The Science Minister, David Willetts MP, yesterday set out the Government’s plans to leverage funding from businesses and industry to support the establishment of new graduate university institutions in England. Mr Willetts, speaking at the think tank Policy Exchange, made it clear that there will be no funding from Government to support these bodies but that ‘private finance and perhaps sponsorship’ will be sought. The Minister invited applications for the opportunity to establish these institutions.

The Minister also outlined plans to increase the number of institutions in England appearing in the top 100 university rankings and plans to increase non-governmental funding to universities by 10%.

Original article by Sean Coughlan: BBC News, 4 January 2012

Agreements to improve access of poorer students into higher education have been approved by the Office for Fair Access (Offa). This means that 47 out of 123 institutions will charge the maximum amount of £9,000 a year from September 2012 across all courses. Over one third of English universities will be charging the full amount during 2012 as will 8 out of 10 universities in Wales.

However, due to waiver discounts and support for poorer students ‘fewer than half’ of students will pay the full fee say Offa. The average fee will now be £8,393 a year, dropping to £8,161 when waivers are included. All institutions wishing to charge fees above £6,000 have been made to sign an ‘access agreement’ by Offa which sets goals to improve access to less affluent students.

A full list of university fees is available online here.

The Royal Academy of Engineering today hosted this months PolicyNet discussion entitled ‘Can science and engineering set the standard for social mobility in the professions?’ The event comes after the release of the Higher Education White Paper last week, and brought together a number of professionals from various disciplinary backgrounds. Panelists Philip Greenish, CEO of the Academy and Dr Rhys Morgan, Head of Secretariat, Education for Engineering discussed the question with Dr William Haydock, Lead Researcher on Widening Participation and Access at the Russell Group before opening to questions from the floor.

Talks began by highlighting the 2010 ‘Unleashing Aspirations’ Government report which produced a number of actions to address the issues facing social mobility in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects. Following this in April 2011, Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg published ‘Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers: A Strategy for Social Mobility’. The 2011 report focused on the ‘its not what you know its who you know’ concept, arguing that individuals from a more affluent background often gain advantage over other equally deserving candidates due to the career assistance they receive from professionals they already know. The concept was contested by Prime Minister David Cameron who argued that such practice was almost impossible to prevent even with future changes to legislation.

The fact however remains, that in today’s society those that are privately educated are more likely to study STEM subjects, achieve higher A-Level grades, be accepted into Russell Group universities and go onto pursue careers in STEM fields. To address the issue and ensure social mobility for students from less affluent backgrounds, it was suggested that students should be given career advice and encouraged to take up STEM subjects from an early stage – something which the Higher Education White Paper failed to address. It was also suggested that there needed to be a greater number of foundation and entry level courses available to young people who had perhaps failed to obtain the required grades, or complete A-Levels in the right subjects for their chosen higher education course. The need to ensure a positive and encouraging staff attitude towards higher education for all students and incorporate parents into a strategy that considered applicants backgrounds in relation to their grades was additionally discussed.

From today’s talks it is clear that there is still a lot of work to be done when it comes to improving social mobility, and that some of the core barriers to this are out of the control of scientists and associated professionals. There however remain many issues that the sector is able to influence and will endeavor to do so by making recommendations in the Higher Education White Paper response consultation which closes in September 2011.

Dr Deborah Harvey has been invited to deliver the prestigious Charles Lyell Award Lecture at this year’s British Science Festival. Organised by the British Science Association, the British Science Festival is the largest event of its kind in Europe. This year the Festival takes place in Bradford from 10th – 15th September.

Dr Harvey, from Royal Holloway University of London, was nominated for the award by the BES for her work on stag beetles, Lucanus servus, one of the UK’s rarest but most spectacular insects. Dr Harvey has developed a novel means of monitoring the beetle, by using ginger. Finding a cheap and ubiquitous bait for beetle traps, like ginger, is important because most monitoring is done by dedicated but unfunded amateur beetle hunters. The BES featured Dr Harvey’s work in a press release earlier this year.

Using live and mounted specimens, Dr Harvey will use this year’s Charles Lyell Award lecture to give a fascinating insight into the secret world of stag beetles – which have more in common with stags than just their horns – its ecology, the challenges it faces, how people can get involved in its conservation and how her work can help understand other species that live on dead wood.

The British Science Festival’s Award Lectures offer a rare opportunity to honour five professional scientists or engineers in the early stages of their career, who show outstanding skills in communication to a non-specialist audience. The Award Lectures aim to promote open and informed discussion on issues involving science and actively encourage young scientists to explore the social aspects of their research.

Last week the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) released the results of an investigation into public attitudes and knowledge relating to biodiversity and the natural environment.

The results of the study reflect the answers given by 1,769 people who participated in face-to-face interviews in England during March 2011, and similar surveys conducted between the 2007-2011 period.

