APPENDIX 1
Memorandum from the University of Sussex
INVESTING IN EXCELLENCE AT SUSSEX
SUMMARY
The University of Sussex has been developing
strategic proposals to invest in excellence in research and teaching.
These plans are driven by forward-looking academic strategy, informed
by a firm understanding of the University'sunderpinning financial
position.
This note sets out:
— the context for the development of
those plans;
— the overall position for investment
plans at Sussex;
— the changes originally proposed for
Life Sciences (including chemistry);
— the next stages in reviewing those
plans;
— commentaries (supported by statistical
information in the tables) on the research, staffing, student
recruitment and financial position of the department of chemistry;
and
— communications and media handling
around this planning process.
1. Context for the strategic planning process
The University of Sussex has over the last 6
months been putting in place a new strategic planning process
for the long term academic and financial health of the University.
That process focuses on academic excellence in teaching and research,
within a framework that is financially robust and sustainable.
The planning process and resource allocation model were approved
by the University's Senate and Council in December 2005.
The approach is explicitly evidence-based, looking
for example at research performance, teaching performance, student
recruitment, third stream income and financial performance. The
process is supported by a new resource allocation model, which
allocates income earned and costs incurred to Schools and departments,
clearly and transparently, and incentivises performance improvement.
The plans which have been created are based
on key principles which Senate and Council approved including:
— investing in areas of excellence
in teaching and research, and disinvesting in areas of relative
weakness;
— continuing and strengthening our
position as a research-led institution;
— maintaining a broad-based position
across the sciences and the arts;
— identifying and removing unplanned
cross-subsidy between subject areas; and
— increasing our income from non-HEFCE
sources, to strengthen our academic mission.
In line with the approved planning process,
over the spring term, Deans for each school working with members
of the Vice-Chancellor's Executive Group (VCEG) started to create
academic development plans, after taking a comprehensive evidence-based
look across all academic activity at Sussex.
2. Academic development plans
Outline plans for the future academic size and
shape of the University—showing areas for investment and
development and areas for reduction or removal of activity—were
presented on 10 March to the new Strategy and Resources Committee,
which included members of Council, members of Senate, Deans and
the President of the Students Union. Those plans were approved
by the SRC and then presented to Senate on 17 March 2006.
The University's plans proposed to make an immediate
investment to start recruitment from April to 40 academic posts
across a range of subjects in which Sussex is a strong and leading
institution nationally—in areas such as English, history,
media, music, the biosciences, psychology, informatics, maths,
engineering, education, international and development studies,
and economics.
The University plans to make a further investment
across the University to bring in staff in 35 posts, with recruitment
starting from the late summer in areas of strength and excellence.
This is contingent on making savings in each School, which across
the University as a whole would be equivalent to around 45 posts.
We would look to make changes as far as possible on a voluntary
basis.
The Senate endorsed proposals for the strategic
direction of investing in excellence and the plans to strengthen
our teaching and research. The proposals going to Council on 24
March include plans to press ahead with significant immediate
investment in posts across the arts and sciences.
3. Proposed changes in relation to Life Sciences,
including chemistry
The plans presented to Senate on 17 March also
included proposals to focus the work of the Department of Chemistry
in the areas of chemical biology and organic chemistry—areas
in which we have strong research activity—and, from October
2007, to rename it as the Department of Chemical Biology.
The Senate proposed to Council that Sussex should
hold off making decisions on plans in relation to the School of
Life Sciences—including the planned additional investment
in Biochemistry, Biology and Environmental Science, Psychology,
Genome, and refocusing the Department of Chemistry.
The Dean of Life Sciences will now be working
with his academic colleagues, in consultation with staff and students,
and with external advice, to look urgently at and review all the
options for the way forward across Life Sciences which will be
presented to future meetings of Senate and Council.
The aim is to have this review completed in
the next 6-7 weeks, and to call a special meeting of Senate near
the start of the new academic term.
4. Initial proposals for focussing on chemical
biology
The committee will want to understand the context
and intention for the initial proposals to retain chemistry at
Sussex which were presented to Senate on 17 March.
Our strong research position across the biosciences
should ensure that we can continue to develop leading-edge research
and teaching in this field, alongside the research we undertake
in our department of Biochemistry and our world-leading Centre
for Genome Damage and Stability.
