At the University of Cambridge, higher-paid groups see larger pay increases over time, leading to ever- widening inequality.
The plots show how pay departs from the University of Cambridge average across progressively smaller, higher-paid groups. The outer layer is the “Golden Fifty,” the fifty highest earners, introduced before. Within this sits the “Inner Five”, the five highest earners, narrowing to a single apex: the Vice-Chancellor. The plot is the difference between the average of the higher-paid groups and the average pay of all staff in each year.
The gap between the highest- and lowest-paid groups has steadily widened over time. Nominally (but not in real terms), pay has increased across all groups, but the largest gains have consistently gone to those already earning the most, meaning the distance between top and bottom pay levels has grown year on year.
Recent pay changes have not just maintained existing inequalities, but have actively increased them.
Substantial increases in senior management pay are justified on the grounds that these roles are occupied by exceptionally talented individuals, and that the University must offer market-rate remuneration to attract and retain such talent.
Given the financial position of the University, the performance of the endowment, the steady fall down international rankings, press reports of rampant bullying & harassment and the dysfunction of its HR department, it’s hard to believe that this is the case. (It’s fair to point out that many of these problems pre-date the appointment of the current Vice Chancellor).
(The 21 Group has upcoming stories on Keele and Bath Universities. We will be continuing our analysis of Cambridge University’s accounts, as the patterns are generic in UK Higher Education. Unsurprisingly, the financial management of Universities is beginning to attract attention of press and politicians).
45 Comments
Dr. Forensic · 9 February 2026 at 10:51
Thanks for this analysis. Brutal indeed. But there’s something I am struggling to figure out.
The figure for the “highest paid” base salary for a member of staff at Cambridge matches your numbers (~£565,000), as per the latest financial statements showing the top-end salary scale (https://www.cam.ac.uk/about-the-university/annual-reports/financial-statements-for-the-year-ending-31-july-2025)
But the VC base salary is being reported there as £414,000. This leaves only two possibilities:
1. The accounts are fraudulent with VC salary misreported; or
2. Other members of the senior administration have been taking in vastly larger sums – someone above the VC taking ~£565,000 and another person who is taking ~£460,000 – and paying themselves significant additional sums of money without apparent oversight. If so, who? (Head of Legal? Registrary? HR?)
Either way it seems there is gross misconduct going on. I’d like to know more.
21percent.org · 9 February 2026 at 11:18
This is true. There is a discrepancy between the highest basic salary on the reported pay scale of the annual report, and the reported VC salary in the same document.
The kindest interpretation is human error, though as you say other interpretations are possible.
Quite often, there are inconsistencies in the annual accounts.
It seems curious that this treasure trove of data has not been mined by the University’s data scientists/economists because it shows a compelling picture of (to put it kindly) poor management.
Our understanding is that the Finance Division reports to the Registrary, which is where the buck stops.
Johann · 9 February 2026 at 11:38
Factor in bonus and benefits and that means there is someone now taking $1 million a year from the university. Someone who 5 years ago, was only taking maybe half that amount. But who? Unless it is the VC, the only options that come to mind would be legal services, or possibly at CUEF if they are included. But the base figures exclude bonuses, so even CUEF makes little sense. If it turned out to be someone doing an administrative role that would be evident corruption – as there’s no market case for a salary that high nor their vast and disproportionate recent pay hike.
Eye · 9 February 2026 at 11:54
It’s not CUEF. They are managed by Cambridge Investment Management who according to the 2024-25 report had no-one on basic salary above 150k (maybe higher with bonuses but those are not in accounts). Also CIM is reported separately anyway as per the footnote in accounts. So too is Cambridge University Press and the Property Group so it is not them either. It has to be someone inside the core university.
- · 9 February 2026 at 12:42
It’s not most pro VCs either, as many are stuck on professor scales – albeit at top end (150-200k). There’s somewhere else that is not being subject to any kind of oversight – maybe legal or HR? Head of comms, UIS, CUDAR and CFO all have had to report at various points in time and are high but weren’t that high in earlier years.
