Universities and Administrative Bloat: Does it Matter?

There is a conversation occurring about administrative bloat in Universities. It is one of the explanations offered for why the cost of a degree has increased in excess of inflation. 

There is enormous variation in non-academic staffing in UK universities. The range is almost unimaginable and a look at some data is illuminating. 

Note about the data: The data are provided by HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) and if you wish to look for yourself follow the content links found here and scroll to Table 1 in each year. There are nearly 20 years of data :). The only data I will present today is 2013/14 (the most recent year for which data is available). For this discussion, I assume non-academic equates with administration. This may not be completely appropriate as there are other things non-academic staff do, however, I think it makes a good index. 

With that in mind, you might ask...

Q: Is there administrative bloat in the UK? 

A: Based on 2013/14 data, there certainly are instances that look that way. In the tables the lowest ratio of academic staff / non-academic staff is 0.09 (over 10 non-academics to 1 academic) for a section of the University of London (“institutes and activities”). According to HESA this consists of: University of London Institute in Paris, University Marine Biological Station Millport, and the School of Advanced Study  which is made up of: Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Institute of Classical Studies,  Institute of Commonwealth Studies,  Institute of English Studies, Institute of Germanic Studies and Romance Studies, Institute of Historical Research, Institute of Musical Research, Institute of Philosophy,  Institute for the Study of the Americas, and Warburg Institute. I’m am sure they do something useful but, nevertheless, a VC at the University of London might want to look at this in more detail.

Q: Is there an example of exceptionally low administration.

A: Again based on the 2013/14 data, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama has the highest ratio of academic/non-academic staff (8.47). This is nearly double the next best (4.44) found at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. 

This range was a surprise. The range of non-academic support to academic ranges over nearly 2 orders of magnitude between highest and lowest. Surely there is a conversation needed. Why do some institutions need so much non-academic staff and others so little? 

 

Q: What is typical?

A: Most institutions of higher education have more non-academic than academic staff. A histogram of the ratio is below. It is a pretty good log normal distribution centred near 1. The median value is 0.92 (more non-academics than academics) and the average 1.06.

Q: What do the best universities look like?

 

A: The top 10 ranked universities (as ranked by the Guardian) are Cambridge (1.14), Oxford (1.19), St. Andrews (0.89), Surrey (0.96), Bath (0.71), Durham (0.60), Warwick (0.63), Imperial (1.14), Exeter (0.72), and Lancaster (1.07).

The top 10 UK universities as ranked by QS are: Cambridge (1.14), Imperial (1.14), Oxford (1.19), University College London (1.46), Kings College London (1.61), Edinburgh (0.78), Bristol (0.92), Manchester (0.94), Glasgow (0.86), and Warwick (0.63). 

Conclusion: There is extreme variation in the amount of academic to non-academic staff in the UK. It does beg the question: How should Universities be staffed to perform best?

A league table is below which sorts the institutions from highest to lowest ratio. My personal opinion is that too much non-academic staff represent opportunities lost or excess fess being charged. Based on the data there is not really strong evidence that non-academic staff are either helpful or destructive.

