The chemistry community is facing a real opportunity to change the provision of HE chemistry to make it more sustainable in England in the long term. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), on the advice of the recent Roberts’ report (see Educ. Chem., 2005, 42(5), 114) on strategically important and vulnerable subjects, is inviting representatives – from chemistry departments in English universities, schools and colleges, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), employers of chemists, and the relevant sector skills councils and regional development agencies – to bid for around £20–30?m for a five–eight-year period. The funding is for actions that should result in less pressure on universities to close chemistry departments. 

To access the money the community will have to come up with a well-argued, coherent plan that HEFCE will think is worth funding. To get the ball rolling, the RSC brought together a small group of eight chemists from academe and industry, in September, to sketch out some potential areas for development. A ‘town hall’ meeting, which will bring together representatives from all sectors of the community to find out what they are interested in and importantly what they are prepared to do, is expected later this month. According to Dr Tony Ashmore, registrar at the RSC, ‘The success of this bid will depend on how well as a community we pull together, working collaboratively, and complementing the experience and expertise of other major players. It’s not about HEIs competing and setting up projects in isolation. When the funding runs out, whatever we have done must be seen to have made a difference to chemistry education both now and for the long term’. 

The background 

HEFCE’s potential offer of funding is a consequence of the RSC’s ongoing Campaign for the Chemical Sciences. At the end of 2004 the Society lobbied government extensively in an attempt to halt the demise of the chemistry departments at Exeter University and Anglia Polytechnic University (APU). In response, the Secretary of State for Education (then Charles Clarke MP) asked HEFCE what could and should be done for ‘strategically important and vulnerable subjects’, of which chemistry, along with physics and engineering, was one. In turn HEFCE commissioned Sir Gareth Roberts to conduct a review and make recommendations. With no major growth envisaged for HEFCE funds in the foreseeable future, nor any recommendation to change HEFCE powers over how universities allocate such funds, together with the finding that all HE teaching is underfunded, Roberts advised HEFCE to ‘work together with subject communities’ to look for ways to make particular subjects more sustainable. The RSC–HEFCE Aimhigher initiative – Chemistry: the next generation – was cited as one potential way forward both in the Roberts’ report and in HEFCE’s response to the Secretary of State in June. 

Proposals for discussion

 The RSC group identified several areas in HE that could benefit from change, collaboration and cash, which it will take to the town hall meeting.

• Chemistry and employability. The group suggested that research into why students choose, or do not choose, to study chemistry; and what it is about chemistry graduates that makes them attractive to employers outside of chemistry could be useful to the development of future courses. Dr Paul Cullis, University of Leicester, told Education in Chemistry, ‘In addition to careers in the successful UK chemical industry, graduates from the chemical sciences go into a diverse range of careers that value the transferable skills – problem-solving, numeracy, practical skills – delivered through HE chemistry. This project will provide the opportunity to explore these needs and ensure that there is a range of provision in the sector’. 
• Strengthening interfaces. Several areas were mentioned here, including looking for ways to improve understanding of the curricula across the HE–FE–schools interfaces. This would help to ensure that students have a smooth transition between the various phases of chemical education. Cullis commented, ‘As part of the development of the Aimhigher initiative, we envisage introducing a scheme which would fund two-way secondments from schools and colleges into universities and vice versa as an efficient way of promoting understanding and cooperation between the two sectors, and I see this as a high priority for this new initiative’. ‘E-mentoring’ of 16–19-year olds by undergraduates and postgraduates was also put forward as a way of helping this pre-19 cohort realise what HE and career opportunities are available to them to inform their choices. There was also support for opening up university resources to local teachers and their students outside of the university term time, representing a more efficient use of university resource. This could be especially valuable to FE teachers since in some areas FE colleges are withdrawing their science provision. The group suggests there might be the opportunity for working with the Learning and Skills Councils in England to collaborate to ensure provision of chemistry at this level.   

More support for teachers and working with related disciplines were also put forward as potential areas of development. Professor Guy Orpen, University of Bristol, told Education in Chemistry, ‘There is an opportunity here for universities to help schools and colleges to enhance chemical education at the latter part of secondary education. The idea of allowing students and teachers to use university lab facilities when we’re not using them needs work to be brought to fruition. I think this is what this money is all about – developing new practices that make the whole of HE stronger in the long term. Strong, dynamic chemistry departments will be able to help schools and colleges deliver a dynamic and evolving chemistry programme’. However, as Ashmore, points out, ‘We will need to spend money on the interface of HE with schools and colleges, and there may be the temptation for HE to put all the money into trying to increase the number of students going through. But there is already a great deal of effort and money going into this area, and when the money dries up there will be no change to the system. This would be a missed opportunity for universities to look at their own practices and use this additional funding over a period of time to bring about the changes they want’. 

• Increasing diversity of provision. The group suggests that there is opportunity here to take further steps towards the Bologna three-cycle HE structure, by offering greater differentiation of purpose between the first and second HE cycles, ie between bachelors and masters programmes. The development of a distance learning analytical chemistry course, for example, would open up the analytical market, which is one of the largest employers of chemists, to a wider cohort of students than is currently represented by research-intensive departments. There could also be scope to develop courses with a ‘lighter’ chemistry content. This might be a three-year bachelors programme that is not primarily aimed at producing the next generation of research chemists but would focus on the skills required for employment either in a chemistry-based or non-chemistry environment. Ashmore told Education in Chemistry, ‘Such an approach would be less staff- and resource-intensive than current bachelors programmes, which could free up resources for programmes aimed at educating the next generation of professional chemists, which is resource-intensive and requires higher levels of funding. The HEFCE funding would give the chemistry community the opportunity to explore different types of courses which might require different levels of funding, and greater differentiation between first and second cycle programmes as required by the Bologna declaration’. There is also the opportunity to explore whether employers and universities could put together an attractive package at foundation level, as well as part-time provision and training for technicians, both of which were strongly supported by the industrialists of the group. 
• International competitiveness. The group agreed that there needs to be further work to ensure compatibility of UK degrees across continental Europe. The mobility of UK undergraduates and postgraduates across Europe needs to be investigated, and work also needs to be done to ensure comparability of standards at masters level.  

The proposals are about making chemistry education sustainable in England. It is an opportunity that the chemistry community – however worn it is by lack of funding, the closure of some of its best departments, and the looming research assessment exercise – cannot afford to miss. ‘Each player has different strengths and a different part to play in this initiative’, said Orpen, ‘this is an olive branch from HEFCE to help us help ourselves’. Kathryn Roberts