Questionnaire results revealed the following key points:

• In 2011 92% of respondents said it was fairly or very important for them to have public gardens, parks, commons or other green spaces nearby.
• 56% of respondents said they used public gardens parks, commons or other green spaces at least once a week.
• 48% of respondents reported knowing at least a little about biodiversity; a slight increase from 44 per cent in 2009.
• 78% of respondents when prompted agreed that they “worry about changes to the countryside in the UK and loss of native animals and plants”.
• 13% of respondents had volunteered with, given time to or taken part in conservation volunteering for an organisation or community group in the previous 12 months.

In terms of environmental knowledge, when people were questioned specifically on how much, they knew about ‘climate change’, ‘ecosystem services’, and ‘biodiversity’ 44% reported knowing a lot or a fair amount about climate change. Yet, 31% of respondents said they had never heard of the term ‘biodiversity’, and 28% of respondents said they had never heard of the term ‘ecosystem services’.

The release, despite indicating progress towards increased environmental awareness among members of the public, shows that there is still room for improvement of environmental education, particularly in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Education Policy Lunchbox this afternoon hosted Pam Tatlow, Chief Exectutive of ‘Million+‘, a university think tank. During a wide-ranging discussion, Pam outlined the recent activities of Million+ and touched upon the challenges which lie ahead for higher education into the future. Million+ is concerned particularly with the ‘post-1992′ group of universities, often called ‘new’ or ‘modern’ universities (former polytechnics which were granted university status at this time).

The most interesting aspect of discussion concerned undergraduate tuition fees. Figures outlined by Pam, from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (established by the Government), show that under Government plans to raise tuition fees from the 2012/13 academic year, Government will need to borrow £13 billion more by 2015/16 than it does at present in order to fund universities and students. At present, 15% of students will have their loans written off after 25 years (under the post-2006 student loans system) – the maximum amount of time available to pay the loans, after which they are cancelled by the state. This is projected to cost taxpayers 27p in the pound in the future. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has estimated the average charge for university courses as £7,500 from 2012/13. Taking this figure, Million+ estimates that 35% of graduates will not repay their loans after 30 years (under the new system students have longer to pay this back). This will cost the taxpayer 31p in the pound. If modelling is based on fees being charged at the maximum rate of £9,000 per annum, Million+ estimate that 55% of students will not repay their loans after 30 years, costing taxpayers 41p in every pound into the future.

Million+ produced a document in late 2010, modelling whether a graduate tax would work as a means to fund higher education, and considering whether such a tax would be more or less ‘progressive’ than the Government’s plans to raise the cap on tuition fees to a maximum of £9,000. The think tank found that a graduate tax of 2% on graduate earnings over £15,000, for a period of 20-25 years would be sufficient to fund universities at a sustainable level. Pam Tatlow was of the view that this tax was more progressive, as the more students earned, the more they would pay, reflecting the true market-value of their qualification, not what a university deems it is worth and can charge to cover their own costs.

The Government is due to release a Higher Education White Paper in late February or early-March, which will make clearer the motivation behind the increase in fees – given that analysis suggests that this model will in fact cost the Treasury more than alternative proposals. Pam suggested that market-creation, opening up higher education to private providers, could be a major impetus, as was increasing students’ control of their own education, as consumers, and that further information could be provided within the Paper. The British Ecological Society will be responding to this when released.

Education Policy Lunchbox is a series of monthly seminars organised by the British Ecological Society, the Biochemical Society and the Society for Experimental Biology. The network was created as a spin-off from Policy Lunchbox, a BES – Biochemical Society partnership which focuses on issues in science policy.

Following the Chancellor’s budget announcements last week, David Willets, Minister of State for Science and Innovation, has taken part in a Radio 4 live debate about the effects of the spending review on the research budget. He was joined on the programme by an expert panel, including Dr Mark Downs, Chief Executive of the Society of Biology and Sir Martin Taylor, author of the Royal Society report ‘The Scientific Century’.

After praising the scientific community for “bringing together such powerful evidence” on the benefits of research for both economic gains and social well-being, Mr Willets re-iterated the government’s commitment to a “protected cash budget for science and research, in real terms, over the next 4 years”. However, he stressed that this would be allocated specifically to higher education institutions, funding councils, academies and learned societies.

Dr Downs, of the Society for Biology, expressed a “deep sense of relief and gratitude” following the ring-fencing of £4.6 billion per year of funding for science. He added that the essential role of science for our economic recovery’ had been formally recognized by the government, suggesting that it had wisely acted upon strong advice presented by the scientific community and via the Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor John Beddington.

Sir Martin Taylor questioned 25% reduction in Higher Education funding from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, suggesting it could jeopardize the ability of Scientists to plan long-term research projects. This would go against a key recommendation of the Royal Society, that ‘ambitious’ projects’ should be supported to secure the future of innovation in the UK.

During the programme, the panelists also discussed a reported pledge of up to £1billion towards a commercial Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Demonstration project in the North Sea. Speaking on behalf of the research team, Professor Stuart Haszeldine of Edinburgh University claimed that the UK would potentially achieve a “World’s first” building of a commercial CCS plant, upon completion of the project in early 2011.

