NCUB Green Paper MARCH 2014
TARGET
2030 Increasing the number of female graduates working in manufacturing, technology, engineering and computing (MTEC)
Dr David Docherty, Chief Executive, National Centre for Universities and Business NCUB Green Papers are think-pieces intended to foster debate and discussion. They do not commit the NCUB to action or reflect the views of the Leadership Council, members and funders.
Target
2030
Why focus on women?
Female graduates are not entering manufacturing, technology, engineering and computing (MTEC), companies in sufficient numbers to increase the quality and competitiveness of the talent pool. Businesses are crying out for high-quality engineers, technicians and manufacturing business leaders, and yet firms are missing out on one the most important sources of talent in the country – smart, numerate, university-qualified women. The Target 2030 challenge, then, is to increase the number of women studying physical and formal sciences at school and university, and then to attract and retain them in the MTEC labour force.
But, the numbers don’t stack up...
05
The UK performs poorly on the proportion of women in Science and Engineering.
1
Fewer than one in ten science and engineering professionals¹ in the UK labour force are female (9.5%), and women are disproportionately underrepresented in the manufacturing sector.
FIGURE 1a
Scientists and Engineers in Manufacturing 2012 (% of TOTAL employment)
10
IRELAND DENMARK
9
FINLAND
9
9 9 18 8
8
SWEDEN FRANCE
12
7 6
SPAIN
5
5
SWITZERLAND ROMANIA
5
NORWAY
5
13 8 6
5
BELGIUM
7
EU27
4
PORTUGAL
4
UNITED KINGDOM
4
12
GERMANY
4
12
AUSTRIA
3
GREECE
3
POLAND
3
TURKEY
3
SLOVENIA
8 4
7 4 5 2 7
3 2
ITALY
3
2
HUNGARY 1
CZECH REPUBLIC
0%
7 4
5%
10%
15%
20%
25% FEMALE
Male
30% MALE
Female
EUROSTAT LFS 2012. Countries for which data available. 1 According to EU LFS S&E professionals have either “completed a relevant tertiary level of education” or “are not formally qualified but perform a role for which a relevant tertiary qualification is required”.
06
Figure 1 shows that female science and engineering (S&E) professionals working in manufacturing account for only 4% of the labour force, compared to 12% of men. This is also fewer than half of female S&E professionals in, for example, services as shown in figure 1B.
FIGURE 1B
Scientists and Engineers in Services 2012 (% of TOTAL employment)
13
IRELAND SWEDEN
12
DENMARK
12
POLAND
10
UNITED KINGDOM
10
ROMANIA
13 14 12 10 14
9
TURKEY
8
NORWAY
8
7 4 10
8
BELGIUM EU27
7
CZECH REPUBLIC
7
GREECE
7
SLOVENIA
7
PORTUGAL
7
SWITZERLAND
7
SPAIN
7
FRANCE
6
FINLAND
6
AUSTRIA
5
GERMANY
5
ITALY
4
HUNGARY
4
0%
11 10 8 9 10 8 15 8 10 17 10 12 7 9
5%
10%
15%
20%
25% FEMALE
Male
EUROSTAT LFS 2012. Countries for which data available.
30% MALE
Female
07
FIGURE 2
The percentage of female ‘engineering professionals’ in EU countries. Quoted by Engineering UK 2011 as analysis of 2007 EU Labour Force Survey by UK RC
2007 LATVIA
29%
BULGARIA CYPRUS
26%
21%
ITALY IRELAND
10%
29%
SWEDEN TURKEY
19%
30%
14%
AUSTRIA UNITED KINGDOM
Figure 2 illustrates the comparative challenge relative to our closest European comparators. Britain is firmly at the bottom of the league table of qualified female professional engineers, and trails far behind many of our Northern European neighbours ². This stark difference in the gender balance of science and engineering professionals is a cause for concern as there is strong evidence from the UK Innovation Survey that innovationactive firms employ more S&E graduates ³.
9%
Note: These numbers need to be treated with a little caution due to different definitions of what constitutes an engineering professional or job and to sample sizes, particularly for smaller European countries. But the point stands.
