Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-72)
BILL RAMMELL,
MP AND SIR
HOWARD NEWBY
2 NOVEMBER 2005
Q60 Mr Newmark: Is part of the problem
of drop-off—and I am only using the analogy of the United
States, where there has been a significant drop-off—caused
by not a lack of demand from the overseas students, but the new
stringent immigration controls and the ability to get access to
visas; and do you see that as part of a block that has been detracting
overseas students from coming here recently?
Bill Rammell: No, I do not. If
you look at the visa changes that came in in April or May, I do
not think they had such an impact on this year's applications.
Indeed, overall, marginally, overseas student numbers are up this
year. There has been some fluctuation between different countries.
I am a higher education minister, but I am also a member of a
government that is rightly concerned to ensure that we have robust
asylum and immigration controls in this country; and overseas
students cannot be outwith that process. However, as I said before,
each of the separate changes that we have made is justifiable.
The danger is that it creates an impression that Britain is not
as welcoming to overseas students as previously it has been. I
think the best thing we can do to respond to that situation is
move forward very quickly to try and have a successor Prime Minister's
Initiative Phase 2 Scheme, where, jointly funded by the British
Council, institutions and the Government, we very proactively
go out and get across overseas the message of the benefits and
advantages of British higher education.
Sir Howard Newby: I do not think
the visa issues help with the marketing, but nevertheless I do
not think it is a primary cause. In addition to the issues the
Minister mentioned about China, which I endorse, it is also true
that the UK at the moment looks rather expensive in currencies
that are tied to the dollar, and the Chinese currency is of course
tied to the dollar. We all know what has happened to the pound/dollar
exchange rate over the last couple of years. Suddenly, the UK,
for a Chinese student at the margin, so to speak, looks rather
expensive, in fact very expensive if you take the total package,
compared to going to the United States.
Q61 Mr Newmark: I would slightly
disagree with that because unless you have mobility, there are
very few institutions that would give full—unless it is
like Harvard or Stanford, and most of the education on a like-for-like
basis is still cheaper here than going to the United States. The
United States is very expensive to get a university education.
Sir Howard Newby: We can take
this offline, but I have been in China recently, and I can assure
you that at least that is their perception; that the UK is expensive
compared to the United States, at the margin. We are only talking
about marginal declines, but at the margin it has choked off that
10% of the market.
Chairman: We are obviously going to slightly
disagree on that, but we will leave it and bring Brian in.
Q62 Dr Iddon: Minister, if the quality
of our higher education is good enough to attract foreign students
to study stem subjects in our universities, why are we not attracting
our own students to study the same subjects in those very universities?
Bill Rammell: One, because—and
I am not complacent, and I hope everything I have said this morning
indicates that we are concerned about this and that we do want
to stimulate the market—but if you wanted an objective analysis
of what has happened say over the last eight years, you cannot
insulate demand for STEM subjects and what has happened in the
other science subjects, there has been a significant expansion
of medical studies and computer studies. Undoubtedly it has taken
some of those students who, in different circumstances in previous
times, might have studied STEM subjects. However, I do think we
need to do more to get the benefits across of studying STEM subjects.
I think that the media has a role to play. I forget the name of
the group, but there is a group that works to advise TV drama
producers on presenting a positive image of scientists in this
country. That is the kind of positive development that we want
to see. We also need to get across those very basic and graphic
financial incentives to undertake a STEM degree. There is a 30%
graduate premium, compared to 23% for non-STEM subjects. We need
to get more of that across, and we need to look at the way we
are teaching science within the curriculum within schools—that
we make it more practical, related to everyday life, to try and
encourage some of those young people. The evidence appears to
be that until the age of 14 youngsters by and large tend to be
switched on to science subjects; and something happens around
14, 15 or 16, where it moves in a different direction. Some of
the changes that we are bringing forward in the curriculum, particularly
at GCSE level will help in that regard.
Q63 Dr Iddon: Can I switch track
and look at funding for universities. The current funding mechanisms
have obviously concentrated research and development in a very
small number of universities in the STEM area, obviously concentrating
on that area. Do you think that concentration is desirable, and,
if so, why?
Bill Rammell: While I know, in
your response to the evidence we gave we do not agree on this,
we do not have a policy of concentration. What we do, I think
rightly in the face of international competition, is to fund selectively
on the basis of excellence. That has led to a degree of concentration,
but you can overstate it. There are still over half of institutions
in this country that have at least one 5-star rated department.
If you look at the latest figures, taking maths as an example,
of those departments that have got more than 50 students 25 of
the 56 do not have 5-star ratings; in chemistry 25 of 42 do not
have 5-star ratings, and in physics 13 of 34 do not have 5-star
ratings. Through the RAE process there has been a degree of concentration,
but I think you can overstate it.
Sir Howard Newby: Talking about
the STEM subjects specifically, the arguments about concentration
have to do with economies of scale. For example, if we take particle
physics we know that you need international collaboration as well
as national collaboration to do world-class research in particle
physics, and the same is increasingly true of other areas of science.
