CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and recommendations
Definition of STEM
252. We recommend that, given the importance
that the Government attach to STEM skills in stimulating economic
growth and the wider importance of a STEM-literate society, the
Government should work together with HESA, the Research Councils,
HEIs and professional bodies to formulate and apply a standard
definition of STEM. The definition should derive from a statement
of the competencies and skills that a STEM graduate should possess
and the characteristics that a STEM course should contain, including
direct STEM content. (paragraph 23) (Recommendation 1)
The school and higher education
interface, and maths
MATHS STUDY POST-16
253. The number of students taking maths post-16
is insufficient to meet the level of numeracy needed in our society,
and the level at which it is taught often fails to meet the requirements
for studying STEM subjects at undergraduate level. We share the
view that all students should study some form of maths post-16,
the particular area of maths depending on the needs of the student.
For example, prospective engineering students would require mechanics
as part of their post-16 maths, whereas prospective biology students
would benefit from studying statistics. (paragraph 30)
254. We recommend that, as part of their National
Curriculum review, the Government make studying maths in some
form compulsory for all students post-16. We recommend also that
maths to A2 level should be a requirement for students intending
to study STEM subjects in HE. (paragraph 32) (Recommendation
2)
MATHS A LEVEL COURSE CONTENT AND
STRUCTURE
255. We support the Government's efforts to involve
HEIs in setting the curriculum and we urge HEIs to engage fully
and make every effort to smooth the transition from school to
HE, particularly in maths. In order to inform this process, we
urge that HEIs work together to establish where the skills gaps
are and which areas of the maths syllabus are essential for STEM
undergraduate study. We would expect this work to be completed
by July 2014. (paragraph 39) (Recommendation 3)
256. We support the recommendation by the House
of Commons Education Committee that there should be a single comprehensive
national syllabus, accredited by Ofqual, to offset the risk that
competing examination boards will tend to drive down standards.
We would expect the national syllabus for maths to meet the needs
of all students post-16 as per our conclusion and recommendation
in paragraphs 30-32. The proposed national subject committees
will be critical to the success of the new scheme. Should the
scheme go ahead therefore, we would seek assurance that the HEIs
would have a significant role within the committees and that the
committees would be given the capacity to be fully effective in
ensuring that standards, particularly at A2, are maintained. (paragraph 40)
257. The Education Committee recommended that
the Government should pilot a national syllabus in one large entry
subject as part of the forthcoming A level reforms. We would recommend
that maths should be the subject of such a pilot. (paragraph 41)
(Recommendation 4)
QUALIFIED TEACHERS
258. We recommend that the Government increase
their efforts to boost specialist STEM teacher recruitment. The
Government should assess which existing initiatives have yielded
positive results and which have not worked, so that resources
can be concentrated on those schemes that produce the best outcomes.
(paragraph 43) (Recommendation 5)
CAREERS ADVICE AND EDUCATION
259. We recommend that the Government should
direct the new National Careers Service to ensure that appropriate
advice is given to young people about the following: STEM subject
choice at school and its possible consequences for future study
and careers; the choices available within STEM subjects at HE
level and beyond and the advantages of pursuing a STEM degree;
and, relevant careers advice that highlights the jobs available
to STEM graduates both within STEM and in other industries. In
order to make STEM careers and subject choices more accessible
to students, parents and teachers, we would encourage the Government
to use new technologies by, for example, commissioning a STEM
careers App. (paragraph 46) (Recommendation 6)
260. Schools should ensure that support for careers
education through continuing professional development (CPD) is
provided to those offering careers advice to students. (paragraph 47)
(Recommendation 7)
HIGHER EDUCATION MATHS REQUIREMENTS
AT UNIVERSITY ENTRY
261. The lack, or low level, of maths requirements
for admission to HEIs, particularly for programmes in STEM subjects,
acts as a disincentive for students to take maths and high level
maths at A level. We urge HEIs to introduce more demanding maths
requirements at entry for STEM courses. The proposed change should
be introduced within a time frame that would allow current school
pupils to adapt their subject choices at school to the new requirements.
