Written evidence by Royal Society of Chemistry (HEF0036)

Education committee

Higher Education and Funding: Threat of Insolvency and International Students

About Us

With around 60,000 members in 120 countries and a knowledge business that spans the globe, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) is the UK’s professional body for chemical scientists, supporting and representing our members and bringing together chemical scientists from all over the world. Our members include those working in large multinational companies and small to medium enterprises, researchers and students in universities, teachers, and regulators. We work at the heart of the chemical sciences community to create a future that is more open, more green, and more equal. 

Why we are responding

We are concerned by the precarious situation of chemistry programmes and departments in many UK universities. Higher education provides the main route into careers in the chemical sciences, and will continue to do so in years to come. Chemistry training through higher education will provide the skills to meet the needs of the growing chemical sciences sector.[1] The pressures facing universities have already led to the closure of multiple chemistry programmes and some chemistry departments. This is harming the supply of skilled chemical scientists to fill the job roles that will create growth in sectors highlighted by the Industrial Strategy (the IS-8). It is possible that the situation will continue to deteriorate with the worsening financial position of universities, and we risk the loss of more chemistry programmes or departments if institutions confront insolvency – creating “cold spots” where it is impossible to access chemistry higher education or facilities. It is critical that the government maintains some oversight of skills provision for key sectors (and the geographical distribution of these providers) rather than taking a hands-off approach to the huge national asset that is the UK’s universities.

Impact of Government Policy on International Students

Scientific research and industry are international endeavours. There are multiple benefits from “brain circulation” around the world at all levels of higher education and research as individuals move between jobs, sectors and countries. International students educated in the UK at undergraduate or postgraduate level may return home or move to third countries, taking with them a positive view of UK science and links within research that will develop into collaboration and bring benefits for both partners. Some research skills and specialisms are so niche that recruiting for them means accessing a small international talent pool. Similarly, international recruitment can fill key skills gaps in UK STEM industries including jobs such as lab and pharmaceutical technicians that are highlighted on the Immigration Salary List for discounted Skilled Worker visas.[2] For these reasons we are supportive of international students (and researchers) at all levels of UK higher education, along with the knowledge and influence benefits as they return home and British students go overseas.

It has been an accepted feature of the UK higher education landscape for some years that tuition fees from international students subsidise other loss-making activities of the university – including teaching high-cost subjects (such as chemistry) at undergraduate level. Higher Education is an important economic contributor and exporting service industry. All subjects attract international students, but the most common subjects are in business, management, and computer science fields.[3] As these are cheaper subjects to teach, this is a key source of cross-subsidy funds. Recent changes due to UK policy decisions and geopolitical situations have seen a reduction in international students’ applications, particularly to taught postgraduate courses that have recently become strong income generators for UK universities. The combination of changes to visa policies, particularly around stopping taught postgraduate students bringing dependents into the UK, economic issues in countries supplying large numbers of international students such as Nigeria, and the government rhetoric against even temporary inward migration in recent years have created the perfect storm to reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a study destination for many prospective overseas students. This has reduced international fee intake and thus the ability to prop up high-cost subjects, even where these subjects are themselves maintaining their intake of overseas students (as is the case with chemistry).[4] Some of the highest-profile universities continue to attract international students and may be able to raise their overseas fees, but many others do not have this luxury and therefore are suffering a financial shortfall. With domestic student fees remaining capped, universities are forced to save money – with the knock-on effects being a loss of choice of subjects as degree programmes are withdrawn, or degraded quality of teaching as staff and educational resources are cut.

We have heard from senior figures at UK chemistry departments that more international students are heading to high-tariff universities (such as Russell Group institutions that enjoy international reputations), while mid-ranking universities are seeing stagnation or continuing drops in international students in chemistry undergraduate courses. A senior representative of one mid-ranking research focused university told us they were now planning for the institution’s future without international student fee incomes. They had expected a levelling off to the decline in international student applications, but this has not been the case.

The knock-on effects of this reduction in international students are being seen. Many universities around the country are making cuts to their staffing through either voluntary or compulsory redundancies, even to the extent of closing departments. It is not only courses with low demand that are being cut. The University of Hull initially cut two well-subscribed MSc courses in the chemistry department before subsequently announcing the entire department’s closure. The fall in income experienced by universities is causing the loss of such courses that produce in-demand skills for the UK workforce, such as in the chemical sciences.

