Departmental closures
12. The announcement made by Exeter University of
its decision to close its chemistry department, and the subsequent
campaign—by students, staff and parents—to keep it
open, focussed public attention on the financial difficulties
experienced by some university STEM departments. Boxes 1 and 2,
below, use the closure of the chemistry department at Exeter University
as a case study. The evidence we have collected suggests that
the problems experienced by university STEM departments are at
their worst in the physical and chemical sciences, engineering
and mathematics. In general, biological sciences departments have
tended to experience fewer difficulties, possibly because of a
combination of higher student numbers and lower teaching and research
costs. However, as Professor Tom Blundell of the Biosciences Federation
told us, the situation is "very uneven in biology […]
within the biological sciences, we have less biochemists and more
psychologists and brain scientists. The total numbers hide the
real problems".[19]
Box 1: Closure of chemistry at Exeter: Timetable
of events
Imagining the Future
In November 2004 the Vice Chancellor of Exeter University,
Professor Steve Smith, produced a document entitled Imagining
the Future, in which he set out the financial challenges faced
by the university. In it he said that "our growth needs to
be selective. We are currently spreading our jam too thinly and
cannot sustain or achieve international excellence over the 37
subjects we submitted to the 2001 RAE". He proposed that,
other than at the interfaces with physics and biology, chemistry
should be phased out as a separate discipline at Exeter.[20]
Cuts were also planned for Italian and music.
Heads of Schools
The Heads of Schools most affected by the proposed
changes met individually with the Vice Chancellor between 5-9
November 2004.
Meeting of Senior Management Group
The news was broken to all Heads of School and the
Guild of Students at a meeting of the Senior Management Group
(SMG) on 18 November 2004. SMG was asked to keep the information
confidential until other groups had been told.
Media disclosure
The Royal Society of Chemistry issued a press release
on 19 November 2004, ahead of the university's own announcement,
planned for 22 November. The story broke in the press.
Student updates
Students were updated on developments by letters
sent on 25 November and 10 December 2004, and on 11 January, 17
January and 3 February 2005. Student visits to the chemistry departments
at Bath and Bristol were organised for 11 February 2005, and students
were offered one-to-one meetings with the Vice Chancellor on 14
February 2005.
Informal Committee meeting with Professor Steve
Smith
On 14 December 2004, the Committee held an informal
meeting with the Vice Chancellor of Exeter University to discuss
the reasons underlying the closure of the chemistry department.
Oral evidence sessions
A first-year chemistry student from Exeter University,
Danielle Miles, gave oral evidence to the Committee on Monday
7 February 2005. The Vice Chancellor, Professor Steve Smith, gave
oral evidence to the Committee on Wednesday 9 March 2005. Each
appeared as part of a panel of witnesses.
Box 2: Reasons underlying the closure of the chemistry
department at Exeter
At Exeter, science subjects were being heavily cross-subsidised
from other subjects. The following departments were operating
at a loss:
- Chemistry: £0.8 million
- Biology: £0.8 million
- Engineering: £1 million
- Geography: £0.3 million
In an informal meeting with the Committee, Professor
Smith provided data showing the changes in income to departments
at Exeter University as a result of the Research Assessment Exercise
(RAE) 2001 (see box 3, in chapter 5).
Exeter University did not have sufficient funds to
support all its departments that had received a grade 4 in the
RAE in 2001. It had to close one of them. Biology and engineering
were perceived to be of greater strategic importance to the university
than chemistry, although the engineering department did see substantial
cuts.[21]
Campaigners to save the chemistry department at Exeter
have reacted angrily to claims that the department had to close
partly because of difficulties with student recruitment. The Royal
Society of Chemistry, for example, states that demand for chemistry
was "buoyant".[22]
The chemistry department at Exeter had met its target
numbers and was not in clearing. However, it's student quota had
been reduced by 21% from 2000. Furthermore, although chemistry
and biology at Exeter incurred similar staff costs for teaching,
chemistry only had 201 students, whilst biology had 380. In oral
evidence, Professor Smith told us that the quota for chemistry
students had gone down because the university was finding it difficult
to recruit sufficiently well qualified students.[23]
13. The pace at which university STEM departments
are closing has accelerated since 2001. As well as the chemistry
department at Exeter, there have been high profile closures of
chemistry departments at Kings College London, Queen Mary London
and Swansea University; of physics departments at the University
of Newcastle and Keele University; of mathematics at the University
of Hull; and of civil engineering at Aston University. The Institute
of Physics states that, since 2001, 30% of university physics
departments have either merged or closed. There are currently
36 physics departments in England and 48 in the UK.[24]
The Institution of Civil Engineers states that, between 1996 and
2001, the number of civil engineering departments submitting to
the Research Assessment Exercise decreased from 40 to 29, a 37%
decline.[25] For chemistry,
Professor Michael Sterling, Vice Chancellor of Birmingham University
and Chairman of the Russell Group of universities, told us that
"as I understand it there are more than 40 chemistry departments
nationally so that is quite a long way from a crisis".[26]
However, there have already been several closures in this subject
and, as is outlined below, many more are expected.
