008-09." Higher Education Funding Council for England. November 3, 2008. Accessed August 9, 2014.

50 Laidler, Keith. "Chemical Kinetics and the Oxford College Laboratories." Archive for History of Exact Sciences 38, no. 3 (1988): 218. January 1, 1988. Accessed August 16, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133835 .

51 This was actually one of the highest numbers ever recorded, with the current statistic being 705 students enrolled. History has declined since its apex in 1951. Moreover, this statement is intended to suggest that cost did inhibit the spread of majors like chemistry, because students preferred departments like History. It has actually experienced a slower growth rate, with departments like chemistry expanding much faster.

A NEW TRADITION 14

University these professors comprised one-hundred fifty three years ago52. Not all of these faculty are teaching staff, however, as evidenced by the table on the University of Oxford Head Count By Staff Group from 1960-2013.53

Figure 4. University of Oxford Headcount by Staff Group, 1960-201354

Staff Group 1960 1970 198055 2013

Academic 1053 1915 1645 1722

Research 1128 1257 1951 4087

Teaching/Research Support 351 450 471 515

Administrative 2785 3167 3854 5480

Total 5317 6789 7921 11804

Percent Engaged in Research 21 19 25 35

Nonetheless, while the history department had a higher number of students enrolled in 1950, equally important to note is the trend in the data over time, where departments such as history suffered decreasing student numbers while science departments enjoyed rapid increases. In the following graph, the growth of several subject areas in the sciences (the ones that grew the fastest) are plotted in contrast to their counterparts within the humanities56. Intriguingly enough, the growth of certain science majors were often complemented by a decline in humanities majors (like history) within the very same year. The trend, although not wholly conclusive evidence, does indicate that with the growth of science came the stagnation of growth in some humanities fields as greater percentages of the study body as a whole shifted towards STEM fields.

Figure 5: Undergraduate Areas of Study 1950-2005

52 It is important to say that on a note of forbearance, many of the faculty are not actually teaching the sciences, but instead work as lecturers and part-time instructors doubling as research fellows.

53 University of Oxford Personnel Services Staffing Figures 2000-2013, University of Oxford Administrative Archives 1960-1980.

54 The table here illustrates the rapid expansion of science related research among the faculty, where research expanded quickly and faculty were not hired exclusively to teach.

55 Unable to find data from 1980-201356 Data in graph acquired from the "Student Numbers Supplement." Oxford University Gazette 136, no.

4783 (2006): 231-42. Accessed August 7, 2014. 

A NEW TRADITION 15

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Undergraduate Areas of Study at Oxford University 1950-2005

Chemistry Biochemistry Mathematics Engineering Science Physics History English Modern Languages

Year

Num

ber o

f std

ents

enr

olle

d

The HEFCE funds not only teaching at Oxford, but also some of its research. However, the HEFCE also realizes that similar to teaching, research in the sciences also costs more to fund, for reasons almost identical to teaching. The HEFCE understands the necessity for labs and various types of equipment, and they include this in their research allocation guidelines which like the funding guidelines, also take note of the added cost through cost multipliers. The table below illustrates the HEFCE’s research funding allocation thought process, with cost weights based on relative costs for research in that field57.

Figure 6. HEFCE Funding Allocation58

Subject WeightingHigh-cost lab and clinical subject 1.6Intermediate cost subjects 1.3Others 1.0

The Research Assessment Exercises, Devolution of Government Authority, and Political Demands

57 The weights are very straightforward. A weight multiplier of 1.6 means that it costs .6 more, or 60% more to do research in that field compared to the “other fields” (anything that doesn’t include clinical medicine), which have lower scale factors. All compared with a scale factor of 1 to illustrate the differences.

58 HEFCE. "Higher Education Funding Council for England Spending Guide, 2008-09." Higher Education Funding Council for England. November 3, 2008. Accessed August 9, 2014.

A NEW TRADITION 16

The HEFCE may consider the cost weights above when funding institutions, but the research funding process itself is far more complex. Research throughout the United Kingdom is actually funded through a process known as the Research Assessment Exercises (the RAE) which the HEFCE uses as a judicious guide for funding allocation within departments. The Research Assessment Exercises, established under Margaret Thatcher in 1970 to ensure accountability among universities that she felt were “too complacent because they were over-protected from the market”59, function as a rubric, with the final score being a product of the volume (size of the research department and the publication output) and the quality of the research undertaken. Quality is measured on a scale of 1 to 5*, with 5* being the optimal score. Although the scale for quality looks very simple (1 to 5* is a very basic scale), the amount of funding distributed between each echelon is drastically different (see the table below60), with cost weights so high that anything less than 5* puts an institution at a serious disadvantage (even if their score was a respectable 4 or 5) to their superior counterparts.

Figure 7. Research Assessment Exercise Funding Weights for Each Rating Level61

2011 RAE rating Funding weights in QR (Quality Research) model

3a, 3b, 2, 1 04 15 3,1805* 4,036

Such cumbersome standards for quality put forth in the RAE have had a drastic impact on how Universities behave in the UK, since they foster fierce competition for increasingly scarce resources. Oxford University consistently scores either 5 or 5* in almost all of their fields, usually guaranteeing a higher cut of the funding. However, many other universities do not score as high as Oxford in this free-for-all, and consequently do not benefit from the “devolution” of government authority to its chief funding council, which hosts this kind of competition.

Although the HEFCE appears to fund various subject areas equitably, they also demonstrate preferences towards the sciences. In the 2008-09 HEFCE Spending Guide, they lamented about the low turn-out in “very high cost science subjects, which are strategically important to the economy and society but vulnerable because of relatively low student demand62”, and pledged an additional 75 million pounds to be allocated over the span of three years (from 2007-2010) for the teaching of those subjects. According to the HEFCE, the funding supports: chemistry; physics; chemical engineering; and mineral, metallurgy and materials engineering”, with the intent to “help maintain capacity in these subjects in universities and

59 Kealey, Terence. "How Margaret Thatcher Transformed Our Universities." The Telegraph. April 8, 2013. Accessed August 19, 2014.

60 HEFCE. "Higher Education Funding Council for England Spending Guide, 2008-09." Higher Education Funding Council for England. November 3, 2008. Accessed August 8, 2014.

61 HEFCE. "Higher Education Funding Council for England Spending Guide, 2008-09." Higher Education Funding Council for England. November 3, 2008. Accessed August 8, 2014.

62 HEFCE. "Higher Education Funding Council for England Spending Guide, 2008-09." Higher Education Funding Council for England. November 3, 2008. Accessed August 8, 2014.

A NEW TRADITION 17

colleges while demand from students grow”.63 While 75 million in three years seems small in comparison to the hefty 192 million given to the University of Oxford annually, the fact remains that, according to Tony Bruce, an education policy analyst from the United Kingdom Higher Level Education Institute, political pressure for change has increased in response to the additional constraints on public funding.64 With constraints on funding growing65, it is interesting to see the HEFCE prioritize in favor of science in response to political budgeting demands.

On a related tangent, this increase in political pressure actually runs contrary to the devolution of control in higher level education. This devolution occurs when the UK government delegates its authority to the HEFCE, who in turn allows the Universities to compete for their own funding. This policy effectively puts the future of the funding in the hands of each University, which will compete fiercely for any research funding they can receive. However, a political impetus does remain, which Bruce asserts in his assessment that “reform is being driven by demographic and financial pressures and the need to drive economic growth. There is a belief that higher education performance needs to be enhanced in order to maximize its impact and secure greater value for money in a period of economic stringency”.66 This is evident in the years following the second World War, where Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s Labour government greatly increased the funding channeled into the natural sciences67, with the funding rising from 183,000 pounds in 1956 to 1.2 million pounds in 1966, to be spent on the Keble Road Science Triangle and nuclear physics building instead of the Historic Buildings Fund Appeal.68 While it is true that periods of economic hardship have yielded quick turns towards science funding (e.g. post World-War II reconstruction), scientific fields have still expanded in the absence of such hardship, thus convoluting the cause of expansion.

