The careers of chancellors and vice-chancellors of British universities and of the principals of colleges at Oxbridge, London and Wales, are analysed by the use of data drawn mainly from Who's Who. Those who hold these posts play an important part in the relationship of universities with the government and other sections of society; moreover the administrative responsibilities of vice-chancellors have grown rapidly in recent years. Changes over the past thirty years in the composition of these groups are examined. The growth in the number of universities has led to wider recruitment of chancellors, notably, however, by the appointment of more members of the royal family. Among vice-chancellors and principals there has been a shift towards recruiting scientists; only Oxford colleges hold out against this change. There is still a very high level of internal recruitment of Oxford and Cambridge college principals, and Oxbridge still prepares, as undergraduates or teachers, a large proportion of those appointed at other universities. However the upgrading of Colleges of Advanced Technology has created a group of vice-chancellors with quite different career patterns. The activities of vice-chancellors outside their main careers, the honours and titles they hold, and their club memberships are analysed for the period since 1935. Changes in marital status and fertility are also examined.

No abstract

Measures are provided for Oxford of the residential segregation of various groups defined by birthplace. West Indians are shown to be the most segregated and the most dissimilar in area of residence to the Natives. Overall, however, it is suggested that the society has proved very open in the matter of residence and will tend even more in this direction if and when immigrants obtain access to council housing. `Foreign' groups as a whole seem advantageously placed in area of residence compared with the Natives, and Indians in particular are a privileged group in this matter. The data for Oxford is seen against other material for the English Conurbations.

No abstract

No abstract

Tribunals are at the centre of a growing controversy concerning citizen rights in welfare. In the first of two articles, attention is drawn to some of the salient features of this controversy and particularly to those aspects concerning national insurance local tribunals (NILTs). A special analysis of D.H.S.S. records is presented giving a picture of the distribution of the work of NILTs over different benefit categories, of success rates, of the extent of attendance by appellants and of representation. Generally the analysis suggests that NILTs are more various and less confined by law and regulation than is often assumed. Findings from surveys of chairmen, members and appellants are also presented. Men constitute the great majority of those concerned with NILTs and there are some striking contrasts between various groups in age and education. People who serve NILTs are shown to be active in a wide range of community activities and particularly in professional organizations, trade unions and local politics.

Tribunals, now recognized as key institutions of the Welfare State, are attracting a good deal of attention. Despite a growing volume of criticism little systematic research has been undertaken into the way they actually function. Since almost every British citizen has rights of appeal to national insurance local tribunals (NILTs) it would seem that they constitute a good starting point. An earlier article presented a general view of NILTs. This paper examines the way the appeal system works from several different perspectives. Difficulties encountered by ordinary citizens at various stages in the appeal process are discussed. The research findings on attendance, representation and success rates are analysed. Attendance by the appellant at the hearing of his appeal is shown to be of particular significance. It is also clear that expansion of facilities for providing advice and representation would be advantageous to appellants. Problems connected with expansion of these facilities are discussed, and an ‘ideal type’ representative is outlined. This leads to a discussion of different tribunal models and a ‘participation model’ is developed. Finally, some implications of the research findings for the development of social policy are considered.

No abstract