Where are we?

Goldsmiths is characterised by the quality, commitment and enthusiasm of its staff and students. By bringing together learning, teaching and research in a diverse range of disciplines we seek to develop new and surprising insights, new ways of practising and new ways of thinking about many dimensions of what it is to be human. We have no doubt at all that the high calibre of our current and former staff and students has established us as one of the UK’s best known, most creative and most highly respected institutions in many of our fields.

Our strength as an institution comes predominantly from the quality and creativity of our staff and students, but we also benefit from the broad range of disciplines we bring together in a relatively small, single-campus institution. This has allowed us to develop an interdisciplinary approach which is not possible in specialist institutions, and not practical in larger multi-site, multi-faculty universities. We integrate research, teaching and practice in ways which other institutions struggle to match.

Our performance

Our strategy needs to take full account of our strengths and weaknesses, as well as the environment within which we operate. When we agreed the new Strategy in December 2005, we identified a number of key issues. We have already made substantial progress in addressing many of these.

Strengths

Research is an area of strength. We currently have almost 570 research students on MPhil and PhD programmes, 7% of our overall student body. In the most recent Research Assessment Exercise (2001) we built on the significant progress we made in previous exercises: Media and Communications, and Sociology Departments achieved the prized 5* rating; Anthropology, Design, English, Music, and Visual Arts each received a rating of 5.

Our integration of FE and HE is an area of strength. Outside the specialist Art & Design sector (and our FE provision is not primarily focussed in this area), it is rare for UK HEIs, and especially research-led universities, to offer both HE and FE. Our FE provision opens up progression routes for local people which few other institutions can match.

We have a strong brand, which has just been refocused as part of the wider Strategic Review. The research confirmed that our reputation for innovation and new thinking is based on the real depth of interdisciplinary work which our departments and specialist centres are undertaking, and the astounding achievements of our students, both during their time at Goldsmiths and in their subsequent careers.

Size & growth

In December 2005, we identified a lack of growth in student numbers as an area of concern. For a number of years, Goldsmiths had failed to increase its student numbers and had accordingly fallen behind other institutions. We have now begun to put that right not just by recruiting strongly in 2005-06, but by maintaining that performance in 2006-07, when many institutions were struggling with the introduction of variable fees. We have comfortably exceeded our Key Performance Indicators for growth in both Home/EU and Overseas students. Sustaining this performance will continue to be a major plank of our Strategy.

Reliance on HEFCE

Amongst 1994 Group institutions, we are the most dependent on HEFCE funding. 52% of our income came direct from the Funding Council in 2004, when the average for the 1994 Group was 32%. HEFCE is a key partner for all HEIs, and it pays in advance in cash, but to be reliant on the Council for more than half our income makes it difficult for us to establish a degree of independence of their policy priorities and concerns. Moreover excessive dependence on a single funder can leave us vulnerable to changes in their policy or to unplanned events – such as a poor RAE result – which could lead to sharply reduced funding.  In 2005-06, however, funding council grants made up 53.5% of our income and this therefore remains an area of concern.

Of non-HEFCE funding sources, our most important is overseas students. We have invested heavily in the last year to ensure that we can secure our rising target numbers, but it is too early to see the benefits of this investment.

Research

In December 2005, we identified real concerns about our research grant and contract funding. Our overall level of funding was low in comparison with our peers working in similar subjects in other 1994 Group institutions. Since then, we have won unprecedented levels of research grant and contract income. In 2005-06 we received £7.905 million in new awards, compared with just £3.281 million in the previous year. Although £2 million of this resulted from just two very large grants of the kind we could not expect to receive every year, this growth in awards would have far surpassed our KPI target even without considering these.

We must continue to be concerned about the 2008 RAE, however, which will be held before the majority of these new research projects are completed. Our average (modal) rating was rated 4 in the 2001 RAE and, although the new grading system makes comparisons difficult, work of the quality that earned a 4 grade in 2001 is unlikely to receive funding after 2008. Were we not to improve our comparative performance, we would need either to sharply increase student numbers, or to cut back staff. In either case, staff time for research would come under severe pressure.

Estate

Our current estate is a mixture of old and new. January 2005 saw the unveiling of the Ben Pimlott Building . Designed by Alsop & Partners, this flagship seven-storey structure provides purpose-built teaching space within the New Cross campus, including art studios, lecture theatres, and innovative psychology and digital media labs. At the same time, some of our older buildings, such as the Whitehead Building and Richard Hoggart Building (formerly the Main Building ) are not in good condition and are no longer fully fit for purpose. There is a backlog of £5½ to £6 million of maintenance which needs to be undertaken merely to stop these buildings from deteriorating further. To bring them into line with our current requirements would be substantially more expensive. Maintenance becomes more costly the longer it is deferred, and we are storing up long-term trouble for ourselves by under-investing in our older buildings.

Ageing buildings do not only have a financial cost. As approaches to learning and teaching change, the spaces and equipment needed to support learning also need to change. Virtual Learning Environments are in truth anything but virtual. Students need spaces where they can access them conveniently, perhaps using their own IT equipment, at all hours of the day and night. Yet older learning resources are still required. Visual Arts students, for instance, are embracing the potential of new technology without abandoning traditional methods and processes. Research too requires the right space, equipment and other resources. We have been able to provide this in a small way in the Ben Pimlott Building, but substantial further investment will be needed before we can provide equivalent facilities for all our researchers.

Competition & the University of London

In December 2005, we identified that both existing and emerging institutions were potential sources of competition for us whilst, at that time, there was widespread concern about the future of the University of London. The University of London is now being reformed. Like the majority of members, we believe that the University offers real potential arising out of enhanced collaboration as well as significant benefits to our students. At present there seems little real threat that the University will be forced to dissolve, and we will support the University fully in preserving its federal role as well as the reforms needed to make it discharge that role in a fashion more suited to current circumstances.

We have set in train the process of securing our own degree awarding powers. In a setting where all the major colleges will shortly have their own degree awarding powers this will be essential for our standing. It will also enable us to engage in national and, especially, international collaboration.

Next: What do we need to do?