Conclusions and recommendations
1. Given
the unlikelihood of increased overall funding, this Report focuses
on ways in which existing funds can be used more effectively to
ensure good provision of STEM subjects in English universities.
(Paragraph 7)
2. STEM graduates
help to maintain the healthy operation of society at all levels—by
driving the economy; by generating knowledge and innovating; by
raising the scientific literacy of the population as a whole;
by informing Government policy; and by aiding participation in
international research networks. (Paragraph 10)
3. 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.
(Paragraph 15)
4. 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. (Paragraph
16)
5. 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. (Paragraph 19)
6. 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. (Paragraph 20)
7. Making sure that
the UK can meet the demands of employers for skilled personnel
is key to ensuring that it can maintain its competitive edge in
a global market. (Paragraph 21)
8. Whilst it is "good
news" for STEM graduates that so many of them find employment
so quickly, it is not necessarily good news for employers in the
sector. The relative ease with which STEM graduates find employment
suggests that there may not be enough of them to fully meet employer
demand. (Paragraph 24)
9. If the Government
is to meet its ambitious target of increasing the UK's investment
in R&D as a proportion of GDP to 2.5% in 2014 it will need
to take steps to significantly increase, not simply maintain,
the total number of STEM graduates, as well as the proportion
of those graduates that go on to pursue careers in science, engineering
and technology. Evidence suggests that the UK may need to produce
at least 5,000 additional researchers each year. (Paragraph 25)
10. The Sector Skills
Councils should help the Government and universities to improve
their management of the interplay between the supply of, and demand
for, graduate skills. In particular, we recommend that they develop
a system of "kite marks" for employer-led higher education
courses. This would send out much clearer signals to students
about the likely value to their future career of the course that
they choose. It would also help to avoid the problems associated
with the over-provision of courses such as those in forensic science
relative to the number of jobs available. (Paragraph 31)
11. We recommend that
the Government undertakes a comprehensive survey of existing research
into the supply of, and demand for, STEM skills, including lessons
learned from other countries. This will enable it both to take
stock of the current situation, and to form a strategy that will
meet the UK's future skills needs. (Paragraph 32)
12. Instead of arbitrarily
increasing by a round number the amount of money given to trainee
and new teachers as a financial incentive, the Government should
gather evidence on the level of incentive that is required to
achieve the necessary increase in school science teachers. (Paragraph
34)
13. The Government
is to be commended for taking action to increase the number of
school science teachers. There are signs that its incentives are
having some positive effect on overall teacher recruitment levels,
despite continuing problems in some subjects. However, difficulties
in retaining newly-qualified teachers suggest that financial incentives
are not a long term solution to teacher shortages. (Paragraph
35)
14. In order to formulate
a credible policy on attracting graduates into careers in science,
engineering and technology, the Government needs to develop a
sophisticated understanding of the motivating factors in graduates'
choices of careers. Given that they are in the best position to
act upon any findings, we recommend that the Government commissions
the relevant Sector Skills Councils to carry out further research
into these factors. (Paragraph 38)
15. It will be important
for the Government to address negative perceptions about research
careers. Without specific action in this area, it could take a
long time for any improvements in research career paths to filter
through to schoolchildren and students making choices about their
future careers. (Paragraph 39)
16. There are currently
more places on undergraduate chemistry courses at a national level
than there are students to fill them. Whilst it might be desirable
to increase the number of places available in the long term, in
the immediate term such a measure will not necessarily increase
the number of chemistry undergraduates. In order to achieve the
latter aim it is essential to stimulate student demand for chemistry
courses. (Paragraph 44)
17. Degrees in the
same subject from different institutions are not necessarily interchangeable.
