House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Eighth Report

4 Student demand

Demand for undergraduate STEM courses

40. In January 2003, the Government published its higher education White Paper, The Future of Higher Education. In it, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Charles Clarke, restated the Government's target of increasing participation in higher education to 50% of those aged between 18 and 30, mainly through two-year work-focused foundation degrees.[77] The target is, by nature, aspirational. As a paper produced by the Higher Education Policy Institute explains, "history tells us that Government HE [higher education] policy targets have had a limited impact on demand for HE in terms of both the total number of students and the type of HE demanded. […] For the most part, Government action at the HE level has affected the supply of places. Quite different, and much less controllable, factors affect student demand".[78] In order for the Government to achieve the participation rates that it has set for the higher education sector, it will have to find a way of motivating a sufficient proportion of school leavers to go to university, a much more complicated task than simply providing extra places.

41. The question of how to stimulate extra student demand is particularly acute for STEM subjects, which are taken at A-level and above by a relatively small proportion of each year group (see figure 1, below). Furthermore, statistics show a steady decline in student demand for undergraduate STEM courses, both in real terms and, more markedly, as a proportion of overall student demand levels. Sir Howard Newby, Chief Executive of HEFCE told us that "it has indeed been one of the ironies of the expansion during the late eighties and nineties, which coincided with the granting of full university status to the former polytechnics; the new universities expanded far more in the social sciences and humanities than in the science and engineering side".[79] The 1994 Group of universities stated that "the demand for teaching in science has shown considerable adverse change over a number of years, with a marked reduction in the proportion of students wishing to pursue undergraduate courses in science".[80] An Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development report shows that only 26% of total new degrees in the UK were awarded in science and engineering subjects. This compares to a figure of 32% in Germany, 29% in France and 38% in Korea.[81] Given the importance of STEM graduates to the economy, at just over a quarter, the proportion of total new degrees being awarded in science and engineering subjects in the UK shows considerable room for expansion.Figure 1: Percentage of "year group" taking STEM qualifications, 2000

Subject A-level (%) First degree (%) PhD (%)

Mathematics 7.8 0.6 0.05

Physics 4.1 0.3 0.07

Chemistry 5.1 0.5 0.13

Biology 6.6 2.5 0.25

Engineering and technology 2.2 2.8 0.24

Computer science 2.8 1.5 0.04

Business studies 4.7 4.4 0.05

Source: HM Treasury, SET for Success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills: The report of Sir Gareth Roberts' Review, April 2003, p 23

42. The extent of the decline in demand differs for different STEM subjects at different levels. For physics the relative decline in demand, when increases in overall levels of demand for higher education are taken into account, is pronounced, at 40% over the past decade.[82] In the UK, demand for undergraduate engineering courses has fallen from 11.4% of all degree entrants in 1988 to 5.4% in 2003. In addition, in 1999, 20.8% of all students on engineering undergraduate courses in the UK were non-UK citizens.[83] Figure 2, below, shows the changes in UK student demand for five different disciplines for the period from 1997-98 to 2002-03.Figure 2: Number of full time undergraduate students in UK higher education by (selected) subject.

Subject 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 % change

Biological sciences 44,755 45,666 46,180 46,175 44,975 56,545 + 26%

Chemistry 13,714 13,728 13,110 12,030 11,645 11,625 - 15%

Physics 9,731 9,706 9,480 9,025 8,605 9,045 - 7%

Social sciences 78,119 79,502 80,160 80,200 81,115 94,310 + 20%

Psychology 20,667 20,333 20,720 21,285 22,690 35,795 + 73%

All higher education 1,022,606 1,032,897 1,027,400 1,037,880 1,069,210 1,111,310 + 9%

Source: Royal Society of Chemistry and Institute of Physics, The economic benefits of higher education qualifications, A report produced for the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institute of Physics by Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP, January 2005, p 7