14. It seems unlikely that the recent flurry of departmental
closures will end soon. The Association of University Teachers
states that currently "there are approximately 35 to 40 chemistry
departments. However, the best case scenario put forward by the
[Royal Society of Chemistry] is that 20 will survive and at worst
only 6 (Durham, Cambridge, Imperial, UCL, Bristol and Oxford)
will remain in 2014".[27]
The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) has found that chemistry
departments tend to operate at a loss. Dr Simon Campbell, President
of RSC, told us that "we have surveyed eight chemistry departments
across the country and all of them are running at a loss. The
loss range is between 20 and 60 per cent of their budget. In every
case, research is subsidising teaching".[28]
Departments operating at a deficit are likely to be considered
for mergers and cuts by universities needing to reduce their costs,
leaving expensive STEM departments vulnerable. As will be shown
in chapter 3 of this Report, the downward trend in the number
of STEM departments is not reflected in the number of employment
opportunities available to STEM graduates, particularly those
from physics, chemistry, mathematics and engineering backgrounds.
There will come a point beyond which the number of remaining university
STEM departments will be unable to meet employer demand. This
alone is a powerful argument for halting or reversing the current
trend of departmental closures.
15. Whilst it may
be exaggerating to say that university STEM departments are in
crisis, it is clear that their numbers are experiencing a sharp
decline. Since the financial situation faced by these departments
is unlikely to change in the short term, it is reasonable to assume
that there will be further closures. If this process continues
unchecked, there is a very real possibility that the system will
no longer be able to provide sufficient numbers of STEM graduates
to meet the needs of the UK economy. Unless the Government takes
action now, it will have a crisis on its hands in the foreseeable
future.
CONSEQUENCES OF CLOSURES
16. Departmental closures set in motion a vicious
cycle of events. As the number of departments teaching a particular
subject decreases, so does the number of teachers of that subject
produced by the university system. The lack of teachers and the
negative impression created about the subject by departmental
closures in turn cause a decline in demand from schoolchildren
for university courses in the subject. As student demand declines,
more departments struggle to survive financially, and more are
forced to close (see chapter 4). The same negative trends can
be seen at a regional level. Departmental closures in core STEM
subjects make a region less attractive to business, thereby reducing
the level of knowledge transfer and commercialisation activities
that can take place there. One of the main concerns about the
closure of STEM departments is that capacity in some subjects
will drop so low that it will be impossible to accommodate any
future, much needed, increases in student demand. The cost of
re-equipping and re-staffing a previously closed STEM department
is prohibitive. Thus, the RSC told us that "a chemistry department
that is closed and staff dispersed is unlikely to be reopened:
the capacity is lost for ever".[29]
Given the
Government's goal of increasing the number of students taking
STEM courses, it is essential that sufficient capacity is maintained
in the system to meet a possible future growth in student demand.
17. We received evidence that suggested that claims
about the irreversibility of departmental closures might be exaggerated.
The panel of Vice Chancellors we saw on 9 March told us that,
when a department closed, capacity tended to be transferred elsewhere
rather than lost altogether. Thus, Professor Sterling said that
"there is a misconception that chemistry only exists within
a chemistry department. […] What tends to happen is that
if there is a decline in interest in one subject area you might
dissolve the departmental boundary, but those chemists end up
in other areas and that process can be reversed".[30]
This is increasingly true as the boundaries between disciplines
become more blurred. At Exeter, for example, many of the current
chemistry staff will be absorbed into the university's growing
biosciences department, where they will carry out work at the
interface between the two disciplinary areas. Professor Alasdair
Smith, Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex, described
a different way of retaining capacity: "we have coped with
the effect of declining student numbers by reducing the size of
mathematics, […] physics, chemistry and engineering, and
if there were a turnaround nationally then we would have very
substantial capacity for expanding those departments back up".[31]
Whilst these examples show that there is limited potential within
the system to increase capacity in some subjects again should
the need arise, we remain concerned about the disappearance of
university departments in some core STEM subjects, whether or
not their capacity has been absorbed by departments in other disciplines.
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI),
for example, told us that there were very few degrees, even those
in core STEM subjects, that were an appropriate substitute for
chemistry: "of particular concern is the supply of chemists
[…] Although numbers following biological degrees have held
up well, the relevance of the training has not".[32]
A biology degree, however rigorous, will not equip a student with
the same set of skills as a chemistry degree. By failing to provide
specific chemistry training for students, universities may be
limiting their employment options. When a department in a particular
subject is closed, arrangements need to be made to ensure that
students can continue to study that subject in its pure form.