SPARTACUS · 9 February 2026 at 13:12
I repeat myself: the place is completely rotten and in terminal decay! Unfortunately Chancellor (Lord Smith) has decided to do… NOTHING! American Queen and her cronies will continue to degrade the place!
Ataxerxes · 9 February 2026 at 14:01
The problems predate the current VC. She is more a good bunny in a den of foxes
Perhaps it’s optimistic, but the defenestration of Rampton could be the start of a turnaround.
Eileen Nugent · 9 February 2026 at 14:38
Sometimes a person cannot hold their nerve while all about are losing theirs but sometimes a person can more easily hold their nerve when there is a difficult job at hand – for what good has ever come from a person losing their nerve, what purpose was ever served by a person losing their nerve, what task was ever completed by a person losing their never, what problem was ever fixed by a person losing their nerve, what life was ever improved by a person losing their nerve.
Eileen Nugent · 9 February 2026 at 14:53
When a person is holding their nerve at higher pressures than the pressures all about are losing theirs at then it becomes obvious to all which person is best suited to taking on the most difficult jobs.
Eileen Nugent · 9 February 2026 at 15:36
People can pile pressure on a person until that person is under more pressure than any of those piling pressure on the person could ever withstand themselves. That situation is asymmetric, the people piling the pressure on the person don’t feel the impact of what they are doing, they have no direct measure of the pressures the person is being put under. As soon as a person under the exceptionally high pressure generated redirects a fraction of that pressure on to one of the people piling on that pressure then suddenly that person is – not longer interested in their role – mess – and has developed a passion for another role in the same organisation – sensed an opportunity to avoid cleaning up any mess.
CLAUDIUS · 9 February 2026 at 14:42
Haha well a good bunny is the last thing we need. I hope she finds her teeth… Ideally we would have democratic control of budgets and auditing…. because otherwise a system like this can only operate when there is a kind of “Stalin” at the helm i.e. someone who is prepared to spend long nights checking all the books, flagging the errors, then making surprise phone calls at 2am to keep her central committee forever on its toes.
Of course they know this which is why they try to oust any VC who’s aware of what is really going on. (And I suppose Emma did too at the end but that didn’t turn out so well this time around)
TheResearcher · 9 February 2026 at 15:15
@Ataxerxes, the Vice-Chancellor is not a good bunny, and, in my view, it may dangerous to think she is. Ask the 21 Group what is the success rate of submitting a formal representation to her via Statute AIX. Any guess? ZERO-PERCENT! You get almost £600.000 a year, and you do not understand that something must be fundamentally wrong with this stats even if others—let’s say, for example, the Director of Legal Services—write the report on your behalf? Everyone who complaints to her is wrong? Most often she does not even respond!
They—read, senior leadership—all know the degrading state of the University, and blaming the ex-Registrary will be an easy route for them when the scandals get out. But they were all there in the meetings approving decisions, or ignoring when members reported gross misconduct to them.
Thomas Davis · 9 February 2026 at 16:31
Doesn’t Statute A, Chapter IX allow the petitioner to contact the Commissary if the Vice-Chancellor refuses (or fails) to act?
Was that pursued? Did he back up the Vice-Chancellor?
re: · 9 February 2026 at 16:53
To be clear on 3) the main issue there in my view is acting out of scope – it is not within any role definition for solicitor to advise a specific decision on handling of complaints or staff health, only to provide legal advice as regards implications of any decision subsequently made, otherwise the solicitor themself is party to the act
21percent.org · 9 February 2026 at 17:07
This is the crux :”it is not within any role definition for solicitor to advise a specific decision on handling of complaints or staff health, only to provide legal advice as regards implications of any decision subsequently made, otherwise the solicitor themself is party to the act”
This is going wrong repeatedly in Cambridge University
re: · 9 February 2026 at 16:50
Think the key issue here should be framed around negligence.
