Leader: Mixed messages on key subjects

One day senior mathematicians say there is a crisis in the subject that is the bedrock of the sciences, the next day the Higher Education Funding Council for England tells us not to panic and to leave it to the market. In both cases, perhaps they would say that, wouldn't they? Mathematicians are frustrated by the lack of progress since Adrian Smith's critical report on the subject last year, while the funding council sensibly does not want to be called in to offer aid every time a department is in trouble. But if the UK Mathematics Foundation is right about the scale of decline in secondary and higher education, the Hefce response risks looking dangerously complacent.

The funding council is obviously right not to meddle with institutional autonomy and not to react to every twist and turn in student demand. Sixth formers cannot be forced to study chemistry, and there is no point in Hefce propping up departments that do not attract students. The National Advisory Body tried to micromanage polytechnics in the 1980s, regularly allocating places to engineering courses that remained half-empty while students voted with their feet for business subjects. The funding council cannot make the same mistake, especially with top-up fees creating more of a market.

In an era in which science is so central to the knowledge economy, however, it cannot be assumed that a rebalancing of recruitment to the sciences constitutes an acceptable outcome. Forensic science courses may compensate to some extent for the drop in chemistry, but the new subject does not offer the same breadth of learning. And the numbers studying maths may look steady, but this is only because overseas student recruitment has practically doubled in four years. If the quality of that reduced pool of home applicants is as low as the mathematicians' report suggests, the situation is already grave.

Once again, the solutions are largely beyond universities' control; the die is already cast long before students leave school. Hefce is funding outreach work to stimulate interest in the sciences and, in the long term, Professor Smith's recommendations may raise standards in maths. But the problems in the whole area are too serious and too deep-rooted to be left to a Hefce review. It may be that the hints emerging from Westminster of a return to the Tomlinson agenda of broadening the 14-to-19 curriculum will provide a vehicle for substantial reform. Even this may be too late in the educational process to produce the necessary improvement, but there is no time to lose in making a start.