Conclusions and recommendations
Student demand
1. The
declining popularity of chemistry at undergraduate level is without
doubt a national concern. The department of chemistry at the University
of Sussex should be applauded for countering this trend and securing
an increase in the numbers of students applying to study chemistry.
It is disappointing that the University has taken such a negative
view of the sustainability of this achievement, rather than seeking
to build on this success. (Paragraph 10)
Financial considerations
2. The
University's efforts to downplay the part played by financial
considerations in the decision to refocus chemistry are at odds
with the importance it has attached to the expected income of
the department in the next RAE. Although the decision may ultimately
be strategic, it is one that is clearly rooted in financial concerns.
The University need not have sought to deny this reality. (Paragraph
11)
3. The fact remains
that Vice-Chancellors are fully entitled to use income from one
department to subsidise another—a principle that continues
to play a role in the demise of STEM departments. (Paragraph 12)
4. Financial management
has played a role in the declining fortunes of chemistry at Sussex—historical
levels of investment in the department will inevitably have impacted
on its attractiveness to both staff and students. The small size
of the department (in terms of both faculty and students) is now
singled out as a significant factor in determining its future.
However, responsibility for the shrinkage of the department rests
squarely with the Vice-Chancellor, who has made no attempt to
replace key staff. (Paragraph 13)
5. Whilst the Government's
decision to conduct a fundamental review of the RAE is welcome,
it is essential that the review involves thorough and detailed
consideration of the potential implications of any replacement
system, including any unintended effects on the sustainability
of STEM departments. (Paragraph 14)
6. We urge the Government
to be proactive in evaluating the impacts of the introduction
of full economic costing to ensure that emerging problems are
identified at an early stage. (Paragraph 14)
Chemical biology
7. Success
in interdisciplinary subjects relies on foundations laid by strong
core disciplines. The idea that chemistry can be replaced with
a stand-alone chemical biology department is highly dubious and
certainly unsupported by any evidence. (Paragraph 16)
8. By working together
with the Sector Skills Councils, Regional Development Agencies,
learned societies, employers, careers advisory services and universities,
HEFCE could play a useful role, both in leveraging student interest
in non-core STEM subjects to promote the uptake of core STEM subjects,
and in ensuring that the employment prospects associated with
different STEM degrees are communicated to prospective students.
(Paragraph 16)
Consultation and communication
9. Although
the University's desire to ensure that anyone affected by the
proposed changes was informed directly is understandable, the
decision to make public proposals that had not even been approved
by the Senate made it look as though the changes in chemistry
provision were inevitable. Moreover, there was a high risk that
this could become a self-fulfilling prophesy, by catalysing the
departure of staff in the department and putting off prospective
students. (Paragraph 18)
10. The fact that
the Senate demanded a re-evaluation of the options for changes
to the School of Life Sciences must be taken as an admission that
the proposals presented to them had not been properly thought
through, and as a reflection of the lack of consultation undertaken
during their development. Indeed, we find it extraordinary that
the Head of the department concerned was not consulted on the
proposals at the outset and no less extraordinary that the proposals
could be so criticised by the Dean of Life Sciences, a principal
contributor. In our view, the process followed by the University
was seriously flawed. (Paragraph 20)
Future of department
11. Ultimately,
it is up to the University to decide the fate of its chemistry
department. However, the University would be advised to consider
whether its future as a serious science university would be sustainable
without this department. The Vice-Chancellor and his colleagues
would also be well advised to take account of the Government's
announced intention to enhance STEM provision. Universities have
every right to choose whether and how to invest in STEM subjects,
but these individual choices in turn impact on regional and national
provision. Under the Government's current approach to higher education
policy, we regret that further closures of STEM departments will
be inevitable. (Paragraph 23)
Strategically important and vulnerable subjects
12. We
believe that it is both inappropriate and ineffective for HEFCE
to rely on UUK to disseminate important information relating to
the process of reorganisation in universities. (Paragraph 26)
HEFCE's involvement in the proposed changes at
Sussex
13. HEFCE
seems to have done what it could in the circumstances to maintain
present regional chemistry provision in the short term, but this
last minute damage limitation does not amount to regional strategic
provision. (Paragraph 27)
14. It is disappointing
that the University of Sussex contacted HEFCE so late in the day,
but it also highlights the severe disadvantages of an arrangement
where HEFCE is entirely dependent on universities alerting it
to potential closures at an appropriate stage, with no power to
reprimand universities that do not do this. The softly, softly
approach adopted by HEFCE has failed its first test. We recommend
that universities be required to alert HEFCE to proposed departmental
closures in STEM subjects not less than 18 months before the changes
in provision are due to come into effect. (Paragraph 28)
HEFCE's powers of intervention
15. In
isolation, few departmental closures in themselves would qualify
as the gross market failure that HEFCE uses to define situations
meriting its intervention, even though the cumulative impact of
these closures on regional and national provision may be extremely
damaging. (Paragraph 29)
16. The Government
has recognised that the market is imperfect as a means of matching
graduate output to the country's need for STEM graduates. It has
asked HEFCE to intervene when necessary to support its policy
aims but has failed to give it the powers or political support
necessary to enable it to fulfil this function effectively. (Paragraph
29)
17. HEFCE must be
proactive in horizon scanning and collection of relevant data.
The Government can only exercise proper strategic oversight of
STEM capacity if it has access to comprehensive data sets, including
trends in student demand, uptake and quality, and employer demand
for different STEM subjects, where appropriate at institutional
as well as regional and national level. We recommend that the
Government ensures that such data is maintained and published
periodically. (Paragraph 30)
18. It is extremely
unfortunate that in an area of higher education so crucial to
the nation's future industrial strength there is now an acknowledged
policy failure. (Paragraph 31)
19. The Government
is evidently committed to preserving—indeed cultivating—a
market in higher education, although we note that it does not
appear to have ever consulted Parliament specifically on this
matter. We invite the Government to rectify this situation. In
our view, there is a fundamental disconnect between the Government's
desire for strategic provision of STEM subjects and its desire
to maximise the autonomy of universities. As a result, the Government
has no effective lever to control its strategic science policy
in terms of undergraduate provision. (Paragraph 32)
| 
