What are we going to do about the decline in chemistry students?
Andrew Ladds surveys the scene from the top
Between 1997 and 2003, the numbers of UK university chemistry students declined by 15 per cent, while the popularity of less traditional subjects rose (psychology, for example, by 73 per cent).
The Society of Chemical Industry (SCI) has found that a coordinated approach from UK government, industry and academia is required to ensure that enough able and qualified scientists are educated in the UK to meet industry’s current and future requirements. Accordingly, SCI has urged further action on science education to protect not only our industry but the UK’s economic health.
Current problems
The Society of Chemical Industry (SCI) surveyed its 3000+ UK members for its recent Insight situation paper, Strategic chemistry-based science education into the 21st century.1 The paper confirms that the shortage is not confined to chemistry students, but spans all science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines.
The day before the paper’s publication, Sussex University announced that it was to stop teaching its chemistry degree. The department which had educated two Nobel Prize winners – Sir Harry Kroto and Sir John Cornforth – will in future provide only ‘chemistry with…’ courses. The growth in numbers of these ‘hybrid’ subjects at the expense of pure chemistry is another concern of the Insight paper.
Local industry tends to use local university chemistry departments for research and development. The UK cannot afford to lose any further science education facilities such at these. The Sussex closure is the most recent of a number of high profile closures of science/chemistry departments.
Looking to students post-qualification, the survey also strongly underlines that students are not informed of the careers opportunities available with a science degree. This, the paper suggests, could be remedied in part by increased exposure to contemporary industrial science and technology, and significantly improved careers advice.
Dire consequences
The threats posed by inaction on these warnings will not be confined simply to chemistry but will touch almost all parts of our everyday life: food, healthcare, electronics, energy, transport and construction to name but a few. All of these sectors have growing requirements for increasingly sophisticated application of scientific and technological skills.
The Insight paper also highlights the potential erosion of the UK’s national competitiveness on the world stage if it does not produce more of the right quality science graduates. Developed economies such as the UK’s, with high labour costs, must focus on the development of high value added industries and services and the skills required to deliver them.
Current initiatives
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has recognised the need to continue the move towards these wealth generators and to focus on the development of technology for them.
Last year, the UK’s Chemistry Leadership Council (CLC) Innovation Task Force identified and proposed chemistry-based technology development priorities for the next two decades. As part of this, a chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network (CIKTN) is being established with DTI assistance to foster the linkage between academic research and the needs of industry.
The CLC’s paper, Vision for the sustainable production and use of chemicals,2 has also spawned a powerful alliance of industry, professional and academic associations, in the form of Sustainable Chemistry UK, to address the challenges the publication highlights.
The Insight paper is concerned about what happens when school children decide whether to take the three sciences as individual GCSE subjects. It suggests that some schools encourage pupils to take GCSE only as a double subject, motivated by curriculum simplification and, perhaps, potentially better overall school results statistics.
This was addressed by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in his March budget when he announced a new entitlement to study the full range of science subjects at GCSE level. He also committed to a programme for the ‘recruitment, retraining, retention and reward’ of 3000 science teachers. While SCI welcomes these commitments, it is concerned about where the additional teachers will be sourced. At the moment, only 40 per cent of sixth-form students are taught chemistry by teachers with a chemistry degree.
Only about 7 per cent of those taking chemistry at A level go on to study it at university. There remains much to be done in both schools and academia to revitalise interest among pupils and students at all levels in the study of science in general and chemistry in particular.
References
1. For the Insight paper, Strategic chemistry-based science education into the 21st century, see www.soci.org/SCI/publications/2006/pdf/pb172.pdf
2. For Vision for the sustainable production and use of chemicals, see www.chemistry.org.uk/pages/8/press/9308_chemistry.pdf
Andrew Ladds is Chief Executive of the Society of Chemical Industry
Andrew.ladds@soci.org
Danielle Miles peers up through the chaos
I am a second year Chemistry Masters undergraduate at Leeds University. I have often wondered if I should be taking chemistry at all.
As a very young child I was always interested in jobs that ended in ist; geologist, zoologist, and so on. I chose chemistry because it is often seen as the middle science, touching maths, physics, biology, pharmacology and much more. It would let me keep most of my options open. All I had to do was get through my A levels and into a University.
A-level trouble
This should have been simple enough, but my chemistry teacher left part way through my A2 level and I was left to teach myself with guidance from a biology teacher. This put a huge strain on my other A-levels, as I was putting most of my time into chemistry.
Luckily, Exeter Chemistry department saw past the grades and saw the head girl who had managed to complete her chemistry A-level even though most of her classmates had dropped out. I was so happy to be accepted and determined to make the most of the opportunity.
Exeter closure
I started at Exeter in September 2004. I was getting a first for all my coursework and having the best year of my life. It was fantastic to be taught by someone with a love of the subject.