Coming from Southampton University, I can only point to oceanographic
science, which requires a similar degree of concentration. The
issue is whether bigger automatically means better: not automatically,
but in many of the areas of truly groundbreaking science, scale
is an issue. You need big clusters of researchers working on big
issues, using expensive equipment very often to produce the kind
of break-throughs that we are all looking for now in the globally
competitive scientific arena. It is not only we who have come
to that conclusion, but many other countries have. Indeed, even
in this country other partners in the research field, such as
the research councils and the Department of Health, have come
to a similar conclusion. That then leads, from a Funding Council
point of view, to a whole set of issues about how, if that is
indeed the case, we can ensure that in the teaching of these subjects
students still have access to high-quality academic staff who
are working at the forefront of their subjects. That, indeed,
is a dilemma we still continue to struggle with.
Q64 Dr Iddon: What you are saying,
Sir Howard, is that international competitiveness is what is driving
this concentration to a degree.
Sir Howard Newby: I am saying
that. I think that to be good is no longer good enough. We have
to be internationally excellent, especially in all these internationally
competitive areas. Obviously, my arguments weaken the more you
move towards the arts and humanities, where the arguments in favour
of concentration are not quite the same, although they still need
really good libraries. If we are talking about the STEM subjects,
which is where I started off on this, there are, you can see all
over the world, arguments in favour in many, not all, of the STEM
subjects of concentration because of the nature of the science
that is being undertaken.
Q65 Dr Iddon: When we brought you
as a witness on 7 February 2005 you told us the money runs out
at about two-thirds of the way down grade 4 departments, and there
is another research exercise in the offing. This Committee, as
you well know, is very concerned about not all the 4-star departments
being funded properly. Can you tell us what HEFCE has done about
that and what kind of response you have had from the Government,
or is it early days?
Sir Howard Newby: We identified
some subjects in universities, six of them, which we continue
to fund down to level 3A in the old RAE terminology, because we
recognised that these were subjects that had recently arrived
in higher education and did not have a strong research base and
so needed to be given what we call some capability funding. They
were areas like art and design on the one hand, health studies
on the other, and so on. That money continues until the next research
assessment exercise. As far as what happens in 2008-09 is concerned,
we are just entering into a spending review and we will be arguing
strongly for further investment in the research base, not only
so that we can continue to fund the truly world-class research
of today, but arguably the world-class research of tomorrow as
well, which in many cases will be up and coming through the grade
4s. That is a big argument for funding the grade 4s; that for
many of them the direction of travel is towards 5 and 5-star.
If it is towards a 3, we should not be funding it. Finally, I
would say that there is also a need to remind ourselves that even
now, and certainly in the foreseeable future, universities will
not be receiving the full economic costs of research activity
in certain significant areas, namely those funded by the charities—although
we have made some progress in that direction, and that is very
important for university research in this country—and also
through European Union funding—the European Research Council,
for example, which we would expect this country to do very well.
It is very important that it is fully funded in some fashion.
Q66 Dr Iddon: Minister, is it not
a bit fruitless, having a research assessment exercise or an equivalent
of that, whatever it may be, in the future, and determining that
there are some excellent departments and then not being prepared
to fund them as a government?
Bill Rammell: I make the point
again about what has particularly happened to science funding
over the last seven or eight years, which historically has been
a very positive development. If you are asking me, "are you
in all circumstances going to have as much money as you would
like to fund everywhere?", I do not think that is going to
be the case. You therefore do have to choose priorities. When
we are looking at the research assessment exercise, I hear particular
criticisms of it from all sorts of quarters, but what I do not
see anywhere is a consensus as to what we might replace it with.
Moving forward to 2008, we said we will run a metrics exercise
alongside it, and we need to see how and in what way that might
improve things. We do need to learn some of the lessons from previous
RAE rounds as well, and the fact that this time we are going to
be looking at quality profiles instead of just average scores.
That will help to give some support to the pockets of excellence
that might exist within a department that otherwise is not performing
at a very high level. That will help to ameliorate somewhat the
kind of cliff-edge problems that your Committee has previously
identified, and that will be a step in the right direction. We
have substantively increased the funding going through to research.
We are coming up to a spending review; people will have their
views, and I am sure that they will push us to make a strong case.
Q67 Dr Iddon: Our predecessor chairman,
the Member for Norwich North, was very keen on his football analogies;
and if I can put it to you, there is a team called Wigan, which
has gone through three divisions to almost the top of the Premier
League. Is it possible for a Wigan in academia to have a spectacular
rise like that; or does the current funding mechanism prohibit
that?
Sir Howard Newby: I am a Derby
County supporter so I am a little biased here, but if you look
back over the last 20 years then this has undoubtedly been the
case. Who would have guessed 20 years ago that universities like
Warwick, York and so on would be where they are now, both in terms
of research and in terms of teaching excellence? As always in
higher education, I am afraid, these things take time, but it
is indeed the case that universities rise and fall. The question
is, looking to the future: is it possible for another Wigan or
another Wimbledon to come through? I think it is very important
for the health of British higher education to allow the Wigans
or Wimbledons or their analogies to come through, and that we
do not create a kind of ossified university sector in which certain
universities that have historically been excellent regard that
as a kind of privilege to which they are entitled and that no-one
else must be allowed in. I completely reject that view.