2 Engineering UK 2011 An Investigation in why women have the lowest proportion of Female Engineers in the EU p1; data drawn from 2007 EU labour force survey by UKRC.– not validated.
7.9% of employees in innovation active firms hold a science or engineering degree, while only 3.1% of employees in non-innovating firms hold such degrees (UK Innovation Survey 2011 - Table 13, page 17 of report). 3
08
2
Not enough girls and young women are studying maths, physics, technology and computing to enable them to enter these sectors as technicians, managers or entrepreneurs. The numbers of young women doing the A-level subjects that are most commonly required for a career in MTEC companies have been difficult to grow. Moreover, the gender gap in these subjects widened yet again in 2013.
Figures 3 and 4 show that even though personal choices at GCSE level are more limited than at A-Level, there is a better and improving gender balance in graduation rates of single sciences. However, the gap is wider and widening at A-Level.
FIGURE 3
GCSE & A Level Results 2013 & 2012 (Biology for Comparison)
83,976
PHYSICS GCSE 2012
73,401
82,580
PHYSICS GCSE 2013
78,155
PHYSICS A LEVEL 2012
27,148
7,361
PHYSICS A LEVEL 2013
28,190
7,379
MATHS GCSE 2012
336,253
339,536
MATHS GCSE 2013
378,414
381,756 51,513
MATHS A LEVEL 2012
34,301
53,435
MATHS A LEVEL 2013
86,365
BIOLOGY GCSE 2012
88,063
BIOLOGY GCSE 2013 27,140
BIOLOGY A LEVEL 2012
26,988
BIOLOGY A LEVEL 2013
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
34,625
79,521 86,647
35,664 36,951
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
FEMALE
Male
100% MALE
Female
Joint Council Qualfictaions 1 According to EU LFS S&E professionals have either “completed a relevant tertiary level of education” or “are not formally qualified but perform a role for which a relevant tertiary qualification is required”.
09
FIGURE 4
Gender Gap (Male Headcount - Female Headcount)
25,000 20,811 19,787 20,000
17,640 15,786
17,459
16,360
15,000
12,589 10,443
11,131
10,525
10,575
10,000
4,425
5,000
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 GCSE PHYSICS
2013 A LEVEL PHYSICS
GCSE Physics
A-Level Physics
In terms of choices, physics is the 4th most popular A-level subject for boys, but the 19th most popular for girls. And this problem is compounded by half of our state schools not even putting girls forward for physics A-level 4.
peers with 37% achieving the highest grade (D*), more than in any other subject (Figure 5). At BTEC Level Three the picture was similar, only 4% of engineering students were females but 14% of them achieved the top grade compared to 9% of male students 5.
In terms of vocational qualifications, at BTEC Level Two while the proportion of females studying engineering was merely 5% they outperformed their male
At degree level, gender imbalances at take up are stark: Just 14.3% of engineering and technology undergraduates are women 6.
4 6
www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/file_58200.pdf 5 www.edexcel.com/btec/news-and-policy/Pages/BTECResultsDay.aspx Talent 2030 Dashboard, from HESA data www.ncub.co.uk/our-initiatives/talent-2030.html
FIGURE 5
100% 8%
90%
4% 2%
7%
23%
19%
23%
9%
18% 7%
20%
25% 6%
32% 9%
7%
10%
19% 4%
4% 17%
80%
BTEC Level 2 Results 2013. D* is the top grade, achieved by 37% of girls taking engineering, a higher percentage then girls in any other subject
30%
37% 8%
70%
20%
10%
10%
24% 30%
9%
8% 18%
22%
20%
2%
10%
60%
20% 5%
31% 50%
8%
25%
19%
22%
25%
10%
14%
9%
23%
50% 24%
40%
25%
18%
78% 65%
66%
64%
30%
48% 42%
20%
68%
62% 47%
50%
43% 34%
54%
50%
50%
35%
52%
34%
10%
0%
APPLIED SCIENCE
ART & DESIGN
Pearson for Edexcel, 5th July 2013
BUSINESS & SERVICE
CHILDREN’S CARE & LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT
CONSTRUCTION & THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
ENGINEERING
HAIR & BEAUTY
HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE
HOSPITALITY
11
15%
21% 31%
8%
8%
10%
24%
28%
7%
21%
14%
8% 7% 24%
11%
22%
6% 23%
9% 24%
11%
24% 29%
24%
24% 31% 21%
9%
6%
10%
12%
16%
22% 6%
25%
10%
19%
11%
17% 22%
32%
7%
19%
28%
25%
22%
23%
30%
D* 67% 62% 46% 37%
I.T
35%
LAND-BASED & ENVIRONMENT
37%
MEDIA
57%
58%
48%
53%
45% 36%
MUSIC
49%
49%
52%
D M P
32%
PERFORMING ARTS
PUBLIC & UNIFORMED SERVICES
SPORT
TRAVEL & TOURISM
12
What Can We Do About the Challenge?