CASE STUDY: LEVELS OF DEMAND FOR CHEMISTRY

43. The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) denies that student demand for chemistry courses is in decline: "the current numbers applying to study chemical science courses in universities are around the long-term average of 3,000/year and reflect the continuing popularity of the subject".[84] This statement is belied by statistics from a wide range of sources. For example, the 2002 report of Sir Gareth Roberts's review, SET for Success, showed that, between 1994-95 and 1999-2000, there was a 23% decrease in the number of students gaining first degrees in chemistry; and a 19% decline in the number of PhDs.[85] The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry states that "applications from UK students to study chemistry have been declining steadily over the last 10 years. In 1993 4,110 applications were made to study chemistry as a single subject, this had fallen to 2,434 by 2003. Indications are that there was a slight increase in applications for 2004, but numbers are not yet available. As a percentage of students applying for HE courses, the percentage has fallen from 1.7% in 1994 to 0.68% in 2003".[86] The RSC's own study, The economic benefits of higher education qualifications, shows that from 1997-98 to 2002-03, there has been a decline of 15% in the number of full time undergraduate chemistry students in higher education. This is set against an increase of 9% in the higher education sector as a whole (see figure 2, above).

44. Many of the submissions we received focused on the actions that the Government could take to increase the supply of chemistry places in English universities, and on the need for it to preserve chemistry departments that would otherwise be forced to close. However, Professor Steve Smith, Vice Chancellor of Exeter University told us that, when his university proposed to close its chemistry department, "six institutions approached us about taking the chemistry students that we have at Exeter and each of them offered to take more students than we had. That means that there was clear capacity in those institutions".[87] Later he told us that "there is an excess of places over the number of students that wish to study the subject".[88] This indicates that there are sufficient university chemistry places to accommodate student demand within the system as a whole. 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.

45. Statistics on the number of university chemistry places at a national level do not give any indication of either variability in the standard of chemistry provision or student choice. A chemistry degree at Exeter is not the same as a chemistry degree at Bristol or Bath. This was made clear to us by Danielle Miles, a student in the chemistry department at Exeter University that is now to close. She told us that "they are pressurising us to go to Bristol or Bath […] I do not really want to go. I did not go to Exeter because of where it was, it was because of the university, and I am looking at going to Leeds".[89] Students do not simply choose a course on the basis of its subject: other motivating factors may include university reputation or location, course reputation or quality, and career or social considerations. 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.

STUDENT DEMAND AND DEPARTMENTAL CLOSURES

46. Declining student demand for undergraduate courses in core STEM subjects has played a pivotal role in the demise of many university STEM departments. The effects of the reduction in demand have been exacerbated by the funding mechanisms used to support universities. The teaching funding allocated to university departments is based on a number of factors, including student numbers. In determining an institution's teaching grant for the coming year, HEFCE considers the number of students recruited in the previous year. Institutions can also bid for additional student places according to criteria set by HEFCE each year (for example, in a recent funding round, bidding exercises were restricted to foundation degrees and social work courses). These additional places are added to the number of students recruited in the previous year. The resulting total determines the level of funding awarded. There are premiums for certain types of student (for example, part-time students and students on long courses), and funding is also differently weighted for different subjects.[90] The method for calculating teaching funding means that departments which are successful at attracting high numbers of students generally receive a higher level of funding, although we note that departments that significantly exceed their recruitment quotas are also penalised. In addition, STEM departments are typically expensive to run and maintain. The unit cost for the department therefore increases significantly for STEM departments with fewer students. This and other issues relating to the teaching funding formula will be discussed in more detail in paragraphs 104 to 112 of this Report.

47. Several witnesses told us that student demand levels have not played a role in the closure of STEM departments. The RSC, for example, told us that "overall application figures for chemistry in 2004 show an increase of 6.5% in the numbers of students applying to study at the undergraduate level. Student demand for chemistry was buoyant at King's College London, Queen Mary College, University of London, and Exeter University—at all of which recent closures have been announced—and yet the decisions to close their departments was made despite this buoyancy".[91] The same cases were also cited in written evidence by Professor Cadogan.[92] We do not have statistics for most of the departments cited, but we did hear from Professor Smith of Exeter University that his chemistry department had reduced its student quota by 21% in five years. The fact that the department filled its quota is therefore somewhat misleading. Furthermore, applications to study chemistry almost halved in the period between 1993 and 2003, against which an increase of 6.5% in 2004 is of little significance.[93] It is in this broader context of consistently declining numbers that claims about the buoyancy of demand for chemistry have to be interpreted.

