Memorandum submitted by BCS Academy of
Computing (FC 55)
1. The BCS Academy of Computing is a body
in formation, comprising a partnership between the British Computer
Society (BCS), the Council of Professors and Heads of Computing
in the UK (CPHC), and the UK Computing Research Committee (UKCRC).
The Academy will operate as a Learned Society for Computing at
all levels within the UK, focusing on Computing Education and
Research, and the use and application of Computing Education and
Research within UK industry and society. As part of the remit
of the Academy, a representative role for the discipline in relation
to major public bodies and funding agencies is envisaged, and
it is in fulfilment of this role that this response has been produced.
Although the Academy is not yet fully operational, a launch event
being planned for Easter 2010, it was felt that this inquiry was
of such importance that it warranted an Academy response.
DECLARATION OF
INTERESTS
2. As identified above, this response represents
the interests of those engaged in Computing Education and Research,
and in the use and application of Computing Education and Research
in UK industry and society.
3. The rest of this document provides specific
responses on the majority of the issues raised in the Science
& Technology Committee Press Notice ?11 (09-10) dated 13 January
2010.
"The process for deciding where to make cuts
in SET spending"
4. We take the view that it would be inappropriate
to make any comments on the process, since any level of cuts will
damage the sector. In our view, the existing level of funding
for Computing is inadequate, having suffered a HEFCE band-cut
some years ago, which took funding below the existing cost level
for students on Computing courses. A similar cut is currently
being proposed by the SFC in Scotland. It also seems inappropriate
to cut funding for courses for which extra funds have been applied
in the last 6 years in an attempt to increase student numbers,
even in a time of economic stringency. If the UK is to compete
in the global marketplace for advanced IT products and systems,
digital media production and content generation, and next generation
technologies, as well as in scientific and computing research,
analysis by the Sector Skills Council, e-skills UK and CPHC shows
that there is already a shortfall of high-quality graduates with
high-level skills. Cutting the unit of resource will diminish
the quality of resources and staffing in UK Universities, with
commensurate effects on the quality of research, teaching, and
the capabilities of our graduates. This will significantly damage
our international reputation, which will inevitably affect our
ability to attract high quality students, including those from
overseas who provide significant third stream funding for Universities
already. In terms of the future wealth creation capability of
the UK IT industry, and the international capability and reputation
of UK computing research and higher education, maintaining or,
if possible, increasing the unit of resource for key subject areas
such as Computing should be the goal.
"The differential effect of cuts on demand-led
and research institutions"
5. There can be no argument that reductions
in funding will impact on the levels of research being undertaken
at all types of institution, since cuts will result in reductions
in staffing levels and therefore a greater percentage of the remaining
staff time being taken up with the core business of teaching.
Since the various time allocation surveys carried out at UK Universities
over the last decade have all clearly demonstrated that UK research
is already significantly funded by the unfunded use of academic
staff personal time, this is clearly a finite resource and not
one which is readily available to mitigate staff reductions. One
clear outcome from the RAE last year was the recognition that
world-class research was taking place across the sector in all
types of institutions, post-92 as well as pre-92, and in so-called
demand-led as well as research-intensive. The RAE results from
HEFCE showed that the top 22 research-intensive institutions,
which receive approximately 80% of research funding from EPSRC,
account for approximately 53% of 4* (outstanding world class)
research outputs. The remaining 47% of 4* outputs were produced
by the other HEIs, but with only 20% of the overall research funding.
