Annex A
Mr David Young
Chairman, HEFCE
Northavon House
BS16 1QD
28 October 2005
STRATEGIC SUBJECTS
My predecessor Charles
Clarke wrote to you last year seeking advice on a number of key issues around
higher education. The first concerned
how we might strengthen and secure higher education subjects and courses that
are of national strategic importance, including minority languages;
science-technology-engineering-mathematics; and vocationally-oriented courses
of particular interest to employers in areas of growing importance to the UK
economy.
I am grateful to the Council
for the detailed work and analysis which was submitted under cover of your
letter of 22nd June. As you know, we have subsequently discussed its
contents. We also indicated at the time that we wanted to listen to the views
of the HE sector and others with an interest in this subject before responding
formally in the autumn.
I have now carefully
considered the various representations and advice I have received on this
subject looking to build on what works and seeking a consensus on the way
forward wherever possible. Against this
background, let me now set out our response to the advice you gave us.
First, I agree with the
Council’s overall analysis of the position that we have a healthy and vibrant
higher education system in this country and, as the Science and Technology
Select Committee has stated, it would be exaggerating
to say that university science departments are in crisis.
I am encouraged in this view
by the most recent data on university acceptances which suggests that the
number of students entering Science (including Physics and Chemistry),
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics courses is set to increase by more than
the national average, even at a time of higher than usual growth of almost 10%
in the number of full-time
undergraduates accepted to enter higher education. Of course, this may not be
sustained, but it is an encouraging development.
I therefore agree with the
Council’s view that there are risks and opportunities for the future that need
a response and that response should be proportionate, targeted and effective,
with interventions kept to the minimum needed to deliver the results we want.
Second, there is a broad
consensus that we need the right set of levers both to stimulate demand from
students and to maintain a decent supply of places within the Higher Education
system to meet that demand and sustain it. The Council has argued persuasively
that strategically important subjects can become vulnerable by either a
mismatch between supply and demand, or by a concentration of the subject in
institutions which may be vulnerable to change, such as monotechnics. I am sure the Council is right to suggest a
“horses for courses” approach taking account of the particular nature of the
mismatch between supply and demand for each subject.
Third,
I know a lot of good work is already underway – by universities, the funding
bodies and the learned societies, and of course teachers – to stimulate demand
and that this is beginning to bear fruit in a number of areas. You also said that you would enhance your
efforts to ensure that employer demand is appropriately fed into the system,
particularly through Sector Skills Councils and Regional Development Agencies.
I welcome this and want to you to work collaboratively with others to bring
together the various initiatives into an integrated strategy.
Fourth,
in respect of minority subjects, I agree that the Council should ensure that
one or more national centres remain for certain strategically important and
vulnerable subjects where national capacity is deemed necessary and enabling
reviews of the sector in a very small number of subjects. My view is that we
need to maintain national capacity in the subjects mentioned in the annex to
Charles’ Clarke’s letter, including far eastern languages and areas’ studies on
behalf of which I have received a number of well-argued representations.
Fifth,
you said that HEFCE cannot and should not attempt to prescribe where subjects
should be provided, or to interfere in proper institutional decisions about their
strategic direction. I agree but with an
important qualification.
I place great importance on
working in partnership with others, putting the needs of learners first. From conversations I have had with you and
with Higher Education Institutions I accept that variations and changes in the
supply of courses for particular subjects are inevitable over time as each
institution defines its individual mission and plays to its strengths. During
these changes, institutions identify new ways of attracting students to study
strategic subjects. You included a number of helpful case studies in the
Council’s Advisory Group report which accompanied your letter in which the
Council had helped to manage changes associated with departmental
restructuring.
I am also pleased by the way
institutions are increasingly collaborating with each other as they manage
these changes, but I would welcome more of this sort of collaboration which
might in some cases be linked with better inter-institution collaboration on
research. In this context, I was
heartened to learn of the most recent discussions hosted by the Open University
and involving the Council and representatives from other institutions as well
as the learned societies. That is exactly the sort of “bottom up” innovative
approach to finding solutions I want you to encourage and incentivise.
I therefore encourage the
Council to do more to encourage early conversations between institutions where
strategic and vulnerable subjects are at risk, which may enable the transfer of
provision in a way which minimises any disruption for students and preferably
improves their overall learning experience by giving them better access to high
quality scholarship.
In conclusion, I broadly
accept the thrust of the Council’s advice. The priority should be to stimulate
and maintain student demand for subjects which genuinely remain vital to this
country’s future prosperity. We recognise, value and
respect HEI autonomy and we want to support excellence, diversity, and
institutions focusing on their own missions – locally, nationally, and
internationally as appropriate. We
respect institutions’ freedom to decide what courses they teach, or stop
teaching. But I am also conscious of
national expectations and the potential national consequences of individual
decisions. So I hope you will continue to monitor whether there are areas where
current provision seems out of step with the national need; consider whether
action is needed; and if so, advise me on what might
be done, and who is best placed to do it.
RUTH KELLY