The core of Dave's argument is the buildings at Hibbert la are inefficient as they are old and not conducive for learning. It doesn't seem to hinder Oxford or Cambridge!
The problem with such an epic topic as this is that the same old arguments keep coming round over and over again.
Here's a reminder of what I posted last time Duke came up with this one:
The colleges of Oxford and Cambridge are some of the wealthiest organisations in the UK. Trinity College Cambridge alone has a financial endowment of £700 million. It owns the port of Felixstowe, Cambridge Science Park, and part of the O2 Arena. Like many other Oxbridge colleges it occupies Grade 1 listed buldings of enormous historical and architectural importance. And it has more than enough money to maintain them in the manner to which they have become accustomed over the centuries.
Oxbridge colleges were constructed for the purpose for which they are still used - they are not conversions. They have cellars full of good port and fine wines. Liveried flunkies wait on dons and students hand and foot. It's a totally different world from a local sixth form college. So can we please move on from this pointless comparison now?
I was referring (as you possibly know) to the ability to teach / learn.
I agree that the college must anticipate it's income and budget accordingly but the ability to attract students has very little to do with the buildings, it's the ability to improve the kids, get them to where they want to go. If the college is better at doing this, they will not see dwindling numbers of students.
The college is rarely open late (Wednesdays only?) it seems there is inefficient use of hte buildings rather than inefficient buildings.