UNDERSTAND IT
1. This is more of a UK cultural and educational issue than a hard-wired gender problem and should be treated as such.
Twenty years ago perceived imbalances in biology and veterinary science were just as bad as in MTEC; and yet in 2010-11 women made up 75% of those studying for veterinary degrees, and 58% of biology graduates – which rose to 62% a year later (See Figure 6). Rebalancing gender in these sciences flows from concerted focus by policy-makers and educational institutions and shifts in how young women perceive the industries into which these subjects can take them. Again, other European countries are driving change in the gender balance of human resources in science and technology (HRST). The OECD 2011 Science and Innovation Scoreboard notes that: “A particular characteristic of HRST employment is the increasing share of women. In the majority of countries, women are now more numerous than men among HRST employees. In Estonia, the Russian
Federation, Poland and Hungary, more than 60% of HRST in 2010 were women”⁷. And yet the UK’s proportion of women in this category was just 49% in 2011 and 2012, which is below the EU average and well below innovation leaders in both years⁷. Furthermore, when women have equal opportunities in sciences, they are more employable. As Figure 7 shows, women graduates are less likely to be unemployed than their male counterparts – even in the majority of the physical and formal sciences. And more positively, are more likely to be employed (see Figure 8). This confirms once more than in the race for high quality talent, we must collectively focus on bringing more women into a sector because they are good and not because they are female. This is a talent challenge for the pipeline, not a ‘diversity’ issue.
7 2011: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2011/science-and-technology-occupa- tions_sti_scoreboard-2011-14-en, page 72
2012: www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard_20725345, page 92
13
Figure 6
Percentage of male and female students per subject area in 2011-12
SUBJECTS ALLIED TO MEDICINE
80
EDUCATION
76
VETERINARY SCIENCE
75
LANGUAGES
68
SOCIAL STUDIES
62
CREATIVE ARTS & DESIGN
62
COMBINED
62
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
62
LAW
60
AGRICULTURE & RELATED SUBJECTS
59
MASS COMMUNICATIONS & DOCUMENTATION
58
MEDICINE & DENTISTRY
57
HISTORICAL & PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
53
BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES
49
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
40
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
39 33
ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & PLANNING 18
COMPUTER SCIENCE ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
16
0%
HESA Data
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
FEMALE
MALE
Male
Female
Male UNE
HESA Data
Female UNE All 10% COMPUTER SCIENCE
ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & PLANNING
CREATIVE ARTS & DESIGN
MASS COMMUNICATIONS & DOCUMENTATION
BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES
ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
SOCIAL STUDIES
AGRICULTURE & RELATED SUBJECTS
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
LANGUAGES
VETERINARY SCIENCE
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
HISTORICAL & PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
COMBINED
LAW
FIGURE 7
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
SUBJECTS ALLIED TO MEDICINE
EDUCATION
MEDICINE & DENTISTRY
14
Female and Male Unemployment 6 months after graduation in 2011/12 (DLHE)
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
15
FIGURE 8
Female advantage in Employment - 6 months after graduation in 2011/12 (DLHE)
-0.045 -0.024
-0.001
COMPUTER SCIENCE
-0.007
ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & PLANNING CREATIVE ARTS & DESIGN
0.021
-0.042
0.057
-0.06 -0.023
MASS COMMUNICATIONS & DOCUMENTATION BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES
0.024 -0.005
-0.021
ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
-0.02
AGRICULTURE & RELATED SUBJECTS
-0.019 0.06
-0.031
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
0.05
-0.05
LANGUAGES
0.034
-0.036
VETERINARY SCIENCE
-0.003
-0.020
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 0.047
-0.042
HISTORICAL & PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES 0.06
-0.016
LAW
0.042
-0.0420
COMBINED
0.05
-0.05
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
0.003
-0.012
EMPDIFF
-0.04
-0.02
EDUCATION
0.015
-0.002
-0.06
0
0.02
MEDICINE & DENTISTRY
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
UNEDIFF
Note: Blue bars to the right indicate female employment advantage. Orange bars to the left indicate female unemployment advantage.
