APPENDIX 58
Memorandum from the Institution of Civil
Engineers
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is
a UK-based international organisation with over 75,000 members
ranging from professional civil engineers to students. It is an
educational and qualifying body and has charitable status under
UK law. Founded in 1818, ICE has become recognised worldwide for
its excellence as a centre of learning, as a qualifying body and
as a public voice for the profession.
ICE has close links with the HE sector, for
example through the Joint Board of Moderators (JBM) accreditation—jointly
with three other professional bodies—of a wide range of
degree programmes, including 4 year MEng, 3 year BEng and foundation
years. During this process, involving periodic visits to civil
engineering departments, issues related to the scope of this Inquiry
are reviewed, including: the departmental resources, staff:student
ratios, industrial liaison, research and consultancy activities,
and graduate employment.
1. The Impact on HE of HEFCE's research funding
formulae, as applied to Research Assessment Exercise ratings,
on the financial viability of university science departments
1.1 At present the UK has a marginal costing
system which does not cover full costs; the introduction of Full
Economic Costing of Research will help research active universities.
HEFCE funding for 2004-05:
— In 2004-05 the HEFCE funding is £3,557
million for teaching, £273 million on widening participation
and £1,081 million on research.
— Of the research funding £118
million (about 10%) is available for all grade 4 departments.
— The average unit of resource for
4-rated submissions is capped in 2004-05 in real terms at the
2003-04 level.
The HEFCE policy is not to spread the research
funding thinly across the grades.
1.2 The financial viability of a research
department, or a department with research aspirations, is thus
dependent on a 5 grade or higher. The average unit of resource
for units rated 5 and 5* should be at least maintained in real
terms
1.3 A 4 grade leaves a financial drop that
cannot be immediately offset by student numbers, particularly
as the unit of resource, the price group weighting, has reduced.
A change from a 5 to a 4 in the RAE has significant financial
implications and has led to closure of departments. However, the
issue is complicated and this needs to be considered alongside
another central problem: HE is not resourced at a sustainable
level for teaching (see below).
1.4 The RAE leads to a distortion in relation
to staffing—engineering departments now cannot afford to
recruit excellent teaching staff who do not have a significant
research pedigree. In the 2000-01 RAE, 57% of research active
staff were in 5 and 5* departments (an increase of staff of 9,000
from 1996). If a department is struggling, there is a temptation
to make appointments with the RAE in mind, ie to appoint academics
who will meet the requirement for a minimum of four quality academic
papers in the assessment period. These are unlikely to be practitioners
from industry, who would bring the full breadth of knowledge about
civil engineering. Increasingly, university civil engineering
staff lack any industrial experience. The long-term consequence
on the education of future civil engineers is serious: students
are less likely to interact on a regular basis with practitioners.
1.5 A recent sad example illustrates a further
consequence: a young academic is leaving academe because senior
staff pass all their teaching on him whilst they carry out research.
1.6 In response to the hostile funding environment,
civil engineering departments have closed in a number of universities
and in others merged into schools/faculties of engineering or
built environment. This led to a decrease in the number of departments
submitting under the civil engineering unit of assessment in the
RAE from 40 in 1996 to 29 in 2001, a 37% decline. The outcome
is that the civil engineering influence has declined, and this
will create damage to the civil engineering profession, industry
and UK plc. The strength of civil engineering research in the
UK is its diversity, and this is because of broadly-based civil
engineering departments.
1.7 The RAE can also affect the choice of
research topics, and this may be detrimental to the education
of future engineers. The HSE Research Report 275 "Identification
and management of risk in undergraduate construction courses"
(Supplementary report—April 2004) made the following specific
conclusion that may be relevant to the Inquiry:
"The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)
continues to exert a negative influence upon this topic, particularly
at Centres where it is seen as a diversion from the main declared
focus of maintaining or improving research standards."
1.8 This is coming at a time when the numbers
entering civil engineering first degree programmes has increased
for the third year in a row, and by 15% in 2004 over 2003. Therefore
some reports of government attributing the plight of science in
HE to the lack of demand are disappointing and certainly not the
case for civil engineering. More could and should be done to communicate
the facts—that a degree in engineering will equip young
people to pursue an exciting, well-paid career where they can
help to build a sustainable environment.
2. The desirability of increasing the concentration
of research in a small number of university departments, and the
consequences of such a trend
2.1 Increasing the concentration of research
in a small number of departments under the present system is desirable
in that it enables continuity and quality to be maintained. There
is recognition of the need for a critical mass of staff necessary
to sustain research in a particular discipline and to ensure impact.
