Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160
- 177)
MONDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2005
MR BAHRAM
BEKHRADNIA
Q160 Chairman: Does that answer the
question?
Mr Bekhradnia: No, it does not.
It does not talk about how many science graduates we need. In
fact, it goes so far as to say that that sort of detailed manpower
planning is probably unhelpful. What it does say is that if you
want to be a knowledge economy, you cannot become a knowledge
economy without producing sufficient graduates, but producing
sufficient graduates is not going to be sufficient to make you
into a knowledge economy; you need all sorts of other things in
place as well. That begs the question: what sort of graduates
do you want? Is it necessarily the case that more science and
engineering graduates will turn you into a knowledge economy,
or would you be better off with more—
Q161 Chairman: Can you ever have
too many graduates, in your opinion? You are hesitating.
Mr Bekhradnia: I am only hesitating
because of the tone in which you put the question. My view is
that you cannot have too much education. I think that a better-educated
person is a better person, by and large; and so I rejoice when
I see more people coming through school.
Q162 Chairman: You are not answering
my question.
Mr Bekhradnia: Sorry, I am trying
to be helpful—I am getting there. The answer is that you
cannot have too many graduates. You cannot have too many A-Level
entrants. I am thrilled that there are more and more people staying
on at 16 doing A-Levels and then going on to get a degree. What
would you say to people otherwise—"sorry, no, stop;
we are not going to let you carry on to do any more education;
that is it; you have had too much education already"? That
is not sustainable.
Q163 Dr Iddon: Why has nobody mentioned
the importance of a university to its local economy? If a small
or medium-sized enterprise has nowhere to go for advice—no
chemistry department, no physics department, no engineering department—and
we are teaching forensic science and chiropody and physiotherapy,
what does that do to our economy?
Mr Bekhradnia: Those are legitimate
issues that do need to be taken into account in looking at this
question, I agree.
Q164 Dr Iddon: So you agree that
perhaps we are looking at the wrong things.
Mr Bekhradnia: No, I am saying
this is another of the issues. There are many different factors
that need to be taken into account in looking at this question.
The importance of universities in a local economy must be one
of them. It is something that has only recently become recognised.
Q165 Mr Key: Chairman, I apologise
for missing part of this session. I have had to sit on two select
committees at once this afternoon. Are there any circumstances
in which the Government should prop up ailing science departments?
Mr Bekhradnia: If by "ailing"
you mean not very good, and if by "the Government" you
mean through the Government grant to the university, then I think
the university might take a strategic decision that it wants to
use some of its grant from HEFCE—
Q166 Mr Key: That is not what I asked,
is it? I asked should the Government step in.
Mr Bekhradnia: I would say rarely.
I cannot think of a situation where that would be—
Q167 Mr Key: So that is a "no".
Mr Bekhradnia: It is an almost
"no". I hope that you would not want to ask that question
definitively without the evidence.
Chairman: Go on, Bahram, come off the
fence!
Q168 Mr Key: Would it be beneficial
for UK research if the UK had a small number of top-ranking departments
that could compete on a world stage?
Mr Bekhradnia: I think it does
by and large, yes—and it is beneficial to the UK, of course.
Q169 Mr Key: At the price of the
ailing departments in other universities.
Mr Bekhradnia: To some extent,
of course, that is what happens. That is what the research assessment
exercise and the selective research funding does; it withdraws
money from some and gives it to the others.
Q170 Mr Key: Do you think there should
be some teaching-only science departments in our universities,
where it is reckoned that research is not a great strength?
Mr Bekhradnia: I think there are.
Q171 Mr Key: Is it desirable?
Mr Bekhradnia: It does not have
to be an issue. I do not think that the quality of the teaching
need suffer as a result of—
Chairman: I wish I had the quotes from
the last Secretary of State for Education.
Q172 Mr Key: Why does it not have
to be an issue?
Mr Bekhradnia: Because I do not
think it follows that because you do not do research you cannot
teach.
Q173 Mr Key: But do you not get the
impression that some of our universities and some of our science
departments are now perceiving themselves to be second-rate, and
are saying, "all right, then" and shrugging their shoulders,
saying, "let us not bother with research; let us just be
teaching science departments"?
Mr Bekhradnia: I doubt if that
is what they are doing, but, yes, there are some teaching—
Q174 Mr Key: They are saying that.
Mr Bekhradnia: That they are not
very good, "let us not bother"?
Q175 Mr Key: Yes.
Mr Bekhradnia: I doubt it, but
I think there are teaching-only science departments, and I know
of no evidence that they do not do a good job in teaching their
students.
Q176 Mr Key: No-one has suggested
that they do not, but it would be quite a departure if the entire
structure of the funding of science and research in this country
were to somehow have failed—a significant number of university
science departments, to actually encourage them to think that
that was a good idea.
Mr Bekhradnia: That is a statement—yes,
okay.
Q177 Mr Key: Do you agree with it?
Mr Bekhradnia: No.
Chairman: Bahram, it is always a pleasure!
Thank you for your frankness in answering our questions.
| 
