Birmingham is one institution fighting to remain competitive in a global age. Tony Tysome reports
Birmingham University has become one of the first of the Russell Group institutions to face up to the challenge of "repositioning" itself for the 21st century.
Last week its council spent more than two hours debating a consultation paper that argues that external forces and financial pressures have made it "necessary to rebalance and restructure the university".
Funding and status are at the heart of the proposals. The paper says the university should "maintain and improve" its position as a leading Russell Group institution. This is in line with vice-chancellor Maxwell Irvine's target to put Birmingham among the top six UK research universities.
The proposed restructuring signals recognition among Birmingham managers that global and national forces are bringing about a shake-up in British higher education.
The paper lists as key pressures: globalisation and e-commerce; government policy for lifelong learning and widening participation; changing markets; greater research selectivity; growth of multidisciplinary work; and new imperatives for regional, economic and community links. To respond to the changing environment, Birmingham will need a strategy that is "clearly articulated and highly focused", it says.
The paper recognises that universities such as Birmingham, which are outside the "golden circle" of Oxbridge and London, may find themselves over-stretched, with funding spread too thinly for them to maintain their standing.
At Birmingham, teaching and research take place in 34 of the 42 subject disciplines defined by the Quality Assurance Agency. In the 1996 research assessment exercise it submitted 53 units of assessment - topped only by Glasgow.
The paper says universities that have seen their competitive position improve dramatically in recent years have been those such as Warwick, York and Bath, which have focused on market-led portfolios.
The traditional approach of broad-based universities to balancing their books through cross-subsidy between stronger and weaker departments is under threat from "the relentless application of year-on-year efficiency gains by government".
Financial forecasts at Birmingham indicate its academic budget centres will collectively be in deficit by more than Pounds 12 million next year.
Despite the university's overall financial strength over the past few years, a building programme means it faces a deficit of Pounds 1.3 million. To fund this programme the university needs to generate Pounds 12 million a year from revenue, but is raising only half that now.
The paper concludes: "When these factors are combined with targets not always being met and the capital requirements, it is clear that our current cost and activity base is not sustainable."
Birmingham's financial predicament is likely to be seen by critics as a symptom of its ambitious targets, as much as a result of external pressures. The paper says the university's building programme is necessary if it is to continue to recruit the best staff and students.
It says that through a combination of alliances with neighbouring institutions (maybe a reference to possible merger talks with Aston University) and growth in research turnover and student numbers "we should aim to maintain and improve our position as a leading Russell Group university".
Professor Irvine headed off some of the criticism last week when he opposed a motion put to council to set up a redundancy committee to deal with possible compulsory job losses.
Up to 150 posts may be axed if the university goes ahead with proposals in the paper to cut at least Pounds 5 million a year from its recurrent spending. Consultation is to begin over the summer on a targeted early retirement and voluntary severance scheme.
The axe is likely to fall in chemistry, physics, engineering and modern languages, which the paper says "continue to carry high costs but have been unable to recruit sufficient students to justify their cost base".
The paper says the proposed cuts are intended to make room for investment in areas where the university has particular strengths. "It may be that it will prove necessary for the university to restructure or even disinvest from a small number of disciplines," it adds.
The same approach may be taken in research. The paper states: "The importance of a strong performance in the 2001 RAE cannot be over-emphasised, in terms of both reputation and income."
But Birmingham has an "unacceptably long tail of research that is not being carried out at the university's minimum standard of RAE grade 4," it says. "While this is understandable in areas that are establishing themselves in research... the university no longer has the resources to support experienced colleagues in established research disciplines who are not able to contribute to research at least at grade 4 level unless there are very strong compensating factors," it warns.
The university, which has circulated the paper internally, has reassured staff that compulsory redundancies are not on the agenda, and that there will be no departments closed, despite what it says in the paper.
Despite the obvious implications of the paper's proposals, lecturers' union leaders have been curiously muted in their reaction.
Gargi Bhattacharyya, Birmingham's Association of University Teachers president, explained: "We do not agree that redundancies are a necessary part of restructuring... But staff are interested in how the university intends to reposition itself for the 21st century."