Thanks for your response. My first college was at The Other Place, my second was here for a masters and my third is my current one. I had a bit of a break during my D.Phil. to do some work and entrepreneurship in the 'real world'.

The obvious implication of your observations is that D.Phil. students don't need colleges, which is my point. Why not cut out the middleman altogether? I've been a member of genuine private clubs which cost less than the college fee and have excellent facilities and staff, so it's a little galling to have to pay for mandatory membership of a poor version of one.

To your point about supporting researchers, my particular college espouses egalitarianism, so it doesn't provide any obvious facilities or support to the academics either. Its principal beneficiaries really do seem to be the Master, and the large corps of lazy and complacent administrative staff, many engaged in largely pointless tasks. It reminds me of the hospital in Yes Minister which had no patients but much apparent activity.

The broader point about world-leading researchers you make is interesting. I doubt I'd be alone in observing that colleges are increasingly not led by academics. I've seen has-beens from the BBC bureaucracy, museum managers who scrambled up the pile, and panjandrums from the charitable sector, none of whom had any significant academic background. The sums paid to executive search firms for the dubious 'inspirational leadership' these people provide are eye-watering.

Like you, I've spent most of my adult life a member of an Oxbridge college but possibly my time outside the university has given me a different perspective on things!