51勛圖

University research shortfall rises above ?5 billion in England

Annual data shows universities in England and Northern Ireland face growing losses on research and teaching domestic students 

June 10, 2025
Source: iStock/Traimak_Ivan

Research activities continue to create a ※substantial deficit§ for English and Northern Irish universities, with new figures showing that they cost the sector more than ?5 billion last year alone.

The Office for Students* (OfS) annual costing analysis revealed that universities in the two countries had an aggregate deficit of ?2 billion in 2023-24.

?report, which calculates how much universities recover from certain economic outlays, found that research was the biggest drain on finances. The 150 institutions in the sample recorded a deficit of ?5.4 billion in research activity last year, which was a 13 per cent fall from ?4.7 billion in 2022-23.

The OfS said the downward trend ※reflects the increases in operating costs due to increases in staff costs, including pension costs, and inflationary increases in other operating expenses, particularly estates and research facilities§ 每 just as it did last year.

51勛圖

ADVERTISEMENT

Across the sector, two-thirds of full economic research costs were recovered 每 down from 69 per cent the year before and from a peak of 78 per cent in 2010-11.

Research costs made up almost half (48 per cent) of the total costs of universities with the highest levels of research income (Group A). But those in this group recovered 70 per cent of their costs, compared with just 41 per cent for those in Group D.

51勛圖

ADVERTISEMENT

Along with research, the sector again made a significant loss on teaching domestic students.?The TRAC data showed that it incurred a deficit of ?1.7 billion on publicly funded teaching compared with ?1.5 billion in 2022-23.

※The funding gap in publicly funded teaching has continued to widen due to sustained cost pressures, particularly rising staff-related expenditures, such as increased pensions obligations, alongside other operational expenditures,§ the OfS said.

※This has occurred despite efforts to reduce costs, rationalise academic portfolios, and enhance efficiency, while tuition fees for publicly funded provision have remained unchanged

The full economic cost recovery rate fell to 89 per cent. This represents a large fall from 2016-17, when domestic teaching just about broke even among the universities sampled that year.

51勛圖

ADVERTISEMENT

However, the sample institutions reported an increase in the profit made from international students. The surplus generated from non-publicly funded teaching increased from ?3 billion to ?3.2 billion, recovering about 143 per cent of costs.

Group A universities recovered 172 per cent of costs for this activity on average. The lowest surplus was for those in Group E (110 per cent).

The OfS said that while income from international students continues to make a ※significant contribution to support other activities, it does not provide sufficient surplus to offset§ deficits elsewhere.

It was enough to reduce the sector*s deficit overall, however. The ?2 billion aggregate deficit was a ※modest§ improvement on ?2.9 billion in 2022-23, according to the report.

51勛圖

ADVERTISEMENT

Total income rose by ?2.4 billion, including more than ?1 billion in new endowments and donations. Interest and finance costs decreased by?more than ?100 million and other income-generating activities also reduced in cost by over ?100 million.

patrick.jack@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
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (6)

※Found that research was the biggest drain on finances§. Lol. Seriously. Research is what makes a university a university. It is like saying that curing ill people is the biggest drain on the health service. Who are these people who have taken over UK HE and swallow this nonsense?
Well yes exactly. But surely this research deficit claim is strictly about accountancy and really bogus. It's the kind of special pleading exculpatory palaver we get from our VCs PVCs and senior managers. I believe previous to 2005 the FEC element in research funding was not present at all (or at. a much lower rate), so the 80% FEC allowance was a really huge boost to the sector at that time. I am old enough to remember that and the unconfined joy we felt at the introduction of this policy, generously funded by the long-suffering British taxpayer of course. I think the rationale at the time was that full FEC would simply reduce the amount available for grants, so that if we have 100% FEC then there would be fewer grants awarded and that would be detrimental to the system as a whole. If the govt funds 100% well they will take the money from the existing pot and not provide any additional funding. So be careful what you wish for Mr VC! The FEC regime is also an accountancy construction in my opinion. Universities are receiving income through FEC for costs that they already cover so the funding is additional and supplementary and is not an underpayment for good and services that need to be bough in additionally. In real terms the FEC element is relatively generous additional income stream for the sector. Indeed, it also goes in to funding the research infrastructure and culture of an institution and thus is 'double-counted' when it comes to the REF Environment sector and determines the ratings and later funding allocation. This QR element should really be accounted for out of the missing 20%? Of course now, they want to claim the missing 20% as underfunding and use this as a contributory excuse for the financial crisis the sector is in (not my fault!!). Well if it costs so much, stop applying for research projects, if you don't apply for any then you won't have any defect at all will you? Is that the logic they are peddling these days? I think it's just the senior managers finding another exculpatory excuse for the situation and the job losses. They really should for once consider that the monies (from the research councils) are provided by the UK taxpayer and all the competition demands on that income source and stop this endless rent-seeking mentality.
I too remember the 2005 policy. It was argued by the UK funding Councils (HEFCE then I think) that the decision was taken, given the restraints on the budget, that it would be 80% of FEC which was a massive injection of cash to the sector. They decided not to fund 100% of FEC because that would limit the amounts for direct research funding costs. So this claim of ?5 billion underfunding is pants. If they go for 100% of FEC they would simply redistribute the ?5 billion 'underfunding' from the existing allocation and fund fae fewer projects for fewer institutions. They would not, of course, provide an additional ?5 billion to the sector. If you are a University that does very well in research grant funding, I can see why you would argue for this as your individual HEI would get the projects, get more cash, but the rest of the sector would simply lose out and be deprived of research income and the rich get richer as it were. If so they should be honest about arguing for this. So the rate of FEC really is a trade off within the overall allocation. More FEC meansfewer grants! Additional costs have to be funded by savings within the existing budgets (where have we heard that before?)
Indeed! It's better to have 80% of the FEC on the projects we have than have fewer projects funded at 100% FEC and get zero!! If you had 100% FEC costing then you might not have got the FEC income at all as you might have got no award in the first place. Factor that into your accounting.
I think universities are making fairly significant (if hidden) profit on UKRI (and equivalent research). Overheads for a postdoc are over a 100% at my institution, and I don't think it is unusual in its overheads. Given neither I nor the research get much for these overheads, I am sceptical as to their reality. It is also well out of line for other systems I know about, where overheads are more like 50-70%.
new
All these comments seem highly sensible to me. I do hope someone listens somewhere. Just a brief observation. It seems to me paradoxical that our VCs complain about this ?5 bn underfunding (which as we hear is largely fictional) but do not complain about the enormous cost of the REF assessment at both institutional level and directly to UKRI? If you add up all the resource spent on running the exercise (pilots, panels, administrators etc etc) and the amount of resource institutions give to it (staff time, secondments, meetings, reviews, mock assessments and reviews, the impact activities etc etc), then how much is the full economic cost of this to the sector? They are so egregiously craven and compliant when it comes to REF (and other assessment activity). I wonder why?

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT