A rundown of the 32 recommendations made in government-commissioned review of English regulator

In December 2023, former head of the Care Quality Commission, David Behan, was commissioned to lead a review of the Office for Students by the former Conservative government.

His conclusions were published in a final report on 26 July 2024. On the same date, Behan was appointed interim chair of the OfS, England’s higher education regulator. 

The new Labour government has said it accepts the “core recommendations” of Behan’s report, which call for a stronger focus on the financial security of governance, a more collaborative approach to regulatory work, and consideration of the burden that regulation places on sector bodies.

It makes 32 separate recommendations:

Efficacy

1. That the OfS reduces its number of strategic objectives and focuses on the priorities of monitoring financial sustainability, ensuring quality, protecting public money and regulating in the interests of students.

2. That government and the OfS further consider the legislative powers and tools required to enable the OfS to effectively regulate against these priorities.

Regulating in the student interest

3. That to support the OfS to enact a strong, student championing role, the OfS should be given consumer enforcement powers.

4. That the OfS and sector explore the development of a model students’ contract for higher education.

5. That the OfS seeks opportunities to involve students directly in its formal governance and regulatory activity, by constituting the student panel as a formal committee to the board, and including students in quality assessments and investigations.

6. That the OfS considers an enhanced focus on the assurance of the management and governance of providers, and how they carry out the range of priority areas for their students and providers, by revising and strengthening the ‘good governance’ ongoing conditions of registration.

How the OfS regulates: risk-based regulation

7. That the OfS board reviews its risk appetite framework and approach with a view to becoming more proactive in anticipating, identifying and responding rapidly to address emerging risk.

8. That the DfE and OfS engage the sector in an ongoing, constructive dialogue with a view to reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, including data burden, and to seek to embed the Regulators’ Code principle of ‘collect once, use many times’.

9. That the OfS works more collaboratively with other regulators and arm’s-length bodies within the wider higher education system to understand their collective requirements and identify opportunities to reduce areas of regulatory overlap and duplication.

10.That the OfS considers the benefits of an independent academic evaluation of its practice and approach, alongside stakeholder feedback, in seeking to improve itself. This should include an evaluation of the effectiveness of its regulatory intervention.

11.That the OfS consults the sector when implementing changes to regulatory methods and then pilots such approaches before formal rollout.

How the OfS regulates: quality

12.That the OfS’s quality assessment methodologies and activity be brought together to form a more integrated assessment of quality.

13.That the OfS contributes to the overall improvement of the higher education system, providing a continuous improvement feedback loop and description of high-quality higher education. 

14.That the OfS be prescribed as an official whistleblowing body to ensure whistleblowers can be afforded full protections when providing information. This intelligence should inform the qualitative assessment of risk to quality.

15.That the OfS describes high-quality education and the standards required to demonstrate high quality, without the need for a separate designated body to perform this function. Legislation should therefore be amended to clarify that the OfS will perform this role.

How the OfS regulates: financial sustainability

16.That government undertakes policy work to revisit and clarify its position on market exit and whether the non-interventionist positioning is still the most appropriate for meeting the challenges of today.

17.That the OfS and government continue to build an infrastructure to offer advice, guidance and support for providers experiencing financial sustainability challenges, considering options such as early warning identification, management of emerging risk and prevention of disorderly market exit.

18.That the OfS continues to work with the sector to build and share an accurate and current picture of financial risk in the system, developed through open and honest dialogue and the sharing of intelligence with the sector, government, UKRI and relevant partners. 

19.That the OfS revises the requirements for student protection plans to ensure these are current, detailed and accurately consider risks to, and mitigations for, these risks to students.

Relationships with the sector

20.That the OfS develops a comprehensive stakeholder strategy, including an annual stakeholder survey, to continue building on its relationship with the sector.

21.That the sector reciprocates with the OfS, engaging productively and willingly with regulation.

Accountability

22.That the sponsorship team act as the central conduit between the OfS and government, managing the initial policy asks of the OfS. Outside of agreed business planning, all new and ad-hoc requests for work should be managed by the sponsorship team, until such time as that work has been agreed as part of, or as an adjunct to, the business plan.

23.That stronger information-sharing protocols are put into place between the OfS and government to enable joined-up working and proactive feedback around key areas of shared priority and risk.

24.That there is regular contact between DSIT and DfE to enable a joined-up approach to sponsorship and to allow for more open dialogue regarding financial sustainability as part of a wider cross-government approach to sharing knowledge and learning about regulation.

Independence of the OfS

25.That the OfS develops a more transparent style of communication to demonstrate to the sector its independence from government.

Governance

26.That the OfS commissions an independent board evaluation.

27.That DfE carefully considers upcoming appointments to the board, taking the opportunity of vacancies to ensure it has the required skills, experience and expertise for the challenges the sector will face over the coming decade. 

28.That DfE reassesses which members of the OfS’s leadership team are appointed by the secretary of state. In keeping with other arm’s-length bodies, the secretary of state should appoint the chair and non-executive directors. The board should then appoint the chief executive, and the chief executive should in turn appoint their executive team. The review recognises new legislation would be required to enact this.

29.That there should be a review of which specific executive roles formally constitute towards the make-up of the board’s membership.

Efficiency

30.That the OfS continues to pursue efficiency savings and enhanced productivity as it considers the efficacy, accountability and governance recommendations of this review.

31.The OfS should align its business planning with a continuous improvement cycle that considers efficiencies in line with effectiveness, and agree a resourcing plan with DfE.

32.That DfE conducts a review into the OfS’s fee structure within the context of the OfS’s current and planned work on efficiency and productivity.

Some recommendations have been edited for length. The report and recommendations in full are available on the DfE website.

The post In full: What the Behan review of the OfS recommends appeared first on Research Professional News.

Government-commissioned report calls for bolder action from English regulator

A government-commissioned review of the Office for Students has recommended that England’s regulator act in a “bold and confident manner”, and monitor the financial sustainability of all higher education providers more closely.

In a review commissioned by the Department for Education last year and published on 26 July, David Behan—who has today been named interim chair of the OfS—said the regulator should concentrate on four key priorities in the short term: monitoring financial sustainability, ensuring quality, protecting public money, and acting in the interests of students.

The government said in a statement that it accepts Behan’s “core recommendations, recognising that strong regulation is crucial to ensuring a stable future for the UK’s world-leading higher education sector”.

Behan said the OfS and the government should work together to manage financial sustainability, collaborate more effectively on data and intelligence that can proactively help to protect students, and recommended the OfS introduce an “integrated model of quality regulation” to set and assess quality standards.

His report calls for the regulator to become “a more active collaborator” with government departments, UK Research and Innovation, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, and bigger education institutions. It adds that consideration should be given to whether “improvements can be made to reduce the overall data burden” of regulation.

Meanwhile, the review states that the OfS should develop a more “transparent style of communication to demonstrate to the sector its independence from government”.

It also states that the Higher Education and Research Act should be amended to remove “the need for a separate designated [quality] body”. The OfS became the designated quality body for England last year, after the Quality Assurance Agency relinquished the role, but it had not been confirmed whether it would retain the position.

“It has been a privilege to lead the review of the OfS and I now look forward to delivering the changes the review recommends, importantly financial sustainability, quality, student interest and value for money,” Behan said.

An overview of all 32 recommendations made by the review is available here.

Delivering better outcomes

Susan Lapworth, chief executive of the OfS, said it was an “important time for higher education” as Behan took up his role as chair, and welcomed “the thoughtful conclusions and recommendations” in his report.

“Students and colleagues from across the higher education sector found time to speak with him during the review and their important perspectives are reflected in his report and its proposals,” she said. “The review highlights a range of important areas—including the financial sustainability of the sector—that the OfS will continue to prioritise.”

Lapworth added that the report will prompt “reflection for government, the sector, and the OfS”, and sets out areas in which the OfS “can, and will, continue to improve”.

“We continue to work hard to improve our engagement with the institutions we regulate, to ensure that trust-based relationships can underpin effective regulation,” she said. “And we are developing our understanding of the things that matter to students, and how their perspectives can inform our work, as we develop our new strategy.”

Jamie Roberts, policy manager for the Russell Group of research-intensive universities, said financial sustainability was “the most significant and growing challenge for the higher education sector”.

“Moves towards a more genuinely risk-based approach to regulation would also be positive and could help cut unnecessary red tape,” Roberts said. “Streamlining the OfS’s approach to regulation with a renewed focus on key challenges would help stop resources being diverted away from teaching and student support.”

A spokesperson for Universities UK said the Behan review was “thorough and we welcome many of its recommendations”.

“Its findings underline the importance of an independent regulator for higher education in England and the need for a focus on the financial sustainability of the sector,” the spokesperson said. “This will continue to strengthen the sector’s relationship with the OfS and ultimately help deliver better outcomes for students.”

The post Behan review urges stronger OfS focus on financial stability appeared first on Research Professional News.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson ‘considering options’ including scrapping controversial legislation

The Labour government is to consider repealing last year’s legislation on freedom of speech in higher education, over concerns that it is burdensome for universities, students’ unions and the Office for Students.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, said in a written ministerial statement on 26 July that she had made the decision to “stop further commencement” of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to “consider options, including its repeal”.

“I am aware of concerns that the act would be burdensome on providers and on the OfS, and I will confirm my long-term plans as soon as possible,” Phillipson said.

The act passed in May last year, and offers people who feel they have been no-platformed by universities or student groups a legal avenue to seek financial compensation.

The legislation also established a “free speech tsar” at the OfS to oversee campus free speech issues. The inaugural holder of the post is University of Cambridge philosophy professor Arif Ahmed.

However, the proposals were unpopular with universities, with many experts—including university leaders and members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords—claiming that the legislation was unnecessary. Other raised concerns that legal cases could prove so costly for universities that it might discourage them from inviting controversial speakers to campus in the first place.

Chaos avoided?

Diana Beech, a former adviser to three Conservative universities ministers and chief executive of the London Higher group of institutions, said the decision to review the act was “a sensible move…sending a clear signal to the sector that it has listened to concerns and is reacting appropriately”.

“The duties set to be inferred on the regulator by the Freedom of Speech Act risked making the OfS run before it could walk,” she added. “The decision to pause the act now gives the regulator the time it needs to improve its capability and capacity when it needs first and foremost to be looking out for the sector’s sustainability.”

The Russell Group said universities were “committed to protecting free speech on campus and already have robust measures in place to support freedom of expression”.

“The decision to stop implementation of the act is a sensible and proportionate step given universities and students’ unions were yet to see final guidance from the OfS on new free speech duties despite some requirements of the legislation being due to come into effect next week.”

Last week, a Research Professional News webinar heard from education lawyer Smita Jamdar, a partner at Shakespeare Martineau, who issued a warning on the changes that had been set to come in next week—including a new free speech complaints process.

“Something has to happen about that start date,” she said on 18 July. “Otherwise we’ll just have chaos for a few weeks, and that is not a great way to start a new system.”

Phillipson said that, to enable students to thrive in higher education, she welcomed OfS plans to “introduce strengthened protections for students facing harassment and sexual misconduct, including relating to the use of non-disclosure agreements in such cases by universities and colleges”.

The post Labour pause on free speech act labelled ‘sensible’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

DfE confirms appointment, publishes report on English regulator and considers scrapping free speech act

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has confirmed that David Behan, former head of the Care Quality Commission, will be appointed interim chair of the Office for Students, the English higher education regulator.

It comes as Behan publishes the findings of his independent review of the OfS, which was commissioned last year by the former government, and as ministers consider repealing free speech legislation passed under the Conservatives.

Behan was chief executive of the Care Quality Commission from 2012 to 2018, and before that served as director general for social care in the Department of Health. He was the first chief inspector of the Commission for Social Care Inspection and was knighted in 2017 for his services to health and care. 

On 26 July, Phillipson said Behan had conducted “a rigorous and thoughtful review”.

The review recommends a sharper regulatory focus on “key priorities, which include monitoring financial sustainability, ensuring quality, protecting public money and regulating in the interests of students,” Phillipson said.

“I also wish to announce that Sir David has been appointed as interim chair of the OfS,” she added. “His role will primarily be to work with the current executive to implement the recommendations of the independent review. The process to appoint a permanent chair has started and will conclude next year.”

James Wharton, a Tory peer who had been chair of the OfS since 2021, stood down following Labour’s landslide general election victory.

In her statement, Phillpson said the government would now “stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, in order to consider options, including its repeal”.

“I am aware of concerns that the Act would be burdensome on providers and on the OfS, and I will confirm my long-term plans as soon as possible,” she said. “To enable students to thrive in higher education, I welcome the OfS’s plans to introduce strengthened protections for students facing harassment and sexual misconduct, including relating to the use of non-disclosure agreements in such cases by universities and colleges.”

The post Behan named interim OfS chair amid regulation shake-up appeared first on Research Professional News.

Report on the implications of a university exiting the market finds shortcomings in current protections

The Office for Students’ regulatory approach provides insufficient protection for students in the event of a university exiting the market, according to a new report.

Published on 26 July by policy consultancy Public First and produced in collaboration with the University of Warwick, the paper argues that the current OfS regime fails to consider the possible knock-on effects of institutional insolvency, and that student protection plans—required if a provider wishes to register with the regulator—have “no force in law”.

It calls for a “more proactive approach towards active risk management”, starting with a “rebalancing of the role of the OfS”, so it not only forecast financial risk, but address it too. It should also refocus on the benefits of institutional collaboration as opposed to the encouragement of competition. The report also recommends that student protection plans should be strengthened.

Call for new scheme

Following the regulatory reform, Public First says a £2.5 billion Higher Education Enhancement and Transformation Scheme should be established, offering repayable loans to institutions that can make a make a “compelling case for restructuring their university such as to deliver a more sustainable and high-quality provision”.

There should also be a new Higher Education Commissioner within the Department for Education, to act as a liaison between universities and the government, and a Special Administration Regime for higher education should be created, to “allow for a more orderly form of exit should restructuring not be possible or effective”.

‘Growing risks’

Susan Lapworth, chief executive of the OfS, said: “The OfS’s recent analysis of the financial sustainability of universities and colleges highlighted the growing risks facing the sector. There is increased public discussion of these issues, and this report from Public First helpfully adds to the debate about how students can best be protected if their institution is no longer able to operate.

“We are continuing our work to understand the financial position of individual institutions and the steps they are taking to respond to the risks they face. We are particularly focused on ensuring effective student protection planning is taking place where risks are greatest.”

Jonathan Simons, partner and head of education at Public First, said there was “no playbook for how to manage institutional failure at scale”.

“Given the current political and economic environment, the absence of a plan in current legislation or policy is leading to an unsustainable level of uncertainty for university leaders, for students, and for government,” he said. 

“We hope this report will spark a broader discussion about the need for a range of measures to help stabilise the sector so that any restructuring or exit can be managed in a strategic way.”

‘Action required to protect students’

Stuart Croft, vice-chancellor of the University of Warwick, added that market exit “has not been adequately prepared or planned for”.

“Action is required to both protect students and to ensure that the reputation of the higher education sector is safeguarded,” he said.

The post OfS approach ‘not protecting students’ in event of closures appeared first on Research Professional News.

Oxford-Cambridge Supercluster Board chair urges Starmer government to reset relationship with innovation

The Universities of Cambridge and Oxford are part of a group that has urged Keir Starmer to make their cities and region the “first UK innovation supercluster”.

The group of business leaders, universities and investors sent a letter to the new prime minister on 25 July, first reported by the Financial Times, asking the government to transform the region into the “crown jewel” of European innovation.

Andy Williams, chair of the group, which is called the Oxford-Cambridge Supercluster Board, told Research Professional News that all universities in the group signed the letter, including Oxford, Cambridge and Cranfield.

“We see universities as the UK’s major scientific superpower, which is something our developers, scientists and businesses have agreed upon,” Williams, who is also first author of the letter, told RPN.

The group set out its plans to create this supercluster in policy recommendations published on 23 July, which RPN understands were outlined in the letter to the prime minister.

Building a rail link called East West Rail to connect Oxford and Cambridge should be the priority, Williams said.

Other proposals the group put forward include improved R&D tax incentives to attract companies, in line with other countries such as France and Ireland, and the delivery of lab space in the region. These measures would help address ongoing frustration that the UK does not have the right infrastructure to attract science investments, it said.

Innovation reset

Research by the group has shown that, with the proposals, the region could add £50 billion a year to the British economy by 2030, Williams said.

But he also sees this as a “chance to reset the relationship between government and the innovation industry”, to add stability.

“The worst thing you can do for business is chop and change, as it erodes businesses’ confidence in investment,” he said, in reference to Conservative government unwillingness to push through East West Rail.

National benefits

The Oxford-Cambridge region contributes 7 per cent of UK GDP, Williams said, arguing that investment in this area will spread to other regions.

“We’re not trying to be exclusive but we have to start somewhere, aiming to ultimately spread to a UK supercluster,” he said.

The group is already working with Midlands Innovation, a partnership of Midlands universities.

“We’re at an interim period—we’re starting off with specific targets for the Oxford-Cambridge region. Then, ultimately, we’d like to broaden it everywhere,” Williams added.

The post Ministers urged to foster Oxford-Cambridge ‘supercluster’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

West London institution will become 18th member

Brunel University London has announced it is to become part of the University of London federation from October this year.

Brunel will become the 17th member of the University of London, joining current members including King’s College London, Soas and University College London.

Although the federation currently has 17 members, two of them—City, University of London and St George’s, University of London—will merge to form City St George’s, University of London on 1 August, taking membership down to 16 for a short period. The federation serves more than 250,000 students from 190 countries and, collectively, member universities employ more than 50,000 members of staff.   

University of London institutions collaborate on “a range of initiatives including transnational education programmes, online learning, research and knowledge exchange”, the federation said in a statement. It added that Brunel’s “commitment to addressing the needs and challenges of society—both in London and globally—aligned well with the University of London and the social mission of the federation”.

Wendy Thomson, vice-chancellor of the University of London, said Brunel has a “strong global outlook”, and that its education and research portfolio—particularly in engineering and sciences—will “enable the federation to achieve even greater impact across London and beyond”.

Andrew Jones, vice-chancellor and president of Brunel University London, said: “We’re absolutely delighted to be joining such an esteemed and historic federation of research-intensive universities.”

‘Sharing resources’

Diana Beech, chief executive of the London Higher group of universities, said that universities are “driven by partnerships and collaboration, none more so than in London”.

“As challenges mount for the sector, it is only natural that higher education institutions will seek alliances in established networks [such as the University of London], both to share experiences and resources,” she said.

“The decision of Brunel to join the University of London holds advantages for both parties: it firmly puts London in the Brunel brand as one of England’s few universities, which is named after a person rather than a place, and it expands the University of London’s footprint into the west of the city.”

Beech said that London Higher “looks forward to supporting Brunel, the University of London and its other constituent colleges to establish vital relationships with the wider London higher education landscape”.

The post Brunel to join University of London federation appeared first on Research Professional News.

Report urges government to slash fees to £6,000 and redistribute resources to FE and apprenticeships

The “inescapable dominance” of universities is undermining the value and availability of other post-18 qualifications, the EDSK think tank has said in its final report before it shuts down for good. 

The report—titled ‘Augar Reviewed’—calls on the new government to cut all tuition fees in England to £6,000 a year as part of a “major rethink of how students and institutions are funded”.

It also claims there are “underlying imbalances, inconsistencies and inequities” in the way that higher education, further education and apprenticeships are funded.

“If the new Labour government wants to improve economic growth and productivity, increasing the skill levels of workers of all ages through a more effective and responsive approach to education and training will surely be a critical part of their agenda,” the report states. “Although HE will undoubtedly play an important role in such efforts, FE and apprenticeships could (and should) play a central role as well.”

It adds that “the dominance of higher in tertiary education is inescapable”, and criticises the increased investment in universities over the past 20 years. The report also criticises the fact that students in higher education are eligible for maintenance loans of up to £13,000, whereas those on higher-level further education programmes are not.

On a pedestal

EDSK concludes that student loans should be reformed so that they operate more like a graduate tax, with higher repayments from the highest-earning graduates. Such a change, it says, would free up £2 billion for a new ‘Student Support Fund’ to be distributed to universities and colleges to support disadvantaged students.

Tom Richmond, director of EDSK and co-author of the report, said: “Our post-18 education system will never reach its full potential in terms of driving economic growth and productivity if full-time university degrees continue to be placed on a pedestal above other qualifications and courses.

“Vital as universities are for delivering education and training, it is time to end the enduring bias towards higher education in the way that we fund institutions and students.”

On 18 July, Richmond announced the report would be EDSK’s last. “A big thanks also to everyone who has taken the time to read our reports, attend our events, salute the puns in our report titles or share their insights and expertise with us—it’s all been enormously appreciated,” he said.

EDSK, short for education and skills, was founded in 2019 as a non-partisan, non-profit think tank.

The post End ‘enduring bias’ towards HE in funding, says think tank appeared first on Research Professional News.

Education secretary moves to reassure sector on overseas recruitment

There should be “no doubt” that international students are welcome in the UK, the education secretary Bridget Phillipson has said, signalling a shift from the rhetoric and policy of the Conservative government.

In a speech at the Embassy Education Conference on 23 July, Phillipson said she wanted to “set the record straight on international students” after what she called mixed messaging from previous governments.

Earlier this year, the then Conservative government said it would retain the graduate route visa in its current form, but that the system was “under review”. It also announced plans to make it more challenging for universities to sponsor visas and to crack down on international student recruitment agents.

In January, new legislation prevented most students from bringing dependants with them to the UK, resulting in a big fall in applications from overseas. While the new government has not made any commitment to undoing the restrictions currently in place, Phillipson’s speech appears to have poured cold water on any further tightening of the rules.

‘Political footballs’

“For too long, international students have been treated as political footballs, not valued guests—their fees welcomed but their presence resented; exploited for cheap headlines, not cherished for all they bring to our communities,” the education secretary said. “This government will take a different approach… be in no doubt: international students are welcome in the UK.”

Phillipson said she wanted to put education “at the forefront of national life”, adding that universities are “a public good, not a political battleground”.

“These people are brave,” she said of students who choose to study outside their home nation. “They move to a new culture, far away from their homes and their families. They take a leap of faith, hoping to develop new skills and chase new horizons, and I am enormously proud that so many want to take that leap here in the UK.”

She said the new government would do “everything we can to help them succeed”. 

Support for the graduate route

“That’s why we offer the opportunity to remain in the UK on a graduate visa for two years after their studies end—or three for PhDs—to work, to live, and to contribute,” Phillipson added, in words that will be welcomed by sector leaders wanting signals of Labour support for the graduate route.

“While this government is committed to managing migration carefully, international students will always be welcome in this country,” she said. “The UK wouldn’t be the same without them.”

Phillipson said the government would look to build stronger “education partnerships” with countries around the world, to allow universities to “deliver courses across borders”.

“Education must be at the forefront of tackling the major global challenges of our time,” she said. “Artificial intelligence, climate change, poverty, misinformation, polarisation, war and instability… Education puts us on the path to freedom.”

The post Phillipson ‘sets record straight’ on international students appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: calls for postgrad childcare support, UKRI funds top emerging talent, support for Ukraine and more

‘Fatal flaws’ in pandemic preparation

Scientific advice to the UK government in the lead-up to the pandemic was too narrow, according to the Covid-19 inquiry’s damning first report. The report pointed to “fatal strategic flaws underpinning the assessment of the risks faced by the UK”, arguing that the government’s “sole pandemic strategy, from 2011, was outdated and lacked adaptability” and that there was “a damaging absence of focus on the measures, interventions and infrastructure required in the event of a pandemic”. Ministers, said the report, “were not presented with a broad enough range of scientific opinion and policy options, and failed to challenge sufficiently the advice they did receive”. Advisers, meanwhile, “did not have sufficient freedom and autonomy to express dissenting views”. In her introduction, inquiry chair Heather Hallett called for radical reform. 

Full story

Support for Ukraine

Science minister Patrick Vallance has reaffirmed the UK government’s support for the Ukrainian science community. Speaking at a seminar at the Royal Society, Vallance said the government intended to “open up the UK science sector with meaningful partnerships and stand in solidarity with Ukraine against Russia’s illegal invasion”. The seminar, which was attended by a representative from the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, cemented an agreement between the two countries to collaborate on research. Vallance said: “We are committed to working with Ukrainian experts as they rebuild and reform their research and development ecosystem.” The UK has provided nearly £13 million via the Researchers at Risk scheme, which has given about 180 Ukraine-based researchers academic posts in the UK since Russia’s full invasion of the country over two years ago.  

Full story

King’s speech big on tech

The Labour government has set out plans in the King’s speech to create an Industrial Strategy Council and introduce legislation on artificial intelligence. The speech said the government “will seek to establish the appropriate legislation to place requirements on those working to develop the most powerful AI models”. A Digital Information and Smart Data bill was also promised to “help scientists and researchers make more life-enhancing discoveries by improving our data laws”. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will lead on the bill, as well as on a Cyber Security and Resilience bill. Josh Burke, senior policy fellow at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the speech had “policies that are examples of the change we need”, but he criticised it for the “scant attention paid to climate adaptation and resilience”.

Full story

Call for postgrad childcare support

Access to student Childcare Grants should be expanded to include taught and research postgraduates, a report from the Higher Education Policy Institute has argued. Both groups missed out on the Conservative government’s 2023 expansion of support, which offers workers 15 free hours a week for two-year-olds. From September this year, this will expand to babies from nine months old, rising to 30 free hours of support from September 2025. The current Childcare Grants for undergraduates are available to students whose household income is below £19,795. Limiting these to undergraduates “creates a barrier for those with childcare responsibilities who wish to undertake postgraduate studies”, the report says. “This lack of equitable provision disproportionately affects women and those from lower-income communities.” The report calls on the new Labour government to rectify the omission.

Full story

Picture of the week

Image: Number 10 [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0], via Flickr. Click here to see full-size image

The post What’s going on in the UK: 11-24 July appeared first on Research Professional News.

Alignment with the Nuffield Foundation’s priorities is vital for grant success

Top tips

• Ensure your research is aligned with the precepts and principles of the foundation
• Impact is vital but the foundation takes a broad and collaborative approach to assessing it
• Grants can be used for smaller projects as well as larger ones
• In both cases, showing that you have the right expertise and team to carry out the work is vital

Since its founding in 1943, the Nuffield Foundation has established itself as arguably the UK’s leading independent funder of research geared towards social policy in education, welfare and justice. 

As a funder that has long had impact as a priority, the foundation says it seeks to fund rigorous research and encourage innovation to improve people’s lives. 

The Nuffield Foundation’s central and longest-standing funding stream is the Research, Development and Analysis Fund, which is open now to outline applications, with a deadline of 14 October. It funds projects worth up to £750,000 for between six months and three years. Most grants are for sums of less than £300,000. 

The foundation also runs more specialised funding streams, including the Racial Diversity UK Fund, which focuses on the future of UK society as shaped by migration from former UK colonies. The Racial Diversity UK Fund is also open now, with a deadline of 14 October.

All Research, Development and Analysis Fund applications must be relevant to at least one of the foundation’s three core interest areas (education, welfare, justice) and also to the UK context, even if that is in a comparative way.

Competition for these grants is usually tough, with only 15 per cent of outline applicants typically invited to send full proposals. Alex Beer, head of grants operations and portfolio development at the Nuffield Foundation, suggests how applicants can raise their chances of selection to the full application stage.

Are there any recent changes to the Research, Development and Analysis Fund that applicants should be aware of?

We have just simplified our outline application form. We are asking fewer questions, fewer words are required, and we have shortened our overall application timetable. Hopefully that means it is easier and quicker to apply.  

What is your best advice to get over the threshold of the outline stage? 

To get over the line, what I would advise is reading our guide for applicants and understanding where our priorities lie. We are interested in improving social wellbeing; we are interested in the way that disadvantage, vulnerability and inequalities play out in the areas of education, welfare and justice. So, aligning the research questions with our interests is absolutely key.

How do applicants signal a bid’s relevance to those areas?  

There is a checkbox on the application form that says education, welfare or justice, but if the idea is cross-cutting, tick the box that is most relevant. Most applications are looked at by more than one person, and that will include people with interests across those areas. So, checking one box over another will not force the application into a silo.

What else is important?

We want to ensure there is that alignment with our priorities and a clear rationale for why the research question matters. Why is it relevant? Why is it needed? 

We also want a clear methodology. We are interested in a wide range of methodologies; quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods. The main focus for us is whether the proposed methods are suitable for answering the question that is being posed. And, finally, we want to understand how the research is going to make a difference and change lives. So, we will focus on impact. 

How do you measure impact? 

We have a broad definition but what is important is the project being able to ultimately deliver policy and practice change. We accept, however, that improving understanding and changing attitudes and behaviours are vital ways in which the research that we fund might make that difference. 

We do not expect applications to aim for all of those, but to set out which dimensions of impact they might be able to make a difference with and then qualitatively how they will progress to do that.  

We do take quite a qualitative approach to assessing impact, and we are open to how we do so. From the moment someone is funded by us, there will be a regular dialogue between us and them, with our aim being to support our grant holders to deliver that project and maximise impact.  

What does the rest of the application process look like? 

For the applicants we invite for the full application stage, we will set out some questions we have for them; some things that were not clear, some challenges we might have for them. We would expect the applicant to address those in their full application. If the applicant at that stage wanted a conversation about exactly what we meant by any of the questions, we are more than happy to discuss that.

The full application gets peer-reviewed, if it meets the quality threshold. All applications are returned to the applicant with the reviews and any additional commentary from us that we would like to see addressed. The applicants then have an opportunity to respond before the final decision. 

Where are applicants usually based? 

We fund a lot of research from think tanks and from universities, but we also fund research that is led by third sector organisations—for example, domestic violence charities or children and young people-centred justice organisations.

However, most of our funding goes to researchers based at universities. The current breakdown is 160 universities, 30 research policy institutions and nine charities, but provided the team has the necessary skills and expertise, then we are relatively neutral about where they are based. 

What considerations come into play when assessing larger versus smaller applications? 

One big question is, is your expertise sufficient to deliver what you are going to do? Grant applicants should highlight the strengths that are going to enable you to deliver the project. 

I should add that although the Research, Development and Analysis Fund invites applications up to £750,000, we still welcome applications for smaller sums—say, between £20,000 or £50,000—where those sums are more appropriate. I would not put a limit on the amount depending on a researcher’s career stage because that is not the way the foundation thinks about it, but it might be that earlier career researchers are after smaller grant awards and they just need to demonstrate that their skills and experience are commensurate with what they are proposing. 

We would expect the larger grants to answer more strategic questions than those posed by smaller grants, and for there to be more institutional involvement and more people and partners involved. There would also need to be an integrated and extensive engagement strategy.

This is an extract from an article in Research Professional’s Funding Insight service. To subscribe contact sales@researchresearch.com

The post Opportunity profile: Sharing a sense of purpose appeared first on Research Professional News.

Are thematic priorities worth the effort?

Teenage dress sense and universities’ strategic research priorities may appear to have very little in common. But both hold to a universal law that I’m going to call the Phil Ward Principle of Homogeneity: the more unique we try to be, the more uniform we appear to others.

UK Tribes, a cultural research project by the broadcaster Channel 4 to identify the nation’s youth subcultures, puts it well when it describes the loose grouping of ‘alternative tribes’ of modern Britain: “Tired of cookie-cutter celebs and how everyone at school looks the same, alternative tribes are driven by the need to set themselves apart from the mainstream. From candy-hued hair to sleeve tattoos and multiple piercings, they’re determined to be different—but do it together.”

Difference is difficult

Universities are equally “determined to be different”, but are loath to “do it together”. They seek to stand out from their competitors, but are often unable to do so because their thematic priorities seek to include as much of their research as possible—and are therefore generic to the point of magnolia—but also be relevant to the external funding flavours du jour. As such, they inevitably bump into and overlap with others.

Earlier this year, I did an analysis of the stated strategic research priorities of the Russell Group of research universities in the UK and former 1994 Group universities (smaller research-intensive institutions that were founded that year). Of the 38 institutions within this cluster, almost two-thirds (23) had thematic priorities. 

I believe there are four reasons for doing so, and these can be mapped onto a continuum running from being a passive ‘shop window’ at one end, to having a deliberate and directive ‘case for cash’ at the other, as illustrated in the Phil Ward Continuum of Priority Rationalisation presented here:

Most institutions present their themes as articles of faith, corresponding closely with the second and third rationales (‘emphasise beliefs’, ‘prioritise efforts’) given above. Some evidence them with metrics. For instance, at University College London, ‘mental health and wellbeing’ is top of the metric totem pole (£20m, 150 researchers, 82 projects), while ‘justice and equality’ (£200,000) and ‘transformative technology’ (30 projects) are the poor relations. It’s a bit like playing Top Trumps. 

Few of the universities are explicit about having thematic priorities in order to position themselves for winning awards. Their cause is apparently far nobler. However, the University of Bath is refreshingly honest. It might start out saying that its thematic priorities will “empower our research community to tackle major global challenges”, but then it cuts to the chase. Its priority initiative “supports a culture of grant capture for multidisciplinary collaborations that address UK Research and Innovation strategic themes”. But what will happen when our national funder decides to refresh its themes?

The number of priorities for the 23 universities ranges between three and 10, with the average being five, falling broadly into the following categories:

Health: The most popular of the themes, with 20 of the 23 institutions having a claimed strength in this area, and some having more than one. Some are relatively specific, such as ‘cancer’ at Manchester or ‘infectious diseases’ at Liverpool, but most go for something more generic, from ‘healthy society’ (Imperial) to ‘health and wellbeing’ (Bath, Nottingham and York), ‘healthy living for all’ (Queen’s University Belfast) and ‘lifelong health’ (Surrey). 

Environment: Here, universities take bites at the same issue from different angles: ‘sustainable societies’ (Imperial and Nottingham), ‘sustainable cities’ (UCL and Warwick), and ‘sustainable food’ (Sheffield). You get a sense that, if you gathered together all this fractured and atomised effort, you really could crack this.

Society: The keywords here are ‘social justice’, from ‘striving for social justice’ (Bristol) to ‘social and economic justice’ (Goldsmiths), ‘social justice, inequalities and conflict’ (Kent) and back to plain old ‘social justice’ (Leicester).

Technology: There’s a creeping unease with technology detectable here. On the one hand, we have the exciting potential of a new dawn (from the vaguely Instagram-friendly ‘future life’ at Glasgow to a ‘smart society’ at Imperial), and on the other, a palpable terror of what’s to come (‘cybersecurity’ at Warwick and ‘secure connected intelligence’ at Queen’s).

Culture: You can imagine the strategic discussions that led to the final category. “Right, we’ve got the basics sorted. Shall we throw in something artsy?” “Yes,” comes the reply, “but we’ve got to make it relevant.” So Glasgow has ‘cultural and creative industries’, Goldsmiths goes for ‘invention, creativity and experience’, UCL has ‘culture and understanding’, and both Nottingham and York offer ‘culture and communication(s)’.

By striving to be unique, the universities demonstrate that they are anything but. The reasons are understandable, but do negate the value that a priority can offer. It’s rare and refreshing when a university offers up something unusual (I’m looking at you, Leicester, with your Asimovian ‘space power and AI’), but it’s risky: they will be waiting for some time before a major funder offers up a call in the area. When it does so, however, the payoff will be immense. While the others scrabble forth from their ‘health and wellbeing’ resting position, the space scientists of Leicester will be coining it in. The candy-hued hair and sleeve tattoos will have been worth it after all.

Phil Ward is director of the Eastern Arc regional research consortium, UK

This is an extract from an article in Research Professional’s Funding Insight service. To subscribe contact sales@researchresearch.com

The post Determined to be different appeared first on Research Professional News.

Names in the frame with government expected to announce interim chair for English regulator imminently

The next chair of the Office for Students is expected to be announced this week—but who might take up the mantle?

The previous chair, James Wharton, left his role at the English regulator earlier this month. Wharton—a Conservative member of the House of Lords who controversially continued to take the party whip after taking up his OfS post—resigned shortly after the Labour Party came to power at the general election.

Wharton’s appointment was faced from day one by accusations of cronyism. The peer ran former prime minister Boris Johnson‘s leadership campaign and was a friend of Gavin Williamson, education secretary at the time he was appointed.

Among the names in the hat to succeed Wharton are former vice-chancellors, ex politicians and several other sector figures.

Prime predictions

Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher and a former adviser to three Conservative universities ministers, believes there is a clear choice. “I think Justine Greening would be an excellent pick,” she says of the former Conservative education secretary.

“Although some may be concerned that she was a former Conservative MP, she was secretary of state during the passing of the Higher Education and Research Act and establishment of the regulator, so she knows better than most the direction in which it should be heading.”

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, told Research Professional News he would like to see a “‘big beast’ former vice-chancellor in the interim role—someone who has stood down in the last few years but is still involved with the sector and who understands the financial challenges.”

Hillman named no names, but among those who might fit his description are Chris Husbands, former head of Sheffield Hallam University; Andrew Wathey, who stood down from Northumbria University two years ago; and former Lincoln University head Mary Stuart. Nancy Rothwell, about to retire as vice-chancellor of the University of Manchester, could also fit the bill.

Not everyone RPN spoke to was prepared to go on the record. But some of the other names we heard mentioned include recently departed University of the Arts London vice-chancellor James Purnell, former Birmingham vice-chancellor David Eastwood and Labour peer Andrew Adonis, who made headlines several years ago for his criticism of vice-chancellor pay.

An announcement is expected tomorrow.

The post Who will be the next OfS chair? appeared first on Research Professional News.

Universities required by English regulator to “improve or sustain performance” on student outcomes

Five universities in England have received improvement notices from the Office for Students over their performance against student outcomes thresholds in some course provision.