The benefits of this policy would be two-fold: it would send the
right signal to young people of the importance of maths for their
future career choices, therefore increasing the number of pupils
studying maths at A level; and maths knowledge and skills at university
entry are likely to improve. We further recommend that HEIs should
work together to ensure that entry requirements for the same course
are consistent across different HEIs. (paragraph 49) (Recommendation
8).
Supply and demand in STEM higher
education
LACK OF DATA ON THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND
FOR STEM GRADUATES AND POSTGRADUATES
262. The lack of reliable data on the supply
and demand for STEM graduates and postgraduates makes it very
difficult to assess whether there is a shortage of STEM graduates
and postgraduates, and in which sectors. More needs to be done
to identify areas of shortage so that remedial action can be taken
and to enable students to make informed choices about whether
the courses they are considering will equip them with the skills
needed by employers. (paragraph 72)
263. We recommend that the Government appoint
a single body (or amalgamates the efforts of existing bodies such
as HESA, UCAS, UKCES, CIHE, the Higher Education Careers Services
Unit (HECSU) or the new National Centre for Universities and Business)
to be a repository of relevant information currently collected
by different agencies on the supply and demand for STEM graduates
with a view to providing comprehensive, real time data analysis
and a commentary with market intelligence of where STEM shortages
exist, broken down by sector. This body should provide yearly
updates to HEFCE, Government and other stakeholders on skills
shortages so that remedial action could be taken to protect, or
grow, those STEM areas which are needed to support economic growth
and where market failure means that supply does not meet demand.
All these data should be accessible to all stakeholders in order,
amongst other things, to inform student choice. (paragraph 73)
(Recommendation 9)
264. We recommend that this body should also
be responsible for holding, monitoring and analysing data for
postgraduate education, including the employment of qualifiers
from postgraduate courses on an ongoing basis—disaggregated
into PhD, research Masters and taught Masters, and by subject
areas. (paragraph 74) (Recommendation 10)
265. We urge HEIs to contribute to the provision
of data to this body by putting in place a robust, long-term tracking
system for postgraduate provision and destination data. (paragraph 75)
SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN UNDERGRADUATE
PROVISION
266. We recommend that the Government commission
a study to find out the first destination of STEM graduates with
a first degree (by degree class) as well as postgraduates. The
study should also attempt to find out the reasons that lie behind
students' career choices. This information would help to explain
what makes STEM graduates and postgraduates choose non-STEM jobs
and allow STEM employers to take action to attract the best and
brightest into STEM careers, particularly research. (paragraph 83)
(Recommendation 11)
267. Given the significant number of students
choosing to study "softer" science courses, we recommend
that HEFCE and HEIs collaborate in conducting a study into the
career progression of students of new STEM courses (such as some
sports science and forensic science courses) to enable those undertaking
these courses to decide whether they are being equipped with the
skills graduates need to succeed in the STEM job market. (paragraph 87)
(Recommendation 12)
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND HEFCE
IN ENSURING SUPPLY OF STEM GRADUATES AND POSTGRADUATES MEETS DEMAND
IN TERMS OF QUANTITY
268. It appears that SIVS policy has had a positive
impact on STEM and the Government should therefore continue to
support the initiative. There are concerns that the HE reforms
may erode STEM provision in favour of cheaper subjects. The SIVS
policy is an important tool to help counteract that. The new approach
to SIVS proposed by HEFCE is to be welcomed in that it will allow
other subjects, such as computer science, to be offered support
if they are deemed vulnerable. (paragraph 97)
269. We recommend that the body in charge of
collecting and analysing data (see the recommendation in paragraph
73) should, by providing evidence and analysis to HEFCE and the
Government, contribute to the process of establishing which subjects
should be given SIVS status. (paragraph 98) (Recommendation
13)
270. While HEFCE has a legitimate role in determining
which subjects are vulnerable and should be supported as part
of the SIVS programme, we recommend that the Government should
decide which subjects are strategic and should therefore be given
SIVS status. The Government's decision could be included in the
Secretary of State's annual letter to HEFCE. (paragraph 99)
(Recommendation 14)
DEMAND AND SUPPLY IN POSTGRADUATE
PROVISION
271. It is clear that STEM postgraduates are
valued and in demand amongst employers, and that they play a significant
role in driving innovation, undertaking research and development,
and providing leadership and entrepreneurship. It appears to us
that, although the Government recognise the central role that
STEM plays in their strategy for growth, they fail to articulate
how they intend to highlight to students the benefits of postgraduate
study, to reduce the decline in STEM qualifiers in some STEM subjects,
or to improve our understanding about the demand for postgraduates
and the value they offer to the economy. They also fail to make
clear what support they will give to postgraduate STEM provision
in order to realise their vision. This is, in our view, a mistake.
