MAINTAINING HE CAPACITY AND ENSURING SKILLS
SUPPLY
Recommendation 2—STEM graduates help to
maintain the healthy operation of society at all levels—by
driving the economy; by generating knowledge and innovating; by
raising the scientific literacy of the population as a whole;
by informing Government policy; and by aiding participation in
international research networks. (Paragraph 10)
Like the Committee, the Government believes that
STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) graduates are
important to our economy and wider society: STEM disciplines are
"strategic subjects" and it is important that we address
how they are provided. STEM subjects are not the only "strategic
subjects", however, and not all STEM subjects are experiencing
vulnerabilities in provision: for example, the Committee has recently
completed a report on the rise of forensic science courses. Science
is an area we want to grow and develop, however. As the Committee
notes, we want to increase the UK's investment in Research and
Development as a proportion of GDP to 2.5% in 2014, and we will
need to increase STEM graduate numbers to achieve this.
Government action on STEM capacity falls under broader
policy priorities, therefore:
- action on strategic subjects
where there may be vulnerabilities in provision, including, but
not limited to STEM subjects, and
- action to enhance science study
and science careers, not limited to those where there are vulnerabilities
in provision.
ACTION ON STRATEGIC SUBJECTS
- Recommendation 3—Whilst
it may be exaggerating to say that university STEM departments
are in crisis, it is clear that their numbers are experiencing
a sharp decline. Since the financial situation faced by these
departments is unlikely to change in the short term, it is reasonable
to assume that there will be further closures. If this process
continues unchecked, there is a very real possibility that the
system will no longer be able to provide sufficient numbers of
STEM graduates to meet the needs of the UK economy. Unless the
Government takes action now, it will have a crisis on its hands
in the foreseeable future. (Paragraph 15)
- Recommendation 4—Given
the Government's goal of increasing the number of students taking
STEM courses, it is essential that sufficient capacity is maintained
in the system to meet a possible future growth in student demand.
(Paragraph 16)
- Recommendation 5—Further
closures of university STEM departments would be a source of serious
concern to us. However, the closure of an individual department
need not entail a permanent loss of capacity in that subject,
providing that suitable alternative arrangements for current students
and long term planning for potential future increases in student
demand is in place at a regional and national level. (Paragraph
19)
- Recommendation 6—There
is little point in patching up the system in the short term if
measures are not taken to address the underlying reasons for the
difficulties faced by university STEM departments. It is essential
that any measures taken to prevent further loss of capacity in
the system are underpinned by a strategic approach. (Paragraph
20)
The Research Councils and the Funding Councils have
been working closely together on issues relating to health of
disciplines, through the Research Base Funders Forum. As well
as informing their individual work on strategic subjects, their
co-operation has produced joint initiatives such as the EPSRC/HEFCE/SHEFC
sponsored Science and Innovation Awards, aimed at securing strategically
important areas.
Government shares the Committee's view of the importance
of maintaining the health of disciplines. We look therefore both
to the Research Councils and HEFCE for advice and to take forward
action in this field. The Committee is already aware that the
Secretary of State for Education and Skills wrote to HEFCE in
December 2004 seeking advice on "…whether there are
any higher education subjects or courses that are of national
strategic importance, where intervention might be appropriate
to enable them to be available… and the types of intervention
which is believes could be considered". The Committee will
be aware that HEFCE submitted its advice to Ministers in June
2005, and has subsequently published it: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05-24
.
HEFCE ADVICE ON STRATEGIC SUBJECTS
- Recommendation 28—We
endorse the principle of university autonomy. We also acknowledge
that, in practice, the decisions taken by universities are in
large measure dictated by the need to win funding and respond
to changes in student demand. Where market conditions and the
university funding system make it financially difficult for universities
to continue providing subjects of national or regional strategic
importance, HEFCE may need to intervene to prevent their decline
at a national or regional level. We support HEFCE's proposals
to require universities to give a period of notice before closing
a department and to consider offering financial support to individual
departments where it is in the national or regional interest to
do so. Without the introduction of these mechanisms, many STEM
departments will struggle to survive in the short term. (Paragraph
83)
- Recommendation 29—It
is essential that any additional HEFCE funding for strategic subject
provision is used only as measure of last resort. In order to
qualify for such funding, universities should have to prove to
HEFCE that no alternative financial arrangements can be made.
HEFCE should also have to satisfy itself that, without the allocation
of such funds, capacity in the subject in question would be severely
damaged at either a regional or a national level. (Paragraph 84)
- Recommendation 30—We
commend HEFCE for its support for minority subjects deemed to
be in the national interest. It is clear, however, that the arrangements
that have been made to secure the provision of such subjects would
not be applicable to mainstream STEM subjects. (Paragraph 87)
The main conclusion, endorsed by the HEFCE Board,
is that any HEFCE intervention should be deployed within a clear
framework and only where there is evidence to warrant intervention.
The key principles of the framework are:
- A clear evidence base
- Wherever possible to support
a market-led solution
- To look at issues holistically
and ensure that problems of demand are not addressed with supply
solutions (and vice versa)
- To seek wherever possible
to work in partnership with all those with an interest in protecting
strategic and vulnerable subjects
- To intervene only where
HEFCE has a clear understanding of the nature of the problem,
where it is located and where HEFCE intervention is appropriate.
HEFCE agrees with the Committee's observation
that it would be exaggerating to say that university STEM departments
are in crisis. A report prepared by the Research Councils reached
the same conclusion - analyses showing that, whilst there have
been a number of departmental closures in these disciplines, a
significant level of activity remains. The analyses also showed
that, although named departments may close, activity in that discipline
or sub-discipline often continued elsewhere in the university
alongside cognate subjects. Capacity is not necessarily lost
therefore, and often a subject is strengthened and invigorated
by new teaching and research links formed through closer proximity
to other disciplines.
Notwithstanding this, HEFCE recognises that in
some circumstances action is required to sustain capacity in certain
subjects. One conclusion drawn in the report of Sir Gareth Roberts'
advisory group to HEFCE on strategic subjects is that each subject
is different, and that it would be inappropriate for HEFCE alone
to develop an intervention strategy for each. The report recommends
that HEFCE should invite the relevant learned society and/or representative
body to provide further evidence to support the case for intervention.
They should then work with the Council to explore bespoke interventions
which will address the most pressing issues. Thereafter the most
appropriate funding route would be identified.
In the then Secretary of State's original December
letter, he made clear that no additional public funding should
be expected for interventions—a
condition assumed by the Committee and addressed elsewhere in
this response. Nevertheless, HEFCE anticipates that, by using
a focussed approach and, wherever possible including other funding
bodies in discussions, strategic and longer-term solutions can
be found. This case-by-case basis for strategic intervention will
also guard against the "accidental" support which is
of concern to the Committee.
HEFCE has noted the Committee's commendation for
the support it has given minority subjects and agrees that this
mechanism would not be appropriate for use with mainstream STEM
subjects. HEFCE also noted the Committee's remarks about a notice
period for departmental closures: this was a proposal in the 10
Year Framework rather than one from HEFCE. HEFCE is keen to encourage
early dialogue with institutions prior to course closures, and
already has in place a number of mechanisms (including funded
student numbers to aid transfers) to support capacity in or across
regions where this is considered a strategic issue.
RCUK WORK ON HEALTH OF DISCIPLINES
HEFCE's consideration of strategic subjects will
continue to be informed by the Research Councils' work on health
of disciplines, and HEFCE is drawing on the work of the Funders'
Forum to inform its approach and consider joint action to support
and develop particular sub-disciplines
where existing provision may be both important and vulnerable.
The Research Councils have indicated their support for HEFCE's
proposed framework for intervention.
RCUK flagged up in its evidence to the Committee
the research areas of strategic importance to both the UK economy
and the broader science base where Research Councils were taking
immediate action to address risks to provision and safeguard the
longer term. All Research Councils have highlighted plans in this
area in their original submissions to the Committee, and updated
this information in their recently published delivery plans. Examples
of areas supported to date include statistics, energy research
and development, and electronics design. By 2007/08 EPSRC plans
to have established 20 strong new research groups in key areas.