That said, decisions made based on economic expediency are hardly novel, and neither is the UK’s desire to exercise a stronger hold over the largely devolved higher level education system of control. In fact, vestiges of the desire to become more modern and connected to the market can be seen in the industrialist Lord Nuffield’s desire to make Oxford the center of Western medicine, with his statement that Oxford should “pay attention to modern studies” in 1937.69 Margaret Thatcher subscribed to a similar approach in the 1980’s, namely in her convictions that British Universities like Oxford are far too secure from the demands from the market. Thatcher’s convictions, in conjunction with her power as the Secretary of Education and later the Prime Minister, eventually led to the implementation of the Research Exercise Assessments as an accountability measure between universities, the government, and in her view, the market. Implicit within these particular approaches (although slightly more explicit in Nuffield’s desire for a shift towards medicine), however, is the shift towards the sciences, which has fields of research that are more naturally inclined to benefit the market.

63 HEFCE. "Higher Education Funding Council for England Spending Guide, 2008-09." Higher Education Funding Council for England. November 3, 2008. Accessed August 8, 2014.

64 Bruce, Tony. Universities and Constitutional Change in the UK: The Impact of Devolution on the Higher Education Sector. Kent: Higher Education Policy Institute, 2011. 1-12.

65 Trends have indicated that research funding will decrease slightly each year, as the UK tries to balance its budget.

66 Bruce, Tony. Universities and Constitutional Change in the UK: The Impact of Devolution on the Higher Education Sector. Kent: Higher Education Policy Institute, 2011. 1-12.

67 Since this occurred long before Thatcher, Wilson was not bound by HEFCE’s guidelines or the RAE. 68 Soares, Joseph. "Oxford Moves into the Natural Sciences." In The Decline of Privledge. Stanford:

Stanford University Press, 1999.69 Dunbabin, JRP. Finance Since 1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 1-46.

A NEW TRADITION 18

Outgrowing the University: The Growth of Science Departments at Oxford

The growth of Oxford over the past fifty years also yields interesting findings, in that it has grown at a rate lower than that of many of its science departments. From 1951 to 2005, sciences like biochemistry, chemistry, engineering, physics, and mathematics grew between eight to forty percent faster than the University as a whole,70 revealing that the math and science departments garnered new students at a rate faster than the university was growing71. Such rapid expansion of the sciences and university funding is palpable in the post-world war II era, where Britain was hard-pressed to reconstruct its economy and nation. Moreover, between 1950 to 1960 (and even towards the turn of the century), Oxford’s total enrollment expanded at one of the highest rates in its history, gradually slowing down to the University’s current size of about 11,000 students (see table below)72. Oxford also built multiple facilities73 to buttress the expansion of science74, such buildings for psychology, biochemistry, zoology, metallurgy, engineering, mathematics, and theoretical physics75. Consequently, the rise of the university was quickly outstripped by the rise of science in this era, revealing a puzzling trend with myriad unanswered questions.

70 The methodology for this calculation involved totaling the number of undergraduate students enrolled in a particular subject area (e.g.. biochemistry), and then comparing the growth factor of that subject area over the time span of 1951-2005 with the growth of the student population of the university as a whole. Oxford University’s student growth has a growth factor of 1, since it is being held constant relative to the growth factor of each department. Mathematics has a growth factor of 1.39, meaning that its department size grew at a rate almost forty percent greater than the university’s undergraduate population.

71 See the graph below72 Statistics from the "Student Numbers Supplement." Oxford University Gazette 136, no. 4783 (2006): 231-

42. Accessed August 7, 2014. 73 Science in the college laboratories and in the botany school tripled its floor space from about 300,000

square feet in 1939 to 900,000 in 1970, despite being prevented from encroaching on the University Parks. 74 Roche, John. The Non-Medical Sciences at Oxford 1939-1970. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. pg. 16.75 See the map for detailed information on these buildings and when they were built.

