Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence


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



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 11 April 2005