1. If VC ignored formal representations then VC is directly responsible for negligence
2. If (as more likely) VC sent to Head of HR and HR did nothing then latter is gross negligence, former transitively minor but major once became aware this was so (as must have become the case)
3. If legal intervened and advised against taking action then that is direct negligence – and could suggest bad intent so more serious an issue in that case, especially if legal actions underway or intimated as now that’s an SRA issue too
Ni · 9 February 2026 at 18:22
Hopefully this kind of bunny 🙂
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tgj3nZWtOfA&pp=ygUSTW9udHkgcHl0aG9uIGJ1bm55
dreamer · 9 February 2026 at 18:52
Is that the next Council meeting starting at point 2:05
Reader · 9 February 2026 at 20:49
Dunno but might have been Rampton there at 1.40
MUSKETEER · 9 February 2026 at 16:28
To be a bunny for £500,000/year is quite a deal! The Profs Smallman, Crookery, Teflon, Drinkalot and ViciousWoman of this rotten University love the American Queen! They can continue to spread terror under her rein! Lord Smith enjoys watching his Rome burn!
TheResearcher · 9 February 2026 at 19:40
@re, let me tell you a small tale.
Once upon a time, a researcher contacted the VC of a prestigious University to complain, among other things, that a 19-year-old had suffered a range of abuses by a HoD of the institution the VC was responsible for, explaining that he had complained about this issue before, and had always been ignored. The VC ignored the researcher as well. Not only did the VC ignore the researcher, but the University retaliated against the researcher and put in place a range of measures against the researcher. For months the researcher was told that he could not contact the VC—in addition to hundreds of other staff of the University—by multiple senior members of the University. In his college, where the VC was a Fellow, the Master, the Senior Tutor and three senior Fellows, all concluded that the VC did not have to respond to the researcher. The researcher complained about this in his college as the University did not even respond to him, and the conclusion was that it was “vexatious.” In particular, the Master of the college called the researcher to his house, and in the presence of the Chaplain of the college, told the researcher that he would not do any investigation and that the word of the Senior Tutor was more important for him than the word of the researcher and the evidence the researcher had sent the Master. However, the researcher did not let it go. A few weeks after, the researcher presented part of the case in the Senate House of the University, a member of the University Council listened to the story and was very concerned. This member asked the Pro-VCs—who also had previously ignored the researcher and his student—what was happening and why the VC had not responded to the formal representation of the researcher. A few days after this enquire, the researcher received a response from the VC, where the metadata of the file shows that it was drafted by the Director of Legal Services. All complaints of the researcher were dismissed—literally ALL—including the fact that the University had dismissed a whistleblowing disclosure and safeguarding referral without conducting any investigation and thus not following its own Whistleblowing Policy. Once the researcher received the response from the VC, he contacted all those who had told him that he could not contact the VC or told him that the VC did not have to reply to him and asked why he had been given false information for months. Do you know what happened next? Not only these individuals never replied to the researcher, but the University threatened the researcher that he could be “suspended” for contacting all these people and dared to inform him that who would decide on the suspension would be a conflicted person. Unfortunately, this is not a tale. This happened to me in the University of Cambridge. And I am 100% sure that the VC is fully aware of this particular case because she is a Fellow of my College and I was sent written documentation from college stating that she is aware of it. Indeed, she even refuted that she had to respond to my representations, showing that she does not even know her duties as Vice-Chancellor of UCam!
But let me tell you two things that happened to me today. First, the nurse of my college told me that I could no longer book appointments with her. I had asked her a summary of our meetings last term so that I would give it to my GP and while she agreed in person, then changed her mind and refused. Today we should meet again, she cancelled the meeting 1h before the meeting and told me that I could not book appointments with her anymore. If you are shocked by this behaviour, you should know that the Head of Mental Health Advice Service and the Head of Counselling and Wellbeing do not even answer me, but in parallel Prof. Kamal Munir tells the Mr Daniel Zeichner MP that my health is the priority of “all of us.” In addition to this new event with the nurse of my college, I had made an SAR in the University a few weeks ago where among other things, I asked the correspondence between the Pro-Vice Chancellor Prof. Kamal Munir and HR regarding the whistleblowing disclosure and safeguarding referral that they had dismissed with any investigation. The DPO of the University responded today saying:
“Following a careful review, we confirm that your request has been assessed as manifestly unfounded in accordance with Article 12(5) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation. This assessment is based on the substantial volume, frequency and nature of your communications, the disruption caused to staff and services, and the recurring pattern of accusations and allegations against specific individuals.”