A NEW TRADITION 19

Figure 8. Growth of Subject Areas Relative to the Growth of the University 1951-2005 (Growth Factor)

1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2002 2003 2004 20050

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Growth of Subject Areas Relative to Growth of the University

Overall University Biochemistry MathematicsEngineering Science Chemistry Physics

Year

Rate

of G

row

th

1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Number of Students 5971 7256 8301 9389 10090 11006 11096 11119 11225 11185Chemistry 396 620 713 707 661 672 658 640 651 653Biochemistry 20 68 199 236 289 343 336 354 336 345Math 202 303 490 563 577 633 621 588 581 607Engineering Science 62 172 233 347 338 419 428 449 488 475Physics 197 427 489 532 502 611 617 622 623 618

Particularly puzzling about this trend (of the science departments’ growth rates relative to Oxford’s) is that science department growth was projected76 to decline after the university finance system failed after the 1950’s, causing funding for the sciences to be halved between the years of 1966 to 199077. It appears that medical sciences, engineering, mathematics, physics, and the chemistry (used as an umbrella term to describe the many fields that emerged from it) departments remained resilient, whereas humanities fields like history and modern languages fell into decline. However, Michael Brock also indicates in his report on Oxford University’s finances between 1970 and 1990 that the sciences were still highly subsidized during this dry spell, where the budget cuts were “offset quite substantially by new governmental initiatives in mathematics and science, and by support from the National Health Service in clinical medicine”78. In the second half of the century up to the present day, it was the latter that was more influential.

76 Sir David Phillips made the projection, based on data he had at the time77 Brock, Michael. The University since 1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 1-32.78 Brock, Michael. The University since 1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 28

A NEW TRADITION 20

Private Funding at the University of Oxford

The emergence of private funding councils also plays an integral role in the expansion of science at Oxford, where funding from private research councils comprise forty percent of all revenue79. There are eight different research councils in the UK that fund universities, and they are the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Medical Research Council (MRC), Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).80 With the devolution of government authority in the UK, these councils can exercise a considerable amount of discretionary latitude in their decision to distribute funding. While the HEFCE must consider the cost of each individual subject area and apply cost multipliers before distributing funds, these councils are not bound by these restrictions and as such, often donate exorbitant sums of money. In the table below, Oxford University’s sources of research funding for 2012-2013 are shown.81 Intriguingly enough, while the HEFCE would recommend that medical research funding be allocated to about seventy percent more, this table indicates that the amount donated is exponentially greater.

Figure 8. Funding from Private Research Councils

Funding Source Amount Donated (millions of pounds)Medical Research Council 44,037 Science and Technologies Research Council 8,230Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

30,762

Arts and Humanities Research Council 2,799

The Impetus for Scientific Funding, and the Shift towards a Research Institution

One possible explanation for the increase in funding could be generally explained as the drive to turn Oxford University into what Oxford scholar J.G. Darwin considers “a world university”.82 Simply put, the rise in research funding is merely a means to integrate Oxford with the outside world and shed the self-preoccupied image that Oxford had harbored for centuries. Darwin claims that Oxford’s rise to becoming a world-class institution was actually dependent on the adoption of science, and he claims that “Oxford's claim to international standing in 1914 would not be sustained without major changes in the provision for natural sciences and the academic study of contemporary issues”83. Darwin also claims that “it is the rapid growth in the

79 This is the highest single contributor to Oxford’s income.80 Research Information Network. Making Sense of Research Funding in UK Higher Level Education.

Cardiff: Oxford University Press, 2010. 1-4.81 Table taken from Oxford Financial Statements, 2012-2013, Oxford University Press. "University of

Oxford: Financial Statements 2012-2013." Financial Statements. January 1, 2013. Accessed August 11, 2014.82 Darwin, J.G. A World University. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 883 Darwin, J.G. A World University. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 16

A NEW TRADITION 21

sciences in Oxford since 1945 which has made the greatest impact on the overall shape of the University and its academic relations with the rest of the world”84. Darwin understands that science relies heavily on international influence, thus comparing the progression of science as a means to an end, that being to expand the prominence of the University in the international community. Darwin concludes by saying that “research in the arts and social sciences means familiarity with and involvement in the academic activity of other cultures and societies; in the sciences, the capacity to engage in research which commands the attention of the most advanced centers elsewhere”85, thus reifying his previous conclusion that scientific research is a means to attract high-caliber students, prestige, and additional funding.