These figures suggest it is necessary to take a very careful look
at ROI when deciding what model to use when considering the best
use of public funds. An immediate outcome of the RAE results was
a redistribution of QR funding, which has already resulted in
some staff reductions in research-intensive institutions, with
a commensurate reduction in research capability. Further funding
reductions, especially in the unit of resource, will result in
even heavier pressures on staff in all institutions, but may have
a disproportionate effect on staff in demand-led institutions,
which already have high SSRs, in reducing time and capability
within those institutions to continue to produce high quality
world leading research outputs. Therefore, it would seem likely
that cuts in funding, particularly in unit of resource funding,
will not only affect research in all types of institution detrimentally,
but are also likely to have a disproportionate effect on the world
class quality of UK scientific and computing research. If the
outcome of such cuts was to focus research funding onto a smaller
number of research-intensive institutions, as would seem likely
given the arguments presented, then that would be in direct opposition
to UK Government and EU Commission policies for the development
of a globally competitive knowledge economy, which requires far
higher levels of technical qualification within the workforce.
In order to meet the need for many more highly technically qualified
personnel, exposure to cutting-edge high quality research, as
part of the study programme, has to be available at the majority
rather than the minority of HE institutions.
"The implications and effects of the announced
STFC budget cuts"
6. Almost all of the major science projects,
and the large equipment tools and systems provided and maintained
by STFC, have a significant computing element. Whilst this is
often seen as support rather than research, in fact a great deal
of applied computing research emerges from these "Big Science"
projects. However, there are very few direct computing research
projects funded by STFC, and therefore, while we would argue for
the maintenance of as many projects and as much facility as possible
within the STFC budget, we recognise that this is an area of major
expenditure which will be subject to significant reduction. Another
danger that we perceive in this situation is in UK scientific
research reputation and international collaboration. STFC is responsible
for the payment of fees, and maintenance of a collaborative presence,
at all the major international scientific research facilities
worldwide. Budget cuts that reduced this facility would have an
immediate impact on the ability of UK researchers to engage in
international research networks and utilise international scientific
tools, such as the large hadron collider at CERN, and as such
our reputation and presence in world scientific and computing
research could be seriously impaired. We would therefore argue
that the STFC budget cuts, and the current review, should take
great care to mitigate any impact on UK membership of the international
scientific and computing research community.
"The operation and definition of the science
budget ring-fence, and consideration of whether there should be
a similar ring-fence for the Higher Education Funding Council
for England research budget and departmental research budgets"
7. Computing has not been supported through
the STEM initiatives, and does not currently feature in considerations
of budget ring-fencing. We would argue strongly that such ring-fencing
is necessary, and should be imposed at all levels that are feasible
to achieve, and it should be focused on those subject areas that
are identified as supporting wealth creation, global competitiveness
and international reputation for the UK economy over the next
decade, and those areas that are identified as of strategic importance
in national planning. We would also argue very strongly that Computing
in general, and computing research in particular, is a key subject
that should be ring-fenced in any such exercise. Whilst we have
seen a greater than 50% decline in undergraduate student numbers
in Computing courses over the last decade, we have also seen a
significant increase in the percentage of overseas students taking
postgraduate taught and research courses in the UK, and they now
represent more than 50% of that student population. The implication
of this is that we have been training our own international competition,
and unless we continue to invest in and develop our own capability
in computing research, and indeed in teaching, then we will be
overtaken by a number of developing economies that have invested
heavily in obtaining overseas technical qualifications for their
own nationals. In terms of the operation of a ring-fence on research
budgets, this should be reasonably easy to achieve by applying
existing research funding accounting models to QR funding, and
thereby seeking returns identifying the application of that funding
in strategic subject areas. At a departmental level this may be
difficult to monitor effectively, but organisations such as the
BCS Academy will be in a position to monitor and provide feedback,
separate from HE institutions, to prevent significant abuses.
