Strategic science provision in English universities : a follow-up : second report of Session 2005-06 : report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence / House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Date:
2006
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Strategic science provision in English universities : a follow-up : second report of Session 2005-06 : report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence / House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    49/60 (page 17)
    While applications have shown a welcome growth this year, due to a lot of hard work and effort by chemistry admissions team, combined with our league table standings, there is no guarantee this would lead to sustained and viable numbers in the department. Despite a rise in applications each year over the last three years, we have seen final intakes admitted—ie numbers of students finally deciding to come to Sussex and meeting our final offer levels—stick at around 20 each year. Our league table standings of course reflect underlying quality at Sussex, but are boosted by the low student-staff ratio in chemistry which is a product of low student intake numbers. Further detail on Sussex’s student numbers at undergraduate and postgraduate level in Chemistry is set out in tables 3, 4 and 5. (table 3 not printed) Extensive financial commentary on the position of chemistry is set out in section 6 below and in tables 7 and 8 (not printed). However, a key financial dimension is that, despite the RAE rating of 2001, even if we were to achieve a similar rating in the 2008 RAE, and there is no certainty we would do so, the smaller size of our staff numbers submitted is expected to impact significantly on subsequent funding, and reduce sustainability. Overall, retaining a chemistry department in its present form, operating across the full discipline, would cost us an extra £750k with no guarantee of long-term success in recruitment or research activity. 6. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS BEHIND DECISION TO RESTRUCTURE CHEMISTRY The financial background Before addressing the detail of the current position of Chemistry it is necessary to look at the recent financial history of the subject, which is shown in summarised form in Table 7. (not printed) However, there is a number of health warnings that should be taken into account when reading this table; — The figures included in Table 7, (not printed), are those represented in the Management Accounts of the University, and therefore exclude accounting adjustments; they are not therefore easily reconcilable to the Higher Education Statistics Agency return for the Chemistry cost centre, but we believe give a more accurate picture of the financial position of the department. — Chemistry has never been a stand alone budgetary unit at Sussex, but has always been part of a larger unit—Chemistry, Physics and Environmental Science (CPES) until 2003-04 and since then the School of Life Sciences (which, in addition to Chemistry, includes Biochemistry, Biology and Environmental Science, Psychology and the Genome Damage and Stability Centre). Whilst every attempt has been made to allocate costs and expenditure appropriately to the subject group, the need to formulaically allocate costs held at School level may lead to immaterial inaccuracies at the edges. — There have also been three changes in the methodology used to allocate the HEFCE block grant funds received by the University to the subject group over this period (through the “Resource Allocation Model”, or “RAM”); a minor tweak in 1997-08, a more major overhaul in 2003-04 to tie in with the establishment of the new Schools at Sussex, and a fundamental review of the model that has been implemented in shadow form for 2005-06 (and is shown for 2005-06 in Table 8) (not printed). Ignoring the “allocation” figures for 2003-04 and 2004-05 (as they are based on a very different methodology to the other years), then the overall picture for the past ten years is one of declining student income (which accounts for the majority of the changes in the University’s allocation over this period—the HEFCE Research element (QR) has stayed fairly level at £1.2 million—£1.3 million) and rising research income until 2001-02, followed by a decline as the number of academic staff reduce (evidenced in this table by the Academic Staff Expenditure line). Other staff expenditure (mostly technicians, but also some administrative staff) has not fallen to same extent in real terms, indicating that the support costs of the department have not reduced in line with declining activity. However, non-salary costs have fallen as financial realities have become clear to budget holders over this period. 2005-06 Resource Allocation and Full Economy Statement The Strategic Review undertaken by the University during the academic year 2005—06 necessitated the development of a new Resource Allocation Model to enable University management to gain an indication of the true financial position of each of the academic departments. This model has not been used to make actual budget allocations for 2005-06, but it will be implemented in full from 2006-07. The new model allows a transparent and consistent way of allocating resource to departments and schools. It is heavily informed by the way in which money in block grants and fees has been earned by individual areas of the University. Thus departments are credited with fee and HEFCE grant income based on the student load taught, and QR research income is allocated according to the way in which the total sums granted have been calculated by HEFCE; likewise, costs for support and services are based on the volume of