Chemical Biology is a leading area of development
at the interface between chemistry and biology where exciting
new opportunities exist. Chemical Biology seeks to employ chemical
techniques to answer biological questions and to develop new small
molecules to intervene in biological processes.
We have recently made four new appointments
in this area. Research applications totalling over £l million
are being made from this Chemical Biology grouping at Sussex.
We also have strong possibilities for developing
the intellectual property within our current Chemical Biology
research, since these are areas-where potential real world applications
in health and medicine abound.
In relation to teaching programmes, alongside
our new Chemical Biology degree we had been considering the scope
for new programmes in areas such as Pharmaceutical Chemistry or
biomolecular science.
Potential academic developments of this kind
will have further discussion and scrutiny as options are reviewed
for the way forward for chemistry at Sussex.
5. Position of chemistry at Sussex
Chemistry at Sussex has an outstanding academic
history, having had two Nobel prize winning members and a five
rating in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) for 2001. The
current research position for Sussex is set out in tables 1 and
2—showing changes in research income and research metrics
from RAE 2001 and currently, with national comparisons.
We have lost some leading researchers to larger
Chemistry departments in recent years, which is reflected in the
decline in research income and in the number of research only
staffing contracts. Sussex now has a relatively small department
(14 academics) with a small student intake (around 20 new undergraduates
per year). Fuller information on the staffing position at Sussex
is set out in table 6.
Nationally, Chemistry is a difficult recruitment
area at undergraduate level, reflected in the decision by other
leading research universities to make changes to Chemistry provision
in recent years, including Exeter, Kings College London and Queen
Mary's, London, and Dundee. Sussex's undergraduate numbers for
chemistry compared to other universities is set out in table 5a.
While applications have shown a welcome growth
this year, due to a lot of hard work and effort by chemistry admissions
team, combined with our league table standings, there is no guarantee
this would lead to sustained and viable numbers in the department.
Despite a rise in applications each year over the last three years,
we have seen final intakes admitted—ie numbers of students
finally deciding to come to Sussex and meeting our final offer
levels—stick at around 20 each year.
Our league table standings of course reflect
underlying quality at Sussex, but are boosted by the low student-staff
ratio in chemistry which is a product of low student intake numbers.
Further detail on Sussex's student numbers at undergraduate and
postgraduate level in Chemistry is set out in tables 3, 4 and
5. (table 3 not printed)
Extensive financial commentary on the position
of chemistry is set out in section 6 below and in tables 7 and
8 (not printed).
However, a key financial dimension is that,
despite the RAE rating of 2001, even if we were to achieve a similar
rating in the 2008 RAE, and there is no certainty we would do
so, the smaller size of our staff numbers submitted is expected
to impact significantly on subsequent funding, and reduce sustainability.
Overall, retaining a chemistry department in
its present form, operating across the full discipline, would
cost us an extra £750k with no guarantee of long-term success
in recruitment or research activity.
6. FINANCIAL
CONSIDERATIONS BEHIND
DECISION TO
RESTRUCTURE CHEMISTRY
The financial background
Before addressing the detail of the current
position of Chemistry it is necessary to look at the recent financial
history of the subject, which is shown in summarised form in Table
7. (not printed)
However, there is a number of health warnings
that should be taken into account when reading this table;
— The figures included in Table 7,
(not printed), are those represented in the Management Accounts
of the University, and therefore exclude accounting adjustments;
they are not therefore easily reconcilable to the Higher Education
Statistics Agency return for the Chemistry cost centre, but we
believe give a more accurate picture of the financial position
of the department.
— Chemistry has never been a stand
alone budgetary unit at Sussex, but has always been part of a
larger unit—Chemistry, Physics and Environmental Science
(CPES) until 2003-04 and since then the School of Life Sciences
(which, in addition to Chemistry, includes Biochemistry, Biology
and Environmental Science, Psychology and the Genome Damage and
Stability Centre). Whilst every attempt has been made to allocate
costs and expenditure appropriately to the subject group, the
need to formulaically allocate costs held at School level may
lead to immaterial inaccuracies at the edges.
— There have also been three changes
in the methodology used to allocate the HEFCE block grant funds
received by the University to the subject group over this period
(through the "Resource Allocation Model", or "RAM");
a minor tweak in 1997-08, a more major overhaul in 2003-04 to
tie in with the establishment of the new Schools at Sussex, and
a fundamental review of the model that has been implemented in
shadow form for 2005-06 (and is shown for 2005-06 in Table 8)
(not printed).
