PhDs: is doctoral education in trouble in the UK?

While overseas students still flock to the UK for PhDs, concerns are growing over weakening domestic demand, a decline in UKRI-funded starters and whether universities can afford to train the next generation of researchers

January 10, 2024
Geologists stand before an eruption on Mt. Etna in November 2002, and take readings
Source: Getty Images

With a near-record 113,000 postgraduate research students based in the UK, including 46,350 foreign PhD candidates, Britain’s doctoral education landscape would seem to be thriving. Buoyed by an extra £109 million from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to support PhD and mid-career researchers in 2023-24, and Horizon Europe membership secured, there might appear little cause for concern.

But there are signs that things are not as rosy in UK doctoral education as some imagine. In November, the Student Loans Company noted the “first potential yet small decline in the take-up of postgraduate doctoral student loans”, with sums borrowed in 2022-23 down by 12.3 per cent.

There are also indications that funded PhD studentships will not be as plentiful over the next few years. The biggest single funder of PhDs – the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), which sponsored nearly half of the 4,900 UKRI-backed doctoral students who began their studies in 2022-23 – announced last year that the number of its Centres for Doctoral Training (CDT) would fall from 75 to “about 40” from 2024, leading to about 1,750 fewer funded places over the next five years. In addition, the Arts and Humanities Research Council is reducing its PhD studentships by nearly a third, from 425 to 300 per year by the end of the decade, and the Wellcome Trust is severely reducing its support for PhD students under its new strategy to focus on longer grants for early- and mid-career scientists.

Things could get a lot worse in the next few years, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies warning that tax cuts announced in chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s autumn statement would lead to budget reductions of about 3.4 per cent a year in “unprotected departments”, of which one might be the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It’s going to be tough going with an election and a spending review, whichever party wins,” predicted Rory Duncan, UKRI’s former director of talent and skills, who is now pro vice-chancellor (research and innovation) at Sheffield Hallam University.

If universities were forced to tighten research spending, support for PhD students could be an early casualty because doctoral researchers – while sometimes seen as a source of cheap labour – are big loss-makers for institutions, explained Professor Duncan. “If you look at Trac [Transparent Approach to Costing] data, the cost recovery for doctoral students is very low – the lowest for any type of research activity,” he said, pointing to data that showed UK universities incurred losses of £1.4 billion educating PhD students in 2021-22, claiming back just 46.6 per cent of the cost of training researchers.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the money: PhD funding

graph showing UKRI doctoral studentships (£m), 2022-23


Thanks to UK universities’ success in attracting higher paying international students, the sector has been able to cover such losses – which amount to £5 billion a year for research overall – but that balancing act is “becoming much more challenging due to government rhetoric” over foreign students, continued Professor Duncan. “There is huge pressure on the research sector and it’s becoming harder and harder to do research – which includes supporting PhD students,” he said.

That will be bad news for the UK’s “science superpower” ambitions as the country’s innovation model had leaned heavily on having high PhD numbers, continued Professor Duncan. “For many years the UK has been a leader for investing in PhD training – it’s always been a top-three nation, alongside Germany and the US, for PhDs. Others, like Japan, have taken different routes and changed their support to focus on mid-career scientists, which has a very detrimental impact on research quality,” he added.

But the level of the UK’s investment in PhD training seems to be waning – at least, if judged on the numbers of doctoral students trained in recent years. A recent Freedom of Information request by Times Higher Education found the overall numbers of doctoral students starting UKRI-funded training fell from 6,835 in 2018-19 to 5,580 in 2021-22 – an 18 per cent drop – with reported figures for 2022-23 lower still at 4,900, though UKRI said this tally could increase as universities continued to submit data for that year. The decline in UK student numbers was even sharper, falling from 4,815 new candidates in 2018-19 to 3,420 in 2021-22 – down by 29 per cent – and to 2,840 in 2022-23.


Wrong numbers: falling PhD figures

Graph showing total UKRI-funded students commencing studies by academic year, 2018-2022


For Douglas Kell, a former executive chair of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, such reductions are distinctly at odds with the government’s desire to attract an extra 150,000 researchers into the workforce by 2030.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Cutting funded PhD numbers under any circumstances, especially in a knowledge economy, is simply short-termist and absolute madness,” said Professor Kell, now based at the University of Liverpool, who observed that these “further cuts extend those that have already been going under this administration for more than a decade. We need massive increases in those who are technically and intellectually qualified, not cuts.”

