Have Gordon's millions worked?

Gordon Brown hoped that by giving millions of pounds of taxpayers' cash to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology he would teach British academics how to be entrepreneurs. Lucy Hodges looks at the expected and unexpected consequences of his investment

In an unlikely spot, tucked away down an alleyway past the Curry Mahal tandoori restaurant in the heart of Cambridge, lies the controversial institute that Gordon Brown created in 1999. This is the Cambridge Massachusetts Institute, an attempt to bring American business dynamism to British academe.

How is it doing? In 1999, the Chancellor of the Exchequer dreamt up the link between Cambridge and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the US's East coast powerhouse for IT and biotechnology, to improve UK competitiveness. That is why he threw an astonishing £68m at it, the equivalent of one university's annual turnover.

MIT is famous for its entrepreneurial spirit, boasting alumni who have, between them, set up more than 4,000 firms and created more than 1.1 million jobs worldwide. Gordon Brown wanted to transfer a bit of that spirit across the Atlantic. The size of the public investment and the way it was done (in secret, bypassing the normal funding channels) caused fury in the university world. But Brown was clearly convinced that a bold initiative was needed.

Cambridge rode the storm, and the Institute is now showing results, although the critics say they bear no relation to the scale of the investment. Three new Masters programmes have been established of a kind the Institute claims don't exist elsewhere in the UK. There is a student exchange programme that takes 50 British students a year to MIT in a swap for 50 Americans. And there is an integrated research programme into cutting-edge technologies, and economic and management issues – for example, how British business can improve productivity. So far, two of the research projects have yielded patent applications and more are anticipated.

But an unexpected result – one that Gordon Brown probably did not foresee – could be on the student education at Cambridge. The dons are considering broadening the content of a degree course to take it closer to the American model. Students would be given more freedom to mix and match: to continue studying for their main subject while also choosing contrasting subjects. Scientists and engineers might take courses in history or philosophy, just as their American counterparts do in Boston.

At MIT, students spend 25 per cent of their time on humanities, arts and social sciences, otherwise known as HASS. "When they arrived in Cambridge on their exchange year, they asked "Where is my HASS?" says Dr Rob Wallach of King's College, who is in charge of the exchange students' education and welfare.

Cambridge was forced to make such courses available to them, and to think about whether this might be good for their own students. "It's a feature we are interested in adopting," says Dr Wallach. "The idea of not being faculty-based but having a broader approach is one of the things coming out of this."

MIT academics have been impressed by the British students, particularly by how articulate they are, according to the Institute's British director, Alan Windle, professor of materials science. They, in turn, are reviewing how they teach.

But it hasn't all been plain sailing. MIT complained about the problems of doing business with a university that is so set in its ways – where change takes months, if not years. Last year, John Vander Sande, the American director who is quitting his job in January, was quoted as saying that administration was a dirty word at Cambridge. "The success of CMI depends on both universities dealing with the corporate world in an efficient fashion," he said. "Cambridge has less experience than MIT in this area, and we are helping them to climb a steep learning curve."

Professor Windle does not deny the cultural differences between the two institutions. Cambridge has learnt from MIT that it needs to have a "large enough" administration containing "enough people" to be effective, he says. That, in itself, is controversial to Cambridge academics who are suspicious of administrators.

The exchange programme has not gone entirely smoothly for the Americans crossing the Atlantic (see box, right), who have found Cambridge's size and its complexity difficult to fathom. The social life is more difficult to negotiate than at MIT because of the college/university split, which means their home is in a college but their work elsewhere. And some have found the bureaucracy difficult. But Dr Wallach's appointment this year is an attempt to ensure that their problems are ironed out.

Finally, the institute's top job has been subject to a high turnover. The first British director, David Livesey, lasted a year, while Professor Windle has done two years. The university is now looking for a successor. MIT can't have liked the fact that Professor Windle was part-time, juggling the job with his 14-strong research group and a teaching load. Americans don't believe in such amateurism; they employ highly paid administrators, and expect sleek and professional machines. "We need someone who, now that this is up and running, will work at the external interface with business and industry," says Professor Windle.

The institute has another two-and-a-half years before it has to become self-financing. Those in charge are confident that it can do so. The professional practice Masters courses – the MPhils in technology policy, bioscience enterprise, and engineering for sustainable development, as well as the MPhil in chemical engineering, starting next year – are expected to fund themselves eventually. Recruitment has been good: the initial target for 10 students on each has been exceeded. They have between 10 and 20 students, and the numbers will grow – as will the fees. Jochen Runde, a senior lecturer at Cambridge's business school, the Judge Institute, believes that fees could eventually rise to halfway between an MPhil (£9,741 for an overseas student and £2,870 for a home student) and an MBA (£21,000).

One of the problems is that so many of the Masters students – two-thirds – are from abroad. How will that improve the UK's competitiveness? However, Professor Windle emphasises that to have one-third British students on a Masters is good, and better than the average on other similar courses. Efforts are made to recruit British students through a bursary scheme.

The other strand of the Institute's work is its links with universities, businesses and other bodies, spreading the word about productivity, competitiveness and entrepreneurship through the National Competitiveness Network. Professor Windle hopes the Department for Trade and Industry will eventually pick up the tab for that, because it is so valuable a resource. And the student exchanges will continue to be funded by an anonymous donor. The biggest challenge, according to Professor Windle, will be to continue to finance the science and technology research at the current level.

Contrary to Professor Gill Evans, Cambridge's persistent critic, who thinks that the £68m has not been used in a way that reflects its enormous size, Professor Windle says: "I believe there is already an immense amount to show for it. There's a lot happening. We are engaging on many fronts all at once. The Institute is making a big contribution to enhancing knowledge transfer from the universities into business."

'I LIKED THE CAN-DO CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'

The Cambridge exchange students who visited MIT last year loved it. They enjoyed the experience of living in Boston and taking advantage of the amazing choice that you have at any American university.

Thus, Simon Adelman, 23, took philosophy along with all his modules in materials science, and Liz Gaunt, 22, chose some graduate courses in electronic engineering. "I feel I got a better understanding of my subject there because they have a practical approach," she says. Both Adelman and Edward Hill, 23, took part in research projects open to all undergraduates. In fact, Edward returned to MIT for three months in the summer vacation, to carry out research into putting little robots onto Mars. For Simon, the research had a couple of bonuses: he was well paid for his efforts and he was taught how to use a transmission electron microscope. All the British students believed that Cambridge would benefit from broadening the curriculum and they liked the modular systemof learning and assessment. But no one wanted to lose the individual tutorial system.

"I liked the can-do culture and all the opportunities," says Peter Eckley, 22, who is reading physics. Peter became involved in the MBA course, which led to an internship at a Boston start-up company where he rewrote the business plan, and won a competition for his efforts.

The MIT students at Cambridge sounded somewhat less enthusiastic about their exchange experience, although all professed to be enjoying themselves. "At MIT, your doors are open and everyone can come in and out," says Bo Zhao, 20. "I do like the set-up of the Cambridge colleges but I think it inhibits me from meeting people in other colleges." For Michelle Seitz, 20, the bad thing about the American system is that you can argue you don't know something because it was part of a course you didn't choose. "In Cambridge, you are responsible for knowing it all. I think I am seeing more about how all the different bits of my subject connect up now."

l.hodges@independent.co.uk