Along with overall levels of subject provision, diversity of provision
needs to be taken into account in national and regional planning
in order to cater sufficiently for student choice and differing
levels of attainment. (Paragraph 45)
18. Student demand
is a powerful player in the higher education sector under the
current funding regime. If the Government is to secure good provision
of STEM subjects for future cohorts of students it must ensure
that demand is further stimulated. (Paragraph 49)
19. If the standard
for entry on to university STEM courses is lowered as a result
of decreased demand, there is a danger that the currency of the
resulting degrees will be devalued. This would not be in the interests
of either the students taking those courses or their potential
employers. It is important that, in the drive to increase student
demand for university courses in STEM subjects, the quality of
the student intake is not sacrificed for the sake of increasing
student numbers. (Paragraph 51)
20. There is a strong
case for continuing to provide a diversity of STEM degree courses
to cater for the varying abilities of the students opting to take
science subjects. Joint-honours courses and many of the new "softer"
STEM subjects attract many students into science who may otherwise
have studied something else altogether, or not studied at all.
Chemistry, physics, mathematics and engineering will not suddenly
become more popular if students are prevented from studying other
subjects. Nonetheless, there is great variability in the quality,
scientific content and entrance requirements of some non-core
STEM subjects, some of which are only nominally "science"
courses. Some of these courses will be of limited value to graduates
seeking a scientific career and will not help to increase the
supply of skilled scientific personnel. Students enrolling on
these courses need to be clearly informed at the outset about
whether or not they will be qualified upon completion to pursue
a scientific career. (Paragraph 59)
21. Given the importance
of the degree choices made by students to the health of the economy,
it is essential that the Government takes a keen interest in the
impact of its initiatives designed to attract students into science,
and applies itself wholeheartedly to finding solutions to the
problem of declining demand for STEM subjects. (Paragraph 61)
22. The poor quality
of science education in secondary schools plays a significant
role in the lack of student demand for university STEM courses.
(Paragraph 63)
23. It is a pity that
the Government has missed its first major opportunity, offered
by the Tomlinson Report, to reinvigorate the school science curriculum.
(Paragraph 65)
24. The only way of
securing high levels of future student demand for STEM subjects
is by enthusing them about those subjects from an early age. Until
school science teaching improves, the Government must expect that
school leavers will continue to view mainstream STEM subjects
as too difficult, irrelevant or simply too boring. The Government
needs to apply itself to resolving these issues. It should not
be deterred by the possibility that its efforts in this area will
not bear fruit for several years. If it does not invest in school
science education for the long term, the difficulties experienced
by university STEM departments in recruiting students, and thus
staying open, can only continue to get worse. (Paragraph 66)
25. The Government
should consider measures to promote scientific careers to people
of all ages, for example, by using advertising campaigns such
as those used to improve the image of teachers, policemen and
recruits for the armed services. (Paragraph 68)
26. Degrees in STEM
subjects generally have good career prospects, particularly given
current skills shortages in many areas. The Government should
ensure that all schools are in a position to offer impartial careers
advice to schoolchildren well before the time that they choose
their A-level, and subsequently degree, subjects. The advice should
be proactive rather than reactive, and should seek to make children
aware of the full range of exciting possibilities offered by scientific
careers. A realistic indication of job and salary prospects should
also be given. (Paragraph 71)
27. We recommend that
the Government introduces a national bursary scheme, based on
the scheme currently being run by the Institute of Physics, for
outstanding university applicants in shortage STEM subjects. Such
a scheme would give a much needed boost to levels of student demand
in the short term. However, bursaries are not a cure-all, and
the Government will need to introduce further measures to sustain
increases in demand in the long term. (Paragraph 75)
28. We endorse the
principle of university autonomy. We also acknowledge that, in
practice, the decisions taken by universities are in large measure
dictated by the need to win funding and respond to changes in
student demand. Where market conditions and the university funding
system make it financially difficult for universities to continue
providing subjects of national or regional strategic importance,
HEFCE may need to intervene to prevent their decline at a national
or regional level. We support HEFCE's proposals to require universities
to give a period of notice before closing a department and to
consider offering financial support to individual departments
where it is in the national or regional interest to do so. Without
the introduction of these mechanisms, many STEM departments will
struggle to survive in the short term. (Paragraph 83)
29. It is essential
that any additional HEFCE funding for strategic subject provision
is used only as measure of last resort. In order to qualify for