Domestic student tuition fees have been falling in real terms for many years due to inflation. The recent inflation-linked increase to domestic fees for the next academic year has been welcomed by universities. However, what is needed for financial security and planning is the assurance that fees will continue to rise with annual inflation rather than return to being eroded over time. This will help to ameliorate the loss of significant international student fees, while also helping banks and lenders retain confidence in universities that have accrued debt burdens. Similarly, the proposed introduction of a levy on international student fees is causing significant concern in the sector. Degrading the benefits of this income source to universities could push more into making stringent cuts such as department closures.

Higher Education Insolvency Protections

Many institutions are at a point where efficiency savings are insufficient to close the financial gaps they are facing. This leads to more significant changes to cut costs, such as reducing their diversity of course provision, or even the drastic step of merging or closing departments – particularly those that are expensive to operate, such as chemistry. This is not theoretical. We have seen instances of universities closing their chemistry departments. This has happened for a number of reasons including cost-saving.

Department closures have, to date, been planned and signposted. This has usually (but not always) involved “teaching out” a final cohort of undergraduate students as the department winds down. This has its own issues around teaching quality and resources, as academics leave the closing department and teaching staff reduce in number – we have heard of an instance where university lecturers were replaced by FE chemistry teachers as a course taught out. Questions hang over instances of a closing degree course – what are the implications for the graduates starting their career? How can they receive references and transcripts? Will employers see value in the degree equivalent to other universities?

In the instance of an unplanned market exit due to institutional insolvency, teaching out would not be possible. Students would have to either abandon their degrees or transfer to another university. This was the case when the University of Hull closed its chemistry department in 2024. Postgraduate research students can be particularly vulnerable in the case of department closure as they are on long degree courses and typically reliant on the expertise of one academic. If their supervisor is able to move to a position at another university they may have to also transfer there; if not, they will be in the difficult situation of needing a new supervisor and potentially losing their research progress thus far.

The RSC has experience of providing assistance in instances of a closure of an employer or department. Should a university suffer insolvency, there would be a huge draw on support routes available from both the public and charity sectors – with both staff and students requiring assistance to keep their careers or education on track.

The Royal Society of Chemistry Benevolent Fund provides support to RSC members globally and to students who are studying on RSC accredited undergraduate and postgraduate degree courses in the UK and Republic of Ireland experiencing hardship. Support from the benevolent fund, operating as the Chemists’ Community Fund (CCF), is available to eligible RSC members in situations such as a department closure or the closure of any other large employer. This would still be the case in a situation of institutional insolvency.

In previous instances of chemistry department closures, the CCF has been able to get information about their support to students by disseminating information through the institution department head and director. Student support typically includes providing financial assistance to students that have needed to relocate or travel further to continue their studies. However, we have found that if the department closure has been a slower, phased approach, then fewer students have reached out for or needed support. This may be because they have taken a proactive approach and had time to make their own arrangements, and once they have left their institution it is difficult for CCF to identify them and therefore reach them. We have found that it is crucial to get information about support to students as quickly as possible so we can provide support as soon as the issues arise. While these examples are for instances of planned department closures, we anticipate that if an institution were to go insolvent, we would see similar requests for support. A wider package of support for the institution for students who do not study an RSC accredited chemistry course or who are not members of the RSC would likely be needed.

Further resources are available from the RSC for members experiencing redundancy. As with the CCF, efforts are made to reach affected individuals through contacting the management of the company or department to disseminate the support available. This includes personal consultations with a career adviser, online advice on dealing with redundancy, and personalised help with finding a new job such as a mock interview, application support and signposting to advertised positions. One aspect could be to discuss options within the wider chemical sciences such as moving to an industry or consulting position, if this is appropriate. We have seen these services used in the case of chemistry department closures in recent years.

Ramifications of Institutional Insolvency and Regional Impact

We can explore the consequences of department closure as a model for what may happen in the instance of a university suffering insolvency. In this situation, the physical assets of this institution would likely still remain, with the hope of reopening or repurposing in future. However, there are consequences to going through a closure process.