HESA Data
SUBJECTS ALLIED TO MEDICINE
0.1
-0.023
-0.08
SOCIAL STUDIES
0.064
-0.027
EMPDIFF
UNEDIFF
16
FOCUS IT
2. We should focus on MTEC targets rather than just STEM. There isn’t a major volume problem in many sciences or technology subjects.
i) There does not appear to be a major problem with the number of overall STEM graduates
One in ten formal and physical science graduates is unemployed six months after leaving university, which suggests there is a market clearance issue. (Table 1) So, simply growing the number of girls and young women studying STEM subjects does not address the core challenge of growing the MTEC talent pool. MTEC is grounded in the needs of real businesses and sectors; whereas STEM graduates go into everything from banking to baking. Evidence from the department for Business, Innovaton and Skills shows that around 50% of graduates from STEM subjects end up in occupations considered as nonSTEM 8. Some leakage of graduates is a good sign in a dynamic economy, but a generalised concern about it may partially be the result of difficulties understanding the demand and supply of STEM skills. In policy terms, we need to understand the difference between a scientifically and technically literate workforce, and specific graduate skills and talent needed for particular sectors.
ii) Physics A-level in particular is a major recruitment issue for manufacturing and engineering businesses
As many universities require physics to study engineering, the subject is a barrier (or a platform) for long-term employability in industry. Universities on their own cannot solve this gender bottleneck in the pipeline, but they can help drive the solution. If we aim to achieve the gender dynamism demonstrated by the OECD Scorecard, the UK needs to increase the number of girls taking MTEC-relevant subjects in school. For example, if we wish to reach European averages for the percentage of women who are professional engineers the educational system will probably have to increase the number of young women taking physics A-level by 15 points, and almost double the number of women taking engineering degrees. (See Talent 2030 Dashboard) 9.
8 9
www.dius.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedd/publications/d/demand_for_stem_skills.pdf p.56-57 www.ncub.co.uk/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=70&Itemid=
17
TABLE 1
Destinations of Leavers of HE (DLHE)
% EMPLOYED BY SUGBECT AREA 2010/2011 SUBJECT AREA
EMPLOYED %
SUBJECT AREA
UNEMPLOYED %
MEDICINE & DENTISTRY
91
COMPUTER SCIENCE
13
EDUCATION
88
MASS COMMUNICATIONS & DOCUMENTATION
11
VETERINARY SCIENCE
87
CREATIVE ARTS & DESIGN
11
SUBJECTS ALLIED TO MEDICINE
86
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
9
ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & PLANNING
77
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
9
BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES
77
ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
9
MASS COMMUNICATIONS & DOCUMENTATION
76
LANGUAGES
9
SOCIAL STUDIES
74
HISTORICAL & PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
8
ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
73
BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES
8
COMBINED
71
SOCIAL STUDIES
8
CREATIVE ARTS & DESIGN
70
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
8
COMPUTER SCIENCE
68
ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & PLANNING
8
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
67
LAW
7
AGRICULTURE & RELATED SUBJECTS
67
AGRICULTURE & RELATED SUBJECTS
7
LANGUAGES
65
VETERINARY SCIENCE
6
HISTORICAL & PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
63
COMBINED
6
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
62
SUBJECTS ALLIED TO MEDICINE
4
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
62
EDUCATION
4
LAW
61
MEDICINE & DENTISTRY
1
HESA Data
18
CO-ORDINATE IT
3. MTEC companies need to join with universities and schools in a coordinated campaign to emphasise the social and personal benefits of working in such companies.
