Cambridge University veterinary course could lose accreditation over ‘ethical concerns’ | University of Cambridge
[ad_1]
Cambridge University’s prestigious veterinary course could be stripped of its professional accreditation after regulators revealed “ethical concerns” over the euthanasia of animals and the mishandling of complaints from students who experienced racism and discrimination.
Researchers from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) said those at Cambridge course in veterinary medicine failed 50 out of 77 standards and the head of department warned students they may not be able to work in the UK without further qualifications.
The RCVS said that due to an “unusually high number of referrals and concerns about the awarding of the Cambridge degree”, it could only grant provisional accreditation until a final review next September.
If sufficient improvement is not made, the RCVS may block the Cambridge course – ranked third in the UK from the Guardian’s university management – from enrolling new students.
The a team of investigators said the Department of Veterinary Medicine’s larger animal isolation facilities were not fit for purpose and that “ethical concerns” had been raised by multiple sources about “automatically” leaving “farm animals showing symptoms requiring isolation”.
Students told the RCVS that their complaints were often ignored, with investigators noting “student reports of racism and concerns that were shown not to be taken seriously or investigated effectively” and that “students were subjected to conduct, which undermines their resilience and self-esteem’.
The RCVS accused the department of failing to act on discrimination experienced by students on qualification placements, known as extramural training (EMS), and that some staff said it was “not their job” to follow up on such reports.
The RCVS said: “In addition, for places where black, Asian and minority ethnic pupils have experienced discrimination, a ‘red flag’ is added to the accommodation in the EMS database, warning such pupils to avoid. Problem accommodations are not removed from the database despite issues that may confirm discriminatory behavior in the eyes of other students.”
It also noted that students “were warned about making too many complaints and reports of students being encouraged not to pursue complaints formally.”
In an email to students this week, Prof. Mark Holmes, head of the Department of Veterinary Medicine, said the prospect of losing RCVS accreditation was “deeply worrying”, with students having to sit further statutory exams to work as British veterinary surgeons.
Holmes and Prof. John Simons, Acting Head of Life Sciences at Cambridge, added: “To address the serious issues raised, the University will immediately bring in external experts to support the Department of Veterinary Medicine and help lead the intensive work required through the following months.
after the promotion of the newsletter
“The department has been acting on the recommendations since being informed over the summer and this work will now be accelerated. The RCVS noted the strong research-led and clinical training we provide to excellent students, so there is a strong foundation from which to implement these recommendations.
“While we recognize that the RCVS report will cause concern, it is important that we are clear that we remain accredited. We will do everything we can to support students to complete their course and gain full accreditation.”
An RCVS spokesman said: “At the next visit in September 2025. a panel will consider the evidence presented and a decision will then be made on the future status of the degree.’
The inspection also found “wide-ranging concerns” ranging from bald tires on vehicles and biohazards in warehouses to a lack of robust leadership. The report calls on the department to ensure all teachers receive “quality-assured training” and “standardize its approach” to resolving student complaints.
It also criticized the department for gaps in achievement and rates of progress for pupils from ethnic minority or disadvantaged groups, and for not giving pupils targeted extra support.
[ad_2]