18. Although the debate about departmental closures
has tended to focus on individual cases, the main concern is for
the outlook for overall provision of STEM subjects at a national
and regional level. Thus Dr Campbell of RSC told us that "the
worry that we have at the moment is that the closures we are seeing
are cost driven and random. There is no sense of a national strategy
and there is no sense of regional needs".[33]
One method that has been used to mitigate against the loss of
capacity in individual STEM departments is for departmental closures
to be regulated at a regional level. Whilst the closure of the
chemistry department at Exeter has attracted an extremely adverse
press coverage, the regional mechanism appears to have worked
well in its case. Nick Buckland, Vice Chair of the South West
of England Regional Development Agency, told us that, despite
the closure, "we work with the universities in the region,
so, as I said earlier, we have the same level of provision of
chemistry within the region and they have pushed into their strengths,
and are at roughly the same level of capacity".[34]
The Vice Chancellor of Exeter University agreed, telling us that
the steps taken within the region "actually increase[d] the
number of funded places for chemistry in the south-west".[35]
The regional dimension to the debate surrounding departmental
closures is explored in detail in chapter 7 of this Report.
19. Further closures
of university STEM departments would be a source of serious concern
to us. However, the closure of an individual department need not
entail a permanent loss of capacity in that subject, providing
that suitable alternative arrangements for current students and
long term planning for potential future increases in student demand
is in place at a regional and national level.
Chapter 6 sets out a blueprint for the form that this strategic
planning should take.
20. The headline-grabbing individual instances of
departmental closures are only a symptom of a much broader and
more intractable problem. Student demand for STEM subjects, both
at school and at university, has been in steady decline for the
past ten years. If not addressed, this lack of demand, compounded
by problems with university funding mechanisms, will continue
to call into question the viability of university STEM departments
(student demand and university funding will be discussed in detail
in chapters 4 and 5 of this Report). Universities UK told us that
"if progress is not made based on robust and relevant experience
that helps identify the true nature of the problems and informs
longer term sustainable solutions we could ultimately end up with
short term micro management of the research base in a response
to current 'hot spots' which, aside from its own unintended consequences,
would distort institutional strategies and priorities".[36]
There is little point in patching
up the system in the short term if measures are not taken to address
the underlying reasons for the difficulties faced by university
STEM departments. It is essential that any measures taken to prevent
further loss of capacity in the system are underpinned by a strategic
approach.
6 HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and
Department for Education and Skills, Science and Innovation
Investment Framework 2004-2014, July 2004 Back
7
Department of Trade and Industry, Innovation Report: Competing
in the global economy: the innovation challenge, December
2003, p 5 Back
8
HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department for
Education and Skills, Science and Innovation Investment Framework
2004-2014, July 2004, p 81 Back
9
Department of Trade and Industry, Innovation Report: Competing
in the global economy: the innovation challenge, December
2003, p 9 Back
10
The Engineering Council (UK) and the Engineering and Technology
Board (etb), Digest of Engineering Statistics 2003-04,
July 2004, p 27 Back
11
HM Treasury, The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration,
December 2003, p 9 Back
12
HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department for
Education and Skills, Science and Innovation Investment Framework
2004-2014, July 2004, p 85 Back
13
Thirteenth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session
2003-04, The Use of Science in UK International Development
Policy (HC 133) Back
14
Ev 144 Back
15
The Engineering and Technology Board (etb), The Frontiers of
Innovation: Wealth Creation from Science, Engineering and Technology
in the UK, April 2004, p 14 Back
16
Department for Education and Skills, Making Mathematics Count,
The Report of Professor Adrian Smith's Inquiry into Post-14 Mathematics
Education, February 2004 Back
17
G. Mason and K,. Wagner, National Institute of Economic and Social
Research, "Skills, Performance and New Technologies in the
British and German Automotive Component Industries", July
2002. See the Engineering Council (UK) and the Engineering and
Technology Board (etb), Digest of Engineering Statistics 2003-04,
July 2004, p 50 Back
18
Q 190 Back
19
Q 328 Back
20
Professor Steve Smith, Vice Chancellor of Exeter University, Imagining
the Future, November 2004 Back
21
Q 423 Back
22
Ev 183 Back
23
Q 419 Back
24
Ev 131 Back
25
Ev 227 Back
26
Q 426 Back
27
Ev 282 Back
28
Q 320 Back
29
Ev 186 Back
30
Q 424 Back
31
Q 425 Back
32
Ev 170 Back
33
Q 318 Back
34
Q 304 Back
35
Q 403 Back
36
Ev 261 Back