However, UKRI’s collective talent funding – which supports both PhD studentships and mid-career fellowships – is due to increase by only 5 per cent in 2024-25, so funded places could “go down in the absence of additional investment”, warned Professor Duncan, citing the continued need to increase tax-free doctoral stipends in line with inflation.


Group interests: talent funding

Graph showing UKRI collective talent funding (£m), 2022-2024


The hefty increases to UKRI’s stipend – £18,622 in 2023-24, up by 20 per cent from 2021-22 – might still not be enough to fix a bigger issue facing doctoral education, according to Robert Insall, professor of computational cell biology at UCL. “A lower proportion of the most brilliant students are doing PhDs – those who are really ambitious and who might become future leaders in their field,” said Professor Insall. “Even if you increased the stipend by 10 per cent again, it might not be enough to make it acceptable. Its level was acceptable a few years ago but now it just isn’t.”

The gloom hanging over UK higher education and research might explain why “the attractiveness of a PhD has gone downhill” for high-flyers who might have previously considered a research career in academia, continued Professor Insall. “The government is not selling British academia and the media is painting it as a very troubled place, so students and potential PhDs see that,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

For its part, UKRI seems alert to the challenge of keeping the PhD attractive, with plans for a new “core offer” around professional and career development set to be unveiled this year. According to chief executive Dame Ottoline Leyser, this would “provide consistent talent offers that are still responsive to the needs of individuals and disciplines” and “strengthen the crucial link between career diversity and excellent research and innovation, better enabling people to follow their ideas across disciplines and sectors”.

Concerns over the direction of travel remain, but the fact that the UK is still a key destination for postgraduate students, behind only the US, suggests its doctoral model is far from broken, said Giulio Marini, visiting professor of education at the University of Hong Kong, whose research has focused on how PhD graduates fare in global job markets. “The UK is highly attractive, and it seems it will remain so – Brexit was not helpful, but now that the UK is back into European funding schemes I would not worry too much,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, its international popularity among foreign PhD students might serve UK universities but not the UK economy in the long run if restrictive immigration rules push them to leave after a few years, warned Dr Marini. “If PhDs do not continue to live in the UK, their economic contribution will be limited. In that situation, UK universities are really ‘making brains for other countries’, which is not good policy.”


Is there a doctor in the house?: PhD population

Graph showing number of doctorates per 1,000 of aged 25-34 population, 2020


jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (12)