48. The majority of witnesses told us that STEM departments were under threat as a result of a decline in student demand, compounded by university funding arrangements. Professor Steve Smith said that "I think the problem in science and engineering is a demand problem. It is not about the supply of places, it is about the demand for those places".[94] The Institute of Physics states that "physics departments are closing principally as a result of an inability to attract sufficient students to make ends meet, exacerbated by cuts in research funding in some cases".[95] Leeds University stated that "the underlying reason that sciences and engineering teaching is in difficulty is that the pool of students wishing to take these subjects has been decreasing for a long time, at least since the 1970s".[96] In oral evidence Professor Peter Main amplified this point, adding that the recruitment problems of some departments were creating the illusion of overall buoyancy of demand in others: "I am absolutely certain that the bigger departments, having seen the fall of the unit of resource just referred to, in order to keep their finances stable, have taken more and more students. I can point to some universities that have almost doubled their student quota as a result of that, including my own".[97] These statements are all borne out by the statistics given in figure 2, above.

49. The link in the system between funding and student numbers gives the student market a commanding role to play in the fortunes of university departments. A paper produced by the Higher Education Policy Institute notes that "the reliance on the block grant and the market has led to subjects where demand is in decline—perhaps only temporarily so—coming under threat as universities realise that their funding is at risk as they fail to recruit in those subjects. Although there are inevitable internal pressures to the contrary, there are strong incentives to downsize out of those subjects, or to switch into other subjects that are more in demand".[98] 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.

QUALITY VERSUS QUANTITY

50. Not only is it essential that the Government implements measures to increase the level of student demand for STEM courses, it is also vital to the continuing health of those disciplines that the students enrolling on such courses are of a high calibre. The quality of student demand was perceived by many to be a problem. EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, told us that "the individuals applying for courses in these subjects are not suitable for high-level study, because they have not achieved the necessary levels of learning in prerequisite subjects such as mathematics and physics".[99] Professor Steve Smith told us that, at Exeter University, the lack of sufficiently-well qualified student applicants reduced still further the number of students that the university could accept on to its chemistry course: "our quota was an adjustment between the number of students with the right grade that we could get and the places available. Our quota in chemistry had gone down 21 per cent in five years because the quality students were not there".[100] Save British Science conducted a survey of UK Deans of Science in 2003 which found that on 70% of undergraduate physical science courses, less than 50% of students were considered to possess the required level of mathematics skills.[101]

51. In oral evidence Professor Peter Main from the Institute of Physics implied that some students without the requisite levels of learning were nonetheless accepted onto some STEM courses: "I think it is probably fair to say that we are now at a position where the number of people who want to do physics is approximately equal to the number of people who do do physics. There are essentially no students who are turned away".[102] A paper produced by Mike Hill, a careers consultant on the choices made by school leavers, states that "in reality there is a strong argument to say that a student with C or D grades in the physical sciences like chemistry, physics and mathematics will have a greater choice of courses and careers than a student gaining B or even A grades in the subjects which have recently gained in popularity".[103] 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.

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE

52. The Dearing Report 2, published in 1997, identified four distinct categories of reasons why students choose a university course:

i. "Intellectual—related primarily to their intrinsic interest in the course, the subjects covered, and the academic standing of the course and institution;

ii. Pragmatic—related principally to practical issues such as the part-time structure of the course, proximity to home, etc;

iii. Instrumental—associated with the outcomes of the course and especially, students' longer term job and career prospects;

iv. Fatalistic—related to negative reasons such as being the only place offered".[104]

The majority of full-time students studied fell into the first category in selecting their course. This suggests that one of the reasons why a declining number of students choose to take STEM subjects at university is that these subjects have not attracted their intellectual interest. This is an issue that can be addressed at school level, as is discussed in paragraphs 62 to 66 below.