(paragraph 106)
272. We recommend that the Government set up
an expert group to consider the supply and demand of STEM postgraduate
provision in the UK and to identify weaknesses and areas of skills
shortage. The Government, as the strategic leader, should agree
the terms of reference of this group with a view to formulating
a strategy for STEM postgraduate education in the UK which will
underpin their strategies for growth. As part of the expert group,
we urge employers to spell out their needs to Government and to
identify skills shortages at STEM postgraduate level. (paragraph 107)
(Recommendation 15)
Quality, standards and benchmarks
QUALITY ASSURANCE
273. The Government's response to the Higher
Education White Paper consultation stated that they will "not
at this stage be seeking to introduce changes to primary legislation"
but they would move their reform agenda forward "primarily
through non-legislative means". It is not clear to us, therefore,
if Parliament will be given the opportunity to scrutinise the
proposed changes to quality assurance and HEFCE's power. We recommend
that the Government clarify in their response to this report what
opportunity Parliament will be given to scrutinise further the
proposed changes to quality assurance, as set out in the Higher
Education White Paper. The Government should also set out a timetable
for when the changes will take place and outline the form they
will take. (paragraph 120) (Recommendation 16)
THE ROLE OF THE QAA AND THE ROLE
OF HEIS IN DRIVING UP QUALITY
274. Given the skills gaps that exist in key
areas across the graduate pool, the QAA has a long way to go in
ensuring that industry is sufficiently involved in setting standards
and benchmarks. We recommend that the QAA should do more to recruit
employers, SMEs in particular, to engage with HEIs and take part
in setting QAA standards and benchmark statements. The QAA should
be in a position to report back on how it plans take this recommendation
forward by July 2013. (paragraph 131) (Recommendation
17)
275. We further recommend that the remit of the
QAA should be reviewed with a view to introducing a system to
assure quality, standards and benchmarks in HEIs that is fit for
purpose. This should include the development (and achievement)
of objectives for the inclusion of employers in the setting of
standards and benchmarks, and a yearly list of thematic problem
areas, accompanied by an action plan, where consistent skills
gaps occur. (paragraph 132) (Recommendation 18)
FUNDING TO DEVELOP THE EMPLOYABILITY
SKILLS OF POSTGRADUATES
276. We recommend that the Research Councils
monitor the impact of embedding Roberts' Money into the standard
funding mechanisms. (paragraph 136) (Recommendation 19)
QUALITY OF TEACHING
277. We considered whether the Government or
HEFCE should play a greater role in improving the quality of teaching
in HEIs. We concluded that they should not on the grounds that
HEIs were primarily responsible for the quality of teaching. However,
we look to HEFCE to take steps to ensure that the REF does not
act as a disincentive to HEIs to promote quality in teaching.
(paragraph 145)
278. We recommend that the number of lecturers
that have received teacher training during the course of their
careers should be set out in the Key Information Set (KIS), along
with information about the training received, and we urge HEIs
to offer an accredited course on teaching which all academic staff
would be required to complete. (paragraph 146) (Recommendation
20)
279. Student assessment of staff performance
and teaching quality should be applied across all HEIs. We recommend
that HEIs should have a robust system in place for assessing the
quality of teaching including an anonymised and standardised assessment
by students. The anonymised results of such assessments should
be published in the KIS at a departmental level. QAA should be
charged with reviewing whether HEIs have appropriate systems in
place to achieve this and that the assessment of teaching quality
is fit for purpose. (paragraph 147) (Recommendation 21)
THE ROLE OF STUDENTS IN DRIVING
UP QUALITY OF PROVISION
280. The KIS is a good starting point to help
to ensure that students have the information they need to make
an informed decision about their courses. However, the value of
some of the information offered is not clear or sufficient to
enable a student to make an informed choice about the quality
of provision delivered by their course. The Government should
ensure that the information provided in the KIS gives students
the information they need to make an informed choice about the
quality of their course. We recommend that the KIS should contain
more detailed information on destination data beyond six months,
as well as career paths; other measures of quality (including
teaching); and more information on outcomes (that is, the skills
that students will acquire during their studies). A similar KIS
should also be available to postgraduate students with equivalent
information on postgraduate provision. (paragraph 159) (Recommendation
22)
INCREASING INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT
TO ENSURE THAT GRADUATES LEAVE HEIS WITH THE RIGHT EMPLOYABILITY
SKILLS
281. Given the limitations on the role that the
QAA plays in sign-posting high quality provision, we believe that
accreditation of courses by professional bodies would be a sensible
way forward. Accreditation may not be possible for courses in
areas where there are no professional bodies. However, for those
that have professional bodies and do not already have an accreditation
scheme, we would urge them to consider setting up such a scheme.
