University finances under the microscope
As many predicted, the UK Government has delayed until the autumn publication of its plans to provide greater financial security to universities in England. The summer months have seen a continual drip-drip of negative or problematic stories about the HE and research sector, including:
- 43% of English providers are forecasting a financial deficit for 2024/25, with universities in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland facing even more acute challenges due to differing funding models.
- There was a warning from the Russell Group that the real-terms value of tuition fees in England has dropped by a third since 2012.
- DSIT Secretary Peter Kyle pledged to make research funding “responsive” to the financial crisis affecting UK universities, whilst also warning (£) that institutions must make “difficult choices” to become more efficient.
- UKRI’s chair said (£) the organisation faces “challenging prioritisation choices” and will continue to make “significant” changes in the coming years.
- New social science research from the Policy Institute at KCL showed alarming levels of misunderstanding amongst the public about the economic value of universities and research.
- The annual report and accounts of the Office for Students in England contained references to the possibility of institutional failure being top of the OfSE’s risk register, with such an incident now being thought of as very likely to happen. Elsewhere, the report indicates that at least one large research-intensive university and two large teaching-intensive universities are forecasting four years of consecutive deficits up to 2027-28 – as will 12 specialist and nine medium-sized institutions.
The sectoral mood will not have been helped by the revelation that Bridget Phillipson had visited just two universities in her first eight months in the role as Education Secretary for England.
Other news in brief
- REF 2029 paused: UK Science Minister (Lord) Patrick Vallance has announced a three-month pause in the 2029 Research Excellence Framework. Ostensibly, the delay will allow time for DSIT to review whether its £2bn annual allocation for research funding adequately supports the UK Government’s missions. However, the minister’s comments about the exercise “need[ing] to be a credible assessment of quality… [which] must not get bound down on measuring things that we cannot” could be seen as an indication that the delay will herald significant changes. Some of these are likely to be to previous plans to increase the weighting of the people, culture and environment (PCE) section of the exercise from 15% to 25%, whilst it is also conceivable that there may be changes to the quality related (QR) element of research funding which the REF dictates. A useful overview of the story and some of the potential ramifications can be found on WonkHE.
- Global Talent Fund list: The UK Government published its list of the 12 UK institutions which will deliver its Global Talent Fund, a £54 million investment in Britain’s future prosperity and economic growth. The list includes universities from across all four UK nations as well as other key research institutions. However, Chi Onwurah (Chair of the Commons’ Science, Innovation & Technology Committee) wrote to the Science Minister raising concerns that the list does not include any universities in England north of Birmingham.
- Cabinet office u-turn on ‘gagging’ scientists: The UK Government is to revise controversial guidance (£) which had been criticised for preventing government scientists and staff at research agencies from speaking at events. This is the second time in a decade that the Cabinet Office has had to make such a move.
- ESRC and (de)growth row: In a blogpost last month, Stian Westlake, ESRC’s Executive Chair, outlined why he is putting economic growth “at the heart” of the research council’s refreshed future strategy. He argued that the ESRC “should have quite a high bar against funding applied projects that advocate for degrowth, steady-state economics and similar agendas” because the research council has a statutory obligation to contributing to economic growth, according to the legislation that governs it. In response, two leading ecological economists criticised his remarks (£) Tim Jackson, Director of the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity at the University of Surrey, called his remarks “a big mistake”, whilst Julia Steinberger, Professor of Ecological Economics at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, said Westlake’s position represents “bad science”.