Conclusion Overall, several conclusions can be made about the nature of Oxford reorientation

towards STEM since 1850. First and foremost, it was not a smooth and willing transition, but often one marked by intense internal struggle not only for resources among university dons and departments, but intense ideological ones. One can arguably say that Oxford did not reach this state as a result of its own volition, but as the consequence of external pressures caused by changing attitudes and perceptions toward science and role in plays in the life of the nation. Our findings suggest that science funding research does not exist in a vacuum outside politics and culture, but is rather intertwined in it. At Oxford, the sciences never flourished as an academic discipline and curriculum until broader cultural shifts towards a public appreciation of STEM research and scientific culture emerged. Furthermore, it was only when STEM research and curriculum became seen as inherently tied to issues such as economic growth and national security, that Oxford science truly enjoyed a 'golden' era of funding, research, and widespread popularity among undergraduates. During periods where science was seen not merely as academic curiosity, but vital to societal interests, is when science arguably sees the most growth. Oxford at the present is currently undergoing one of the cyclical funding trends.

Furthermore, several conclusions can be made about the current state of science at Oxford. It is well funded, and trends suggest that funding for science is likely to continue to increase. The growth of research in the sciences – particularly the clinical sciences, engineering, physics, and mathematics – has grown in amounts exponentially greater than counterparts within the humanities, and is projected to continue at this rate. However, recent trends in the past ten years reveal that although the sciences are growing more popular, they do not seem to overtake humanities as the most popular subject area, with number of students enrolled in STEM majors reaching its apotheosis at about forty-six percent of the University. Although funding continues to increase, I think that the growth of the sciences will gradually curtail, since students will still choose to study law, languages, history, English, and classics regardless. Simply put, the popularity of science may continue to increase because of financial factors, yet never completely dominate because of student tastes (best encapsulated in the phrase “De gustibus, non est disputandem”). That said, both Oxford University and the UK government will continue to promote the expansion of the sciences because of the dual-win situation that it promotes: Oxford will continue to expand and acquire fame internationally (by keeping in touch with modern studies and pioneering the latest innovations to the world economy) and the UK will benefit from the tangible results of productive research in the medical sciences, engineering, and physics.

84 Darwin, J.G. A World University. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 985 Darwin, J.G. A World University. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 1

A NEW TRADITION 22

Works Cited"Student Numbers Supplement." Oxford University Gazette 136, no. 4783 (2006): 231-42.

Accessed August 7, 2014. 

A.J. Engel, From Clergyman to Don: the Rise of the Academic Profession in Nineteenth Century Oxford, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983. ref. 4, pg. 177.

Arnold, Thomas the younger, The Revival of the Faculties at Oxford. 1865. (n. 19), pgs. 7–8.

Arnold, Thomas. Thomas Arnold to W. A. Greenhill, 9 May 1841: Stanley, Arnold, ii. pg. 32.

Brock, Michael. The University since 1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 1-32.Brocks, Michael. The History of the University of Oxford: The Nineteenth Century, Part 1. No

ed. Vol. VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. pg. 167.

Bruce, Tony. Universities and Constitutional Change in the UK: The Impact of Devolution on the Higher Education Sector. Kent: Higher Education Policy Institute, 2011. 1-12.

Clarke, Richard. "Oxford, a Modern University Fit for Britain?" Financial News, February 4, 1934, Headline. (accessed August 8, 2014).

Clifton, Roger B. Letter to Hebdomadal Council, 1887. Report. University of Oxford Archives. (accessed August 18, 2014.

Darwin, J.G. A World University. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 1-26.Duff, Grant. Grant Duff in a statement to the University of Aberdeen Convocation, Sep 17, 1872.

University of Oxford History of Science Archives. (accessed August 14, 2014.

Dunbabin, JRP. Finance Since 1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 1-46.Franks, Sir Oliver. Report of the Commission of Educational Inquiry, March 6, 1965.

Hebdomadal Council Papers, vol. 247, March 11: pgs.521-530.

Franks, Sir Oliver. Report of the Commission of Educational Inquiry, March 6, 1965.