(paragraph 170)
282. In our view, it would be overly burdensome
for employers to kite-mark individually hundreds of courses in
the UK. A better approach would be to involve industry through
the accrediting bodies and for companies to state whether they
supported the accreditation. Given the tension between accreditation
and kite-marking, we invite the Government to explain the aim
of kite-marking and what it is expected to achieve beyond that
which accreditation by professional bodies already provides. (paragraph 175)
(Recommendation 23)
283. We recommend that professional bodies, such
as the Institute of Physics or the Institute of Mechanical Engineers,
should make further efforts to provide accreditation of different
STEM subject areas to ensure that students have confidence in
the quality of their chosen course and that they will achieve
high quality outcomes in terms of skills and knowledge. For those
courses where there is less of a clear link with a profession,
we recommend that the Science Council consider whether it would
be possible to develop a broader system of accreditation to ensure
that graduates have the core skill set required of a STEM graduate.
We further recommend that the Government should provide support
for such activities in the early stages of development until they
are fully established. (paragraph 176) (Recommendation
24)
PLACEMENTS AND INTERNSHIPS FOR UNDERGRADUATES
AND POSTGRADUATES
284. We recommend that the Government, employers
and HEIs find a way to incentivise employers, particularly SMEs,
to offer more work placements, and encourage more students to
take them up. (paragraph 186) (Recommendation 25)
285. In order to assist HEIs in engaging with
employers and in securing placements for their undergraduate and
postgraduate students, we further recommend that a central database
should be established to post opportunities for placements for
undergraduates and postgraduates. We recommend that the Government
extend the remit of the Graduate Talent Pool service to include
undergraduates and postgraduate placement opportunities. (paragraph 187)
(Recommendation 26)
THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCH COUNCILS
AND HEFCE IN THE QUALITY ASSURANCE OF POSTGRADUATE PROVISION
286. Based on the evidence we have received,
we find it difficult to judge the processes used for the assessment
of quality in postgraduate provision. Our impression is, however,
that the quality of postgraduate provision is measured in an inconsistent
way across funding bodies and warrants further scrutiny. (paragraph 192)
287. We recommend that the expert group established
to look at postgraduate provision should examine how the quality
of postgraduate teaching provision is assessed to ensure quality
and consistency of approach across funding bodies, and consider
how measures of quality of postgraduate education that go beyond
research excellence might be developed. In particular, we would
urge the Research Councils and other postgraduate funding bodies
to expand the quality principles that underpin the DTC model to
other types of postgraduate funding provision. (paragraph 193)
(Recommendation 27)
DOCTORAL PROVISION MODELS
288. We recommend that the Government encourage
the Research Councils to preserve a variety of PhD delivery models
to ensure that the UK's current breadth of expertise in science
is maintained and that new areas of science are able to grow.
We also recommend that the expert group set up to consider the
supply and demand for STEM postgraduate provision considers whether
the current provision of funding for doctoral study across funding
bodies is sufficient to cover the breadth of excellent research
across the UK. (paragraph 201) (Recommendation 28)
Policy reforms
HIGHER EDUCATION REFORMS
289. The recent adjustments to the core and margin
system may allay some of the concerns about the effect of the
HE reforms on STEM provision. However, we invite the Government
to explain in their reply to this report on what evidence this
change of policy was based and the timescale in which it was implemented.