Cultural factors

53. A number of cultural factors are at work in the decisions made by schoolchildren. For example, the trend against women taking degrees in and pursuing careers relating to the physical sciences is visible from as early as at GCSE level: in England in 2001 there were 16,000 entries from girls for chemistry compared to 22,800 boys; and 15,400 entries from girls for physics compared to 23,000 boys.[105] Similar differentials are evident in the choices of male and female university students: only 1 in 5 undergraduate students studying either physics or computer science are female. Only 14% of applicants and acceptances through UCAS for engineering courses are female.[106]

54. The Government has stated its intention to increase the participation of women in STEM subjects and careers.[107] The 2002 SET Fair study by Baroness Susan Greenfield, which was commissioned by the Government in order to inform its policy in this area, identified various factors that need to be addressed to engage girls in STEM subjects and careers. These included:

"Stereotyping by teachers, parents and friends and stereotypical careers advice;

Lack of visibility of women scientists/engineers and low contact with role models reinforced by low media presence of women;

Peer pressure and the lack of linkage between science, engineering and technical jobs seen as being of benefit to society (girls rank this highly when considering careers);

Antipathy towards science and technology in general".[108]

55. Other studies have also concluded that the image of, and stereotypes associated with, STEM careers are likely to be important in determining girls' attitudes towards those careers and the university courses that support them. For example, a 2001 survey of secondary school-age pupils conducted by SEMTA and MORI found that only 1% of the girls surveyed wanted to be an engineer, and that this seemed to be allied to the girls' perceptions that engineering "was a boring occupation, and one which required work in a dirty environment". Another survey (2004) carried out by Careers Scotland and partners based in or near to Edinburgh found that the career preferences of 7—8 year olds tended to be related to their father's occupational classification, but not to their mother's.[109] In order to increase student demand—particularly amongst women—for STEM subjects, the Government needs to address these negative perceptions.

56. The panel of students we saw on 7 February told us that STEM subjects had a negative image amongst students. Danielle Miles, a chemistry student from Exeter, said that "there is a whole image of [science] as not being very cool, as you say, looking like 'geeks'".[110] Ian Hutton, a biological sciences student from the University of East Anglia, told us that "often you are stigmatised if you do a science course".[111] A study on "The Labour Market for Engineering, Science and IT Graduates: Are there Mismatches between Supply and Demand?", conducted in 1999 by the then Department for Education and Employment, found that one key reason for the low take up of STEM subjects by sixth form students is their poor "image", with opinions of STEM occupations conforming to negative stereotypes.[112] The University of Leeds suggested that the similar decline in demand for science subjects being experienced across Europe indicated deep-rooted cultural elements at work.[113] Cultural factors are relatively difficult to address because they are deeply embedded.

Difficulty

57. We heard that STEM subjects didn't appeal to some students because of their perceived difficulty. Ian Hutton said that "it is almost as though there are these two cultures that go with university; there are the people who go to study and the people who go to university because they feel that they should, and they get on an easy course and they spend a lot of time lazing around and relaxing".[114] He classified science students in the former group. Similarly, the Committee of Heads of University Geoscience Departments told us that some students choose not to take STEM subjects because they "feel they don't have the necessary skills ('I'm not clever enough to do a science degree')".[115] The panel of Vice Chancellors we saw on 9 March strongly rejected the notion that science courses were more difficult than other subjects. Professor David Eastwood, Vice Chancellor at the University of East Anglia, said that "if you look at the data on so called 'easier' subjects you get a very mixed message. If you look at A-level outcomes and indeed if you look at post degree outcomes, the subjects that the media often deride as 'soft' subjects are harder to get As in and harder to get Firsts in. In my own institution the highest proportion of First Class degrees in the main is in the science disciplines".[116] Dr Kim Howells MP, Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education in the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), told us that "there are plenty of young people around who are perfectly capable of doing so-called difficult subjects, and I dispute that term as well, but they are choosing not to do them".[117] The debate about relative levels of difficulty is a red herring in this context: it is the widespread perception of the difficulty of STEM subjects, however inaccurate, that is important.