such funding, universities should have to prove to HEFCE that
no alternative financial arrangements can be made. HEFCE should
also have to satisfy itself that, without the allocation of such
funds, capacity in the subject in question would be severely damaged
at either a regional or a national level. (Paragraph 84)
30. We commend HEFCE
for its support for minority subjects deemed to be in the national
interest. It is clear, however, that the arrangements that have
been made to secure the provision of such subjects would not be
applicable to mainstream STEM subjects. (Paragraph 87)
31. The funding allocations
made as a result of RAE 2001 have severely compromised the financial
viability of departments rated 4 or lower, particularly in those
institutions that do not have an overall majority of research
staff in departments rated 5 or higher. In order to prevent the
continued decline of many 4-rated departments, there needs to
be a reduction in the steepness of the "cliff edges"
between the funding allocated to departments falling within different
funding bands. (Paragraph 93)
32. We hope that the
new "quality profiles" to be used in RAE 2008 will help
to reduce the steepness of the funding scale for the allocation
QR funds. In the meantime, however, many departments are still
feeling the adverse effects of the funding arrangements made as
a result of RAE 2001. The Government may have to recognise that
short term measures, such as those proposed by HEFCE, are required
to support departments currently rated 4 or lower until the new
arrangements have had time to take effect. (Paragraph 94)
33. The move towards
Research Councils meeting the full economic cost of the research
projects that they fund should improve the financial viability
and thus the sustainability of STEM departments carrying out a
significant volume of research. In turn, this may mitigate against
some of the more negative consequences of the RAE. We hope that
our successor Committee will have the opportunity to assess the
impact of this new policy once it has had time to take effect.
(Paragraph 95)
34. The concentration
of research funds is an inevitable consequence of a system that
funds research on the basis of excellence from limited funds.
The Government is responsible for this system. It is therefore
disingenuous of the Government to deny that it has a policy to
concentrate research. (Paragraph 96)
35. Instead of resolving
the financial difficulties experienced by some STEM departments,
the wholesale redistribution of research funds would diffuse those
problems more widely. Such a policy would threaten the ability
of 5 and 5* rated departments to continue performing at a high
level. It would also risk their international standing, a move
that could have adverse consequences for the UK's international
competitiveness and for individual careers. In the absence of
increased overall funding, "robbing Peter to pay Paul"
is not a viable solution to the financial difficulties of some
STEM departments. (Paragraph 101)
36. We urge the Government
to reconsider its rejection of proposals for a three-tier research
assessment process. Such a process would allow departments to
bid for funding on the basis of merit instead of imposing an arbitrary
cut off point for departments upholding the same standard of research
activity. Although this would not increase overall levels of funding
for research, it would distribute existing funds more fairly amongst
lower performing departments. (Paragraph 102)
37. Research concentration
is not an evil per se: it only becomes a problem when it
occurs in a uniform system, where universities that do not carry
out world class research but are nonetheless strong in other areas
of their work, are disregarded. (Paragraph 103)
38. It would be unacceptable
if universities had to use research funds to subsidise teaching
activity. In order to ensure that both teaching and research are
supported at a sustainable level, the Government needs to have
a clear understanding of the costs of each type of activity. We
recommend that it uses the TRAC methodology to produce a comprehensive
analysis of the costs of research and teaching relative to the
level of funding that each activity receives. (Paragraph 108)
39. Departmental expenditure
is a flawed basis from which calculate the level of teaching funding
allocated to STEM departments. This seems to have been accepted
by HEFCE: we understand that it has commissioned research on possible
cost-based approaches to funding, including an approach based
on the TRAC methodology. (Paragraph 109)
40. STEM subjects
might have seen a slight increase in their levels of teaching
resource, even after the change in subject weightings for their
category was reduced from 2.0 to 1.7. However, any such increases
need to be set against a history of chronic under funding for
teaching. We recommend that the Government uses its research into
the costs of teaching, facilitated by the TRAC methodology, to
reach a settlement for STEM subjects that accurately reflects
their cost. (Paragraph 111)
41. It would be a
matter of regret if, when HEFCE changed the subject weighting
for teaching funding, competition between the science and engineering
bodies about the relative importance of their areas of specialism
had prevented some subjects, such as chemistry and physics, from
receiving the funding uplifts that they so badly needed. The scientific
community needs to pull together to ensure that future discussions
about funding are resolved in the interests of science as a whole,
regardless of the interests of individual specialisms. (Paragraph
112)
42. Many students
benefit from exposure to research during their undergraduate degree,
particularly if they want to go on to pursue a career in research.