Another example is the joint ESRC/MRC scheme for studentships
and fellowships in areas drawing on the combined approaches of
medicine and the social sciences, addressing interests in areas
such as occupational health and delivery of health services
The Research Councils also recognise the broad
range of strategically important subjects, and the range of areas
in which a discipline may be important. For example, the growing
importance of the Creative Industries in the UK economy reinforces
the need to sustain and build capacity in the creative and performing
arts subjects. It is likely that scientific disciplines will contribute
to the creative industries.
The Research Councils are particularly aware that
reduced provision of science courses could have a significant
consequence for the attractiveness of Research Careers in STEM.
They agree with the Committee that sufficient undergraduate capacity
should exist that lack of courses does not contribute to dissuading
students from entering STEM disciplines. They are also conscious
that the long lead times to produce highly skilled PhD graduates
mean that a serious loss of capacity in key disciplines could
make recovery difficult. They are working with Government and
the Funding Councils to ensure capacity is maintained.
ACTION TO ENHANCE SCIENCE STUDY AND SCIENCE CAREERS
HIGHER EDUCATION COURSE DESIGN
- Recommendation 10—The
Sector Skills Councils should help the Government and universities
to improve their management of the interplay between the supply
of, and demand for, graduate skills. In particular, we recommend
that they develop a system of "kite marks" for employer-led
higher education courses. This would send out much clearer signals
to students about the likely value to their future career of the
course that they choose. It would also help to avoid the problems
associated with the over-provision of courses such as those in
forensic science relative to the number of jobs available. (Paragraph
31)
- Recommendation 17—Degrees
in the same subject from different institutions are not necessarily
interchangeable. Along with overall levels of subject provision,
diversity of provision needs to be taken into account in national
and regional planning in order to cater sufficiently for student
choice and differing levels of attainment. (Paragraph 45)
- Recommendation 19—If
the standard for entry on to university STEM courses is lowered
as a result of decreased demand, there is a danger that the currency
of the resulting degrees will be devalued. This would not be in
the interests of either the students taking those courses or their
potential employers. It is important that, in the drive to increase
student demand for university courses in STEM subjects, the quality
of the student intake is not sacrificed for the sake of increasing
student numbers. (Paragraph 51)
- Recommendation 20—There
is a strong case for continuing to provide a diversity of STEM
degree courses to cater for the varying abilities of the students
opting to take science subjects. Joint honours courses and many
of the new "softer" STEM subjects attract many students
into science who may otherwise have studied something else altogether,
or not studied at all. Chemistry, physics, mathematics and engineering
will not suddenly become more popular if students are prevented
from studying other subjects. Nonetheless, there is great variability
in the quality, scientific content and entrance requirements of
some non-core STEM subjects, some of which are only nominally
"science" courses. Some of these courses will be of
limited value to graduates seeking a scientific career and will
not help to increase the supply of skilled scientific personnel.
Students enrolling on these courses need to be clearly informed
at the outset about whether or not they will be qualified upon
completion to pursue a scientific career. (Paragraph 59)
Some closures of science courses have resulted from
institutions seeking to re-design or rationalise their provision
to increase appeal to prospective students. There is some evidence
that vocationally based courses (e.g. forensic science) are more
attractive than traditional courses (e.g. chemistry). The Committee
has suggested that students were not always well informed about
the quality and employment prospects of such courses. We believe
that course quality is good, and HEFCE has assured us that it
takes seriously its remit, through the Quality Assessment Agency,
to assure the quality of teaching provision throughout the English
HE system.
We believe that it may be rather that students are
not well informed about the employment prospects of some traditional
science courses—and so choose courses that advertise themselves
as linking to a career. We are encouraged by the work that that
the Royal Societies, the Research Councils and others are doing
to make clear the prospects of science careers.
The Committee suggested that Sector Skills Councils
(SSCs) should develop a "kite-marking" system for HE
courses. HEFCE is working with the Sector Skills Development Agencies
(SSDAs) and SSCs and, with DfES, has supported the first four
pilot SSCs to engage with the HE sector to address both supply
and employer and student demand issues.
In particular, HEFCE is encouraging SSCs to develop
closer partnerships with institutions to deliver the provision
required by employers, for example through involvement in Lifelong
Learning Networks, Foundation Degree sector frameworks and collaboration
on the design and delivery of curricula. SSAs will identify more
effective routes for brokering engagement between the HE sector
and SSCs.