In reports published on 23 July, the English sector regulator said that Arden University, the University of Cumbria, London Metropolitan University, Leeds Beckett University and Richmond, the American International University in London would have improvement notices imposed on them following inspections.

The OfS reports published as a result of the inspections look at a university compliance with conditions relating to student outcomes, including continuation and completion rates.

OfS comments

In the case of Arden, the OfS said steps had been taken to “improve the quality of its provision and to support the delivery of improved outcomes”, but that the institution was still at risk of breaching its continuation rate conditions.

Its report on Cumbria states that while the university is not in breach of conditions, it must “improve outcomes for continuation for part-time, postgraduate taught masters’ students”.

Leeds Beckett was also deemed to be at “increased risk of breach”, London Met has been told to “review its performance” and Richmond has been told to “comprehensively review its performance” on completion rates and “take targeted action to ensure it delivers or sustains performance at or above the relevant OfS numerical thresholds by spring 2027”.

‘Students deserve high-quality courses’

Jean Arnold, deputy director of quality at the OfS, said the assessments demonstrated the OfS’ “continuing commitment to drive improvements in student outcomes”.

“The quality of higher education in England is generally excellent. All students, whatever their background, deserve to study on high-quality courses which lead to successful outcomes after graduation,” she said.

“We have carefully considered student outcomes against a range of indicators for each of the 11 providers assessed. At three of these providers, we have found that students’ outcomes could be explained given the additional context we considered. At eight other providers [five universities and three colleges], we have decided to issue improvement notices. These require each university or college to take action to improve or sustain its performance.”

Research Professional News has approached the institutions named for comment.

University responses

Carl Lygo, vice-chancellor at Arden University, said the institution would “take on board the findings from the OfS assessment and, while we are disappointed by the overall outcome of the report, we do in fact take a number of positives from it”.

“The assessment was based on a dataset from 2016-20 applying new thresholds which OfS released in 2022,” Lygo said. “More recent analysis shows we are on a clear upward trajectory and the OfS has acknowledged this, stating that our actions planned for this year and beyond demonstrate a continued commitment to, and investment in, improving student outcomes.” 

A spokesperson for Leeds Beckett said the university had “implemented an action plan” following the OfS findings. “The university takes all aspects of quality assurance seriously and we will continue to focus on enhancing outcomes for all our students,” the spokesperson said.

The post OfS issues improvement notices at five universities appeared first on Research Professional News.

Bridget Phillipson emphasises importance of regulation and again rules out income boost for universities

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson has promised a “sharper focus” on the work of the Office for Students as the Department for Education prepares to announce an interim chair for England’s higher education regulator.

Speaking to the BBC’s Today programme on 22 July, Phillipson reiterated that the Labour government currently has “no plans” to increase tuition fee levels or offer universities more public funding, instead focusing on the role of the OfS and international students in securing higher education’s finances.

“The initial steps that we’ll be setting out later this week…[are] around regulation, where it comes to the OfS, because we need to see a sharper focus on the regulation of our sector to make sure that universities are on a firm footing,” she said, adding that the government intends to appoint an interim OfS chair imminently.

Tory peer James Wharton resigned as OfS chair earlier this month after Labour came to power.

International students and fees

Phillipson also said that the new government wants to ensure that international students—an increasingly essential source of significant income for universities—are made to feel welcome. Under the Conservative government, the graduate route visa allowing students to remain in the UK after their studies for a limited time was placed under review, and reforms to restrict students’ dependants from accessing visas were also introduced, leading to a steep decline in the number of international applicants.

“Universities are independent institutions that have responsibilities in terms of how they manage their budgets,” Phillipson said.

“In terms of international students, they have an important role to play in our country. They drive opportunities in terms of the contribution [they make] to the economy…and under this Labour government, we want to welcome international students to our country [because of] the soft power [they give to the UK and] the reach they give us around the world as they return home after their studies, and ensure that the graduate route is maintained so that students can come here and study with certainty and with confidence.”

Vivienne Stern, chief executive of the vice-chancellors’ group Universities UK, also appeared on the programme to appeal for an increase in tuition fee levels in order to boost university income.

She said: “The obvious thing is that you have to restore the link between the tuition fee and inflation; if you don’t, the value of it just goes down year after year after year. Inflation affects all of us…If you linked the undergraduate fee to inflation on current inflation figures, it would add a couple of hundred pounds to it.

“It’s not going to fix the whole problem…I personally also believe the government needs to, over time, put more public funding in.”

Skills England

The comments were made as the government announced the launch of Skills England, a new body being established to oversee skills education in England.

A Skills England bill is to be introduced to parliament this week, with the new body set to be established in phases over the next 9 to 12 months.

Richard Pennycook, former chief executive of the Co-operative Group and current lead non-executive director at the Department for Education, has been named as its interim chair.

The post Education secretary set to unveil new Office for Students chair appeared first on Research Professional News.

Bridget Phillipson’s initial comments on fees, public spending and international students draw mixed response

The new education secretary’s suggestion that the Labour government is not planning to increase tuition fees or public funding for universities could lead to allegations of complacency, a senior sector figure has warned.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4 on Wednesday, Bridget Phillipson acknowledged that universities were “facing significant financial challenges”, but said there were “no plans” to put up the cost of university for students or to give universities more money from the public purse. She did, however, back international student recruitment to help put institutions “on a more sustainable footing”.

Nick Hillman, director of think tank the Higher Education Policy Institute, told Research Professional News that the comments could come back to haunt the education secretary if an institution found itself in serious financial trouble in the coming weeks.

“I do recognise that the secretary of state was perhaps caught off guard in the interview and also that her higher education minister [Jacqui Smith] is still getting her feet under the table,” he said. “But these remarks were still disappointing, given the stark contrast with the messaging before the election.”

Speaking before the general election, Phillipson said universities would be a “day-one priority” for Labour in power. 

Hillman said: “If a university falls over after a bad clearing period, say, the words will be endlessly replayed as evidence of complacency.”

Paul Ashwin, professor of higher education at Lancaster University and deputy director of the Centre for Global Higher Education, was also concerned—although not surprised—by the comments. 

“This is in line with what I thought would happen before the election—that the incoming government were likely to initially try to avoid dealing with the funding issue in higher education whilst they focus on other educational priorities, such as early years and the teacher-recruitment crisis in schools,” he said.

“I still think that events are likely to force their hand in the form of institutional closures, given their very negative impact on students and local economies. At that point, higher education will suddenly become an urgent policy priority and we are then likely to get an interim settlement followed by a review of higher education funding.”

International rescue

There was a more positive response to Phillipson’s words on international recruitment, with Rachel Hewitt, chief executive of the MillionPlus group of universities, among those voicing optimism.

“A change in government rhetoric towards both international students and to universities and higher education more generally is long overdue, so for the new education secretary to back international recruitment so early in her tenure is hugely positive,” Hewitt said.

However, while recruiting more students from overseas might help to stabilise finances, it would not be “a magic bullet for an unsustainable funding model”, she added, in light of frozen tuition fees, rising costs and a fall in international recruitment hitting universities’ pockets hard this year.

The post Education secretary ‘at risk of complacency’ on HE funding appeared first on Research Professional News.

Paper calls for PhD and master’s students to be awarded grants and free childcare

Access to UK student Childcare Grants should be expanded to include taught and research postgraduates from the UK who have been “forgotten” by previous governments, a report has claimed.

In 2023, the Conservative government announced an expansion of childcare support, offering workers 15 free hours a week for two-year-olds. From September this year, this expands to babies from nine months old, rising to 30 free hours of support from September 2025.

However, postgraduate students on both taught courses and research programmes are ineligible for the free hours and for childcare grants that are available to undergraduates, the Higher Education Policy Institute report published on 18 July states.

“This creates a barrier for those with childcare responsibilities who wish to undertake postgraduate studies,” the report says. “This lack of equitable provision disproportionately affects women and those from lower-income communities, hampering efforts to increase the diversity of the higher education and high-skilled workforce.”

The report, which was authored in collaboration with the GW4 group of universities in western England and Wales, calls on the new Labour government to extend the current undergraduate Childcare Grant to postgraduate students “as a welcome first step to improving access for the most economically disadvantaged”.

The current Childcare Grants for undergraduate students are available to students whose household income is below £19,795.

Melissa Barlow, a parent and a biomedical PhD student at the University of Exeter, said that paying two lots of nursery fees put an “overwhelming financial strain on us as a family”, and that she had to take out loans and accrued nearly £15,000 of credit card debt.

“The only way I could continue studying was by going part-time and taking on a part-time job to help financially,” she said. “Given that the average age of a postgraduate researcher coincides with the average age of starting a family, preventing postgraduate students from accessing financial support for childcare that is available for undergraduates or workers feels inequitable.”

Political reform

The Hepi paper also calls for responsibility for postgraduate childcare provision to be brought “fully under the remit of the Department for Education” to prevent people from “falling between the cracks of different departments and overlapping ministerial portfolios”.

“Any future Whitehall restructures should take a more holistic view of postgraduates, both as students and researchers, to ensure that such policy oversights are less likely to happen,” the report concludes.

Evelyn Welch, vice-chancellor of the University of Bristol, said that a diverse research community “plays a crucial role in a university’s ability to produce innovative and impactful research and achieve academic excellence”.

“The best research reflects the world we live in,” she said. “Research informed by researchers from different backgrounds and the widest possible talent pool is fundamental to economic, scientific and societal progress.”

This piece was amended to clarify that the GW4 group of universities is based not only in western England but in Wales too.

The post Postgraduates ‘forgotten’ by Tory childcare policies appeared first on Research Professional News.