58. There is some evidence that STEM subjects have declined in popularity as the choice of university courses has increased. With a proliferation of new subjects and joint-honours courses now available at undergraduate level, student choice is extremely wide. As we explored in our recent Report on Forensic Science, Forensic Science on Trial, this has meant that some students choose new subjects over the old "core" disciplines—in this case forensic science over chemistry. When giving evidence as part of our inquiry into forensic science, Dr Angela Gallop, Chief Executive of Forensic Alliance, told us that "there seems to be a difficulty here because the Government on the one hand is exhorting the universities to fill seats, to get more and more people through their doors, and the only way they can do that is by putting on courses that are attractive to them. Forensic science at the moment is a very attractive option because of all the television programmes".[118] Professor Stephen Haswell from the University of Hull told us that "students applying for the forensic science courses are twice that for chemistry and chemistry with other subjects".[119] The inquiry heard widespread concerns about the quality of forensic science courses. Clive Wolfendale, Deputy Chief Constable in the North Wales Police, told us that such courses were "a savage waste of young people's time and parent's money".[120] Dr Gallop also told us that "the huge danger is that so much time is spent on teaching pseudo forensic science that all the basic, pure science that you need to operate as a really good forensic scientist is missing".[121] This becomes problematic if students undertaking courses in forensic science are misled about the likely career prospects of their degree.

59. Many witnesses were dismayed by the popularity of non-core STEM degrees and told us that such courses were of little value. However, Scientists for Labour stated that "joint degree courses, such as physical sciences and sports science, should not be undervalued (nor risk closure). Whilst such courses may not attract the aspiring Nobel Prize winner, they provide an excellent source of schoolteachers".[122] As part of the Government's drive to increase participating in higher education, universities are being encouraged to provide courses that are attractive to students. They should not be criticised for achieving this goal. 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.

What can be done to increase levels of undergraduate demand?

60. As is set out above, the choices made by students upon leaving school have a profound impact on the viability of university departments. Currently, students are voting against core STEM subjects with their feet. Whilst the market approach to course provision has had adverse consequences for some of the less popular disciplines, it is difficult to see how else universities could be expected to operate. They cannot force students to take particular courses, even by closing off other options. As Professor Peter Main of the Institute of Physics told us, "ultimately, you cannot create demand if it is not there. It is all very well saying that we can reduce the number of media studies people, but those people probably will not want to choose to do physics and chemistry. So, it is really about increasing the demand for the subjects that we want".[123]

61. Stimulating student demand is no easy task, particularly if little is understood about why demand is so low in the first place. We asked the Minister what was and could be done to increase levels of demand. He told us that an official from DfES "has been doing a survey of the huge number of initiatives that are out there to try to get young people interested in science and mathematics and engineering and technology, and so far she has filled three volumes with these initiatives. I suspect we are spending as a nation, not just as a department, many millions of pounds on initiatives for which we have very little evidence that they are working. They do not seem to be working".[124] It is, of course, extremely difficult to judge the success of initiatives to increase student demand, largely because such initiatives often require cultural change and thus have long lead times. Nonetheless we were very surprised to learn that the Government knew so little about the success of its attempts to enthuse young people about science. 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.

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN SCHOOLSFigure 3: A level examination entrants: 16-18 year old students in all schools and colleges in England analysed by selected subject

Subject 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 % change

Biological sciences 42,826 47,156 46,176 44,619 47,236 45,773 44,345 + 4%

Chemistry 32,269 35,813 35,276 33,650 33,427 32,319 32,193 0%

Physics 26,440 29,481 28,105 27,809 28,549 27,128 24,671 - 7%

Other science 5,840 6,742 6,722 6,679 8,008 4,184 3,777 - 35%

Mathematics 54,980 61,185 58,618 58,277 50,326 51,438 51,218 - 7%

Psychology - - - - - 39,907 42,865 n/a

Total (all subjects) 605,320 679,812 672,192 686,360 666,073 686,472 676,679 + 12%