Wide dilution and equal funding for each university would not
be practicable or useful.
2.2 However, no university has a monopoly
on innovation and there must be serious competition in key areas.
Concentrating research would be detrimental. It would lead to
a loss of regional input and, if based on critical mass, the loss
of quality departments with an international reputation. The UK's
breadth of civil engineering research would be lost, for example
in the sphere of construction management. In addition, it makes
it difficult for new departments to join the "research club",
with a danger of perpetuating former divides (Russell Group and
new universities).
3. The implications for university science
(engineering) teaching of changes in the weightings given to science
(engineering) subjects in the teaching funding formula
3.1 Engineering departments tend to be more
financially dependent on teaching than on research. Thus not resourcing
teaching at a sustainable level is a central problem for engineering
departments. Years ago, the weightings were similar to those for
medicine; in 2004, HEFCE changed the price group weightings for
science and engineering students from 2.0 in 2003 to 1.7 in 2004,
a 15% fall. In this regard there is a disconnect between government
policy, with its strong and realistic emphasis on science and
technology as a basis for economic well-being and growth, and
the HEFCE formula.
3.2 The changes in price group weightings
means that departments that are largely "teaching" have
suffered a 15% cut in home student income. There is then a tendency
for universities to target the recruitment of overseas (non-EU)
students instead of home students, thus attracting higher fees,
in order to become financially viable without excessive student:staff
ratios. If high, these ratios have a significant impact on an
engineering department's ability to remain at the leading edge
of research (see below). It is noted that Oxford University has
just declared a policy to recruit from overseas and reduce home
students; we are aware that this policy may become more widespread
in the near future.
3.3 The changes in weightings for science
and engineering subjects do not seem to take account of the fact
that the number of academic staff/student contact hours is typically
higher (about 15 hours/week) in these disciplines than in most
other subjects.
3.4 In addition, it is a temptation in cash
starved universities to distribute this money to other disciplines
through the internal accounting models. For example, the imposition
of a "space tax" transfers funds from engineering and
science (where more space is needed) to other disciplines, thus
the engineers then subsidise the arts and humanities. The HEFCE
model has put at risk the industrially relevant science and engineering
base in the UK.
4. The optimal balance between teaching and
research provision in universities, giving particular consideration
to the desirability and financial viability of teaching-only science
(engineering) departments
4.1 Research-led universities need to maintain
their national and international reputations in order to survive,
and their staff:student ratio has to be low (about 1:10 or 12)
so that staff have the time to undertake research.
4.2 In teaching-led universities, funding
is largely dependent on student numbers. Any fall in numbers,
particularly overseas students, in a discipline could therefore
be critical to viability. Teaching-led universities play an essential
part in the education of incorporated engineers, so an optimal
balance is essential. Good teaching is not dependent on good research
grading.
5. The importance of maintaining a regional
capacity in university science (engineering) teaching and research
5.1 It is important to maintain regional
provision of civil engineering programmes to meet the needs of
those students who, perhaps for financial reasons, seek to study
close to home.
6. 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
6.1 Civil engineering is a subject of strategic
national and international importance; the future of the UK economy
is dependent on these graduates. It warrants a strategic look
forward to ensure that the UK both maintains its position globally
especially in areas where we currently excel (such as innovation,
engineering management, and legal and contracting aspects) and
also develops programmes that are at the cutting edge, and that
meet the UK's strategic skills requirements.
6.2 On government intervention, there are
different views: it is supported, for example where the numbers
of graduate scientists and engineers falls below a pre-agreed
level. Some argue that the advent of fees from 2006 may force
students to concentrate on disciplines which have a revenue stream
attached, and hence engineering may benefit; others believe it
may make students consider degrees with less contact time than
civil engineering so they can undertake part-time work, and numbers
will fall. The intervention mechanism could be government scholarships
or fee re-imbursement to ensure the number and quality of future
graduates in subjects of strategic national importance.
6.3 Some feel that Government should intervene
as little as possible, but should be consistent across government's
own departments, for example across Construction (where skills
shortages are acknowledged and the Minister aims to address) and
DfES (in respect of funding models). A view from employers is
that it is important that graduates have skill sets that meet
the needs of business and the community. This requires there to
be a stock take of what is needed and encouraging appropriate
provision.
6.4 Government decision-making in relation
to policy such as HE funding, would benefit from the inclusion
of more scientists and engineers. Training, identifying and encouraging
the engagement of leading scientists and engineers in political
discussions on such policy issues, is urgently required.
January 2005
| 