Hebdomadal Council Papers, vol. 247, March 11: pgs.521-530.

A NEW TRADITION 23

Gladstone, William. William Gladstone to the Lord President, July 10, 1872 and Ripon’s Reply, July 12, 1872. Letter. House of Lords Sessional Papers 1873. Selborne Commission. xviii. (accessed August 14, 2014).

HEFCE. "Higher Education Funding Council for England Spending Guide, 2008-09." Higher Education Funding Council for England. November 3, 2008. Accessed August 9, 2014.

House of Commons. Debate on the State of Oxford University Finances, May 7th, 1915. (HO 87/112 pgs. 865-73). (accessed August 16, 2014).

Howarth, John. Science in Education, Late Victorian Oxford and the Modern University. London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 2001. 15.

Kealey, Terence. "How Margaret Thatcher Transformed Our Universities." The Telegraph. April 8, 2013. Accessed August 19, 2014.

Laidler, Keith. "Chemical Kinetics and the Oxford College Laboratories." Archive for History of Exact Sciences 38, no. 3 (1988): 208. January 1, 1988. Accessed August 16, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133835.

Lankester, Ray. Universities in their Relation to Professional Education. The Saturday Review (Edinburgh, 1877), pg. 25.

Oxford and the War. Report. Asquith Commission. 1922. University of Oxford Archives. (accessed August 19, 2014.)

Oxford University Press. "University of Oxford: Financial Statements 2008-2009." Financial Statements. January 1, 2013. Accessed August 11, 2014.

Oxford University Press. "University of Oxford: Financial Statements 2012-2013." Financial Statements. January 1, 2013. Accessed August 11, 2014.

Pattison, Mark. Mark Pattison in a Statement to the Devonshire Commission, Nov, 1867. Transcript. House of Lords Sessional Papers 1873. Devonshire Commission, General House Session. (HO 49/50 pgs. 715-19). (accessed August 15, 2014)

Pattison. Mark Pattison in a Statement to the Devonshire Commission. (HO 49/50 715-19.)Research Information Network. Making Sense of Research Funding in UK Higher Level Education. Cardiff: Oxford University Press, 2010. 1-4.

Roche, John. The History of the University of Oxford: The Twentieth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. pg. 364.

Roche, John. The Non-Medical Sciences at Oxford 1939-1970. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. pg. 16.

A NEW TRADITION 24

Roche, John. The History of the University of Oxford: The Nineteenth Century, Part 2. No ed. Vol. VII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. pg. 987.

Roche, John. The History of the University of Oxford: The Twentieth Century. No ed. Vol. VIIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. pg. 29.

Rogers, Thorold. Education in Oxford. No ed. 1861. 197.

Royal Commission on the Scientific Instruction and Scientific Advancement. A Catalogue of the Oxford’s Defects. Report. pg. 114.

Soares, Joseph. "Oxford Moves into the Natural Sciences." In The Decline of Privledge. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Stanley, Edward. Edward Stanley to Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, May 30, 1851. Letter. House of Lords Sessional Papers 1873. Royal Commission, General House Session. (HO 38/50 pgs. 215-19). (accessed August 14, 2014).

Stanley, Edward. Report of Commissioners to the House of Lords, May 25 1852, House of Lords Sessional Papers 1873. The Royal Commission of 1850. Report 4; Evidence 245–9.

University Grants Committee. Funding for University of Oxford 1934-1935. University Grants

Committee Papers 1919-1949. Pgs. 51-52

University Grants Committee. National Funding Priorities. University Grants Committee Papers. 1944.

University of Oxford Personnel Services Staffing Figures 2000-2013, University of Oxford Administrative Archives 1960-1980.

University of Oxford, Alumni Oxonienses: The Members of the University of Oxford, 1715-1914. 1870-1904.

University of Oxford. University Calendar Data 1904-1905. University of Oxford Archives. (accessed August 19, 2014).

University of Oxford. University Calendar Data 1914-1915. University of Oxford Archives. (accessed August 19, 2014).

A NEW TRADITION 25

A NEW TRADITION 26