Then in November 2004 we were told that Exeter University was in financial trouble and was intending to shut down the expensive Chemistry department. I was incredulous: how could a ‘good’ university not have a core department? I was sure this would not be allowed to happen, but neither HEFCE nor the government stepped in to help us!
I helped to organise a 2000-strong protest against the closures, and gave evidence to the Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘Strategic Science Provision in English Universities’.1 We were told that practically all the staff were being made redundant on 1st July 2005, but that we would be able to stay at Exeter to finish our degrees.
I couldn’t see how this would be possible and decided to transfer to Leeds. Had I gone to Bath or Bristol, Exeter would have helped with the transfer; but as it was, I had to go through UCAS again.
On to Leeds
Leeds chemistry department has been very helpful and I cannot fault it, but the uprooting has been difficult.
I have gone into halls again and, with the demanding second year workload, I have found it hard to make new friends. I’ve missed out on the little things you learn in first year: knowing who to go to for help, and the way the exam and coursework system works.
The latest obstacle is the AUT and Natfhe strike, which has meant that my work from March 2006 has not been marked and there is a chance that my summer exams will not be marked either. Nevertheless I am still on target for a first class degree, and am currently set for a year at AstraZeneca, which I’m really looking forward to.
Remedies
I don’t think there is any quick fix for the state of chemistry in this country. Fewer qualified secondary school teachers pass on their enthusiasm for the subject, attracting fewer students and setting up a vicious cycle. Also the paranoid health and safety regulations at school have curtailed the practicals permitted, and even non-chemists can tell you that they are the best part. Even so, maybe more money could be given to schools for trips to Universities where they can watch demonstrations and see the exciting things that you can do with chemistry.
Another problem is the ‘geek’ image if you take chemistry, although I certainly don’t class myself as a geek. I think this problem is due to the media. We should be as proud of scientists as we are of pop stars and sports stars, if not more so!
Maybe we need a campaign such as the current army one, with adverts on all the possibilities a chemistry degree could provide.
I still love chemistry and feel that I have been through too much to quit. However I feel that I have been let down every step of the way, by many different people and for many different reasons, but mainly the government for not supporting chemistry. I feel as though it doesn’t realise the importance of what is going on in front of its eyes.
Reference
1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2005), Strategic Science Provision in English Universities. See http://tinyurl.com/eu79x
Danielle Miles is a second year Chemistry Masters undergraduate at Leeds University
chm5dem@leeds.ac.uk
Between 1997 and 2003, the numbers of UK university chemistry students declined by 15 per cent, while the popularity of less traditional subjects rose (psychology, for example, by 73 per cent).
The Society of Chemical Industry (SCI) has found that a coordinated approach from UK government, industry and academia is required to ensure that enough able and qualified scientists are educated in the UK to meet industry’s current and future requirements. Accordingly, SCI has urged further action on science education to protect not only our industry but the UK’s economic health.
Current problems
The Society of Chemical Industry (SCI) surveyed its 3000+ UK members for its recent Insight situation paper, Strategic chemistry-based science education into the 21st century.1 The paper confirms that the shortage is not confined to chemistry students, but spans all science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines.
The day before the paper’s publication, Sussex University announced that it was to stop teaching its chemistry degree. The department which had educated two Nobel Prize winners – Sir Harry Kroto and Sir John Cornforth – will in future provide only ‘chemistry with…’ courses. The growth in numbers of these ‘hybrid’ subjects at the expense of pure chemistry is another concern of the Insight paper.
Local industry tends to use local university chemistry departments for research and development. The UK cannot afford to lose any further science education facilities such at these. The Sussex closure is the most recent of a number of high profile closures of science/chemistry departments.
Looking to students post-qualification, the survey also strongly underlines that students are not informed of the careers opportunities available with a science degree. This, the paper suggests, could be remedied in part by increased exposure to contemporary industrial science and technology, and significantly improved careers advice.
Dire consequences
The threats posed by inaction on these warnings will not be confined simply to chemistry but will touch almost all parts of our everyday life: food, healthcare, electronics, energy, transport and construction to name but a few. All of these sectors have growing requirements for increasingly sophisticated application of scientific and technological skills.
The Insight paper also highlights the potential erosion of the UK’s national competitiveness on the world stage if it does not produce more of the right quality science graduates. Developed economies such as the UK’s, with high labour costs, must focus on the development of high value added industries and services and the skills required to deliver them.
Current initiatives
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has recognised the need to continue the move towards these wealth generators and to focus on the development of technology for them.
Last year, the UK’s Chemistry Leadership Council (CLC) Innovation Task Force identified and proposed chemistry-based technology development priorities for the next two decades. As part of this, a chemistry Innovation Knowledge Transfer Network (CIKTN) is being established with DTI assistance to foster the linkage between academic research and the needs of industry.