Ignoring the "allocation" figures
for 2003-04 and 2004-05 (as they are based on a very different
methodology to the other years), then the overall picture for
the past ten years is one of declining student income (which accounts
for the majority of the changes in the University's allocation
over this period—the HEFCE Research element (QR) has stayed
fairly level at £1.2 million—£1.3 million) and
rising research income until 2001-02, followed by a decline as
the number of academic staff reduce (evidenced in this table by
the Academic Staff Expenditure line).
Other staff expenditure (mostly technicians,
but also some administrative staff) has not fallen to same extent
in real terms, indicating that the support costs of the department
have not reduced in line with declining activity. However, non-salary
costs have fallen as financial realities have become clear to
budget holders over this period.
2005-06 Resource Allocation and Full Economy Statement
The Strategic Review undertaken by the University
during the academic year 2005-06 necessitated the development
of a new Resource Allocation Model to enable University management
to gain an indication of the true financial position of each of
the academic departments. This model has not been used to make
actual budget allocations for 2005-06, but it will be implemented
in full from 2006-07.
The new model allows a transparent and consistent
way of allocating resource to departments and schools. It is heavily
informed by the way in which money in block grants and
fees has been earned by individual areas of the University. Thus
departments are credited with fee and HEFCE grant income based
on the student load taught, and QR research income is allocated
according to the way in which the total sums granted have been
calculated by HEFCE; likewise, costs for support and services
are based on the volume of space used, and the numbers of staff
and students serviced within the department. The model has been
endorsed by University committees and academic and non-academic
managers in allowing a shared view of the performance of departments
and schools to be created.
In addition to the RAM allocation, departments
are credited with directly earned income, principally research
grants and contracts, consultancy and other services rendered,
and charged with the direct costs of those activities.
Collating this information in a robust process
has allowed the University to consider the financial performance
of departments and schools for 2005-06 as if we had used the RAM
to set budgets for the current year. Furthermore, known changes,
(such as new courses which are still growing, staff retiring or
returning from research leave and so on) have been included in
the assessment of financial health.
This assessment of financial performance was
aggregated into a "Full Economy Statement"; the statement
for Chemistry has been attached as Table 8, (not printed). The
figures for 2005-06 indicate a deficit of around £84,000.
This figure does not include Chemistry's contribution to teaching
and administration on the successful Premedical course, or income
that the University receives from patents filed on behalf of members
of the Chemistry department (currently £50k a year, and likely
to continue at this level until 2007-08).
The future
Strategic decision-making does not just involve
looking at the current position, and the University must react
to known future changes. In the case of Chemistry the largest
impact is in the fact that in arriving at the financial position
above, the department is credited with the annual QR grant received
in 2005-06 relating to Chemistry, which in total amounts to £1.2
million. This is largely based on 24.16 FTE staff returned in
the Chemistry Unit of Assessment at the 2001 RAE, which received
a Grade 5.
However, we know that there are currently only
around 12 staff who may be returned to the RAE in 2008. Leaving
aside changes in the profiling of departments in RAE 2008 and
the possibility that grading or funding for the same grade may
vary from RAE 2001, this leaves the University with a difficult
reality to face.
— Assuming the same grade and funding
regime, but reduced volume, the University would stop receiving
up to £750,000 per annum from 2009-10. This would turn a
£84,000 annual deficit into a deficit of over £800,000
per annum. (It is arguable that a small Chemistry submission representing
only current staff numbers would be proportionately worse than
this pro-rata reduction, since the perception of a small department
in terms of esteem and other metrics would be less favourable
compared to larger competitors. This situation means that the
University does not believe that such a submission is tenable
and the University would be better advised to include relevant
staff in other RAE Units of Assessment such as the Biochemistry
panel of the Biological Sciences unit of assessment. Thus this
financial outcome is in practice likely to be an over-optimistic
and a hypothetical one, but one which can be costed).
