OXFORD UNIVERSITY

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 April 1938, Page 8

OXFORD UNIVERSITY

SIDELIGHTS ON FINANCE How rich —or poor—is Oxford? What is the capital value of the University? Where does it get its funds from? How does it administer them? These questions arise from the announcement that. Oxford University has settled for £70,000 an action in which damages of more than ten times that amount were claimed (states the “Daily Mail.”) It is a common fallacy that the University of Oxford is “rolling in money.” What are the facts? In the first place, a very clear distinction must be made between the University and the Colleges. “The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford” are a corporate body within which the various colleges—there are 31 colleges and halls —are so many individual corporations. Some of these colleges, are extremely wealthy —Magdalen, for instance, has an income from external sources —endowments and so on —approaching £lOO,OOO a year. It is a poor college the income of which falls below £lO,OOO.

The University also owns property within and without the city, and while that —such as the Bodleian Library, University Galleries, Sheldonian Theatre, Indian Institute, the Ashmolean — within the civic boundaries may be of great capital value, it can hardly be described as revenue producing. According to .the facts given to the Royal Commission on Oxford and Cambridge University, the University receives its income under nine heads. The figures, which are for the period at which the Commission was sitting some years ago, give some idea of the contents then of the University Chest, in charge of nine Curators, in addition to the Vice-Chancellor and Proctors.

The total income of the University for the year dealt with was £215,705, made up of the following items: Net external, £5647; trusts and endowments, £41,628; investments, £8438; fees and dues, £87,036; old Government grants, £12,134; Government emergency grant, £28,352; University Press, £2000; cash receipts from colleges, £27,626; other income, £2844.

It will be noted that the Government had to come to the aid of the University with about a seventh part of its income.

Compare these figures with the income of the University for the year ended February last. The total sum £456,402 6s 2d. Toward this the Parliamentary grant was no less than £125,861 3s lOd, or four times iihe amount given a few years ago. But when all was paid there was a general surplus on the year of only £9954 Ils.

It is only a few months ago that the country was stirred to admiration by the announcement that Lord Nuffield had given £1,300,000 to the University following previous gifts amounting to £2,000,00 in 1936. These munificent gifts would appear to establish the finance of the University on a very sound basis, but while naturally they added to its wealth, they did nothing to increase general income, as each gift was earmarked for a specific object.

As for the University’s annual expenditure, something like 50 per cent goes in stipends, salaries and wages, and getting on for a twenty-fifth part in rates and taxes and insurance; plant and equipment and its repair and maintenance always accounts for a very large proportion, while other recurring charges almost absorb the bal-