62. The decline in the number of students wanting to take undergraduate courses in STEM subjects is mirrored by the decline in the number of school pupils opting to take science A-levels. Professor Amanda Chetwynd, Vice President of the London Mathematical Society, told us that "in terms of mathematics, we know that there has been a 25 per cent fall in the number of students doing A level over the last 20 years".[125] Bahram Bekhradnia of the Higher Education Policy Institute said that there had been a "13 per cent reduction in A Levels in physics, 13 per cent in mathematics and seven per cent in chemistry. A reduction at the time when the number of A Level entries has increased by ten per cent overall. That is bound to be reflected, if it has not already been reflected—and I suspect it must have been—in demand at university level".[126] Figure 3, above, illustrates the change in demand for science A-levels between 1997-98 and 2003-04. We learnt that the problem was worse in the state maintained sector. Professor Bob Boucher of the Royal Academy of Engineering stated that "the 15 per cent of the students educated in the independent sector were producing 50 per cent of the students with two science A levels. So, the state school sector has seen a tremendous fall in the qualified output to study science and engineering at universities, a deeply fundamental problem in my view".[127]

63. We were not at all surprised to hear about the poor take-up rates for A-level science courses. Our Report on Science Education from 14 to 19 found that science teaching in secondary schools was uninspiring, and in some cases positively off putting, from a very early stage. In that Report we observed that:

"Current GCSE courses are overloaded with factual content, contain little contemporary science and have stultifying assessment arrangements. Coursework is boring and pointless. Teachers and students are frustrated by the lack of flexibility. Students lose any enthusiasm that they once had for science. Those who choose to continue with science post-16 often do so in spite of their experiences of GCSE rather than because of them. Primary responsibility should lie with the awarding bodies; the approach to assessment at GCSE discourages good science from being taught in schools."[128]

The Centre for Bioscience, part of the Higher Education Academy, told us that "physics and some chemistry in schools are taught in a way which students find difficult to relate to their everyday experiences, often by biology graduates with little chemical background, or by physics and chemistry graduates of low ability".[129] This phenomenon has also been experienced elsewhere. A European Union-wide survey, conducted in December 2001, found that 59.5% of the 16,029 people surveyed thought that science lessons at school were "not appealing enough".[130] If schoolchildren are put off science subjects by their experiences of them at school, it is hardly surprising that many of them show little inclination to continue studying those subjects at university. The poor quality of science education in secondary schools plays a significant role in the lack of student demand for university STEM courses.

64. The vast majority of the evidence we took concurred that the only way to address the issue of declining student demand for STEM subjects in the long term was to improve science teaching in schools. The Russell Group of universities, for example, stated that "the dynamics are such that student demand in these areas is ultimately an issue of national significance which will have to be addressed at the Secondary Education level, and any significant improvements will necessarily have long lead times".[131] NATFHE, the union for university and college lecturers, told us that "student demand for science and engineering at higher education will not improve unless science teaching and the science curriculum at primary and secondary level is sufficiently exciting and effective".[132] Ed Metcalfe, from the South East England Development Agency, told us that "it is not just asking the universities to take on more science undergraduates; the problem is much earlier and is about getting 11-year olds engaged in being interested in science, and 16-year olds beginning to make the right career choices, and all the way through to graduates. There are a number of choices that they will make".[133] Professor Ian Diamond of Research Councils UK used the example of mathematics: "at the beginning we need to make sure there are students in schools and so mathematics has to be taught properly and taught in an exciting way that people want to do it at an undergraduate level".[134] The Government itself stated that "there are no instant solutions, and […] demand for these subjects has to be kindled in schools".[135]