— Alternatively, it is theoretically
possible that the University could choose to increase its academic
staff volume back up to RAE 2001 levels. Replacement academic
staff would need to be taken on with research profiles at the
same senior levels as those who left. A conservative estimate
of the additional cost per annum of such posts would be in the
region of £750,000; it would be highly likely that expensive
equipment set-up packages would be required to entice staff to
Sussex, further adding to the costs (leaving aside the issue of
how easy it would be to attract staff to a small Chemistry department
with a small UG population before the October 2007 deadline for
RAE submissions). This alternative strategy would leave the Chemistry
department alone with a deficit again of some £850,000 per
annum, after making the assumption that the existing QR allocation
could be defended and retained through such a strategy.
— Both strategies even if feasible
would therefore mean that the Chemistry department would be a
significant deficit department and require substantial cross-subsidy
from other academic areas of the University.
Indeed, it is argued that irrespective of the
scale of the deficit arising (such numbers are to an extent a
function of assumptions and are not exact, although they do give
an important indication of scale and direction), the decision
to persist with a mainstream Chemistry offering would be untenable
at the current stage of the University. Making available £750,000
per annum (ignoring one off set-up costs) to invest in one department
would require a large proportion of the funds the University has
available for investment. In addition the Chemistry department
which we would be choosing to invest in has low student intakes
and in a discipline which has been found to require large volumes
of staff, students and research to function at the highest levels
of international excellence in terms of staffing and infrastructure.
Ultimately, though informed by financial background, the decision
to refocus Chemistry is a strategic one informed by the financial
impact of the various options on what to do about the impending
fall in QR income from our current position. The decision to refocus
arises from the difficult choices on how to best invest the relatively
small sums available to us for the best impact on the academic
future of the University as a whole.
The University's proposal has sought to retain
as much of the existing Chemistry operation is feasible in academic
and financial terms. Risks will remain depending on staff retention
and development of student numbers in different areas. However,
the plan being promoted to Senate and Council replaces the vulnerability
of the University to a major decrease in income and / or increase
in costs with a smaller risk. The proposed strategy builds on
research strengths and links with other Sussex areas of scientific
excellence and continues to develop and expand the ground-breaking
Pre-Medical Foundation course.
7. IMPACT ON
STAFF AND
STUDENTS
We are of course supporting staff and students
through any changes in this department. As noted above, there
are currently 13 academic staff in the Department, a number of
technical and support staff, 20 undergraduate students in each
year, 6 taught postgraduates and 33 PG research students on the
books.
We are committed to providing a full teaching programme
for all current students on our chemistry undergraduate and postgraduate
degrees within the department through to successful completion.
We are also committed to admitting a final intake of students
in October 2006, although if proposals for change were approved
this would be the last cohort taking mainstream chemistry degrees.
The University has been actively working with
HEFCE and in discussion with UCAS to ensure that plans are in
place nationally to support staff and students through whatever
changes might ultimately be agreed in relation to chemistry provision
at Sussex.
8. COMMUNICATIONS
PROCESS
The University's fundamental approach to communications
for the whole planning process has been to ensure throughout that
staff and students are informed about developments and that no
statements or information are made available externally before
they have been presented to staff and students. As far as this
has been in the University's control, this has been successfully
done.
Information about the new strategic planning
process and the resource allocation model were taken through working
groups and committees in the autumn term and discussed in full
and approved at Senate and Council in December. Information about
the process was presented to staff and students through the Bulletin
and the badger in December and during the spring term.
The proposals in relation to specific academic
plans were developed on an informed but confidential basis. The
reason for this was that options for change across all departments
were considered and open discussion of changes could have undermined
staff and students in departments where the final proposals were
for academic development and investment.
The University is pleased that it managed the
process in such a way that information was not released or leaked
prior to the meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee—
a committee which included Council, Senate and student representatives.
Once the committee had considered the plans— and approved
them— the proposals in relation to chemistry were presented
to staff on Friday 20 March at 1 pm, literally as soon as the
SR committee had met. Current students were then immediately informed
and invited to meetings in the following week.
On Friday evening, information was sent to academic
and professional services managers across the university and school
plans available to be presented to Schools by their Deans.
Open meetings had been arranged to be held for
staff on the next working day (Monday 13 March) and on the day
before Senate (Thursday 16 March). The full SRC report was due
to go live on the internal website from Monday 13 March for access
by Sussex staff and students.
Briefing discussions with the Students Union
were also held, supplementing the full access and briefing which
President had had as a member of the committee.
School meetings were also arranged at which
plans for the schools were to be presented, as well as management
discussions with VCEG and the School management groups. Throughout,
the campus trades unions have been kept informed and involved
with the process.
Information was also sent immediately on Friday
evening to students who had applied to study chemistry at Sussex
and had received offers from the University, explaining what the
position was and the next steps in the decision-making process
inside the University and offering them a named contact to call.
The purpose here was to ensure that potential students and their
families did not first read about proposals in the press, should
the news be leaked.
In relation to the wider community, letters
were immediately sent on Friday to local MPs, councils and other
bodies explaining the position and offering to provide further
information. Calls were also placed to a number of individuals
including former staff and to the Royal Society of Chemistry.
9. PRESS REPORTING
On evening of Friday 10 March, following the
first meeting with chemistry staff, the University received a
call from a national daily newspaper asking about restructuring
plans in relation to chemistry. We had a press notice ready to
release, but the newspaper decided it was past deadline and we
did not release the statement.
On Saturday morning we received a call from
the press association saying they had seen a press statement from
the Royal Society of Chemistry reporting rumours about the closure
of chemistry, and strongly criticizing that decision if true.
Calls from Sussex to the Royal Society of Chemistry
press officer revealed that the RSC had on Friday issued a press
statement without any notice or discussion with the University.
The RSC press office were unable to send a copy to the University,
but read the statement to the University.
Faced with a partial public statement from the
RSC, the University immediately placed fuller information on the
internal website for Sussex staff and students and then issued
a statement to those media outlets which had contacted us (PA,
Sunday Times, Observer, Mail and Sunday Telegraph) setting out
our position in relation to the investment plans and the position
in relation to chemistry.
Thankfully, because we had actively communicated
first with our own staff and students, and with student applicants,
we were able to ensure the Sussex community received a clear picture
from the University, could access initial information on the website
and had access to full information internally from Monday. However,
because of the speed of events over the weekend, precipitated
by the RSC statement, some staff and students first read information
in the press.
The approach taken by RSC to release partial
and misleading information unchecked with the University and without
consideration or reflection as to its impact on staff, students
and potential students is at best thoughtless.
March 2006
ANNEXES: SUMMARY
OF FACTUAL
INFORMATION
Attached to this document are annexes which
set out detail on the research position of chemistry at Sussex,
student intakes and applications, staffing numbers and the financial
position of the department.
Research position
— Table 1: research income for
chemistry at Sussex 2000-01 to 2004-05.
— Table 2: research indicators
for chemistry at Sussex.
Student numbers
— Table 3: undergraduate applications
admissions 2001-2006 (not printed).
— Table 4: chemistry student numbers
2000-01 to 2005-06.
— Table 5: chemistry HEU intake
2000-01 to 2005-06.
— Table 5a: full-time first degree
chemistry numbers at UK HEIs.
Staffing numbers
— Table 6: chemistry faculty numbers
2000-01 to 2005-06.
Finance
— Table 7: summary chemistry income
and expenditure 2000-01 to 2004-05 (not printed).
— Table 8: full economy statement
for chemistry 2005-06 (not printed).
Table 1:
CHEMISTRY RESEARCH INCOME (£000s)
|
Sussex |
UK
| Sussex
as %UK |
| 2000-01 | 2,149 |
110,191 | 2.0 |
| 2001-02 | 2,425 |
119,788 | 2.0 |
| 2002-03 | 2,380 |
121,853 | 2.0 |
| 2003-04 | 1,557 |
121,116 | 1.3 |
| 2004-05 | 809 | 120,000
| 0.7 |
| % change | -62% |
9% | |
| | |
|
all data from HESA, UK 2004-05 estimated
Table 2:
CHEMISTRY RESEARCH INDICATORS
RAE 2001
SIZE
Sussex submitted 33 staff and was awarded a grade 5
Five of the 33 staff FTEs were not on general funds and 2.8
were Environmental Scientists
OUTCOME NATIONALLY
FOR CHEMISTRY
6 departments graded 5*—minimum size 31.8 FTEs (UCL),
maximum 69.8 (Oxford)
13 departments graded 5—minimum size 21 (UEA), maximum
47.1 (Leeds)
15 departments graded 4—minimum size 12 (Swansea),
maximum 41.5 (Strathclyde)
9 departments graded 3a—minimum size 10 (Nottingham
Trent), maximum 26.6 (De Montfort)
2 departments graded 3b
Metrics for Sussex
(per submited staff FTEs)
| value at
RAE | putative
rank at
RAE01
| putative
grade
band | value
now
| putative
rank at
RAE01 | putative
grade
band
|
| PGR FTEs | 2.6 | 22
| upper 4 | 2.5 | 26
| mid 4 |
| research grant income (£k) | 63.0
| 24 | upper 4 | 55.5
| 30 | lower 4 |
| RAs | 1.2 | 15
| lower 5 | 0.7 | 32
| low 4 |
| 33 staff submitted
| | assumes 13 staff submitted
|
| | |
| | | |
VOLUME FOR
QR FUNDING
| Sussex
| | national total for
all grade 5 depts
| | national total for
all grade 5* depts
|
| 2002 QR | 2005 QR
| % change | 2002 QR | 2005 QR
| % change | 2002 QR | 2005 QR
| % change |
| RAs and RFs | 44.6 | 19.2
| -57 | 481 | 460
| -4 | 522 | 512
| -2 |
| Fundable HEU PGRs | 34 | 36.5
| 7 | 644 | 861
| 34 | 508 | 784
| 54 |
Charities research grant
income (£k)
| 234.6 | 125.9 | -46
| 3149.6 | 4933.8 | 57
| 1981.9 | 2455.3 | 24
|
| | |
| | | |
| | |
2005 QR based on 2003-04 and 1 December 2004 data note, RAs and
RFs currently under 10 FTEs.
Table 4:
TEACHING LOAD ON CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT (total FTEs)
| Sussex | |
| | | UK
| | | |
|
Sussex as
% UK | |
| | | |
| | | |
|
| UG | PGT
| PGR | total | UG
| PGT | PGR | total
| PGR | Total |
| 2000-01 | 140 | 14
| 59 | 213 | 15,566
| 613 | 3,880 | 20,059
| 1.5% | 1.1% |
| 2001-02 | 105 | 7
| 51 | 163 | 15,755
| 676 | 3,865 | 20,296
| 1.3% | 0.8% |
| 2002-03 | 109 | 6
| 47 | 162 | 14,310
| 711 | 3,736 | 18,757
| 1.3% | 0.9% |
| 2003-04 | 85 | 4
| 45 | 134 | 13,674
| 765 | 3,687 | 18,126
| 1.2% | 0.7% |
| 2004-05 | 78 | 2
| 32 | 112 | 13,500
| 775 | 3,650 | 17,925
| 0.9% | 0.6% |
| 2005-06 | 90 | 6
| 32 | 128 | 13,250
| 800 | 3,600 | 17,650
| 0.9% | 0.7% |
| % change | -36% | -57%
| -46% | -40% | -15%
| 31% | -7% | -12%
| | |
| Sussex data as per 1 December 2005 censuses, UK data from HESA (2004-05 and 2005-06 estimated).
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
Table 5:
CHEMISTRY HEU UG INTAKE
|
Sussex |
UK
| Sussex
as % UK |
| 2000-01 | 43 | 3,312
| 1.3 |
| 2001-02 | 29 | 3,059
| 0.9 |
| 2002-03 | 35 | 3,045
| 1.1 |
| 2003-04 | 23 | 3,042
| 0.8 |
| 2004-05 | 21 | 3,080
| 0.7 |
| 2005-06 | 21 | 3,464
| 0.6 |
| % change | -51% |
5% | |
| Sussex data as per 1 December 2005 censuses (ie what we are funded for), UK data degree accepts from UCAS.
