8 Conclusion
144. Through its funding regime, the Government is
passively pursuing a policy of research concentration that will
call the financial viability of some university departments into
question. Universities, although theoretically autonomous institutions,
have little choice but to compete for funds from a limited pot
of research money. Whilst some research-intensive universities
have benefited from this system, those that have been less successful
in winning funds are struggling to keep all their departments
open, particularly those in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) subjects, which are amongst the most expensive
to run. Their financial difficulties are greatly increased by
a steady decline in the number of students wanting to study STEM
subjects. In the absence of student demand, it becomes yet more
difficult for a department to secure funding, since funding for
teaching is calculated on the basis of student numbers. Departments
with too few students are expensive to run and maintain, and are
the logical target for universities needing to economise.
145. Universities are not just research institutions.
They also play a vital role in the national economy by teaching
undergraduate and postgraduate students. This aspect of their
work will only gain in importance as the Government moves towards
its target of 50% participation in higher education. The Government
has also set universities the challenge of improving their collaboration
with businesses to see their knowledge, skills and experience
transferred out of academia into the public and private sectors.
We believe that these two important roles are frequently overlooked
in the competition for research funds. Yet if universities were
to diversify, with each institution concentrating on its strengths—whether
they be research, teaching or knowledge transfer—the strain
on resources would be greatly reduced. Through collaboration on
a regional basis, universities could ensure that all their staff
and students had access to all three functions, whatever their
own focus. With this in mind, we have recommended that a "hub
and spokes" model of provision be employed, to be coordinated
by a Regional Affairs Committee sitting within the Higher Education
Funding Council for England, and with representation from all
the Regional Development Agencies.
146. The only barrier to the realisation of the benefits
to be conferred by the implementation of the hub and spokes model
of provision is in the form of the universities themselves. Unless
they collaborate with each other it will not work. Forcing them
to do so would be a breach of their autonomy. However, we have
argued that the Government can, and already does, influence the
choices that universities make by means of the funding regime.
By rewarding collaboration between institutions; by ensuring that
teaching funding is self-sufficient; and by giving greater emphasis
to third stream, knowledge transfer, funds, the Government can
encourage universities to work together within their regions to
ensure the sustainability of provision in STEM subjects.
147. There is a risk that, if many more STEM departments
close, the university system will not be able to produce enough
STEM graduates to meet the Government's economic goals. This Report
presents the Government with the opportunity to help resolve this
problem in the long term, instead of relying on short term measures
to patch up a system that is inherently unsustainable.
|