(paragraph 208)
290. We recommend that HEFCE publish the quantitative
evidence on which they base their funding model for public subsidies
of STEM subjects with a view to reassuring stakeholders that these
subsidies in conjunction with students' fees are sufficient to
cover the cost of STEM provision. (paragraph 212)
291. It is too early to assess the impact of
HE reforms on the sector. We recommend that the Government have
particular regard to the effect of the reforms on STEM provision.
We support the role that the Government have given to HEFCE to
monitor unintended consequences and to intervene, as appropriate,
to protect strategic or vulnerable provision that will not be
supported by the market. However, we have some concern that HEFCE
may not have sufficient funds to intervene should it be necessary
and recommend that the Government ensures that HEFCE will have
the necessary resources should these circumstances arise. (paragraph 216)
(Recommendation 29)
IMMIGRATION REFORMS
292. We are concerned that changes to the immigration
rules may reduce the number of overseas students coming to study
to the UK and, therefore, the income that HEIs derive from these
students to support other activities. This may result in a general
reduction of provision of STEM courses that rely on this income
to make them viable. (paragraph 227)
293. The Government have replaced the PSW route
with more selective arrangements under Tier 2, notably making
a job offer paying more than £20,000 a year a requirement
for a visa. The UK Border Agency (UKBA) told us that the limit
was set following guidance from the Migration Advisory Committee.
It is not, however, clear if this guidance was intended specifically
for graduates. We would ask the Migration Advisory Committee
to reconsider its advice. We would further ask the Committee to
monitor the impact of the changes on both the number of graduates
who stay on to work in the UK and on the number who decide not
to study here, due to the real or perceived barriers created by
the closure of the PSW route. (paragraph 229) (Recommendation
30)
294. HE is a global market and the UK has to
compete with other countries that are positioning themselves to
attract international students. The perception that the UK does
not welcome students may be having a detrimental effect on recruitment
from some countries such as India. The UK must be seen to welcome
the brightest and the best and the Government must increase their
efforts to dispel perceptions that the UK does not welcome students.
We recommend that the Government develop a strategy to send out
a more positive message through the UKBA website, immigration
agencies and the British Council. (paragraph 233) (Recommendation
31)
295. The lack of reliable statistical data is
a concern because the Government are not able to identify problems
with their visa system soon enough to put in place a mitigation
plan. Data from HESA is more accurate but by the time it is published
it is 18 months out of date. This problem is particularly acute
for the HEIs that we spoke to who are reporting that the HE reforms
are having a significant impact upon their recruitment of overseas
students already. (paragraph 237)
296. We recommend that the Government working
with HEIs, as a matter of urgency, make further efforts to co-ordinate
data collection and ensure that data is shared between UKBA and
HEIs. In addition, the Government should collect real-time data
on the effects of changes to immigration policies in HEIs with
a view to setting up a mitigation plan, if necessary, and to enable
policy decisions to be based on the latest information. This should
be achieved by September 2014. (paragraph 238) (Recommendation
32)
297. Given the significant contribution that
overseas students make to the economy and that the majority leave
the UK following their studies and do not therefore contribute
significantly to net migration, we recommend, therefore, that
the Government make a distinction in the immigration statistics
between HE students and other immigrants and uses only the latter
category to calculate net migration for policy-making purposes.
(paragraph 241) (Recommendation 33)
POLICY REFORMS AND THEIR COMPOUND
EFFECT ON TAUGHT MASTERS PROVISION
298. There is a potential compound effect of
policy reforms on stand-alone Masters provision. The new higher
fees regime combined with the lack of student finance is a threat
to the number of UK domicile students who decide to pursue postgraduate
education. Added to which, immigration reforms are already having
an impact on certain HEIs who may in turn reduce Masters provision
significantly. Little is known of the effect that this "triple
whammy" will have on postgraduate provision. By the time
the effect is quantified and analysed, it may be too late to put
remedial action in place. This reinforces the importance of our
recommendation (in paragraph 107) to set up an expert group to
consider the supply and demand for postgraduate provision. (paragraph 252)
299. The risks associated with the HE and immigration
reforms are high and potentially costly. The anxieties expressed
to us by employers, HEIs and professional bodies are real and
we urge the Government to heed them. (paragraph 253)
| 
