Finances of Engineering Departments in UK Universities

1
Finances of Engineering Departments in UK
Universities

• Prof Helen Atkinson
• Head of Mechanics of Materials
• University of Leicester

2
Background

• Increasing pressure on finances
• How much does it really cost to teach an
  engineering undergraduate (well)?
• Physics and Chemistry reviews already in public
  domain

3
Review by Royal Society of Chemistry (Jan 2006)

• Based on 8 Depts. with range of RAE scores
• Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC)
  methodology
• Publicly funded teaching
• Non-publicly funded teaching
• Publicly funded research
• Non-publicly funded research (industry)

4
Key findings of RSC review

• All 8 depts. in deficit in 2002-3
• Deficits under all headings
• Deficits major contributing factor in
  closures/threats of closure
• 80 chemistry income from publicly funded
  teaching and research. Therefore, (they argue)
  chemistry peculiarly sensitive to extent that
  public funding formulae adequately reflect full
  costs of delivery
• Chemistry expensive subject to teach (fume
  cupboards)/lab. Supervision
• Not clear these high relative costs fully
  reflected in current formula for funding of
  teaching used by HEFCE

5
Other findings of RSC review

• High space per FTE academic staff (physics using
  more international/central facilities)
• Chemistry (like other disciplines heavily
  dependent on Research Council funding) suffering
  from failure to fund at FEC level
• Industry not paying FEC of its research

6
RSC review contd.

• -Growth makes position worse
• Variable fees may help
• HEFCE review of teaching funding (will the
  relativities change?)
• FEC by research councils
• Increase in Funding Council research grants
• Note 5 is not sufficient to avoid an overall
  deficit

7
IOP review (April 2006)

• 10 depts. Same methodology
• All depts. showing a deficit (16-45 of income)
• Average deficit on publicly funded teaching.a
  significant uplift in HEFCE grant would be
  required.
• Need to identify what scope there might be for
  improving financial position within constraints
  that flow from IOP recognition
• In 2003-4, physics not in as poor a position as
  chemistry
• Age and condition of labs such that in medium
  term will need major investment

8
EPC Position

• Intention to commission similar review
• ETB have agreed (provisionally) to fund
• We would not distinguish between different
  branches of engineering
• We represent the whole university sector and the
  whole of the UK
• We are wrestling with how to tackle the real
  cost of teaching question.

9
Lets suppose...

• Fairly typical cohort of 50 undergrads. and 20
  MScs (assume mechanicals because thats what I
  know best)
• Every undergrad. needs a computer in the computer
  lab. (otherwise we have to run some classes such
  as CAD modelling twice)
• We need lab. space (plus the computer lab.),
  lecture theatres (probably two), office space for
  academics, at least one seminar room and meeting
  room
• We could assume we were renting industrial space
  (or buying a building)

10
People

• Academics.can identify SSRs which fall within a
  reasonable range
• Technicians to support lab. facilities, practical
  aspects of projects and workshop.necessary for
  HS
• Demonstrators
• Computer support
• Clerical support eg. for exams, admissions,
  certifying that work has been handed in on time,
  tracking attendance

11
Equipment What do we really need?

• Diversity of provision- but can work out rough
  envelope
• Mechanical testing machine (one, maybe two)
• Hardness tester
• SEM
• Optical microscopy and metallography
• Tube furnaces
• Radiant furnaces
• Sensors and actuators

12
Equipment On the thermal and fluids side

• HydraulicsFluid machines, jets and force
  balances, Pelton wheels, water flue tunnel, free
  surface water channel, orifice and venturi flow
  meters
• Thermodynamics Internal combustion engines on
  dynamometers with oscilloscopes, generator set,
  heat exchangers, heat transfer by radiation,
  refrigerators and vapour cycle machines
• Fluid mechanics wind tunnels, Pitot probes, hot
  wire anemometers, surface flow visualisation,
  boundary layer probe, instrumented bluff body and
  slender body

13
..

• Fluid Mechanics-Compressible Flows
• Wind tunnel with Schlieren and rapid response
  pressure probes
• Convergent-divergent nozzles for subsonic and
  supersonic propulsion
• Combustion laminar combustion, temperature
  probes, calorimeters, pyrometers, turbulent
  combustor (like a domestic premicx gas burner)
• All with digital data acquisition and digital
  control
• More advanced equipment (eg. particle image flow
  velocimetry) can only be justified on research
  grounds but is used for projects.

14
Software.typically

• A FEM suite eg. FEMLAB/MATLAB
• CAD modelling
• Computational fluid dynamics modelling eg. Fluent
• Labview
• Materials Selection software eg. Cambridge
  materials selector

15
University overhead

• There is a range but a typical and reasonable
  figure can be identified

16
Assume

• Computers replaced every 3 years
• Major kit every 15 years
• Labs refurbished every 25 years

17
Miscellaneous..eg.

• Paper, printing, photocopying
• Expenses for visiting speakers
• Minor maintenance (eg. of ventilation systems)
• Maintenance of major kit
• Costs of projects
• Admissions visits
• CPD

18
All this assumes no cross-subsidy from research

• i.e. we have to buy the kit because we are
  teaching
• We have to do CPD because otherwise how will
  people keep up to date (at the moment this is
  driven to some extent by research)
• We could cross-check against the institutions who
  have been establishing new campuses eg.
  Nottingham in Malaysia

19
In summary

• How do we provide evidence that the 1.7
  multiplication factor is not fully justifiable?