However, research-intensive departments are not essential to train
all STEM students. It is an inevitable, if inadequately foreseen,
consequence of the drive towards higher levels of participation
in higher education that it is unsustainable for every student
to be taught in a research active environment. This is unfortunate,
but not necessarily damaging, provided that all STEM students
are taught on the basis of scholarship, if not research. We recommend
that the Government and universities recognise that teaching-focussed
departments are not only accepted, but supported sufficiently
well to ensure that they retain good quality staff and a commensurately
high status. (Paragraph 118)
43. Universities are
not islands. If the way to healthy provision of STEM subjects
in English universities lies in collaboration between institutions,
they will need to work together in the national and regional interest.
(Paragraph 119)
44. The hub and spokes
model of university provision would allow STEM departments to
capitalise on their areas of strength, whether they are research,
teaching or knowledge-transfer, whilst still ensuring that undergraduates
received a rounded education in the discipline of their choice.
By collaborating on their provision of STEM courses, departments
would make more efficient use of resources, and thereby ease the
financial difficulties currently being experienced by many STEM
departments. We recommend that the Government encourages the acceptance
and implementation of this model throughout the system via HEFCE,
the RDAs and Universities UK, and by means of the funding regime
for higher education. (Paragraph 125)
45. We recommend that
a Regional Affairs Committee is established within HEFCE to coordinate
the implementation of the hub and spokes model within the regions.
The Committee should contain representatives from each of the
Regional Development Agencies, who would each be responsible for
ensuring the implementation of decisions taken by the Committee
within their region. The Committee should draw upon the valuable
work being carried out by the Research Base Funders' Forum on
the health of disciplines, giving this work some practical effect.
HEFCE's Regional Affairs Committee would also be responsible for
monitoring the implementation and success of the hub and spokes
model in the regions. (Paragraph 127)
46. Under the hub
and spokes model of university provision, a greater number of
universities may choose to focus on their knowledge transfer activities.
Third stream funding (HEIF) is still relatively modest in comparison
with the funds available for teaching and research. The Government
may need to consider developing HEIF further in order to encourage
more universities to concentrate on knowledge transfer. A concomitant
increase in research funding from industry will also need to be
encouraged if universities are to have a real opportunity of diversifying.
(Paragraph 131)
47. The proximity
of a source of skills and research capacity is one of the main
considerations when a business decides where to locate. This is
particularly the case for smaller companies. (Paragraph 134)
48. If university
departments suffer particularly heavy losses in one region, there
is a possibility that businesses within the region would also
suffer or, worse, migrate to a region where conditions were better.
In this way, universities play a pivotal role in their regional
economies. (Paragraph 136)
49. There are sound
economic and social arguments for ensuring that there is a strong
research presence in each of England's regions. We do not agree
that protecting this research presence would involve lowering
standards. Quality can be preserved if every university and every
region play to their individual strengths instead of concentrating
all their efforts on the same goal, and the same limited pot of
research money. (Paragraph 137)
50. If STEM departments
continue to close, there is a real danger that some STEM students
will be unable to study their chosen subject in their home region,
should they choose to do so. (Paragraph 140)
51. It is too early
to assess what impact the impending introduction of variable tuition
fees will have on departmental closures as universities position
themselves in preparation for the new system. We agree, however,
with the reply given to the Committee by the Director General
of the Research Councils, that the impact of variable tuition
fees on STEM departments should be kept under constant review,
and that emerging evidence should be published as part of the
Government's ongoing reviews to make clear what the impact of
the scheme has been. It is also logical to assume that, given
increasing levels of student debt, an increasing proportion of
the student population will be unable to live away from home.
It is therefore extremely important that provision for core STEM
subjects is maintained in every region. (Paragraph 142)
52. Whilst we believe
that all prospective STEM students should have the opportunity
to study within their region, it would be unreasonable, and a
strain on resources, to expect provision of each and every subject
to be maintained in every sub-region. Sub-regional provision can
be addressed through regional collaboration between universities.
(Paragraph 143)
| 
