University Choir, Brass Choir and Madrigal Singers, April 17, 1962

Concert program for University Choir, Brass Choir and Madrigal Singers, April 17, 1962

The University Symphony Orchestra, January 26, 1982

Concert program for The University Symphony Orchestra, January 26, 1982

The University Band March 6, 1966

Concert program for The University Band March 6, 1966

The University Singers and The University Evening Chorus March 1, 1966

Concert program for The University Singers and the University Evening Chorus March 1, 1966

The University Wind Sinfonietta, February 18, 1966

Concert program for The University Wind Sinfonietta, February 18, 1966

The University Sinfonietta, February 15, 1966

Concert Program for The University Sinfonietta, February 15, 1966

The University Symphony Orchestra, January 28, 1966

Concert Program for The University Symphony Orchestra, January 28, 1966

The University Wind Sinfonietta, May 17, 1967

Concert program for The University Wind Sinfonietta, May 17, 1967

The University Symphony Orchestra, March 10, 1967

Concert program for The University Symphony Orchestra, March 10, 1967

Concerto Concert with Members of the University Symphony Orchestra, May 14, 1969

Concert program for Concerto Concert with members of the University Symphony Orchestra, May 14, 1969

The University Wind Sinfonietta and University Percussion Ensemble December 9, 1973

Concert program for University Wind Sinfonietta and University Percussion Ensemble, Dec. 9, 1973

University Chorale Talent Show February 10, 2007

Concert Program for University Chorale Talent Show February 10, 2007

Less Cambridge, more York: Leavis's later ideas about the university

Leavis’s name is synonymous with a resolutely negative verdict on mass higher education: he went on record as saying ‘There’s no redeeming the democratic mass university’ (The Living Principle, p. 7). What relevance then does Leavis have for the majority of us involved in a system of widening participation, whether as students, researchers, teachers, managers or other stakeholders? The key to answering these questions in a productive way lies in our understanding of Leavis’s time at York. It is the work of this period that opens a dialogue between Leavis and contemporary debate on higher education. Appreciating Leavis’s later and currently more neglected work undertaken at York gives pointers to ways in which he can begin to be a meaningful presence again in relation to our thinking about the ‘democratic mass university’.

Who controls whom? Interaction dynamics and success of university-industry initiatives

This chapter looks into the importance of having a clear identity of a boundary spanner in determining the role of the partners in a university-industry knowledge transfer programme. It highlights issues around the relationship between the business and the graduate as the boundary spanner, where the university's level of control differs between two programmes: Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP) and Knowledge Exchange and Enterprise Network (KEEN) programme. The four case studies illustrate interesting points since the university is the employer for the KTPs associate and the business is the employer for the KEEN associate, whilst successful KTP and KEEN projects rely on a full understanding of the role of the graduate within the business.