HEFCE will continue to work closely with these
bodies, and welcomes the Committee's recommendation that SSCs
should help higher education institutions (HEIs) to improve their
management of the interplay between the supply of and demand
for graduate skills. We can foresee difficulties with the Committee's
proposal for "kite marks" however. Any such a system
would need the buy-in of HEIs and be agreed between them and SSCs.
The introduction of Foundation Degrees addresses
an important skills gap, identified by private and public sector
employers, at the associate professional and higher technician
level. They are vocational higher education qualifications, designed
to provide the specialist knowledge and employability skills that
employers are demanding as well as the broader understanding that
equips graduates for future professional development. Foundation
Degrees have the potential to attract students who would not otherwise
have considered science, as well as those from backgrounds where
there is no tradition of higher level study. Although Foundation
Degrees are relatively new qualifications, they are becoming increasingly
popular, with nearly 38,000 students pursuing them in 2004/05.
The Science, Engineering, Maths and Technology Sector Skills Council
(SEMTA) is proposing to develop a fast track Foundation Degree
apprenticeship which would enable students to gain a joint qualification
in four years rather than 6.5.
INCREASING THE HE SCIENCE WORKFORCE
- Recommendation 9—If
the Government is to meet its ambitious target of increasing the
UK's investment in R&D as a proportion of GDP to 2.5% in 2014
it will need to take steps to significantly increase, not simply
maintain, the total number of STEM graduates, as well as the proportion
of those graduates that go on to pursue careers in science, engineering
and technology. Evidence suggests that the UK may need to produce
at least 5,000 additional researchers each year. (Paragraph 25)
The Government, the Funding Councils and the Research
Councils agree with the Committee that a significant increase
in researcher numbers will be required to meet the Government's
2.5% GDP target.
The Research Councils note that many areas of
STEM are experiencing demographic changes in the academic workforce
which both represent additional demand—and therefore additional
opportunity—for skilled researchers, and pose capacity issues
for further training. Economics is a particular concern cited
by ESRC but many disciplines face problems of differing degrees
of severity.
All Research Councils have addressed training
issues in their delivery plans including plans to ensure sufficient
supply to contribute to future demand; removing barriers and encouraging
participation in research by under-represented groups such as
women returners and ethnic minorities, and making the system more
demand-led through interaction with employers. Examples of activities
include PPARC's decision to increase the volume of quota studentships
by 50% by 2007/8. EPSRC will shortly be publishing an analysis
showing that in order to meet their share of the growth target
Research Council PhDs may need to grow by up to 4% per annum over
10 years.
RESEARCH CAREERS
- Recommendation 15—It
will be important for the Government to address negative perceptions
about research careers. Without specific action in this area,
it could take a long time for any improvements in research career
paths to filter through to schoolchildren and students making
choices about their future careers. (Paragraph 39)
A key part of increasing the science workforce is
addressing factors that may make certain science careers—particularly
those in HE research—unattractive to some students, and
perceptions about some STEM careers that cause people not to choose
them. Early career researchers and those on short term contracts
are among those who may be or feel at a disadvantage. The Roberts
Review made recommendations regarding funding for contract staff.
The Research Councils recognize the potential
for improvements resulting from the EU code and charter for contract
researchers, increasing their rights, improving their status,
and which might thus encourage recruitment and retention.
HEFCE too shares concerns about difficulties experienced
by early career researchers in establishing their position as
part of the permanent workforce. This is a management issue which
HEIs as employers will need to resolve. HEFCE has undertaken to
do what it appropriately can to support them in this and will
be publishing the outcome of a research study exploring the current
state of policy and practice in resource management and career
development of early career researchers and inviting the sector
to consider the implications of its conclusions for their developing
practice.
The Government and the Research Councils have paid
significant attention to making careers in research (particularly
those involving high level skills) more attractive. The Research
Careers Initiative and the implementation of the Roberts and Lambert
Reports are creating a more favourable environment for young researchers
(both financially and in terms of skills training and career development
opportunities such as the Roberts/RCUK Academic Fellowships).
Work such as that of the Research Careers Committee through its
Career Paths Working Group aims to produce career maps to assist
recruitment into research careers.