How many requests had I asked them you may ask? Since the summer I have made 1 SAR regarding 1 single person. This place is beyond salvation with the current leadership. They only know how to cover up!
-ply · 9 February 2026 at 20:09
That is exactly the Jeffrey Epstein playbook for how to deal with abuse victims
1. Abuse young individual
2. Subject to mental breakdown
3. Tell everyone that they are mentally unwell as means to discredit victim
4. Continue to claim how “concerned” you are – while further undermining their reputation and blocking any action to examine their legitimate complaints of abuse revealing your abusive acts
5. Acts revealed
6. Go to jail
JJ · 9 February 2026 at 20:18
The amazing thing is this is taking place while the VC is a Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs
She seems astonishingly reckless as regards her own personal reputation
The only explanation seems to be she doesn’t know what the ProVC is doing — yet she is paid over half a million pounds to know.
TheResearcher · 9 February 2026 at 20:25
So that is clear for all those who read this blog, I will repeat what I said before:
I have received an increasing number of “actions” from UCam that seek, in my view, to silence and break me. These measures include prohibiting me from contacting hundreds of University members, including all HR of the University and the senior leadership (the Vice-Chancellor, all Pro-Vice-Chancellors, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary and others), limiting my use of my @cam account, redirect and review the emails I send, decide the topics I can discuss with some University members, prohibit me from contacting co-authors of my own research where I am the senior author of the project, not responding to my questions namely regarding the actions against me, giving me incorrect and misleading information namely regarding my current rights in the University, ignoring my complaints regardless the topic, retaining against my will my belongings that I need for my research and ignoring all the concerns I have raised about it, dismissing, without any investigation, the whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals made by third-parties based on detailed medical evidence on how this situation has been affecting my physical and mental health, starting an internal investigation against me where I am threatened that my “crimes” could be reported to the police, and that all these actions must remain confidential otherwise I will be subjected to further measures, among other actions that are decided by staff members who have conflicts of interest.
This is happening in UCam at the moment, very many people know about it, and either actively contribute to the abuses or pretend it is not their business. But guess what, they will not break my principles regardless of what they do against me. Please do not let them silence you and report the abuses you experienced, at the very least to the 21 Group so that they have a global picture of the issues and can escalate the sitiation.
-ply · 9 February 2026 at 20:43
Disgusting. This is the Cambridge method again and again:
1. Professor, HOD, HOS, HOH does something wrong
2. Victim complains
3. HR then HOS/HOH then Pro VC lie, dismiss victim, protect abuser
4. Victim continues to raise complaint
5. Senior figures realise they fucked up but are now complicit for ignoring serious initial report
6. Senior figures double down and use entire system to destroy victim and erase from the earth
It is institutionalised abuse and those responsible should never be allowed to occupy any position of authority ever anywhere ever
TheResearcher · 9 February 2026 at 21:09
They will only stop when enough people made their stories public and the recurrent pattern becomes undeniable. Otherwise, the culture of cover up of misconduct will prevail. Please do not keep the abuses to yourself because UCam will continue their abuses, namely against young students who can be affected for life. At least report your experiences anonymously to the MP Mr Daniel Zeichner and the 21 Group as once the sheer number of abuses is evident, we can break this shameful culture of cover up.
Tom · 9 February 2026 at 21:37
@-ply
Agreed. Time to name names.
