The University of Oxford’s Proctorial Team has criticised the physical decay of buildings, staff pay, and university policy on the use of artificial intelligence in their traditional end-of-term Oration shared in the Oxford University Gazette.
The Oration is given annually by Proctoral team, composed of the Junior Proctor, Senior Proctor and Assessor, as they end their year-long term. The address evaluates the issues affecting the University and the decisions made by its governing bodies. The Senior Proctor pointed to a pattern of “slow decay, masked by the wearisome efforts of those affected to find mitigations and accommodations.” He noted that “when we are finally forced to act, when the mask cannot be maintained, the remedies are costly, and the harms to the University serious, and unavoidable.”
The Oration painted a worrying picture of the University’s buildings, claiming that many have now reached a state of “planned obsolescence”. Discussing the Thom Building on Parks Road, where the Department of Engineering Science is located, the Senior Proctor said: “For many years, the decay within the building has been metaphorically masked, as damp academics did their best to keep things functioning.” Discussing the University’s “digital estate”, the Assessor critiqued Oxford’s “flagship” Digital Transformation Programme, which “has been unable to deliver new software tools as fast as new demand rises”.
They warned that without further “funding for investment”, the University’s estate could restrict Oxford’s ability to remain at the top of global University rankings. The concern reflected a similar issue identified by the 2023 Proctorial Team, who argued: “We as an institution failed to ‘see’ what was blatantly obvious – that these buildings are simply not fit for purpose.” Oxford Estates Services did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.
The Proctoral team also identified concerns about faculty wages and competition. The Associate Professor position was noted as “especially challenging” in terms of pay, workload, and career structure, making the role “a predicament and not a position”. The Senior Proctor warned: “As pay continues to slide, even if we remain competitive nationally, we will cease to be so internationally.”
The team raised further doubts about the University’s attempts to tackle the growing challenge of AI, criticising Oxford’s “startling” decision to roll out access to ChatGPT Edu to all students, the first university in the UK to do so: “We share the disquiet of many colleagues that the rapid distribution of such licences by the University sent a powerful signal to our students that AI usage was being promoted in problematic ways.”
The Junior Proctor also criticised the University’s lack of a streamlined administrative response to AI use: “There is too much emphasis on not stifling local initiatives; too little concern to concentrate appropriate coordinated oversight in a single responsible senior committee.” The Proctors claimed to have seen little evidence that the University has got to grips with the threat AI poses to the teaching, assessment, and admissions processes. They describe faculties “scrambling to develop protocols” on AI that “suit their own disciplines”, while simultaneously lacking the money needed to do so.
The Junior Proctor stated that his experience with the AI governance group (part of the University’s Digital Governance Unit) has “emphatically not reassured me that the University has appropriately got its metaphorical arms around the challenge”.
In response, a University spokesperson told Cherwell: “As is the case every year, the demitting Proctors’ Oration makes important contributions to many issues which are being actively considered and addressed across the University.”