There's a class issue.
One of the issues that the article doesn't address is the quality of those doctoral students. This no doubt varies dramatically by area but I would argue that the average quality of a doctoral candidate has declined dramatically. I have been part of various doctoral consortium at major conferences for decades (as well as being responsible for all or some parts of doctoral programmes at two schools in the UK). Some of these consortium are 'elite' in the sense that they are invitation only and the candidates go through a submission process (getting in is viewed as a strong signal of quality). However, despite this all of the faculty overseeing the consortium have noticed the dramatic decline in the quality of the student's work -- invariably viewing it as probably unpublishable and the candidate not going to do well in the job market. This has also been seen in the candidates who apply for junior positions (I have never had so many cases where the whole slate of candidates is viewed as not employable -- forcing us to go back into the market constantly). In addition, in overseeing doctoral applications it is astonishing at how many we end up binning. To keep the load down, we would triage hundreds of applications before they got to a committee simply because the candidates records are so poor that we wouldn't want to waste the committee's time going through the hundreds of applications that fail to meet the criteria (btw, one university's response to this was basically to say that our standards were too high and that all that is required to join a doctoral programme is a 'pass'). The bigger question is why? And the answer seems to be two fold. One is like the article in the THE about does a PhD payoff? When you compare the salaries that a solid well-educated well-trained student with strong marks could make outside academia with the 'poundland' salary of £50K for a lecturership (after also waiting several years to get that 'lucrative' (sarcasm) salary), you would have to be mad to think it is worth the time, money and effort. Second, working in academia is not what it once was. I used to say that the difference between academics and non-academics was that "academics gave up money for freedom and time to do what you wanted, while non-academics give up time and freedom for money". Today's all-administrative university world is one where freedom and time are no longer there (since they reduced the KPIs and productivity measures that senior administrators live and die by) but the money is still 'chump change'. If you are going to treated like a corporate drone you might as well be paid to be a drone. However, young scholars today are treated like drones (one VC at a prior university referred to the faculty as 'content providers') and paid like janitors.
Another UK related point. In the US, you can join a doctoral programme straight out of university as an undergraduate. In the UK, you need a Masters degree. What this means is that the absolute best UK students can go to the US (or similar countries) and get a fully funded doctoral degree but not be admissible (without some special deal) to a UK institution. When I was at one UK school, I tried to get this abolished and it was a nightmare. For 4 years we worked on a programme that would admit stellar students with only an UG degree (High Distinction). When I left after 4 years of trying it was still not approved. I pointed out that I was able to join my doctoral programme in one of the top 5 universities in the US and also receive two masters degrees as well as the PhD (plus funding and a stipend since no one was admitted who did not get fully funded -- and all of that funding was internal), but I could not get admitted to our university's doctoral programme (and this was a university that was in the range of 100-150 in the world. It made no sense then and it makes no sense now.
Whilst UK PhD adverts typically ask for an MSc, there is some flexibility for strong BSc candidates. I have almost finished my PhD and I only have a BSc, as do some of my PhD colleagues.
At least 50% of the PhD students I've trained had only UG degrees. I myself didn't have a masters when I started my PhD. Perhaps this is a disciplinary thing. My university only requires a 2.1 at undergrad and no masters for PhD admission, although I think many supervisors would be reluctant to aveiro such a student. That said, while students with a (good) masters are at an advantage in admissions, we do admit many students direct from UG if they have good grades and substantial research experience (like a proper undergrad research dissertation, plus a summer project or lab work experience). It's unfortunate that proper third year undergrad projects are getting less common and being replaced with glorified practicals. Even so, a one year masters, followed by a three year PhD would still be quicker than a 5-6 year American PhD.
A few other points to raise. 1. If there is a limited, and even declining pot of money for PhDs, then perhaps the best or least worst option is to fund fewer PhDs but at a much higher level. Stipends are currently low especially given the rate of inflation and the fact that, as the article points out, many excellent candidates who would have pursued academic careers in the past can earn more money more quickly in other sectors. 2. There are also implications for the sector, institutions and disciplines in terms of EDI. Many EDI initiatives require having an expanded pipeline of talent that will eventually feed through to faculty, professoriate, senior positions. A reduction of PhD opportunities would seem to reduce the pipeline unless combined with measures to mitigate the effects (e.g. ring fencing funding for particular groups).
"UK universities are really ‘making brains for other countries’, which is not good policy” - Following generations where the UK acted as a force for siphoning off the intellectual and academic cream from other countries, especially those in the global south, perhaps we are at a time where 'making brains for other countries' could be seen as a small token of reciprocity in a globally inequitable system.
I am generally in agreement with the previous comments, particularly with respect to an academic career. I am retiring at the end of this year and wholeheartedly agree that the job is not what it was. I have nephews in their 20s who earn over £50K and historically, there would be a price for that in terms of freedom. However, the increased administrative burden on academics means that most are just in poorly paid positions unless they are research superstars. I do not encourage students to do PhDs because if they have any doubts then they should do something else. One unrelated point is that in my university, it is perfectly possible to commence a PhD without an MSc.
"One of the issues that the article doesn't address is the quality of those doctoral students" (Comment #2). In Australia it has become far to easy to gain PhD enrolment and to get through; hence reduced confidence in the PhD as a qualification. Here are three examples with which I am directly familiar. 1/ An NESB candidate says to her regular tennis partner: 'Knee it sore. Me not tennising today. You just tennising youself." Three weeks later she submits her thesis (in English) and it passes without a hitch. 2/ Another NESB candidate cries as she shows me a draft thesis chapter. At least 80% has been crossed out and the supervisor, in tiny scrawl, has rewritten it in the margins without consulting her. A few months later she is through and goes into a senior academic role in her home country. 3/ I examine a thesis and find serious problems, with research method in particular, for which there is no description, let alone justification. I cannot come close to passing it, and recommend resubmission after a great deal of extra work that I specify in many pages of detail. Two weeks later I receive a cheque and a note of thanks for examining the thesis, which has passed.
#8 second line: "far too easy"
Perhaps a greater emphasis should be placed on alternative routes for obtaining a PhD. For example, I obtained my first degree by completing a so-called 'college-based sandwich course', which included a significant amount of industrial experience; and went on to obtain my PhD whilst working full-time at a research institute. I found the professional research experience invaluable during my undergraduate and postgraduate journey.
What’s the point of training researchers when the job market for research is so weak? Academic jobs are so awful and working conditions are dreadful.most phds especially the good ones don't go into academia or research anymore.

Sponsored

ADVERTISEMENT