APPENDIX 33
Memorandum from the School of Civil Engineering
and the Environment, University of Southampton
CONTEXT
The School of Civil Engineering and the Environment
at the University of Southampton comprises some 30 members of
academic staff, 50 research staff, 250 postgraduate and 300 undergraduate
students. It was rated 5* for civil engineering in the 2001 Research
Assessment Exercise, and has one of the highest per capita research
grant and contract incomes in this unit of assessment in the UK.
The philosophy of education and research in
Civil and Environmental Engineering at Southampton is to use our
strengths in core engineering science disciplines such as solid,
soil and fluid mechanics to address the key problems facing society
today. Areas of research include transportation, infrastructure,
sustainable urban environments, waste and resource management,
coastal and marine engineering and sustainable energy. The problems
we address are interdisciplinary in nature. While they often do
not lend themselves to traditional technical investigation, the
challenge we address is to apply the high standards and analytical
rigour associated with our core disciplines to their solution.
We aim to work with industry and other disciplines to help define
and solve problems in a way that advances fundamental scientific
knowledge and understanding, benefits society and protects and
enhances the environment. This mission is reflected in the range
and extent of our educational programmes and our research collaborators
and outputs.
All senior staff have a broad experience of
civil and environmental engineering research and education through
their activities as external examiners, reviewers and members
of senior appointments committees at other leading civil engineering
schools and departments in the UK and internationally. The following
observations relating directly or indirectly to the points on
which the Committee has invited evidence are based on that broad
experience.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The fundamental problem is not necessarily a
lack of overall funding, but that the funding attached to each
and every individual activity is insufficient. This results in
a department or school being apparently financially viable, but
only because the resources (particularly academic staff) are overstretched.
The loss of even the marginal funding makes it very difficult
to reduce levels of activity without jeopardising the overall
financial balance.
A vibrant 5* School with healthy taught programmes
is at least superficially financially viable under the previous
weightings given to science subjects under the teaching funding
formula. However, this requires extremely high levels of output
from academic staff: on average, each established lecturer must
teach 3 x 15 credit modules per annum (equivalent to 6 hours contact
time per week); supervise 4 MSc and 7 undergraduate projects;
obtain funding for and supervise three current research students
(PhD, EngD or MSc by research); hold current research grants and
contracts to the value of at least £300,000; contribute significantly
to School and University administration (see below); and engage
in all the high-visibility activities such as external committee
and review work that contribute to a 5* research rating. Even
the most efficient and effective academics find it difficult to
deliver what is expected of them in less than 50 hours per week.
THE IMPLICATIONS
FOR UNIVERSITY
SCIENCE TEACHING
OF CHANGES
IN THE
WEIGHTINGS GIVEN
TO SCIENCE
SUBJECTS IN
THE TEACHING
FUNDING FORMULA
The reduction in per capita student funding
resulting from HEFCE's recent adjustment of subject band weightings
will either damage the financial viability of a department of
school or increase the already excessive productivity requirements
of its academic staff.
The reduction in per capita student costs over
the past 20 years or so has been achieved by expecting staff to
deliver more, and reducing the amount of practical and experimental
work in science and engineering curricula. In both respects, we
believe that the UK has already gone too far and the recent reduction
in per capita teaching funding will worsen an already difficult
situation.
The changes in weightings for science and engineering
subjects do not seem to take account of the fact that the number
of student contact hours is typically higher (about 15 hours/week)
than in most other subjects.
Reduced funding seems certain to result in the
closure of expensive laboratory facilities unless universities
decide to subsidies the teaching of engineering and sciences.
This is unlikely and in any case unfair on other disciplines.
The danger is that teaching of science and engineering subjects
will cease or be reduced to the level of a third world country
where they are taught as theoretical subjects only. This is not
sensible if the UK is to remain a technologically driven nation.
THE DESIRABILITY
OF INCREASING
THE CONCENTRATION
OF RESEARCH
IN A
SMALL NUMBER
OF UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENTS, AND
THE CONSEQUENCES
OF SUCH
A TREND
A degree of focus and concentration is desirable
as it enables critical mass to be achieved in certain centres
equipped with excellent facilities having a high level of utilisation.
This is only possible if we concentrate research funds to some
extent into a strategic number of centres. However, an overconcentration
of activity into too small a number of institutions would be damaging,
because:
1. While the best institutions will be attractive
to the best people later in their careers, it would prevent many
individuals from even starting on a scientific research career.
The location of a first or even subsequent academic appointments
is to some extent a matter of luck and personal circumstances.
2. It is essential for the health of both
individual disciplines nationally and the university system as
a whole that people move between institutions at various stages
of their careers. In some North American and European institutions,
this is a requirement and internal promotions are not possible.
3. If an activity becomes too small nationally,
it ceases to be relevant to the national interest no matter how
high its quality. The UK motor car and rail vehicle building industries
are examples of this.
THE OPTIMAL
BALANCE BETWEEN
TEACHING AND
RESEARCH PROVISION
IN UNIVERSITIES,
GIVING PARTICULAR
CONSIDERATION TO
THE DESIRABILITY
AND FINANCIAL
VIABILITY OF
TEACHING-ONLY
SCIENCE DEPARTMENTS
In our view, both are essential to the vibrancy
and health of a learning environment seeking to deliver at the
highest level. Both should be fully financially supported. There
is no doubt that the brightest students benefit immensely from
the atmosphere of creativity that exists in a leading research
department, although weaker students are less able to benefit.
THE EXTENT
TO WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD INTERVENE
TO ENSURE
CONTINUING PROVISION
OF SUBJECTS
OF STRATEGIC
NATIONAL OR
REGIONAL IMPORTANCE;
AND THE
MECHANISMS IT
SHOULD USE
FOR THIS
PURPOSE
Continuing provision of subjects of strategic
importance is essential. The developing countries with rapidly
growing economies (India, Malaysia, China) are characterised by
education systems that have been designed to produce graduates
with science and engineering skills that can lead the economy.
However, what is needed to address this is that the full range
of activities is fully funded and properly resourced rather than
any artificial Government intervention.
OTHER POINTS
Considerable further pressures are placed on
staff by the increasing QA and legislative requirements of Government.
Not only does a university have to allocate some resource centrally
to deal with these matters (thus taking resource away from the
delivery of education and research), but staff within the academic
schools have to be involved in compliance. Nearly all of our academic
staff have at least one major administrative responsibility, and
many have two or three.
Academic staff are increasingly called on for
(generally unpaid) review and advisory work, for the Research
Councils and Government departments such as Defra, DTI and DfT
etc.
Many recent research initiatives by the Research
Councils and Government have been application focussed, addressing
areas that are not necessarily amenable to scientific research.
It is often difficult for basic science projects to compete successfully
for funding in such an environment as it is not seen as sufficiently
exciting; even though without a sound underlying science base,
little if anything of real value or practical use is likely to
be achieved.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to attract
really top quality graduates to an academic research career in
many branches of engineering owing to the combined effects of
low earnings, unfeasible expectations in terms of workload and
quality/quantity of output, and excessive bureaucracy.
January 2005
| 