The Research Councils are also working to foster
relationships with Wellcome and other funders to address areas
of mutual interest in improving the attractiveness of careers
such as skills training for post-doctoral researchers or common
data-requirements to underpin analyses of the impact of funding
schemes (as reported in response to the Committee's scrutiny of
RCUK). Further work to understand the impact of implementation
of these policies is likely to be necessary and will include the
views of researchers, universities and employers (which also includes
universities).
There is evidence that women face particular challenges
in developing research careers. The Research Councils recognise
that there has been a reliance on a "traditional" cohort,
i.e. white males, to keep up the supply of STEM graduates. This
also has consequences for research capacity in universities which
are heavily dependent on the base of permanent academic staff.
Research Councils are now taking steps to ensure that representation
of women and black and minority ethnic (BME) students in the STEM
HE area better reflects that in the wider population/ workforce.
The Research Councils are also involved in a number
of initiatives to get females of all ages to consider graduate
careers in "non-traditional" areas such as engineering
and physical sciences. The Resource Centre for Women in SET is
to work with Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) and employers to identify
cultural and structural barriers which militate against women
seeing certain STEM careers as attractive. DTI is also about to
commission research into SSC's own diversity policies.
GOVERNMENT RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT WITH EMPLOYERS
- Recommendation 7—Making
sure that the UK can meet the demands of employers for skilled
personnel is key to ensuring that it can maintain its competitive
edge in a global market. (Paragraph 21)
- Recommendation 8—Whilst
it is "good news" for STEM graduates that so many of
them find employment so quickly, it is not necessarily good news
for employers in the sector. The relative ease with which STEM
graduates find employment suggests that there may not be enough
of them to fully meet employer demand. (Paragraph 24)
- Recommendation 11—We
recommend that the Government undertakes a comprehensive survey
of existing research into the supply of, and demand for, STEM
skills, including lessons learned from other countries. This will
enable it both to take stock of the current situation, and to
form a strategy that will meet the UK's future skills needs. (Paragraph
32)
- Recommendation 14—In
order to formulate a credible policy on attracting graduates into
careers in science, engineering and technology, the Government
needs to develop a sophisticated understanding of the motivating
factors in graduates' choices of careers. Given that they are
in the best position to act upon any findings, we recommend that
the Government commissions the relevant Sector Skills Councils
to carry out further research into these factors. (Paragraph 38)
The Committee has suggested that Government pursues
a comprehensive survey of existing research into supply of and
demand for STEM skills, including international comparisons. An
overview of such research informs, and will continue to inform,
our policymaking, but we are aware that the position is a changing
one and that research will tend, inevitably, to lag behind it.
We believe staying abreast of current trends is better achieved
through good working relationships with employers' organisations
and contacts with the sector (including international representatives),
and we are pursuing these.
The Committee has also recommended that we commission
the SSCs to carry out research on the motivating factors in graduates'
choice of careers. Again, this is an area where there is a range
of information available: for example the British Association
for the Advancement of Science's report Connecting Science has
some interesting insights into student choices. The Gateway to
the Professions Literature Review also looked at students' choices,
and concluded that career decisions depended—as might be
expected—on factors including socio-economic circumstances,
family preferences and interests. It observed that most studies
agree that by the time a student reaches university, processes
that occur during primary and secondary education tend to have
already decided the career path.
We welcome the Committee's recognition that the needs
of employers are key when considering the provision of STEM subjects
in HE. We are keen, however, that the market is allowed a role
and will take care to ensure that the market forces at play between
employer demand and graduate supply are not artificially skewed
by any intervention we may make. Second guessing the market may
ultimately reduce the dynamism of the English HE sector.
Government, the Funding Councils and the Research
Councils actively encourage collaboration between universities
and industry in support of research training. Initiatives such
as Collaborative Training Accounts; CASE and Industrial CASE and
Engineering Doctorates all encourage employer involvement in postgraduate
Masters and Doctoral training.
The Performance Management system for the Research
Councils also includes indicators reflecting the scale and depth
of the Research Councils involvement in collaborative and employer
driven training particularly in relation to Knowledge Transfer.
RCUK reports anecdotal evidence that some HE courses,
and the premises in which they are taught, are unwelcoming for
women and BME groups. Research Councils are in discussion with
various stakeholders about whether some empirical research would
be valuable in this area.
| 
