Memorandum submitted by the Royal Society
of Chemistry (RSC)
The Royal Society of Chemistry is the largest
organisation in Europe for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported
by a network of over 43,000 members worldwide and an internationally
acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education and
training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of
the chemical sciences to the public.
The main points the RSC wishes to make are:
1. The Higher Education Funding Council
for England (HEFCE) has identified chemistry as a strategically
important but vulnerable subject. Strategically important because
chemistry is the central enabling science underpinning innovation
in a knowledge based economy, and is the key science upon which
advances in healthcare and sustainability is based. Vulnerable,
because there have been a number of closures of chemistry programmes
in HE resulting in restricted access to chemistry education, a
reduction in the diversity of provision and reduced opportunities
for business to interact with and gain from academic research
and innovation.
2. Recently HEFCE has taken some steps to
address the issues. It has provided funding to enable the RSC
to help universities increase their outreach activities to stimulate
demand from students and help HE to develop their curricula. It
has provided much needed additional funding for teaching chemistry
via its block grant to institutions, but a funding gap remains.
So far measures are restricted to England. The funding authorities
elsewhere in the UK have not shown the same recognition of the
issues facing chemistry teaching provision and have not taken
action.
3. It is apposite that this Inquiry follows
on from the Committee's Inquiry into the impact on its Bologna
Process. UK Government and UK HE have not participated fully in
the Process and as a consequence the UK is not reaping the benefits
of reform that are evident elsewhere in Europe. A comprehensive
system of chemistry based education for the UK requires the following
features.
(i) two year programmes in the fundamentals
of the chemical sciences and their application with emphases on
developing competences for process operations or at the junior
technical level, including for school laboratory technicians;
(ii) a very wide range of three year bachelors
(1st cycle) programmes in which the contribution from the chemical
sciences ranges from a minor supporting role to being the major
component. Such programmes make a major contribution to a well
educated citizenry in addition to being the source of many eventual
practitioners across the range of scientific, technological and
healthcare occupations. Some programmes need to be theoretically
rigorous and technically oriented equipping graduates to occupy
leading technical roles;
(iii) intensive programmes to masters level
(2nd cycle) of up to two years duration, leading on from first
cycle qualifications in which the chemical sciences are a major
component and intended to lead to professional level practices.
There should be a mix of programmes ranging from broadly based
to those specialist interdisciplinary areas; and
(iv) three to four year programmes leading
to doctoral degrees (3rd cycle) educating researchers and research
leaders in the chemical sciences and contributing to the research
missions of institutions.
THE ROLE
OF UNIVERSITIES
1. What do students want from universities?
Students should expect to gain from their HE
experiences skills that fit them for employment, to participate
in and hold leadership positions in a democratic society.
2. What do employers want from graduates?
The ability to transfer the knowledge and skills
gained whilst in HE to employment.
3. What should the Government, and society
more broadly, want from HE?
The Committee has identified societal needs
in the points associated with this question.
UNIVERSITY FUNDING
4. Is the current funding system fit for purpose?
Is the purpose clear?
The purpose is clear, but the current system
is not fit for purpose. There is insufficient resource overall
and the relative funding between subjects is inappropriate.
The current system is too geared to what universities
wish to provide and what 18-year-olds wish to "purchase".
The mechanisms for ensuring that national needs are met are either
not appropriate or insufficiently used.
5. What are the principles on which university
funding should be based?
The principles should be a balance of:
— autonomy for universities, ensuring
freedom of thought;
— enabling students to study what they
want at a convenient location;
— enabling government, on behalf of
society, to procure the knowledge base and skills the country
requires; and
— enabling the private sector to engage
in partnerships with HE for mutual benefit.
6. Should the £3,000 cap on student fees
be lifted after 2009 and what might be the consequences for universities
and for students, including part-time students?
No comment.
7. What should the Government be funding in
HE and by what means?
Government should part fund (with students)
sub degree, bachelors and masters level programmes, fund research
infrastructure and some specific research programmes.
8. Should central funding be used as a lever
to achieve government policy aims?
Yes, government funding should be used as a
lever to achieve its policy aims. No, the balance is not currently
correct. Government needs to be more active in procuring what
society requires.
9. Should research funding be based on selection
of "quality"? How should quality be defined and assessed?
How might this drive behaviour across the sector?
Yes, research funding should be based on quality
measures which should be defined and assessed using a combination
of metrics and peer review appropriate to the subject area. A
mix of measures must be used to reduce the risk of unintended
consequences.
10. How can leading research universities
reach internationally competitive levels of funding? Should limited
central-Government funding be directed elsewhere?
To reach internationally competitive levels
of funding, more funding must be provided.
11. How well do universities manage their
finances, and what improvements, if any, need to be made?
No comment.
12. Are some parts of the sector too reliant
on income from overseas student?
In principle internationalisation of HE is good
thing. However, any organisation that is overly dependent on a
single source of income that cannot be guaranteed puts itself,
and therefore its publicly funded activities, at risk.
THE STRUCTURE
OF THE
HE SECTOR
13. Is the current structure of the HE sector
appropriate and sustainable for the future?
No, the current structure's not appropriate.
The three cycle system, widely adopted elsewhere in Europe through
the Bologna Process provides greater flexibility than the (essentially)
two cycle system prevalent in the UK. Please see our separate
submission on this issue.
The current degree classification (which now
mainly operates only on a three point scale) has outlived its
usefulness. A transcript based system of records of attainment
needs to be more fully developed and promoted.
14. How well do structure and funding arrangements
fit with "diversity of mission"?
The current structures and funding arrangements
do not sufficiently fit with "diversity study". A three
cycle system, with a vibrant range of sub degree offering, and
including part-time, distance and technically rigorous training
programmes is required.
15. Is the current structure and funding affecting
growth of HE in FE and part-time study?
Science has essentially disappeared from FE
and, outside the Open University, is almost entirely full-time.
This lack of provision is largely caused by funding regimes.
16. How important are HE in FE and flexible
learning to the future of HE? Would this part of the sector grow
faster under different structure and funding arrangements?
FE needs more freedom to develop programmes
appropriate to its own market. The key is for links between the
sectors that allow for progression with credit into HE.
17. Can, and should, the Government be attempting
to shape the structure of the sector?
Yes. The Government cannot be completely "hands
off". It has to ensure that HE fulfils the roles identified
in 1-3 above. It must guide and enable institutions to be forward
looking in accomplishing their missions, intervening when there
is a risk that national needs may not be fulfilled.
18. Is the Government's role one of planning,
steering, or allowing the market to operate?
The current market is not a pure market and
probably can never be. See 17 above.
19. Should there be areas of government planning
within HE—eg for strategic subjects?
Yes. Currently there are issues concerning strategically
important but vulnerable subjects. Please see the main points
at the beginning of our evidence.
20. What levers are available to the government
and how effective are they?
The only real lever is funding. Legislation
should be avoided.
21. Is there a clear goal for the future shape
of the sector? Should there be one?
No. The goal should be a vibrant, flexible system
that has the human and financial capacity to adapt.
22. Is there a clear intention behind the
balance of post-graduate and under-graduate international students
being sought? Is this an area where the market should be managed?
Can it be managed?
No. This is an area that should not be managed,
save for ensuring opportunities for students and the issue of
risk identified in 17 above.
December 2006
| 