Q68 Chairman: As the current Chairman,
who is also a football fan and who is also a Leeds United supporter,
can I say that the opposite applies; that you can spend literally
millions and millions on a club and it goes down, heading towards
the Second Division at the moment. There is a very serious issue
here, and the previous Secretary of State indicated very strongly
that we were going to see teaching and research universities or
perhaps even research-only universities and teaching-only universities.
With regard to STEM subjects, Minister, do you envisage there
being universities that are teaching-only universities but in
fact also engage in teaching STEM subjects? If we are going to
see a trend towards research-concentration in fewer universities,
there is also a view, which Charles Clark held, that we would
have teaching-only universities as well. Do you think it is possible
to teach STEM subjects in teaching-only universities because they
are not engaged in any research?
Bill Rammell: I do not think that
is accurately what the former Secretary of State said—
Q69 Chairman: I am sure it was not,
but you have the gist!
Bill Rammell: I will deal with
the point, and I will not make a cheap shot about the sustainability
of Wigan's position.
Q70 Chairman: They have a very rich
chairman!
Bill Rammell: There are a number
of institutions that are predominantly teaching as opposed to
being driven by research. I wholly agree with Howard that we do
need to ensure that we do not get a cementation of those institutions
that are research-intensive and those that are not, and we need
to enable people to come through the system and to improve and
develop them. Going back to one of the arguments about hub-and-spoke,
if you stop the cross-subsidisation that currently takes place
under the existing approach to enable institutions to say, "we
have a good 4-rated department here, and we want to give them
a bit more money to encourage them to move in that direction",
that would be a loss from that particular way forward. However,
for those institutions that are predominantly teaching, it is
crucial that we do enable them to get some of the benefits from
the research-intensive institutions; and that is why the 25 million
that HEFCE is committing over the coming two years, to ensure
that those institutions that are predominantly teaching get some
access to some of the research materials and some of the visiting
lecturers, is a very positive development. We also need, where
you have promising researchers in predominantly teaching institutions,
to enable them to go and work for a period of time within a research-intensive
institution. I see that very much as the way forward, but I do
not want a system that is set in tablets of stone and where you
never see change within the system. If you created that kind of
system, actually UK plc in the longer run would lose out.
Sir Howard Newby: Can I go on
the record on this as well, please? Let me just state that the
references you were making, Chair, to the 2003 White Paper—it
was never the view of the Secretary of State in my experience,
and it is certainly not the view of the Funding Council, that
we should have teaching-only universities. Let me state that very
clearly. What was the view of the Secretary of State, and is the
view of the Funding Council, is that universities should play
to their strengths; and therefore there will naturally some universities
that do and should focus more on teaching than research, and others
that might focus more on research than teaching. Some might focus
on knowledge transfer more than research as well, for example.
It is more an issue of focus; it is not one of exclusivity. I
find it difficult to believe that a university worthy of its name
would be a teaching-only institution.
Q71 Dr Iddon: To what extent is it
a coincidence that those universities that receive the bulk of
the research funding from the research councils also receive the
bulk of the QR funds from yourselves?
Sir Howard Newby: That is true,
and—
Q72 Dr Iddon: Does that not make
it difficult for the Wigans to rise to the top of the Premier
Division?
Sir Howard Newby: Yes, it does,
and that is where the football analogy is rather apt. One could
argue that it is getting increasingly difficult in the university
world, as it is indeed in football. We have a Premier League in
football, financed in rather different ways to the Football League.
I worry a lot about the gap that is growing between the Premier
League and the Football League in football, and I would worry
a lot if the gap between a premier league of universities and
the rest of the sector had got so wide that it was impossible
to cross. Having said that, the coincidence between the two figures
you mentioned, namely the QR allocations from us and the research
council allocations is not a coincidence because they are both
driven on an assessment of excellence by academic peers. What
I will say is that the research council allocations are more concentrated
than ours, and that shows that what we are doing with our QR money
is indeed casting some bread on the waters. The QR money that
we give to universities, which is largely discretionary income,
to invest in new areas of activity, is being used for that purpose,
not just to mimic the funding that is coming through from the
research councils.
Bill Rammell: Can I add to that
because this is a key area? One of the things that I have learned
in politics and government is that you cannot have everything
in life. Even within an overall budget that is increasing, if
we were simply, to take the implication of Dr Iddon's question—and
I am not quite sure this is where you are going, but some people
advocate this—to level it down and spread it right the way
across the system, in terms of the demands of international competitiveness
that Howard outlined earlier, I think we would lose out as a country
in those circumstances. We need to be concerned about this, but
we also need to recognise the international pressures that we
are responding to.
Chairman: Minister, that brings us full
circle, and it was one of the reasons that the Committee recommended
the hub-and-spokes model; it was to try and overcome some of those
difficulties of being able to marry the emerging universities
and emerging research with the very research-intensive universities.
We have come to the end of our questions. Can we thank you, Sir
Howard, very much for coming. Thank you very much indeed, Minister.
It has been helpful to agree where we have agreed and disagree
where we have disagreed. I am sure we will return to this in due
course.
|
