My last blog looked at how Chemistry - as a discipline - has failed to grow student numbers through a period of massive expansion of HE.  This blog explores how Chemistry student numbers have changed by University during this time.

I have again used HESA data for undergraduate students, but was unable to find the numbers for 2017/18 and 2018/19 (I’ve left gaps to make this omission obvious). The later data seems to classify subjects slightly differently, something which is discussed below.

The Big Picture

Broadly, the data suggests that students are increasingly attending large institutions rather than small ones. In the box plots for example, the median number of students per department rose with the post-£9k fee up to 2015-16, but then fell to its lowest value in the 2020-21 returns. At the same time, the ranges of the third and fourth quartiles have grown as those in the second quartile have shrunk.

The violin plots let us explore the same data more deeply. The 2012-13 data shows that a modest narrowing of the distribution happens at just above the median value. The ‘pinching’ of the data for subsequent years describes a bifurcation into two categories of University: big and small. The pinching is happening very specifically within the third quartile, and might have been accelerated by the admissions mess during the pandemic disruption of school leavers (it’s hard to determine whether this is true without finding the 2017-19 data).

Plotting the 2011/12 numbers against the 2020-21 numbers is instructive. Broadly, departments which were small in 2011 have become smaller while departments which were bigger have grown. Russell Group universities (in magenta) seem to dominate the third quartile growth, though other RG institutions have shrunk over the period.

This data is important to interpret in line with the key outcome from the last blog: student numbers in Chemistry have not grown over the last 10 years. For one University to grow, another must shrink. However this picture is complicated by a point about data definitions, which is explored below.

Market Entrants

The HESA data suggests at first glance that Lincoln, Cambridge, De Montfort, and King’s College London have all started chemistry degrees since 2012.

The De Montfort and Cambridge numbers have a step pattern. This is likely due to how subjects are(n’t) classified as Chemistry. De Montfort offers a Pharmaceutical and Cosmetic Science degree which is not RSC-accredited, and Cambridge offers a Natural Sciences degree which (in some streams) is. If this classification point is true, it poses a larger question about whether the apparently-stable numbers of chemistry students over the last 10 years is a reliable indicator.

King’s and Lincoln show steady growth since opening consistent with seeing the first cohort through the programme. It is hard to judge confidently, but it is possible that the curves are becoming sigmoidal, perhaps indicating a levelling of growth in the next few years. These are bona fide new degree programmes.

To see such different Universities begin offering Chemistry degrees is very cheering for the future of the discipline. To see Lincoln’s department have such success (second place) in the Guardian League table perhaps speaks to the positive dimensions of the marketised model of HE: such success for such a new degree is something which should be a really positive case study for UK Chemistry HE policy analysis.

Market Exit

I have decided not to talk about the specific departments which are struggling, but in general these are the small departments outside the Russell Group. In the absence of net growth in Chemistry applications, access to high-quality regional Chemistry degrees is increasingly threatened by the growth of Russell group Universities. This is an incredibly emotional subject, and it would be good to hear some noise from the RSC about it. It seems likely to me that many smaller Departments will close in the next ten years.

Closing small departments has substantial knock-on risks. Science-aligned school-leavers in those places might pick biological subjects because that’s all the local Uni offers now. Chemistry teachers might increasingly be Russell Group graduates who likely have much better options than the poor pay and hours offered by employment in the school system, accelerating staff turnover. There would also be massive impacts on any meaningful inclusivity agenda; caring for a relative while studying is hard to do if you are studying in your nearest Russell Group University rather than the one down the road.

Policy Decisions

There is a lot of bad news here, but the good news is very specifically the University of Lincoln. It seems important for the whole community to understand what’s going on there and reflect on how generalisable their situation is. King’s is good news, too, but the London effect seems less like a thing you could roll out nationwide.

Now that the Levelling Up white paper has been released, and given Gove’s recent favourable views on developing regional HE more systematically, there seems like a strong case to be made for considering how best to weave chemistry into regional HE. In this light, the position of Chemistry as a school subject and the constant demand for great science teachers become great policy justifications for making sure the University of Doncaster (for example) has a Chemistry course.

The main procedural lever chemistry has as a discipline is the RSC accreditation procedure, and it might be time to consider whether it should be changed from a quality assurance mechanism to something else. I wonder in particular whether accreditation might usefully explore how the degree is marketed: most of the inter-University issues here would disappear if applicant numbers grow. The marketised mechanisms of HE are something the whole community needs to openly confront if we want to secure equitable access to Chemistry degrees.