Finance: The Well-Endowed Corporation?

  • Ted TapperEmail author
  • David Palfreyman
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 34)


Collegiality costs money. Indirectly because dons spend time being involved in college governance and college administration and also because of the inevitable diseconomies of scale compared with a large centrally structured university. Or directly in terms of providing and maintaining buildings, library stock, sports facilities, common rooms, catering, tutorial teaching and even choirs (e.g. Magdalen, Christ Church and New College as choral colleges). This chapter is about the extent of that cost, about criticisms of that spending, about how colleges generate the income to cover their costs and about the sustainability of that expenditure, without which collegiality in its iconic and present Oxford form just cannot survive.


Public Funding Royal Commission Endowment Capital Resource Allocation Model Charity Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Acharya, S., & Dimson, E. (2007). Endowment asset management. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beadle, M. (1961). These ruins are inhabited. London: Robert Hale.Google Scholar
  3. Browne, Lord, (2010). The Independent Review of Higher Education Funding & Student Finance.
  4. Chester, J., & Bekhradnia, B. (2009). Oxford and Cambridge – How different are they? Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Day, C. J. (1997). The university and the city. In M. G. Brock & M. C. Curthoys (Eds.), The history of the University of Oxford, Volume VI: Nineteenth-century Oxford, Part 1 (pp. 441–476). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, A. W. F. (1999). Oxford Magazine, 164, 8.Google Scholar
  7. Farrington, D., & Palfreyman, D. (2006). The law of higher education. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Greenstein, D. (1994). The junior members, 1900–1990: A profile. In B. Harrison (Ed.), The history of the University of Oxford, Volume VIII: The twentieth century (pp. 45–77). Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hansard [Lords]. (1997, November 12). p. 583, Cols. 155–212.Google Scholar
  10. Harrison, B. (1994, December 23). The Kenneth Dover I. Knew. Times Higher Education Supplement, 16–17.Google Scholar
  11. Kenny, A., & Kenny, R. (2007). Can Oxford be improved? Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  12. Palfreyman, D. (1996). Oxford fellows as charity trustees. Charity Law and Practice Review, 3(3), 187–202.Google Scholar
  13. Palfreyman, D. (1997). The Oxford colleges and the college contributions scheme. Charity Law and Practice Review, 4(1), 51–67.Google Scholar
  14. Palfreyman, D. (1998). Oxford colleges: Permanent endowment, charity trusteeship and personal liability. Charity Law and Practice Review, 5(2), 85–134.Google Scholar
  15. Palfreyman, D. (1999a). Unlimited personal liability for members of councils and boards of governors. Education and the Law, 10(4), 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Palfreyman, D. (1999b). Is porterhouse really “a charity”? Charity Law and Practice Review, 6(2), 151–166.Google Scholar
  17. Palfreyman, D. (Ed.). (2008a). The Oxford tutorial: ‘Thanks, you taught me how to think’. Oxford: OxCheps/Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Palfreyman, D. (2010). London’s livery companies: History, law, customs. London, Olney and Buckinghamshire: Oracle Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Palfreyman, D., Thomas, H., & Warner, D. (1998). How to manage a merger … or avoid one. Leeds: Heist Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Picarda, H. (1997). Oxford’s college contributions scheme. Charity Law and Practice Review, 4(2), 111–18.Google Scholar
  21. Shattock, M. (1994). The UGC and the management of British Universities. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.Google Scholar
  22. Stevens, R. (1998, 24 March). Barbarians at the gate: A view from Oxford’s city wall. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.Google Scholar
  23. University of Oxford. (1966a). Commission of inquiry: Report, Franks Commission. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. University of Oxford. (1997a). Commission of inquiry: Report, North Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Warner, D. & Palfreyman, D. [Eds.], (2001). The state of higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.Google Scholar
  26. Waugh, E. (1945). Brideshead Revisited. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OtterbourneUK
  2. 2.Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, New CollegeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations