4 Conclusion
33. We have examined the process by which the University
of Sussex developed its proposed changes in chemistry provision,
focussing on the role of HEFCE and the implications for STEM provision
at a strategic level. We conclude that the University of Sussex
has handled the proposed changes to chemistry provision particularly
ineptly, but recognise that it is ultimately a decision for the
institution. The situation at Sussex is, however, symptomatic
of a wider problem. If the circumstances at Sussex were judged
to warrant proposals for effective closure of the chemistry department
it is inevitable that other STEM departments will face similar
threats. Current higher education policy is unable to deliver
the Government's commitment to safeguard strategic provision of
STEM subjects. The Government supports the concept of a market
in higher education but it needs to recognise that there is a
serious failure of the market to deliver in terms of STEM provision.
HEFCE is supposed to identify and address instances where the
individual interests of universities do not coincide with the
national interest. In practice, it has not the teeth, the tools,
nor the will to do this effectively.
34. This test case has provided a warning that the
initiatives taken as a result of the Secretary of State for Education
and Skills' concerns about strategically important subjects are
not sufficient. Failure to take action to remedy this is likely
to have significant consequences for future STEM provision and,
ultimately, the future competitiveness of the UK.
|