Some universities in the UK have closed their chemistry departments and subsequently reopened them. From this, we can understand the costs and complexities of reviving a chemistry department, even when one has previously been part of the university. For example, Swansea University closed its chemistry department in 2004 (taking its last undergraduate intake and teaching out). The department was reopened in 2017. Costs of reopening have been estimated by an academic involved in the process at £10m. Former lab space was converted into general use, then had to be redeveloped back into laboratories, reversing changes to the fabric of the buildings that housed the laboratories. Some equipment could be repurposed by other departments, but some had to be mothballed – by the time the department reopened this was either obsolete or degraded. The cost of recommissioning would have been similar to replacement with new. Issues were experienced with the disposal of legacy chemicals and other safety issues inherent to decommissioning the labs. It was not, as described to us, a case of “close on Friday and start saving on Monday”.

Similarly, King’s College London closed its chemistry department in 2003, reopening it a decade later. With equipment and facilities being disbursed among other departments or otherwise disposed of, the reopening had to start from scratch. Any collaborations or industry partnerships happening in the old department were lost. An academic who led the reopened department described the process as happening on a “shoestring budget” – but still required £2m staff budget for a skeleton department staff of 6 early-career academics, a lab manager and a technician. The department had the good fortune to move into premises recently vacated by a pharmaceutical company; needing to build or refurbish new laboratories would have been prohibitive to the entire exercise. The department only took 13 students for the first year of its resurrected chemistry undergraduate course, though managed to grow quickly in subsequent years.

These instances show us the scale of losses when a department closes, and the effort and investment needed to regain some capabilities in future. While running a chemistry department is expensive, the largest costs are one-off in setting up the facilities and equipment – and these cannot be recovered in a closure situation. Similarly, the expertise and institutional memory is lost – making the process of restarting the department much harder without the understanding of the research infrastructure, facilities, safety requirements and administrative processes previously in place. A new department will not have the size or stature of that it replaces, meaning it can struggle to attract more senior researchers or to build links with local industry.

Loss of a university would be highly impactful on local circumstances. As well as the immediate loss of employment affecting the housing/rental markets, and the staff and student contribution to local businesses, there would be secondary impacts felt further in the future. These include reduced choice for potential students who wish to stay living locally and commute to university, and the loss of access to expertise and facilities for local R&D-active companies. The government has recognised that universities form the lynchpin of innovation activity in the UK, forming partnerships with local companies and adding to their number through spinout activity. Knowledge exchange and innovation are critical aspects of a university’s mission. In addition to impacting student choice and access, the closure of chemistry departments and courses has the potential to limit the skills that students can develop in their local area as well as impact the ability of the university to contribute to regional and local skills development, with knock-on impacts for employers of chemistry graduates in these regions.

Some of the institutions that either have already announced cuts and closures to chemistry, or are believed to be at risk of doing so, have strong track records in supporting underrepresented groups to achieve degrees. The RSC has long campaigned to improve representation and diversity in the chemical sciences, and we are concerned that these current issues could result in lost progress towards this goal. The recent announcement from the University of Bradford closing its chemistry department is a key example.[5]

We are starting to see “cold spots” where no provision of the subject is available within a reasonable travel time (see Figure 1). This issue is emerging in East Yorkshire and the Humber with the closure of the University of Hull’s chemistry department, and in North Wales with the closure of Bangor University’s department. Other potential closures, particularly of lower-entry tariff institutions, could further worsen this picture. This causes multiple problems. For students, it reduces the subject choice available to them locally – a critical factor as growing numbers choose or are forced to live at home and commute to university. For employers, it reduces the supply of skilled graduates in their local area to take entry-level positions in STEM industries and others such as teaching (with the UK already facing a shortage of specialist science teachers[6]), and their ability to access specialist expertise and equipment. It harms the development of innovation clusters and is detrimental to local economic growth.

Universities are acting to put themselves on a more sustainable financial footing. However, decision-making at institutional level may not always consider how local course closures or mergers will affect skills provision across the UK, nor the research and innovation capability and capacity at the UK-wide level in the long term. It is critical that the government maintains some system oversight and acts to ensure that chemistry research and innovation continues to benefit local economies and that chemistry education providers remain available across the UK to train our future chemistry workforce.

Figure 1 – A map indicating the provision of chemistry in higher education. 30- and 60-minute driving ranges are indicated.

[Note: This map provides a good picture of accessibility to chemistry courses, but has some limitations, notably it does not take into account other factors which impact access in any given geography such as departmental capacity in terms of courses and staff, public transport links and accessibility, and entry tariffs. The Open University is excluded from this map as it offers distance learning.]

September 2025