65. In its Response to our Report on Science Education from 14 to 19, the Government broadly welcomed the Committee's recommendations and outlined a number of steps that it was already taking to address them.[136] Change cannot be expected overnight. It will inevitably take some time to reverse previous underinvestment in school science facilities, to see the results of the Government's initiatives to attract more science teachers (see paragraphs 33 to 35), and to adapt the curriculum to make it more interesting and relevant to schoolchildren. Nonetheless, we believe that the Government has already missed a significant opportunity to improve the school science curriculum. In its Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 it states that "the Working Group on 14-19 Curriculum and Qualifications Reform, chaired by Mike Tomlinson, is developing a diploma framework which will include: the generic skills needed by everybody for any further learning, employment and adult life; and the specific subjects and areas of learning in which young people want to progress".[137] This undertaking is broadly in line with recommendations made in our Report on Science Education from 14 to 19. Given that the output of this Working Group is heralded in the Investment Framework as one of the Government's main actions to improve school science, it is surprising that, when the Tomlinson Report was published in October 2004, the Government rejected out of hand its proposals for a new diploma to replace existing school qualifications. It is a pity that the Government has missed its first major opportunity, offered by the Tomlinson Report, to reinvigorate the school science curriculum.

66. 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.

CAREERS INFORMATION

67. STEM graduates have excellent career prospects. There is some evidence that this is already a factor in students' decisions to take STEM subjects at university. Stephen Rowley, one of a panel of students that we saw on 7 February, told us why he chose to take a degree in civil engineering: "I was aware I wanted to do something that got me out and about; I did not want to be stuck behind a desk and things like that. They made me aware that there was going to be a shortage of good engineers, so it might be a good way to go".[138] Nonetheless, the evidence we received suggests that other prospective students have a less clear idea about, or interest in, the career prospects stemming from their choice of degree. This is borne out by the Dearing Report, which showed that the majority of full-time students picked their courses for "intellectual" rather than "instrumental" reasons (see paragraph 52 above). Our Report on Science Education from 14 to 19 found that "students need better information about the value of science to their future careers".[139] Student choices appear to be informed in an unstructured way by a variety of sources outside school. Mike Hill, who has studied the choices made by school leavers, notes that "the role of television in influencing career choice should not be underestimated. An Office Angels survey in 2005 revealed that 82 % of 1,500 young people between the ages of 16 to 25 said dramas like Spooks, CSI, Ready Steady Cook had a major influence on their choices. The five most popular choices were forensic science, journalism, government security agencies, becoming a chef and property development. This is irrespective of the realities of the job market and potential vacancies in some of these fields of work".[140] Furthermore, the Institute of Physics observes that careers advice given to schoolchildren tends to be "reactive", effectively closing off the possibility of avenues that the children themselves have not thought of.[141]

68. The public image of scientists and engineers has an impact on the appeal of STEM-related careers to schoolchildren, particularly girls (see paragraphs 53 to 56). Further evidence for this is provided by the drastic increase in popularity of forensic science and allied subjects (for both male and female students) in conjunction with the prominent and favourable image of this profession projected by the media in recent years (see paragraphs 58 to 59). The Government should learn from this example the power of the media as a tool for promoting interest in scientific careers. 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.

69. A recent study commissioned by the Institute of Physics (IoP) and the RSC stated that, "the individual rate of return to the average degree holder is about 12% per annum. This compares with an individual rate of return for graduates in chemistry and physics of approximately 15% per annum. Undertaking a chemistry and physics degree provides an above average investment to the individual".[142] Yet, evidence suggests that awareness of the salary potential of certain careers, and the university courses that lead into them, is low amongst school leavers. The Lambert Review stated that "more information should be provided to students on the economic consequences of their course choices".[143] As students become increasingly mindful of debt, the prospects of a high-earning career at the end of their degree are likely to become more attractive to them. Good financial prospects have the potential to act as a powerful lever to encourage students to take up STEM subjects at university. In addition, the skills shortages identified by some employers of scientists (see chapter 3) mean a greater likelihood of securing employment for those who have acquired the requisite skills. By contrast, the increase in the number of students taking degrees in such subjects as psychology, forensic science and media studies has led to an over-supply of graduates for the jobs available. This was described by Scientists for Labour as a "market breakdown […] school students are failing to appreciate the advantages of science subjects that confer excellent transferable skills and career options, while other subjects have become fashionable out of all proportion to job opportunities".[144]