In the matter at Astronomy, the people who carried out these despicable acts were
Prof Nigel Peake, Prof Eilis Ferran, Prof Tim Harper, Prof Beverley Glover, Ms Emma Rampton, Ms Louise Akroyd, Ms Andrea Hudson, Dr Mike Glover, Prof Deborah Prentice
zz · 9 February 2026 at 23:55
Think you missed SamIAm here
sickofitall · 9 February 2026 at 23:59
Who wants to lead off on Biological Sciences, SCM, CRUK, POLIS, SHSS
Feel like a lot of names are going to crop up again and again and even a few surprises
Watcher · 10 February 2026 at 01:05
Each of those cases is 3-5 separate and massive scandals
Eileen Nugent · 10 February 2026 at 23:57
People tend to underestimate the risks associated with telling everyone another person is mentally unwell as means of discrediting that other person but for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. One major risk associated with doing this – person generating false/inaccurate information in relation to another person – is that the person doing the discrediting of others in this way becomes mentally unwell themselves. In the process of that type of discrediting false/inaccurate information is generated in a persons mind, this seeding of false/inaccurate in a persons mind has the potential to set off a chain of events generating even more false/inaccurate information in the same mind increasing the risk of the person becoming mentally unwell.
TheResearcher · 10 February 2026 at 13:21
Dear all, what happened with me in DAMTP and its aftermath since June 2023 has involved very many people, namely:
Prof Nigel Peake, Prof Beverley Glover, Ms Emma Rampton, Ms Louise Akroyd, Ms Andrea Hudson, Dr Mike Glover, Prof Deborah Prentice, just like in Astronomy.
However, in addition to them, it includes Prof Colm Caulfield, Prof Ray Goldstein, Prof Stuart Dalziel, Dr Martin Vinnell, Ms Rachel Plunkett, Ms Jeanne Estabel, Mr Kris Cressy, Ms Neya Omar, Ms Sarah Fecondi, Ms Nikki Bannister, Ms Sarah d’Ambrumenil, Ms Lizzie Holtham, Ms Alice Benton, Dr Alex Pryce, Prof Kamal Munir, Prof. Anne-Ferguson Smith, Prof John Aston, Prof Deborah Longbottom, Dr Rhys Morgan, Prof Alexander Bird, Prof John Whittaker, Dr Andrew Jackson, Dr James Knapton, Dr Regina Sachers, Lord Simon McDonald, Prof Tom Monie, Prof Gábor Betegh, Dr Julia Shvets, Dr Andrew Stewart, Dr Joanna Bellis, Mr Michael Parsons and Ms Ana Rodrigues to cite a few.
You find here people from different Schools, some academics, some HR, some are staff from the University, and some are staff from my college. This is not an exhaustive list of the people I had to deal with in the last 30 months of my life, but I hope it makes clear that the issue goes far beyond the ex Registrary Ms Rampton. This huge number of people got involved in the same issue and its consequences because instead of addressing the original problem that could be solved in a few minutes with direct apologies, whoever made the original decision—SARs suggest that it was University HR—decided to cover up what had happened. I didn’t let it go, and from there on, the number of abuses piled up.
Please do not keep the abuses you experience to yourself, regardless the number of people who try to gaslight you. If you are telling the truth, please do not let it go.
afj · 10 February 2026 at 16:08
Few names crop up repeatedly across all cases. Mainly because things went up to HR, legal, Pro VC and then VC without reponse or met with cover ups and reversal / retaliation. If you think you are alone know that you are not alone but just one among many, many many people. Ironically because they like to refer victims to OH and counselling for “carewashing”, they now have some of the best records of this.
LaughterintheOldSchools · 10 February 2026 at 17:48
Why is Beverley Glover involved in the scandals at DAMTP and astronomy? She is trained as a botanist and she is Director of the Botanical Gardens. She is not even in the School of Physical Sciences. Why did she even get involved — why is she so reckless with her reputation?
Of course, the answer is she wants something. Maybe she wants to be ProVC, who knows? The only people who act as Responsible Persons for these corrupt HR investigations want something — that is why they curry favour. And that is why HR finds them so easy to manipulate
D'Artagan · 10 February 2026 at 18:02
In the SCM/Cancer Research scandal is was Prof Crookery. It turns out he was an old friend of Prof Teflon!! Teflon working with Drinkalot were the main culprits in destroying world leading research.
Crookery apparently was used repeatedly as Responsible Person by the University to act as ‘executioner’ on behalf of their ‘wishes’.