UK university admissions body announces three new questions to come into use from next year

Ucas, the body that oversees student admissions to UK universities, has announced details of the three ‘structured questions’ that will replace the old essay-style personal statement in university applications.

The new format, which will be implemented from next year for those starting their course in 2026, is intended to stem a decline in the number of disadvantaged students applying to university.

Ucas said its research suggested that four out of five applicants find the current personal statement difficult to complete without support, adding that the new questions aim to ensure students from all backgrounds “better understand the key information universities and colleges want to know about them when making admissions decisions”.

The three questions are:

• Why do you want to study this course or subject?
• How have your qualifications and studies helped you to prepare for this course or subject?
• What else have you done to prepare outside of education, and why are these experiences helpful?

The change is the second in what Ucas describes as a “series of initiatives” designed to address concerns that progress has started to stall on encouraging disadvantaged students to apply for university. It follows the decision last month to waive the application fee for applicants who are eligible for free school meals.

Ucas said the questions were chosen following “extensive research, testing and validation with students, teachers and advisers, and universities and colleges”.

“My aim at Ucas is to make sure that the doors of opportunity stay open for as many students as possible so that they can benefit from a university education and find the right course that they will succeed in,” said chief executive Jo Saxton.

Stubborn gap

Confirmation of the changes was accompanied by a data release from Ucas, which showed that the gap in application rate between the most and least disadvantaged students remains “stubbornly persistent”.

In England, the application rate from the most disadvantaged backgrounds has declined by 0.4 percentage points to 25.4 per cent, while the application rate for the most advantaged has marginally increased by 0.1 percentage points to 60.7 per cent.

In Wales, the application rate of those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds has decreased to 20.7 per cent, down 1.3 percentage points, while rates for the most advantaged also fell 2.6 percentage points to 49.7 per cent.

In Northern Ireland the application rate from the most disadvantaged fell 0.6 percentage points to 33.3 per cent, whereas the rate for the most advantaged was up 0.1 percentage points to 66.6 per cent.

Meanwhile, Scotland has seen its application rate for those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds increase 0.8 percentage points to 20.7 per cent, but this has been outstripped by an increase in applications among the most advantaged, up 1.1 percentage points to 50.2 per cent.

“Today’s figures show that while positive progress has been made, there is still much to do,” Saxton said. “The changes to the personal statement, along with our recent fee waiver for students in receipt of free school meals, are all part of Ucas’ contribution to the sector-wide effort to ensure more people from disadvantaged backgrounds can benefit from the life-changing opportunity of higher education.”

The post Revealed: The questions that will replace Ucas personal statements appeared first on Research Professional News.

Case report warns that companies could leave the UK if higher education is not supported

The “significant financial pressure” under which universities are operating is jeopardising their role in boosting local and national economies, the Campaign for Science and Engineering has said.

In a briefing published on 17 July, Case said that if universities were not properly supported, then companies currently operating in the UK could opt to take their business elsewhere, with potentially negative consequences for the economy.

“Case heard overwhelmingly from stakeholders within the sector that universities are so intertwined in our research ecosystem that we can’t begin to predict the full cost of losing their R&D contribution at the regional and national level,” the organisation said.

“Companies and service providers that rely on the supply of R&D and the innovations universities provide will simply go and find it elsewhere rather than stay in the region, or even in the country.”

To retain this “vital resource”, the new government must support UK universities to achieve “long-term financial sustainability”, Case said.

Significant financial challenges

Daniel Rathbone, deputy executive director at Case, said the financial challenges facing universities across the UK are “significant”.

“Our briefing demonstrates that all those that care about the future of UK R&D must also care about the future of our universities,” he said. “We will be working with policymakers to ensure they are aware of this strong evidence from our members and act to support a crucial component of UK R&D.”

In England, tuition fees have been capped at a maximum of £9,250 for several years, meaning that their value to universities has been eroded by inflation. In addition, visa reforms have led to a reduction in the number of international student applicants and another associated drop in income.

Florence Young, policy officer at Case, said: “University-led R&D is a crucial part of the UK’s research system. The direct economic value is well documented, however we want to see more recognition of the many intangible benefits, highlighted in this briefing, that are just as critical.”

The post ‘Significant’ financial pressures stifling universities’ economic role appeared first on Research Professional News.

Former business secretary and science minister will be first executive chair of Warwick Innovation District

Former Conservative minister Greg Clark has been appointed as the inaugural executive chair of Warwick Innovation District—a company established by the University of Warwick that aims to boost research collaboration in the region.

Clark, a former universities and science minister who has also served as business secretary and levelling-up secretary, will take up the post in October. 

The company will oversee developments such as Arden Cross, a new business hub located near Birmingham airport, as well as Warwick’s science park. It aims is to create collaboration across different institutions, the university said.

“This is one of the most exciting times in history for science, technology and innovation,” Clark said. “We have an extraordinary national opportunity to accelerate innovation and discovery and so to drive growth and prosperity across the whole country.”

Stuart Croft, vice-chancellor of the University of Warwick, said Clark’s “extensive expertise in forming national industrial strategy is a huge asset”.

“Having chaired the advisory board of Warwick Manufacturing Group he knows full well the opportunities for us to deliver transformative and positive change regionally, nationally and internationally,” Croft said.

“As a university we are always focused on the application of our research and education. As we put together a holistic strategy for innovation at Warwick, our ambition is to attract more inward investment, commercialise applications for new technologies, create jobs and develop new business models to enable economic growth”.

The post Greg Clark to lead Warwick innovation hub appeared first on Research Professional News.

Research suggests graduates from more deprived backgrounds earn less than better-off peers

While people with a higher education qualification tend to earn more money and are more likely to be employed, those from more advantaged backgrounds still do better on average than their less advantaged peers, research has suggested.

According to a report from the Centre for Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education, key underrepresented groups face persistent inequalities regardless of whether they have been to university or not. 

The report says that while there is an earnings premium for disadvantaged students with a higher education qualification, a clear “disadvantage earnings gap” exists. Earnings are consistently higher among more advantaged graduates compared with those who were eligible for free school meals, Taso found.

It also found that men earn more than women across the full range of education pathways and that gender gaps in earnings are large—and larger than the equivalent free school meal or ethnicity gaps.

Omar Khan, chief executive of Taso, said: “Higher education qualifications are clearly linked to better earnings and likelihood of employment. This is good news for students and policymakers alike looking to reap dividends from investing in university or college qualifications.

“Despite disadvantaged and underrepresented students getting a bigger ‘boost’ from attending higher education, these qualifications do not close equality gaps.

“While we need a broader set of policy interventions to tackle the wider causes of labour market inequalities, universities need to ensure they’re doing all they can to deliver better employment outcomes, particularly for more disadvantaged students.”

The post Disadvantaged graduates ‘face earnings gap even with degree’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

QAA identifies “broad equivalence” between international and domestic pathway courses, plus areas for “swift action”

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, it is fair to say, does not top the news agenda too often. There was that squabble a couple of years ago, when it stood aside as the designated quality body for England during a pretty unsavoury row with the Office for Students, but other than that it has generally just got on with its work.

This morning, though, the QAA has published a report on international pathway programmes that seems to have got the sector talking. Readers will recall that the Sunday Times published a series of articles earlier this year alleging that such courses (which support the entry of international students into UK higher education) enable less qualified international students to get university places ahead of their domestic counterparts. The articles conveniently overlooked the extent to which international students have facilitated the expansion of higher education for all students, regardless of domicile.

Nonetheless, the general public was concerned. So the QAA has been looking into it, investigating international foundation programmes and international year one programmes between 28 February and 3 July this year. Some 34 providers took part in the evaluation exercise, and 185 programmes in 20 different subject areas were looked at. So, are pathway programmes favouring international students?

Well, sort of. Out of 32 providers that delivered international foundation programmes, 18 declared they had equivalent programmes for domestic students. Of the 20 providers that delivered international year one programmes, 10 declared they had equivalent domestic programmes.

“As not all international pathway programmes had equivalent domestic programmes, there appear to be a greater number of programmes across the sector to facilitate entry for international students,” the QAA states.

Using these domestic equivalent programmes as a comparison, the QAA found that there was “broad equivalence between the entry requirements for both the international foundation programmes and their domestic equivalents, and international year one programmes and their domestic equivalents”.

“We found that the academic standards of international foundation programmes were being set in line with the expectations of a course at that level in the vast majority of cases,” the QAA says. It “also found that students on international foundation programmes were achieving at an appropriate level and that marking and assessment were effective in the vast majority of cases”.

We can predict that the mainstream press will be more than happy to focus on those cases that are not among the vast majority.

The QAA “also considered whether students were offered similar opportunities to complete and achieve the intended outcome of the courses, compared with domestic students that had studied A-level or Scottish Higher qualifications”. It “found that international foundation programme students generally had more opportunities under more varied conditions to achieve successful progression through, for example, having multiple attempts at assessments, than the opportunities available to A-level or Scottish Higher students”.

This will not sit well in middle England—or middle Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

And while a number of providers were applying the same academic regulations to both international year one programmes and their other programmes at level 4, this was not happening in all cases.

“In some cases where the international year one programme was offered through a partner, there were differences in the regulations,” the QAA found. “This was evidenced in particular in varying approaches to the opportunities provided to students to attempt assessments multiple times.”

It will be awkward reading for the sector, but the QAA report points to “notable differences in the rates of progression to the next level of study between international foundation programmes and international year one programmes and their identified domestic equivalent programmes”.

There were no observable patterns within these differences, and—in true academic style—the QAA says more research in this area is required. It does, however, make a number of recommendations.