70. In its Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014, the Government sets out its plans to increase the access by young people to careers advice by means of the Connexions service. It states that "the Connexions service […] offers a conduit for good quality careers information from employer organisations or sector bodies".[145] Whilst it is a positive sign that the Government has acknowledged the importance of providing schoolchildren with good quality, impartial careers advice, we are not convinced that such advice is best located outside school. Unless careers advice is delivered directly to schoolchildren, as an integral part of their school experience, there is a chance that they will not take the opportunity to benefit from advice offered to them by the Government.

71. 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.

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES

72. In our Office of Science and Technology: Scrutiny Report 2003, we recommended that, in order to maintain sufficient demand for particular subjects, "the Government should consider establishing bursaries for undergraduates to study shortage subjects, such as physical sciences and engineering".[146] In its Response, the Government rejected our suggestion.[147] In the US, a Bill is currently being drafted that would remove interest on college loans for students graduating with science-related majors and subsequently working for at least three years in the field, until the point when their salaries exceeded four times the median US income ($32,000).[148] In the UK, the IoP has already introduced a bursary scheme for physics students worth £1,000 a year. In oral evidence, Professor Michael Sterling, Chairman of the Russell Group, told us that the scheme was "already attracting increased student interest. Positive intervention can influence the market for strategic purposes".[149] He told us that national bursaries "need not be very many […] and they need not cost very much money", and emphasised that "it is more the message that is given to prospective applicants rather than the actual sum of money that they would get that is important".[150] Indeed, all three of the other members of the panel of Vice Chancellors that we saw on 9 March were strongly in favour of the introduction of such a scheme.

73. Evidence on the effectiveness of financial incentives at stimulating student demand for STEM subjects is largely speculative because, apart from the still-embryonic IoP scheme and sponsorship deals run by employers, no such national bursary for STEM subjects currently exists. However, a similar venture has been used by the Government to try to increase the number of PGCE students. As is shown in paragraphs 34 to 35 of this Report, financial incentives for teachers have increased the recruitment of teachers, but have not improved retention rates. This experience suggests that, whilst financial incentives may be sufficient to attract initial student interest, recipients do not necessarily sustain their interest once funds dry up. This is potentially a serious limitation of a science bursary scheme, given that part of the intention of attracting more students into STEM courses at university is to increase the number of graduates pursuing long term careers in science.

74. In order to better understand the factors that motivate students, we asked a panel of students whether they thought that a bursary scheme would increase demand for STEM subjects. Danielle Miles told us that "I think it would appeal to people but I think you would get the wrong people on the courses […] you might end up not having as many researchers and people going into the fields that they have studied in, and more people just going into IT with good degrees and things like that".[151] Ian Hutton agreed, saying that "I think you would have to be very careful about what incentives you offered because it is not just taking the places as a blank spot and trying to put people in them, you need the right kind of people to fill those places and careful consideration would need to be given as to why those places are not being filled by the people you want them to be filled by".[152] Attracting students who are more interested in the money than the subject, or its potential applications, is an inevitable risk of introducing a bursary scheme.

75. 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.

77 Department for Education and Skills, The Future of Higher Education, Cm5735, January 2003, p 57 Back

78 Libby Aston, Higher Education Policy Institute, Higher education supply and demand to 2010, June 2003, pp 8-9 Back

79 Q 185 Back

80 Ev 136 Back

81 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, 2003, p 51. The percentages given have been rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. Back

82 Ev 133 Back

83 The Engineering Council (UK) and the Engineering and Technology Board (etb), Digest of Engineering Statistics 2003-04, July 2004, p 28 Back

84 Ev 180 Back

85 HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department for Education and Skills, SET for Success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills: The report of Sir Gareth Roberts's Review, p 24 Back

86 Ev 173 Back

87 Q 419 Back

88 Q 458 Back