Gaining a place at the Table: Inequality and Inequality

In Alice in Wonderland, Alice came late to a mad tea party. Having arrived late, she always ended up with the used cups as the earlier guests moved from chair to chair. The mad tea party is a useful vantage point to consider inequality within UK Universities as a group. It is a nuanced problem without obvious answers.

There are two types of inequality to consider. There is one type of inequality that for whatever reason means there is no place at the table for some. There is another type related to the fact that UK universities are truly not all the same. There is a point to be made about each.

Background: A few months ago I had the opportunity to return as a delegate to a meeting of the Heads of Chemistry UK. Once I went as a regular member, but this time I went as another’s proxy. The purpose of the meeting was to allow members of the chemistry REF2014 panel to report general findings and provide feedback to the chemistry community. 

To my eyes there were two unavoidable issues:

1)      The meeting had around 60 people (however, not all represented chemistry departments), however, there were only 37 REF submissions in chemistry. For whatever reason many chemistry departments had no place at the chemistry REF2014 table.

To put this in perspective, the Complete University Guide lists 56 Universities in the UK offering chemistry programmes. There are also Universities offering programmes related to or aligned to chemistry (e.g.: materials (23) and chemical engineering (26) ) and still more deeply dependent on chemistry (e.g.: pharmacy and pharmacology (38), medical technology (30), bioscience (99), and forensic science (?)).

This means that out of a core chemistry community of 56, a third had no place at the chemistry REF table. In the wider chemistry related community, none choose to sit with the chemists. This is not the case with other subject areas.

2)      In those 37 REF submissions there were only 2 “new” universities. I dislike the “new” university moniker while also feeling great pride at being part of one (more another day). I dislike the name because nearly a quarter century after their creation, here we are. Where is here? A table where a third have no place (most of them new universities). What was the fate of those two?  They ranked 35^th and 37^th.  

There is an issue here and it looks like inequality. 

What about the other sort of inequality? There is no new university that is the equal of Cambridge – this is obvious. We should aspire to be AND that should be believable. The fact that after so many years we are still here looks like a large scale policy problem that is probably unsolvable at the individual University level. So that’s inequality.

So some of this is true variation. There are some very good universities in the UK. The competition is high and not all are the equals of the very best. Some of this is policy reinforcing a stagnant system. In almost a quarter century there hasn't been a lot of movement. Some of it is careful decisions not to sit at the table. Some of it is mechanisms outside the scope of universities to deal with. And, yes, I think some of it is just being late to the party. 

To finish, I want to praise the two new universities with Chemistry REF2014 submissions. They are the University of Greenwich and the University of Huddersfield. I think these two are leaders. I think these two are showing what has to be done. I think, whatever the REF panel thought, these are Universities with a fantastic environment and future. Those who led those submissions must have nerves of steel. Many who read this will not understand the risk they took. I know the calculations all too well. Respect. Keep sitting at the table. Not all are your equals. I hope your management understands that.

The rest need to remember the saying: you can run with the big dogs or you can sit on the porch and bark. You have got to at least bark.