| | | |
Sussex includes Chemical Physics
Table 5a
FULL-TIME FIRST DEGREES BY INSTITUTION AND SUBJECT OF
STUDY 2003-04
| Chemistry
|
| 1 | The University of Oxford
| 645 |
| 2 | The University of Central Lancashire
| 460 |
| 3 | The University of Bristol
| 455 |
| 4 | The University of Strathclyde
| 405 |
| 5 | University of Manchester
| 400 |
| 6 | The University of York
| 370 |
| 7 | The University of Leeds
| 365 |
| 8 | The University of Nottingham
| 350 |
| 9 | The University of Edinburgh
| 325 |
| 10 | Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine
| 295 |
| 11 | University of Durham |
280 |
| 12 | The University of Sheffield
| 280 |
| 13 | The University of Birmingham
| 275 |
| 14 | Queen Mary and Westfield College
| 265 |
| 15 | University College London
| 240 |
| 16 | The University of Glasgow
| 240 |
| 17 | The University of Warwick
| 230 |
| 18 | The University of Bath
| 225 |
| 19 | The University of Huddersfield
| 215 |
| 20 | The Manchester Metropolitan University
| 215 |
| 21 | The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne
| 210 |
| 22 | The University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology
| 200 |
| 23 | Cardiff University |
200 |
| 24 | Heriot-Watt University
| 200 |
| 25 | Loughborough University
| 195 |
| 26 | The University of Northumbria at Newcastle
| 175 |
| 27 | The University of Hull
| 165 |
| 28 | The University of Southampton
| 160 |
| 29 | The University of Exeter
| 155 |
| 30 | The University of Liverpool
| 145 |
| 31 | The Nottingham Trent University
| 145 |
| 32 | University of Wales, Swansea
| 145 |
| 33 | The University of Leicester
| 125 |
| 34 | The University of St Andrews
| 125 |
| 35 | London Metropolitan University
| 120 |
| 36 | The University of Surrey
| 120 |
| 37 | The University of East Anglia
| 110 |
| 38 | King's College London |
105 |
| 39 | The Queen's University of Belfast
| 105 |
| 40 | The University of Aberdeen
| 100 |
| 41 | The University of Sunderland
| 90 |
| 42 | The University of Reading
| 85 |
| 43 | Sheffield Hallam University
| 85 |
| 44 | Liverpool John Moores University
| 80 |
| 45 | De Montfort University
| 75 |
| 46 | Kingston University |
75 |
| 47 | The University of Plymouth
| 75 |
| 48 | University of Wales, Bangor
| 75 |
| 49 | Coventry University |
70 |
| 50 | The University of Brighton
| 65 |
| 51 | Aston University | 55
|
| 52 | The University of Kent
| 55 |
| 53 | The University of Sussex
| 55 |
| 54 | University of the Arts, London
| 50 |
| 55 | University of Glamorgan
| 50 |
| 56 | The University of Bradford
| 45 |
| 57 | The University of Keele
| 45 |
| 58 | The University of Wolverhampton
| 40 |
| 59 | Glasgow Caledonian University
| 40 |
| 60 | The University of Paisley
| 40 |
| 61 | The Robert Gordon University
| 30 |
| 62 | Edge Hill College of Higher Education
| 25 |
| 63 | The University of Salford
| 25 |
| 64 | The University of Dundee
| 25 |
| 65 | The University of Greenwich
| 20 |
| 66 | The University of Lancaster
| 20 |
| 67 | University of the West of England, Bristol
| 20 |
| | |
In this table 0, 1, 2 are rounded to 0. All other numbers are
rounded up or down to the nearest 5.
Copyright @ Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited 2005.
Table 6:
CHEMISTRY FACULTY NUMBERS
| Sussex
| | UK |
| Sussex as % UK
|
| T&R | R only
| total | T&R
| R onlytotal
T&R
R only
total
|
| 2000-01 | 21.3 | 49.8
| 71.1 | 1,565 | 1,558
| 3,123 | 1.4% | 3.2%
| 2.3% |
| 2001-02 | 18.3 | 35.6
| 53.9 | 1,508 | 1,525
| 3,033 | 1.2% | 2.3%
| 1.8% |
| 2002-03 | 15.7 | 30.1
| 45.8 | 1,446 | 1,524
| 2,970 | 1.1% | 2.0%
| 1.5% |
| 2003-04 | 13.3 | 19.2
| 32.5 | 1,284 | 1,517
| 2,801 | 1.0% | 1.3%
| 1.2% |
| 2004-05 | 11.3 | 8.3
| 19.6 | 1,250 | 1,500
| 2,750 | 0.9% | 0.6%
| 0.7% |
| 2005-06 | 11.7 | 9.0
| 20.7 | 1,200 | 1,500
| 2,700 | 1.0% | 0.6%
| 0.8% |
| % change | -45% | -82%
| -71% | -23% | -4%
| -14% | | |
|
| | |
| | | |
| | |
Sussex data as per staff records/Research Activity Survey returns,
UK data from HESA (2004-05 and 2005-06 estimated).
| 