"Whether the Government is achieving the
objectives it set out in the "Science and innovation investment
framework 2004-2014: next steps", including, for example,
making progress on the supply of high quality science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) graduates to achieve its overall
ambitions for UK science and innovation"
8. With regard to the question of impact
of Government strategy on STEM graduate numbers, our view is that
the impact of this strategy over the last 6 years has been to
see a small increase in student recruitment numbers on undergraduate
courses in Science, Engineering and Mathematics, but since Computing
has not been included in any real sense in the STEM initiative,
the impact of the strategy on Computing has been negative. During
the last six years there has been a significant decline in the
number of students applying for and studying Computing, and we
take the view that some of this reduction is attributable to the
impact of the STEM initiative encouraging students to take Science,
Engineering and Mathematics courses. Good support for this argument
can be found in the overall decline in students studying Science
and Mathematics at A level during this period, which means that
the additional STEM support was based on supported courses fishing
in a smaller pond of potential students, in competition with unsupported
Computing courses. We have made strong representations to Government
to argue that Computing should be included in the STEM subjects
and able to attract the funding support and national advertising
that results from such inclusion, but to-date such support has
not been forthcoming, and as a result Computing finds itself in
a continued decline.
"Whether the extra student support, which
the Government announced on 20 July 2009 for 10,000 higher education
places, delivered students in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics courses"
9. With regard to the additional student
numbers funded for STEM subjects in 2009, to date there is limited
evidence to suggest that this has had any significant impact on
Computing although there is anecdotal evidence of an increase
in numbers across the UK. We do, however, have to recognise that
this takes place in an environment of credit crunch where a larger
than expected number of students have applied to University, with
fewer taking gap years or moving direct into paid employment.
One clear anomaly of the approach taken is that any institution
signing up for ASNs in STEM subjects could strategically move
existing student numbers into other subject areas, thereby ensuring
that these ASNs were met by STEM students without any significant
increase in the actual number of students in STEM subjects. However,
the significant issue for Computing is the need to see a continued
level of growth in supported student numbers at both undergraduate
and postgraduate level over the next five years to, at least,
address the decline that we have seen over the last eight years.
Without this, the existing identified shortfalls in graduate numbers
to support the UK IT industry and the UK knowledge economy will
continue to grow, and our global competitiveness and market lead
will disappear. ASNs are needed to achieve this, but they need
to be carefully targeted, and supported by active recruitment,
funding and incentives to encourage students to take Computing
courses.
"The effect of HEFCE cuts on the "unit
of funding" for STEM students"
10. As indicated earlier, we would view
this as an inappropriate and damaging decision for the future
competitiveness of both the UK knowledge economy, and UK scientific
research. Although Computing has not been treated as a STEM subject
over the last six years, in terms of funding initiatives and national
incentive schemes and publicity, we have no confidence that this
will continue to be the case when the unit of funding is being
reduced. Computing has already suffered a band reduction from
HEFCE, with the same approach currently being considered by SFC,
and the outcome of that reduction in funding has been to reduce
resources for students, in terms of state-of-the-art software,
hardware, research exposure and staffing. Whilst the costs of
home and office computing equipment have reduced significantly
in recent years, this does not mean that all computing costs are
now at a similar level. The costs for dedicated bespoke hardware
and specialist software to support scientific and computing research,
micro and nano technology development, digital media production
and content development, and next generation technologies, are
still expensive. However, students taking technical qualifications
in Computing require exposure to these tools and technologies,
and cutting-edge research outputs, to develop the skills and knowledge
necessary to be able to work effectively in the UK IT industry
or in computing research. To be clear, we do not support an argument
that funding cuts should be spread equably between subject areas
in UK HE Institutions. If the UK Government is not in a position
to fund all UK students at current levels, then we would argue
that funding should be maintained and, if possible, improved,
for those subjects that are identified as contributing directly
to UK wealth creation and global competitiveness, and other priority
areas identified in national strategy. Whilst UK HE institutions
will seek efficiency savings and alternative funding streams,
as they have for the past decade and longer, there is considerable
danger in assuming they will be able to mitigate any cuts in national
funding. If the UK Government is prepared to give up our current
global reputation and competitive position in the IT industry,
digital media, next generation technologies, and scientific and
computing research, then simply making cuts across the board will
achieve this. Non-equable support, in the form of ring-fencing,
differential levels of funding, incentive schemes, or other innovative
funding schemes, are required to maintain and improve our global
reputation and competitiveness.
|