The CLC’s paper, Vision for the sustainable production and use of chemicals,2 has also spawned a powerful alliance of industry, professional and academic associations, in the form of Sustainable Chemistry UK, to address the challenges the publication highlights.
The Insight paper is concerned about what happens when school children decide whether to take the three sciences as individual GCSE subjects. It suggests that some schools encourage pupils to take GCSE only as a double subject, motivated by curriculum simplification and, perhaps, potentially better overall school results statistics.
This was addressed by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown in his March budget when he announced a new entitlement to study the full range of science subjects at GCSE level. He also committed to a programme for the ‘recruitment, retraining, retention and reward’ of 3000 science teachers. While SCI welcomes these commitments, it is concerned about where the additional teachers will be sourced. At the moment, only 40 per cent of sixth-form students are taught chemistry by teachers with a chemistry degree.
Only about 7 per cent of those taking chemistry at A level go on to study it at university. There remains much to be done in both schools and academia to revitalise interest among pupils and students at all levels in the study of science in general and chemistry in particular.
References
1. For the Insight paper, Strategic chemistry-based science education into the 21st century, see www.soci.org/SCI/publications/2006/pdf/pb172.pdf
2. For Vision for the sustainable production and use of chemicals, see www.chemistry.org.uk/pages/8/press/9308_chemistry.pdf
Andrew Ladds is Chief Executive of the Society of Chemical Industry
Andrew.ladds@soci.org
Danielle Miles peers up through the chaos
I am a second year Chemistry Masters undergraduate at Leeds University. I have often wondered if I should be taking chemistry at all.
As a very young child I was always interested in jobs that ended in ist; geologist, zoologist, and so on. I chose chemistry because it is often seen as the middle science, touching maths, physics, biology, pharmacology and much more. It would let me keep most of my options open. All I had to do was get through my A levels and into a University.
A-level trouble
This should have been simple enough, but my chemistry teacher left part way through my A2 level and I was left to teach myself with guidance from a biology teacher. This put a huge strain on my other A-levels, as I was putting most of my time into chemistry.
Luckily, Exeter Chemistry department saw past the grades and saw the head girl who had managed to complete her chemistry A-level even though most of her classmates had dropped out. I was so happy to be accepted and determined to make the most of the opportunity.
Exeter closure
I started at Exeter in September 2004. I was getting a first for all my coursework and having the best year of my life. It was fantastic to be taught by someone with a love of the subject.
Then in November 2004 we were told that Exeter University was in financial trouble and was intending to shut down the expensive Chemistry department. I was incredulous: how could a ‘good’ university not have a core department? I was sure this would not be allowed to happen, but neither HEFCE nor the government stepped in to help us!
I helped to organise a 2000-strong protest against the closures, and gave evidence to the Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘Strategic Science Provision in English Universities’.1 We were told that practically all the staff were being made redundant on 1st July 2005, but that we would be able to stay at Exeter to finish our degrees.
I couldn’t see how this would be possible and decided to transfer to Leeds. Had I gone to Bath or Bristol, Exeter would have helped with the transfer; but as it was, I had to go through UCAS again.
On to Leeds
Leeds chemistry department has been very helpful and I cannot fault it, but the uprooting has been difficult.
I have gone into halls again and, with the demanding second year workload, I have found it hard to make new friends. I’ve missed out on the little things you learn in first year: knowing who to go to for help, and the way the exam and coursework system works.
The latest obstacle is the AUT and Natfhe strike, which has meant that my work from March 2006 has not been marked and there is a chance that my summer exams will not be marked either. Nevertheless I am still on target for a first class degree, and am currently set for a year at AstraZeneca, which I’m really looking forward to.
Remedies
I don’t think there is any quick fix for the state of chemistry in this country. Fewer qualified secondary school teachers pass on their enthusiasm for the subject, attracting fewer students and setting up a vicious cycle. Also the paranoid health and safety regulations at school have curtailed the practicals permitted, and even non-chemists can tell you that they are the best part. Even so, maybe more money could be given to schools for trips to Universities where they can watch demonstrations and see the exciting things that you can do with chemistry.
Another problem is the ‘geek’ image if you take chemistry, although I certainly don’t class myself as a geek. I think this problem is due to the media. We should be as proud of scientists as we are of pop stars and sports stars, if not more so!
Maybe we need a campaign such as the current army one, with adverts on all the possibilities a chemistry degree could provide.
I still love chemistry and feel that I have been through too much to quit. However I feel that I have been let down every step of the way, by many different people and for many different reasons, but mainly the government for not supporting chemistry. I feel as though it doesn’t realise the importance of what is going on in front of its eyes.
Reference
1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2005), Strategic Science Provision in English Universities. See http://tinyurl.com/eu79x
Danielle Miles is a second year Chemistry Masters undergraduate at Leeds University
chm5dem@leeds.ac.uk