SELL IT
4. We need to campaign using language pupils and parents understand.
A recent survey of undergraduate women for the Council for Industry and Higher Education (now the NCUB), showed that the problem for girls and their parents is that MTEC companies were not seen as appropriate career destinations¹⁰. When asked what might have changed their opinions about entering manufacturing and engineering, three variables made a difference. First, most girls did not realise that engineering had the second largest graduate premium. Second, they would have been more inclined to have taken an MTEC route if they had understood it had ‘green’ potential and responsibilities. And finally, they needed role models - namely, young women like themselves who have taken that path. The NCUB’s Talent 2030 project is an attempt to raise consciousness on these three issues¹¹. Through its ‘Heroes’ campaign, it illustrated MTEC career portfolios taken by women in their 20s and 30s, and in the long-term hopes to help girls understand what they might achieve with an MTEC career portfolio.
Admirable, long-term targeted Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) initiatives aimed at girls need strengthening. Multiple initiatives funded by Government and sector partners (Women in Science and Engineering; MentorSET; STEM Ambassadors) have done terrific work and are the products of highly-committed participants. Furthermore, there are successful schools, teachers and heads who have driven hard at changing the picture. But overall the number of girls and young women MTEC-prepared is stubbornly refusing to grow. Collectively, we need to review new, contemporary approaches that aim to tackle root causes of this persistent gender imbalance. And this may mean facing the challenges of language – particularly that of STEM. STEM is used as a marketing term as if fourteen years olds know what it is. They don’t. It’s a meaningless acronym for many ¹². We must take the arguments to fourteen to nineteen year olds using terms they understand. This is not a question of dumbing down; it’s a question of being smart. The Target 2030 Campaign should engage consumer focused companies, such as the BBC, Channel 4, MTV, WPP, Pearson, Google, Facebook, Twitter and mobile social media (which are constantly changing), alongside MTEC companies to drive key messages to students, teachers and their parents. 10
www.ncub.co.uk/reports/great-expectations-top-manufacturing-and-engineering-talent-2030-creating-the-pipeline.html
11
www.talent2030.org
12 www.iop.org/news/13/dec/page_62059.html
19
WHY 2030? The graduate recruiters, entrepreneurs and management teams of 2030 are at university today, and the people they will be recruiting were born a few years ago and will soon be entering the school system. Assuming we launch the Target 2030 project for academic year 2014, we will only have sixteen years to achieve the targets. A blink.
Next Steps?
1
Consider long-term A-level and undergraduate targets for women in pivot subjects, such as physics and computing. Review successful campaigns in other countries.
2
Create a national campaign and sustained long-term program led by successful women (with an emphasis on young role models) and aimed at targeting parents and teachers in general, not just those who teach formal and physical sciences.
3
Mobilise the current female university population and alumni in a contemporary approach to engaging the next generation of female talent.
Vision
Increasing the prosperity and wellbeing of the UK through world-leading university and business collaboration.
MISSION
By effective collaboration, nurturing the right talent, innovation and expertise for the UK’s future growth.
METHOD
The NCUB will facilitate, integrate and communicate, but will never duplicate or substitute successful work already being undertaken by others.
Drawing on the 25 years’ experience of our predecessor body, the Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE), NCUB is committed to a programme of research, policy development and practical partnerships. From facilitating collaborative R&D, to developing the entrepreneurial and employability skills of students at all stages of their education, NCUB is working to support UK business and higher education in a competitive global market. NCUB’s Leadership Council includes many of the UK’s most successful businesses and universities.
To view our membership visit:
www.ncub.co.uk
With thanks to Rosa Fernandez, Olivia Jones and Joseph Barnsley for their contributions
NCUB is supported by:
National Centre for Universities and Business Studio 11, Tiger House, Burton Street, London, WC1H 9BY info@ncub.co.uk
+44 (0)207 383 7667
@NCUBtweets
www.ncub.co.uk