	HE provider	Academic/non-academic Staff
1	Guildhall School of Music and Drama	8.47
2	Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine†	4.44
3	Royal Academy of Music	2.52
4	The Arts University Bournemouth	2.44
5	Royal College of Music	2.38
6	Ravensbourne	2.13
7	University of the Arts, London	2.07
8	Royal Northern College of Music	2.06
9	Birkbeck College	1.99
10	Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance	1.94
11	The School of Oriental and African Studies	1.89
12	The Open University	1.81
13	Heythrop College	1.70
14	The Institute of Cancer Research	1.69
15	The City University	1.64
16	King's College London	1.61
17	Royal Conservatoire of Scotland	1.61
18	London South Bank University	1.60
19	Rose Bruford College	1.55
20	London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine	1.53
21	Leeds College of Art	1.52
22	University of Ulster	1.52
23	The University of Sussex	1.46
24	University College London	1.46
25	The University of Westminster	1.44
26	The University of West London	1.36
27	The University of Northampton	1.33
28	Norwich University of the Arts	1.33
29	The University of Lincoln	1.32
30	The University of Chichester	1.29
31	Bath Spa University	1.27
32	The University of Winchester	1.26
33	The Manchester Metropolitan University	1.21
34	Goldsmiths College	1.21
35	The University of Oxford	1.19
36	Buckinghamshire New University	1.19
37	Middlesex University	1.17
38	University of Hertfordshire	1.16
39	The University of East Anglia	1.16
40	Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine	1.14
41	Kingston University	1.14
42	The University of Cambridge	1.14
43	University of South Wales†	1.14
44	Queen Mary University of London	1.13
45	Southampton Solent University	1.13
46	The University of East London	1.11
47	The University of Salford	1.10
48	Brunel University London†	1.10
49	St Mary's University, Twickenham†	1.09
50	The University of Bolton	1.09
51	University of Bedfordshire	1.08
52	The University of Central Lancashire	1.08
53	Cardiff University	1.07
54	The University of Lancaster	1.07
55	Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh	1.07
56	London School of Economics and Political Science	1.07
57	Birmingham City University	1.06
58	The University of Greenwich	1.06
59	The University of Brighton	1.06
60	St George's Hospital Medical School	1.05
61	Total Northern Ireland	1.04
62	The University of Stirling	1.02
63	University College Birmingham	1.02
64	Edge Hill University	1.02
65	Glyndŵr University	1.01
66	Staffordshire University	1.01
67	Liverpool John Moores University	0.98
68	University of Gloucestershire	0.98
69	Newman University	0.97
70	The University of Essex	0.96
71	The University of Surrey	0.96
72	Oxford Brookes University	0.95
73	The University of Southampton	0.95
74	Edinburgh Napier University	0.94
75	The University of Liverpool†	0.94
76	The University of Manchester	0.94
77	The University of Dundee	0.94
78	University for the Creative Arts	0.93
79	Bournemouth University	0.93
80	University of Wales Trinity Saint David	0.93
81	The Robert Gordon University	0.92
82	London Metropolitan University	0.92
83	The University of Bristol	0.92
84	Conservatoire for Dance and Drama	0.92
85	De Montfort University	0.92
86	Roehampton University	0.91
87	Glasgow Caledonian University	0.90
88	The University of Aberdeen	0.90
89	Sheffield Hallam University	0.89
90	The University of St Andrews	0.89
91	University of Derby	0.88
92	Cardiff Metropolitan University	0.88
93	Leeds Beckett University†	0.88
94	The University of Glasgow	0.86
95	University of the West of England, Bristol	0.86
96	University of Nottingham†	0.85
97	The University of Kent	0.85
98	Coventry University	0.85
99	University of Northumbria at Newcastle†	0.85
100	The Nottingham Trent University	0.84
101	Swansea University	0.84
102	The Queen's University of Belfast	0.84
103	Bangor University	0.83
104	The University of Sheffield	0.83
105	University Campus Suffolk	0.83
106	Central School of Speech and Drama	0.82
107	The University of Leicester	0.82
108	The University of Birmingham	0.81
109	The University of Reading	0.81
110	University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne†	0.81
111	The University of Leeds	0.80
112	University of Plymouth†	0.79
113	The University of York	0.79
114	The University of Edinburgh	0.78
115	Loughborough University	0.78
116	Royal College of Art	0.78
117	The University of Hull	0.77
118	Heriot-Watt University	0.75
119	Royal Holloway and Bedford New College	0.74
120	Glasgow School of Art	0.74
121	The University of Portsmouth	0.73
122	The University of Exeter	0.72
123	Canterbury Christ Church University	0.72
124	Institute of Education	0.72
125	The University of Strathclyde	0.72
126	The University of Bath	0.71
127	The University of Keele	0.71
128	The Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts	0.71
129	Anglia Ruskin University	0.70
130	The University of Sunderland	0.70
131	Liverpool Hope University	0.70
132	The University of the West of Scotland	0.69
133	The University of Huddersfield†	0.69
134	St Mary's University College	0.68
135	Cranfield University	0.68
136	York St John University	0.67
137	Falmouth University	0.67
138	Aston University	0.66
139	Aberystwyth University	0.66
140	Teesside University	0.64
141	Bishop Grosseteste University	0.64
142	The University of Warwick	0.63
143	University of Worcester†	0.61
144	University of Abertay Dundee	0.61
145	The University of Wales (central functions)	0.60
146	University of Durham	0.60
147	University of Cumbria	0.57
148	The University of Buckingham	0.57
149	The University of Wolverhampton	0.55
150	University of Chester	0.55
151	Leeds Trinity University	0.54
152	The University of Bradford	0.52
153	Writtle College	0.49
154	The Royal Veterinary College	0.48
155	Courtauld Institute of Art	0.44
156	University of St Mark and St John	0.44
157	Stranmillis University College	0.44
158	Harper Adams University	0.38
159	SRUC	0.37
160	Royal Agricultural University	0.30
161	University of the Highlands and Islands	0.18
162	London Business School	0.17
163	University of London (Institutes and activities)	0.09
	† See relevant HE provider note.

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.

The countdown to the extinction of Engineering and Physical Sciences in the UK: 5 years left

There has been a sea change in the funding of engineering and physical sciences during my time in the UK. My perception of this change is that the community is less vibrant and it was only recently that I realised this perception has roots outside my local experience. This change is not specific to a particular University. It is large scale policy at work. 

During the 2005/6 year (the one I began work in the UK), the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) entertained 5138 proposals and funded 1477. By 2013/14 this had changed to 1918 proposals accepted and only 620 funded. This is an enormous drop. The number of awards and proposals were roughly 40% of what they were a decade before. 

In case there is confusion, consider the graph below.

This figure shows the number of proposals awarded in a particular year and if the trend continues, EPSRC will cease to fund proposals in about five years.

Let’s be clear about some things. This seems to be a bipartisan problem. It is unclear when the rot started, but it existed under Labour and continues under the Tory/Lib Dem coalition. 

What is driving this? EPSRC policy and a stagnation in total awarded funds. 

How does this work?