TheResearcher · 10 February 2026 at 18:15
I asked Prof. Beverley Glover why she let herself involve in that mess because I actually respected her as a researcher and teacher, and asked her what exactly she wanted to get out of it, but she never replied to me. What I can say is that she concluded that UCam does not need to comply with the Terms & Conditions of UKRI grants, namely:
“RGC 3.1.2 You [Host Institution] are responsible for ensuring all necessary permissions are obtained before the Project begins.”
And, of course, why she allowed that the Respondent from DAMTP, contacted her the day after a formal hearing to change his version of the facts. Yes everyone, if you go to a hearing in UCam, you may want to know that the Respondent may change their version of the facts, namely the answer to your questions on the day of the Hearing. And if you complain about this behaviour, lets say, if you contact the Academic Secretary who is responsible for choosing the Appeal Committee, guess what, no one will ever reply to you. If you do not let it go, you may end up being the subject of an investigation promoted by… the Academic Secretary himself. This is not a tale.
Blacklisted · 10 February 2026 at 16:26
“whoever made the original decision—SARs suggest that it was University HR—decided to cover up what had happened”
Same in Astronomy.
An entirely preventable catastrophe has originated almost entirely from “helpful” advice and misleading guidance by HR, all by the same abusive individual, inspiring other abusive individuals.
The evidence is irrefutable
The list is long of the people who were misled, lied to or just too comfortable to choose the plausible over the implausible, justice over injustice, right over wrong, truth over falsehoods.
As TheResearcher says, if you know the truth, document it. Don’t ever let go of it.
Spark · 10 February 2026 at 16:42
@Blacklisted and @TheResearcher. I agree. It almost always starts with HR, or HR covering for an abusive manager. They initiate the spark of abuse and victimisation, with full knowledge and understanding of what they’re doing, and are in the perfect position to fan those flames until they are completely out of control, even for them.
hmmm · 10 February 2026 at 21:43
Why was harper involved it’s not his school
not that there weren’t plenty of problems at SHSS to bury under the carpet of course
TheResearcher · 10 February 2026 at 22:23
Please read: https://21percent.org/?p=1608
TheResearcher · 10 February 2026 at 22:28
People from other departments are often chosen to give the impression there is no “conflict of interest.” But guess what, who chooses them in the first place? Isn’t the same person? Yes!
Eileen Nugent · 11 February 2026 at 00:43
If a Head of Department – member of Regent House & governance trained full college fellow – has acted as an independent blocker of the only route to appropriate organisational behaviour throughout a situation then it’s one name.
Eileen Nugent · 11 February 2026 at 01:39
If one person acts as an independent blocker of only route to appropriate organisational behaviour throughout a situation – won’t make direct apologies – then it makes very little difference what the other people in the organisation do, the appropriate organisational behaviour is being blocked by a governance trained full college fellow who is also a member of Regent House.
Could try to oust a VC in that type of situation but what is the rational basis for pushing for that outcome? To build a more robust governance system by setting a system default going forward where the system is not isolated from the problems of even a governance-trained trustee with a full understanding of the governance dynamics of the system? To build a self-governing community where heads of department are not self-governing?
Anonymous · 10 February 2026 at 15:55
When I see this plot I cannot help but think about the recent and popular TV documentary series, that involved controlled behavioural experiments with toddlers. In one experiment, the investigators watched behind the scenes as the toddlers debated over whether or not to eat a cake that was in front of them.
Naturally they couldn’t resist. But just a small slice you see. No-one will notice, no-one will realise what has happened, and it seems that there are no perceived consequences for taking those wonderful chunks of cake. So they have another, and another, more join in, and eventually there is no cake left for anyone else. At that point, the adults walk in and see what has happened. “I didn’t do it”, one of the toddlers exclaims, as they wipe sponge, icing and jam from their little chins. Or, “he/she said it was ok” as they point their finger at one of their peers.
Are we seeing the same psychology here? I think so. In this analogy, the “he/she said it was ok” bit of course refers to the Chairs of the remuneration committees, positions that they occupy for each other.
Tammi · 10 February 2026 at 16:42
Surely the real question is: why were the toddlers left unsupervised in the first place?