The full ‘Material World’ programme is available for listening on BBC iplayer, and will be broadcast again tonight at 9pm on Radio 4.

The eagerly awaited Browne Review – ‘an independent review on higher education funding and student finance’ – was released this morning. Browne’s boldest proposal suggests that the current tuition fee ‘cap’ should be lifted, with universities allowed to charge up to £12,000 per year for a degree course. Although, universities charging more than £6,000 per year would lose a proportion of this fee to offset the cost of government lending on student loans, which is also set to rise. Lord Browne assured that students would still not be expected to pay upfront fees and that the current student loan repayment threshold of ‘earnings of over £15,000 per year’ would be raised to £21,000 per year. However, the interest rate on borrowing for student loans could increase up to 2.2% -plus inflation- under these proposals, which some worry will leave ‘middle-income’ families worst affected. Under this new system, the poorest students would recieve an additional £3,250 of loans.

The review could stir up tensions in the new government, with coalition backbenchers likely to rebel against the ‘direct reversal’ of personal pledges made by several Liberal Democrat MPs during the election. The National Union of Students has been quick to respond to this morning’s announcements, with NUS president Aaron Porter commenting that “”If adopted, Lord Browne’s review would hand universities a blank cheque and force the next generation to pick up the tab for devastating cuts to higher education. The only thing students and their families would stand to gain from higher fees would be higher debts.”

Other proposals in the review include the merging of higher education funding bodies and watchdogs into a single “Higher Education Council” and calls for a 10% increase in the number of places on university courses over 3 years. Degree quality could also improve, as Browne suggests that university lecturers should be required to hold teaching qualifications.

Today’s meeting of the BES Education Policy Lunchbox focused on issues arising from expected changes to the current university fees regime. Bahram Bekhradnia, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) provided an overview of the likely consequences of proposals to cut university funding, in anticipation of the release of the Browne Report. The Higher Education Policy Institute is the UK’s only independent think tank devoted exclusively to higher education. HEPI provides robust and objective policy analysis and advice across a whole range of higher education issues. Its mission is to improve higher education in the UK by creating a better informed policy environment – informed by research and analysis, as well as drawing on experiences from other countries.

The speaker suggested that HEFCE funding for research and laboratory work would remain a high priority for government expenditure, with the bulk of cuts aimed at the teaching sector. He also speculated that other proposals could include the introduction of an interest rate on payments for government-funded student loans. Questions were then raised in reference to earlier claims that the current cap on tuition fees charged by universities could be lifted completely. It was considered that in this case, many UK universities would face inevitable declines in home and overseas student recruitment rates, as the quality of teaching and the overall student experience would be compromised.

Finally it was noted that the scale of the expected cuts is likely to have an ‘unprecedented’ effect on higher education participation, in comparison to the highly publicised increases in tuition fees more recently. Whilst recent reviews by HEPI show that higher education participation, particularly by students of the most disadvantaged social classes and have been improving rapidly, these proposals are likely to jeopardize this trend. Full details of the proposals to the government on higher education funding will be available when the Browne Report is released this Tuesday (11th October).

The BES Policy Team this afternoon attended a meeting of Education Policy Lunchbox, a new network for those working in education policy which has arisen from the successful Policy Lunchbox series of meetings. Policy Lunchbox and Education Policy Lunchbox are organised by the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society.

Hannah Baker, Education Policy Team at the Wellcome Trust, delivered a presentation on ‘Science Education for the Future’, the topic of a new report being prepared by the Trust and due out in June. The report will take a holistic view across the science education sector, to age 19, examining the curriculum, qualifications, assessment, continuing professional development and teacher training, amongst other matters. Attendees, from a variety of organisations across the education sector, were invited to provide comments and feedback on initial plans; full consultation with stakeholders will take place after the report is launched.

Questions raised in discussion covered how the sector could define what a scientifically literate population would comprise; educating young people to understand not only scientific concepts but to see science as a cultural activity and to understand how science works; and a possible tension between engendering scientific literacy and teaching the scientists and engineers of the future. A main issue for the Wellcome Trust, Hannah suggested, was whether students pursuing current educational routes were emerging with the right skills, demanded by employers. Are the routes through a science education at present what society ideally needs or should there be amendments to these?

The Wellcome Trust is also interested in improving science education research: What are the priorities for science education research in the short and medium term? How can we gain a stronger evidence base than currently, building on this to improve science education? These and other questions around improving the interface between science education research, policy and practice will be explored in the final report.

One very interesting point to emerge from discussion concerned the Wellcome Monitor, the results of the third round of which were published last week. This longitudinal study aims to analyse changing public attitudes to science and is published every three years. The most recent results imply that the notion that students find school science ‘boring’ is outdated; in fact, young people are interested and engaged with school science. Attendees expressed suprise at the findings, but colleagues from the Wellcome Trust attested to the reliability of the data on which the findings are based, with the Trust checking and re-checking the robustness of the methods and analysis. This positive message concluded an interesting and wide-ranging session.

The next Education Policy Lunchbox will be held on 20th April. More information is available from the Biochemical Society’s website.