EPSRC adopted a policy that actively discourages submission of proposals by scientists whose proposals are unsuccessful. There is some merit in the concept. A proposal consisting of old and tired ideas just makes additional work in review and having it repeatedly submitted helps no one. On the other hand, many rejected proposals are not like this. Many are good ideas that a not funded due to lack of funds not because the ideas are no good. 

ESPRC has also tended to favour bigger awards – and make fewer of them. The figure below shows how this has played out over the last decade.

From this it is clear that where a typical award in 2004 might have been £250k, now it is closer to £650k. This is policy at work, not inflation.

In an environment where funding appears stagnant (£401M in 2004/5 and £366M in 2013/14) this all combines to mean that fewer ideas are being put forward and fewer submitted proposals are being funded.

The bottom line is that in 2013/14 the UK had 857 fewer fundable ideas than it did roughly a decade earlier. Where have those ideas gone?

Sack the REF

Tonight at midnight the results of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) will be released. In the lead up to REF, there have been a number of articles dealing with the REF:  whether it is fit for purpose, linking it peripherally to a culture of bullying in UKHE, and suggestions of whether its methods are sound.

The reality is worse than that and as a starting point it is worth looking at this earlier post. Nothing has appeared to change a mind since that was written. Today there are three points: 

The REF is a poor way to fund science.

The REF and science funding can yield tragic results.

The REF is the result of bad leadership in universities. 

One at a time. 

1) The REF gives money to organisations. Its use comes with limited restrictions. This has good and bad points.  For example, I was part of a REF unit that had some success in 2008. The money that followed that result came into the university and it was under no obligation to deliver that to me or any of the other members of the unit of assessment. This is good because it allows the money to be used strategically by the organisation. It is bad because it is really unlinked to the people or grouping that “earned” it. To use a previous analogy, if Roofing companies were funded by the public purse the way Universities are by the REF, a company with some excellence would have cash pumped into it and they do not have to make roofs with it. They could, for instance, use it to pay for people to write the next round of paperwork submitted to the REF. A taxpayer might look at that process cynically and ask, “roofs or paperwork?” I pay taxes, I know what I think. 

Rather, great research comes from great ideas and investment should follow those great ideas not the past history of a research organisation.

2) REF and the science funding regime in the UK can yield tragic results. I recently learned of the tragic case of Stefan Grimm. There are articles related to his suicide here and here and here. His case resonated because he is not so different from me. He was my age. Like me, he was a product of the Max Planck system. His research record is somewhat better than mine in terms of total citations but a similar h-index. In another place or time, I could have been facing similar pressure.

As another example, the University of Warwick has attracted the attention of UCU due to its plans to make staff redundant for not generating enough research income (not averaging over £90K/yr).

What is going on here? Yes, there is criticism due for the managers at specific organisations. Mostly they live in a rarefied world where their productivity (what they can nurture) is never questioned. For example, there is something to be said for asking the question of why a Professor (or Reader or Lecturer) is not submitted to the REF. But equally, where is the pressure on the upper parts of the food chain to create an environment nurturing the staff expected to produce those results. Are they hiring the right people? Are they not committed to the people they have hired long term for the ideas they generate? And so forth. Yes criticising the individual organisations is fair, but this is twigs and branches. There a forest.

Consider the following key figures provided by EPSRC (I am grateful for the transparency at EPSRC for making this data available). In 2005/6, EPSRC received 5138 grant proposals, funded 1477, and awarded £466 Million. In 2013/14, EPSRC received 1918 proposals, funded 620, and awarded £366 Million. This change comes with a staggering impact. There has been a drop of £100 million in the annual award and the number of awards has dropped by nearly 60%.  The system has changed so proposers are more cautious resulting in 62% fewer proposals. Further there is a trend to large centres and it is unclear how credit for such a centre gets dispersed. But in the climate left behind by this change, the managers at many institutions are beating starving horses. Times have changed and there are a lot of well fed bean counters. That is the forest and failure to recognise the problem and provide leadership will only produce more of these kinds of tragedies. 

Having lived through this change, I can feel it. The atmosphere was more vibrant and there was greater optimism a decade ago. The REF just reinforces this. While a unit of assessment leads to the generation of the income, the income goes to the organisation who use it as they see fit.

3) All of this leads to leadership or lack thereof. When I talk to colleagues few think the REF is a good thing. Few are aware of the impact of the revolutionary change to funding. Few discuss the process of nurturing and supporting staff. Few think the review process in REF is either efficient or particularly edifying. But all seem scared to speak. When I hear news of the great UK Universities it is things like Oxford may be allowed to charge more money (£16k/yr). Well done for them. They are not saying dispense with REF and move the money to research councils. They are not saying it should be distributed it into a large number of small grants (say £120k over 3-4 years) run competitively. Mostly they are saying nothing anyone needs to hear. 

When I listen to colleagues I hear unease and I hear admiration for Germany. Germany did away with fees but that is a topic for another day. Meanwhile in the UK, leadership and vision are often invoked but sadly lacking.

Note: I am grateful to a colleague who pointed out the issues relating to the RC councils. Fewer funded projects, larger grants and less money. I had missed this.