These include urging higher education providers to seek “greater standardisation of approach towards assessment practice and regulations on international foundation programmes”; to regularly assess progression rates for international and domestic students; and to have a more consistent approach to naming international pathway programmes.

Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, said UUK had commissioned the report “as we want students, their families and the wider public to have confidence that university admissions processes are fair for domestic and international students”.

“Although the number of students entering undergraduate study via an international pathway programme represents a small proportion of the two million undergraduates studying in our universities, it was important to examine questions around these pathways,” she said.

“The review found that providers are following their published entry requirements and that entry requirements are broadly equivalent. It also confirms academic standards on international pathway courses are of an expected standard in the vast majority of cases.”

There’s that phrase again—“vast majority”. Thankfully, Stern’s statement continues. “While there are no systemic issues, the review has found some areas where more consistent application of best practice is needed, and this needs swift action,” she said.

“We will be discussing with our members the steps we must take as a sector to further strengthen the robustness and transparency of admissions. UUK has been updating our Fair Admissions Code of Practice and will address relevant issues identified by the QAA as part of this work. We will now prioritise this and publish the updated code shortly.”

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Russell Group said its universities were “committed to fair admissions and delivering high-quality courses and successful outcomes for all students”.

“While the QAA found no systemic issues with international pathway programmes being delivered in the UK, it made several recommendations to strengthen practice in the sector,” the spokesperson said. “Our universities will be working with delivery partners to consider these recommendations to ensure best practice and that students, staff, government and sector partners remain confident in the standards of these courses.”

This is an excerpt from today’s 8am Playbook email. To find out if your institution subscribes and to sign up for a personal copy, please fill in this form and add 8am Playbook as the subject. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The post Investigation finds evidence of international student favouritism appeared first on Research Professional News.

Consultation underway on restructuring of Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre

The University of Sheffield is “actively working to reduce the need for redundancies” at its Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, amid reports that 80 per cent of staff are at risk of losing their jobs, described as a “hammer blow” for the nuclear industry.

It has been reported that just 30 of around 150 staff at the Nuclear AMRC will be retained as it becomes part of the university’s broader Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, although these numbers have not been confirmed. The university said that a consultation on the changes is ongoing.

The university-owned Nuclear AMRC is run in collaboration with a range of partners from industry. It was set up in 2011 with a remit to help companies in the nuclear sector solve their manufacturing challenges through research and innovation.

Sheffield vice-chancellor Koen Lamberts said the consultation proposals retain the “core manufacturing research and development activities” of the Nuclear AMRC. It is thought that some of the centre’s other activities—including work on supply chain development, business development and policy work—are no longer considered core to its work by university management.

“The proposals have been shared with our Nuclear AMRC staff and there will be a 90-day consultation to consider the proposals and explore future options,” Lamberts said. “We are actively working to reduce the need for redundancies where possible and we are supporting our staff throughout the change process.”

Martin Freer, director of the Birmingham Energy Institute at the University of Birmingham, said the Nuclear AMRC “forms one of the key cross-over points between university research and the scale up of innovative solutions, and as such the news is a hammer blow to the sector”.

He added: “The work of the centre with the nuclear supply chain related to the fit-for-nuclear programme has been crucial in ensuring UK businesses are able to take advantage of the economic opportunities that nuclear new build provides.” 

The post Sheffield research centre jobs threat ‘hammer blow’ for nuclear appeared first on Research Professional News.

John Healey highlights importance of graduate recruitment to the Armed Forces

The new secretary of state for defence has spoken critically about students who campaign against the presence of army recruiters at university careers fairs.

John Healey was appointed to the post following Labour’s landslide election victory, having served for four years as shadow defence secretary. He was asked on BBC Newsnight what his message would be to students who have protested on campus against armed forces recruiters.

“My message to those students and those universities is quite simple: the foundation for any nation’s success and future is strong security, and we do have a recruitment crisis in this country now,” Healey said.

He added that the previous government had missed its recruitment targets “every year”, and that the number of British soldiers had now dropped below 73,000.

“There is a big job to do to rebuild our fighting strength, not just so that we can defend this country, but [also] by being strong [in order to] deter the risk that we’ll face attacks in the future.”

Last September, it was reported that students at the University of Sheffield unfurled an anti-military banner above an army recruitment stall, while headlines were also made when the students’ union at the University of Bristol prevented the army-affiliated Officers’ Training Corps from exhibiting at its Welcome Fair.

The post Defence secretary questions campus army protests appeared first on Research Professional News.

Scottish institution uses more energy and emits more carbon than any other UK university

The University of Edinburgh has again been named as the UK university that uses the most energy annually and produces the most carbon emissions.

Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, published on 11 July, show that the Scottish university used more than 280 million kilowatt hours’ worth of energy in 2022-23 and produced more than 62 million kilograms of scope 1 and scope 2 carbon emissions. 

It is the fourth consecutive year that Edinburgh has topped both tables. 

A spokesperson for the university said the institution has one of the largest university estates in the UK, and that its energy consumption was also influenced by the “energy intensive nature of our research and by our commitment to run national facilities such as supercomputers on behalf of the UK”.

“The university has set itself ambitious targets to address the climate crisis and we have a target to reach net zero by 2040,” the spokesperson said. “We have a long-term commitment to capture and store our unavoidable carbon emissions through restoring peatlands and expanding forests in Scotland.”

The second-biggest user of energy was the University of Cambridge (257 million kWh), followed by the University of Manchester (252 million kWh). For scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions, the second highest was Manchester (53 million kg), followed by Imperial College London (51 million kg). 

The Hesa data include a range of datasets relating to university estates, including the total number of buildings owned (topped by Aberystwyth University, with 688), most car parking spaces (University of Warwick, with 6,466) and most cycle spaces (University of Cambridge, with 11,200).

Article updated on 12/7 to add university response

The post Edinburgh tops emissions and energy use table for fourth year appeared first on Research Professional News.

UUK International calls for action from new government as Home Office figures paint grim picture

The head of Universities UK’s international wing has called on the new government to reassure international students that they are welcome in Britain, as visa figures show another drop in the number of applicants.

Home Office statistics published on 11 July show that 87,300 applications for international student visas were received between January and June this year—17 per cent fewer than the same period in 2023.

Jamie Arrowsmith, director of UUK International, said the figures highlighted the “ongoing challenges that universities face” with international recruitment, adding that universities were reporting “a very competitive and uncertain global environment”.

“Students may have been waiting for the outcome of the election before confirming their places,” he added. “There is a window of opportunity for the new government to provide reassurance to students that are still making decisions about their study plans.”

Need for clarity

Earlier this year, there were concerns that the previous government was set to abolish the graduate visa route, which grants international students the right to stay and work in the UK for up to three years after completing their course. However, following a review by the Migration Advisory Committee, the visa route was retained but “kept under review”.

“An extremely positive step would be a clear statement that reiterates support for the graduate route, and that international students are welcome in the UK,” Arrowsmith said.

The Home Office figures also show there were 11,100 applications from dependants of students between January and June 2024, some 80 per cent fewer than in the same period last year.

January legislation by the previous government prevented students from bringing dependants, with the exception of postgraduate research students and those on government-funded scholarships.

The post Overseas students ‘need reassurance’ as visas plummet appeared first on Research Professional News.

Employers describe union response to final offer as “serious disappointment”

University employers have described the University and College Union’s response to their latest pay offer as a “serious disappointment”, as the union pledged to “build a campaign for industrial action” after rejecting the “unsatisfactory” offer.

The offer, which was made public on 4 July, would have given staff an annual increase of between 2.5 per cent and 5.7 per cent, with the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (Ucea) describing it as a “realistic but fair” pay offer.

However, the UCU—which is one of several higher education unions involved in the negotiations— said, via a statement from its general secretary, that at a meeting of its higher education committee on 5 July “most branches let us know that they considered the offer unsatisfactory”.

“On Friday 5 July, HEC [UCU’s Higher Education Committee] voted to reject the current offer and trigger dispute-resolution meetings in order to improve upon the offer,” Jo Grady said. 

“HEC also resolved to build a campaign for industrial action to win on all of the four fights—pay, workload, casualisation and equality.”

The statement added that it “may be possible to avoid triggering a formal trade dispute” if improvements to the offer were made. 

Ucea said in a statement that the response was “a serious disappointment for our sector as it follows three months of detailed discussions”, adding that the deal on the table was “the final offer, and the best achievable through lengthy negotiation”.

Pressure on

The disagreement means that Ucea and the trade unions will now look to meet under the terms of the New Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff Agreement dispute-resolution procedure (known as New JNCHES), which was set up in 2013 to resolve such disputes.

Ucea said a possible delay “puts real pressure on implementing a 1 August pay increase”.

Chief executive Raj Jethwa described the pay deal as its “full and final offer”.

“Despite our higher education institutions’ ever increasing financial challenges, a realistic but fair pay offer was achieved, alongside progress in many of the other important areas identified by the trade unions,” he said.

“I fear the unions’ committees are failing to grasp the opportunity presented by Ucea’s comprehensive offer…They are also preventing meaningful joint progress on pay gaps, workload and contract types, and the review of the pay spine. 

“I would remind the unions that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

Grady said: “The ball is now in the employers’ court to make further improvements. The resolution process should move quickly and we anticipate being in a position to update you further within weeks.”

The post UCU rejects pay offer and builds ‘campaign for industrial action’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Former Bank of England chief economist argues for change in approach to mature student offer

Local, civic universities should be at the heart of government plans to boost growth, but investment in adult education is needed to make it a reality, the head of the Royal Society of Arts has said.

