Written Evidence Submitted by the University of Cambridge

(DIV0041)

We thank the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee for their open invitation for written submissions on the subject of Diversity in STEM, dated 22 November 2021. I respond as the manager responsible for Widening Participation at postgraduate level at the University of Cambridge. Our reasons for making a submission are to share with Inquiry stakeholders a number of insights regarding pipeline blockages in STEM careers uncovered through Cambridge’s dedicated focus on postgraduate Widening Participation, and to invite consideration by the Inquiry of one potential path for collaborative exploration by UK Government, Research Councils, and universities.

We note the roots of the Inquiry’s focus in reports that set out a complex picture of representation within employment in STEM, and some evidence of more recent change; but with an overarching message of slower progression and lower levels of seniority overall for women, individuals from certain minority ethnic groups, and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

We can see the same broad patterns of underrepresentation in our own Admissions pipeline into postgraduate study at Cambridge, although recent improvements in our offer rates to underrepresented groups through greater awareness of different cognitive biases have begun to mitigate the historical extent of the problem. Nonetheless, in 2019-20, for Home students, our patterns of representation are broadly consistent with those observed more widely in the sector. Women were still particularly underrepresented in Technology and Physical Sciences at postgraduate level in Cambridge, linked directly to notably small applicant pools in these two discipline areas. Black British, British Bangladeshi, and British Pakistani students were underrepresented in all major STEM disciplines, with evidence of an important intersectionality with non-research-intensive undergraduate pathways. At doctoral level, First Generation students (that is, students whose parents or immediate caregivers did not attend university) were less likely than their non-First Generation peers to be offered a place.

Cambridge is investing very actively in taking steps to unblock the pipeline for underrepresented groups at the point of Admissions through a series of programmes to improve access, including two new flagship collaborations supported by the OfS and Research England as part of their 13 new projects to improve Black, Asian and minority ethnic students' access to postgraduate research. The first of these, in partnership with UCL, addresses the so-called ‘research gap’ that disadvantages students approaching PG study via a non-research-intensive pathway, through a pan-Institution undergraduate research internships programme. The second, with Oxford, addresses certain historically evident confirmation biases in applicant selection seen across the research-intensive sector in the UK through the development of innovative, inclusive, benefits-led admissions systems and practices. In addition, in line with the University’s new student lifecycle-led education management framework, we are seeking to develop a number of participation projects in postgraduate Widening Participation designed to radically improve progression opportunities and continuation from Master’s study into doctoral research for those from underrepresented groups, then linking up with our Postdoctoral Academy colleagues, to support early career progression.

However, whilst we have identified much that we can do to unlock fair progression into STEM careers both at individual institution level and as an increasingly unified postgraduate sector (through targeted working groups such as those convened by NEON and the Russell Group, for example), we can also see that a number of brakes on progression for those from certain underrepresented groups are set in place well before entry into Higher Education. Our analysis of the pipeline to date suggests that one of the key elements for consistent, sustainable, and nationally egalitarian delivery of an optimally inclusive UK cohort of senior scientists, researchers, and academics in STEM lies some way beyond the reach of universities: that is, exposure and access to so-called ‘research thinking’ from a young age.

Our postgraduate admissions pipeline data suggests that pathways into doctoral study in particular are disproportionately dependent on prior attendance at a research-intensive university at undergraduate level. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that many students from underrepresented groups choose to attend their local university rather than the most competitive university their grades would allow them to access. This is a phenomenon sometimes termed ‘undermatching’, first defined in the US, and more recently explored in the UK in a UCL/Nuffield Foundation report. Whilst there is a clear requirement for further research into this phenomenon in the UK, at Cambridge we are beginning to explore hypotheses that such students are less likely to have been subject to informed parental interventions (there is a substantial intersection with First Generation students); to have been consciously or unconsciously steered away from academia as a career in some cases, perhaps for financial reasons, perceived status, or perceptions of ‘fit’; and/or to have been at schools without access to the so-called ‘hidden curriculum’ capital and connections that is more likely to direct students to higher tariff, often research-intensive, institutions. Our current suggestion is that all of this contributes to a perception of research as an elitist career. Entrenched access pathways and resultant ersatz research cultures have contributed to this and we are strongly committed to addressing this at institution level. But we also invite the Inquiry to consider whether there is an opportunity to influence STEM pathways at a much earlier stage in the young learner lifecycle.

We would invite the Inquiry to consider whether there is a link between research aptitude and childhood curiosity; that is, whether a disposition towards curiosity, or intrinsic motivation, is a truer driver of research aptitude than educational privilege. If this is the case – if curiosity has much more to do with individual disposition than with background – then the nurturing of this disposition from a young age could be the key to democratising the research pathway in STEM.

The Brilliant Club’s charitable Scholars Programme has delivered a framework for embedding PhD students into schools, to deliver university-style learning for pupils aged 8 to 18. We strongly support this model. However, whilst widespread, it is not comprehensive, rooted in self-selection by schools. It is designed expressly to help pupils ‘develop the knowledge, skills and confidence to progress to the most competitive universities’.

Our proposal is that a truly fair and sustainable route to inclusivity in senior career pathways in STEM starts with genuinely democratising access to research capital at the earliest stage possible in a child’s education, building outwards from its roots in childhood curiosity and not necessarily tying it to any kind of university pathway at the outset. We would welcome a forum to discuss with others in the sector and with industry and government stakeholders how this might work and of what such a programme might consist. One potential framework for achieving this is through a teaching and learning strand in all schools that supports children to progressively extend their cognitive capabilities and capital from the free and open enquiry of childhood curiosity to, finally, for some, the more formalised structures and methods of enquiry that will prepare them for a research career. Discrete strands might focus on pathways into creative careers, industry, or academia. Access would be universal. For those who it becomes evident are well-adapted to academic models of research, the strand would progressively lead into established models such as the EPQ and the IB’s Extended Essay. For all, creativity would be fostered, whether ultimately in service of academic thinking or any other life occupation.

Here, in the interests of the Inquiry, we have sought only to propose the broad principal and to indicate, with the utmost brevity, what we perceive to be the potential opportunity and its benefits.

Through our own institutional and sector interventions, we are confident that we can bring about substantial change in fair access at the point of admission to postgraduate study. We note that student finance mechanisms also play a role and have welcomed the introduction of Government-backed postgraduate loans that have already begun to change conversations about career pathways for certain groups. The University is also very actively fundraising to extend its provision of bursaries and studentships for Master’s students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. We additionally plan to seek to instigate change further up the pipeline through targeted projects with individual school partners, but of necessity these are self-selecting and limited by resources. But, as set out in the briefest terms above, we would like to propose to the Inquiry that what may additionally be required for true democratic change in progression in STEM careers is a nationwide programme in schools to nurture childhood curiosity and to shape it, where appropriate, into a credible aptitude for research. This would allow all students to make a more informed pathway choice of undergraduate institution, addressing at source the impact of undermatching and pathway elitism that we are simultaneously seeking to remedy, as selecting institutions, from further down the pipeline, unblocking progression in STEM to deliver generations of world-leading UK scientists with a multiplicity of perspectives.

Dr Katherine Powlesland

(January 2022)