Writing in a collection of essays published by the UPP Foundation on 10 July, Andy Haldane, a former chief economist at the Bank of England, said that following a “decline in fortunes for many UK regions, the research and innovation, income and jobs generation, and capacity and capability embedded in universities has never been more needed”.

The essays have been published in memory of Bob Kerslake, the former head of the UK civil service and chair of the UPP Foundation’s Civic University Commission, who died last year.

In Haldane’s contribution, he argued that the UK’s growth strategy should start “from the bottom-up—from local or regional strategies underpinned by local anchor institutions”.

He added: “There is no question that the UK’s universities are key to the success of this strategy.” However, he continued that the financial challenges facing the higher education sector now were “acute”, and that a “new learning infrastructure” was needed to repair the damage done to adult education provision.

Since the introduction of higher fees in England, participation in part-time learning has declined, with the number of mature students plummeting.

In another of the essays, Aveek Bhattacharya, research director at the Social Market Foundation, also called for improvements in adult education.

Adult learners had been “overlooked in terms of policy, funding and practice for decades”, he said, adding that the time was right for a “decisive shift in the way we approach them”.

“Universities have come to be identified with delivering education to young people emerging from school, readying them for the workforce,” he said. “But to achieve their civic goals, to improve people’s lives, to be more relevant to their local communities, and potentially to identify some alternative revenue sources, universities could do worse than broaden their view and offer a wider range of courses.”

The post Call for ‘decisive shift in adult education to drive growth’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Annual survey shows rising levels of positivity among UK final year undergraduates

The results of this year’s National Student Survey suggest students “are not turning on higher education” despite recent challenges, the director for fair access and participation at the Office for Students has said.

The UK-wide 2024 results show students responded slightly more positively to questions posed by the OfS about their experience at university, compared with 2023.

Across all questions relating to teaching, 85.4 per cent of students responded positively, up from 84.9 last year, and when asked about learning opportunities, 82.4 per cent responded positively compared with 81.4 last year.

‘Students value higher education’

The survey, completed by almost 346,000 final year undergraduates across the UK, includes questions on teaching, academic support, course management and student voice.

The OfS’s director for fair access and participation, John Blake, said the regulator was “not remotely blind to the difficulties that students are experiencing”, but added that there “hasn’t been a shift in NSS outcomes, which we might have seen if students were turning on higher education”.

“I think you can still see that students value higher education. They value high-quality positive experiences. And by and large, we’re seeing that continue,” he said.

This year’s respondents have experienced the disruption caused by the cost of living crisis and the fallout following the Covid pandemic during their studies—something Blake said “would have affected their overall student experience”.

Devolved picture

In changes introduced from last year, students in England are no longer asked a question rating the overall quality of their course—although it is still asked in the devolved nations.

Again, the results showed an improvement in satisfaction with 78.1 per cent of students in Scotland satisfied overall, compared to 77.1 per cent last year. In Wales, the numbers were up from 75.2 per cent to 79.8 per cent, and in Northern Ireland from 79.7 per cent to 80.2 per cent.

Students in England were asked about the extent to which they feel free to express their ideas, opinions and beliefs during their studies. Almost nine in 10 (86.4 per cent) felt positively about their freedom of expression—again up, from 85.9 per cent last year. The question is not asked in the devolved nations, and was introduced amid the introduction Westminster legislation to monitor the protection of free speech on campuses.

“Universities and colleges will want to make good use of these valuable insights from so many students as they think about improving their courses,” Blake said. 

“At the OfS, we will be using data from this survey to inform our approach to regulation, and to ensure that students’ voices continue to influence our work.”

The OfS administers the NSS on behalf of the four UK nations.

The post NSS results 2024: Students ‘not turning against higher education’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: spinout help, Nature strikes end, foreign investment warning and more

Nature strikes end

Springer Nature’s London staff have called off further planned strikes after reaching an agreement with the journal publisher, averting the threat of disruption to one of science’s leading publications. The journal’s staff, who are members of the National Union of Journalists, had been striking over a pay dispute, which has now ended with a two-year settlement. The NUJ branch had previously warned of “major disruption” to the next issue of Nature if the strike continued. The details of the new settlement have not been disclosed. But the NUJ and Springer Nature issued a joint statement last week, saying they were “pleased to have reached an agreement which ends our pay dispute through a two-year settlement and would like to pay tribute to the mutual efforts that helped us find a way forward”.  

Full story

Net zero challenge

The Confederation of British Industry has set out a five-point plan for economic growth based on environmentally sustainable policies. In a speech made before the general election, Rain Newton-Smith, chief executive of the employers’ organisation, urged the next UK government to show greater confidence in public acceptance of a green agenda. She complained that, in the run-up to the election, there had been a “deafening silence” from all the main political parties about the issues of climate change, biodiversity loss and net zero. In contrast, she said her organisation’s member companies have fully embraced the case for a new approach to an environmentally sustainable business model and have recognised the growth opportunities that it will provide. “We must join the global race for cheaper, more reliable, more efficient energy…there are huge emerging markets for new technologies,” she said.  

Full story

Economic growth focus ‘needed’

The new UK government should strengthen the country’s R&D sector and focus support on specific areas for economic growth, according to the National Centre for Universities and Business. The NCUB published its recommendations in the lead-up to the general election on 4 July. It called for innovation to be central to the next government’s long-term economic plan and highlighted risks to UK R&D leadership resulting from policy turmoil in recent years. Joe Marshall, the group’s chief executive, said: “The UK’s universities and businesses are a national asset” but “declining private investment in research, successive policy changes and acute skills challenges threaten international competitiveness, business performance and national growth”. He added: “The next government has the opportunity to address the challenges that threaten UK innovation, and create a bold and positive plan for the future.”

Full story

Universities ‘key to prosperity’

The next government must work with universities to boost local growth and prosperity, the chief executive of the Russell Group has said. Speaking as the group of research-intensive institutions published a report highlighting how universities are an asset to their local communities, chief executive Tim Bradshaw said universities are an “intrinsic part of the social and cultural fabric of their places”. “If the next government wants to follow through on promises of local growth and prosperity, it should look to the universities who are already there on the ground, re-energising communities and laying the foundations for success,” Bradshaw said. The report looks at how Russell Group member institutions are making an impact in regions across the UK, from boosting health and wellbeing to improving access to arts and culture. In 2022-23, more than eight million people attended free events and exhibitions hosted by Russell Group universities, it says.

Full story

Spinout help

Universities need “help at the other end of the pipeline” from the next government to make spinout companies successful and drive economic growth, according to University of Oxford vice-chancellor Irene Tracey, who co-authored a government-commissioned review of university spinouts published in November 2023. Ministers accepted the recommendations of the review, which included a call for additional funds to increase movement of people between academia and industry. Speaking at a Westminster Higher Education Forum event on 27 June, Tracey said that UK universities are “doing our bit pretty well” by generating new ideas through research, which can then be commercialised. She added: “Now we need whoever comes into government in the foreseeable future to think about how they can help us at their end of the pipeline, so that we can together take this country forward in growth and prosperity.”

Full story

Lab management secrets

A clear management strategy plays a critical role in producing major scientific breakthroughs, a study of the UK’s prizewinning Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge has found. The study, which was published by scientific journal Nature, analysed the Medical Research Council’s famed laboratory. The LMB lab is known as the ‘Nobel Prize factory’ for having produced a dozen Nobel Prize winners, including James Watson, Francis Crick, and Fred Sanger. Authors of the study identified the lab’s management model as key to the lab’s success. “The success of research-intensive institutions depends on more than funding and can benefit from tailored management of the culture and mission of the institution,” said Cambridge professor Antonio Vidal-Puig, a co-author of the study with Cambridge professor Chandler Velu and Luka Gebel, a PhD candidate at King’s Business School.

Full story

AI efficiency boost

Artificial intelligence technologies could massively increase the efficiency of R&D and help to stimulate economic growth, according to a study in the journal Research Policy. The paper by Neil Thompson and colleagues from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s FutureTech initiative—a multidisciplinary group examining the impact of advances in computing on society—said a key lesson from the study is that generating ideas using AI requires a greater capital investment in computing power than traditional R&D. Increasing the capital intensity of R&D then accelerates other investments, which make scientists and engineers more productive, and means that AI-augmented R&D has the potential to speed up technological change and economic growth, the authors explained.

Full story

Picture of the week

Image: Number 10 [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0], via Flickr

Graduate employment up

The graduate employment rate in England has surpassed pre-pandemic levels following three years of increases, official statistics have shown. According to Department for Education data published on 27 June, the rate was 87.7 per cent in 2023—up from 87.3 per cent the previous year, 86.6 per cent in 2021 and 86.3 per cent in 2020. In 2019, the year before the Covid outbreak, the graduate employment rate was 87.5 per cent. More than two-thirds of graduates (67 per cent) were in high-skilled employment, up 0.3 percentage points year on year. Some 78.9 per cent of graduates with a postgraduate qualification were in high-skilled roles, compared with just 23.7 per cent of people without a degree.

Full story

Postgrad payout

A UK higher education institution was ordered to pay compensation to a PhD student who was left without a supervisory team for four months after their supervisor was made redundant. A case study published by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education on 26 June shows that the student was then not satisfied that their new supervisors had sufficient expertise and asked for their former supervisor to be involved in overseeing their work. The unnamed institution rejected the concerns but accepted that there had been a delay. It offered an apology, some compensation and a refund of fees for the unsupervised months, but the student remained dissatisfied and complained to the OIA. “We partly upheld the complaint,” the OIA said. “We couldn’t comment on whether the new supervisory team had enough specific subject knowledge to supervise the student, because this decision involves academic judgment.”

Full story

The post What’s going on in the UK: 27 June to 10 July appeared first on Research Professional News.