International Student Fees and QR Funding: Lifelines for UK Doctoral Programs

Balancing Costs and Commitment: The Financial Challenges of PhD Education

A recent creative presentation at the Royal College of Art (RCA) by a German student poignantly highlighted the pressing issue of insufficient funding for doctoral education in the UK. Using the symbolic imagery of a hole in the wall, the presentation underscored the widening financial gap that universities face in supporting PhD training. This issue was further emphasised in a report commissioned by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), which revealed that institutions are spending up to four times more than they receive in funding. The report highlighted the critical role of quality-related (QR) funding and international student income in sustaining doctoral programs, drawing attention to the financial pressures that are increasingly reshaping higher education in the UK.

According to data from the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC), universities recover only 46% of the costs associated with educating PhD students, resulting in a staggering deficit of £1.8 billion for the academic year 2022-23. UKRI initiated its New Deal for Postgraduate Research programme in 2023 in response to these losses. Researchers from Oxford Brookes University and the University of Warwick were engaged to examine these financial shortfalls, with their findings published on 21 March.

The study revealed that less research-intensive universities faced even greater financial losses on PhD education, with one interviewee estimating a cost recovery rate of just 20-22%, consistent with peer institutions. These findings illustrate the uneven financial challenges across universities in funding doctoral education. Respondents from research-intensive universities, which tend to benefit from larger industry partnerships and research council spending, reported achieving higher cost recovery rates. However, some interviewees suggested that the overall 46% recovery rate underestimates actual expenses, with one estimating only 30% recovery at their institution.

Significant costs such as mental health support, estates, training, and overall student experience were noted to be excluded from TRAC submissions. This omission leads to a lack of clarity in understanding the per-student expenditure. Less research-intensive universities were disproportionately affected, as their smaller PhD cohorts limited opportunities to spread costs. Despite these financial constraints, many universities expressed their dedication to investing in postgraduate research environments as part of their strategic goals and their responsibility to train future generations.

Postgraduate researchers (PGRs) were highlighted as vital contributors to academia through teaching and research outputs, helping offset some costs. However, institutions remain heavily reliant on QR funding—comprising £1.3 billion from the mainstream fund and £344 million for research degrees—for critical areas such as stipends, studentships, and supervisory support. Without QR funding, many institutions would struggle to sustain their doctoral training programs. International student fees were also identified as a crucial source for cross-subsidizing PhD education. However, concerns were raised about immigration policies, particularly restrictions on family accompaniment, as potential threats to maintaining a robust research talent pipeline. While some interviewees suggested that an ideal cost recovery rate should be 80-100%, in line with research grants, many deemed this target unrealistic due to low tuition fees and unaccounted costs in doctoral training.

A separate report published on 21 March shed light on broader institutional cost recovery issues in research. It revealed that UK universities recover less than 70% of research costs, despite UKRI funding 80% of project expenses. Factors such as inflation, unforeseen staff costs, and undercosting by investigators were cited as contributing to the shortfall. In response, UKRI raised the capital equipment threshold from £10,000 to £25,000 to address rising research costs and reduce administrative burdens.

UKRI also introduced clearer guidelines on matched institutional funding, affirming a default position of no expectation for matched contributions. Jessica Corner, Executive Chair of Research England, expressed confidence that these measures would improve financial sustainability while balancing funding adequacy with the needs of long-term research infrastructure. These findings and reforms emphasise the urgent need for sustainable funding frameworks to ensure the continued success of doctoral education and research across UK universities.

Editor's Note:

The financial sustainability of doctoral education in the UK is an issue of growing importance, as highlighted by recent studies and discussions within the academic community. The critical dependence on quality-related (QR) funding, coupled with the challenges of international student fees and restrictive immigration policies, underscores the pressing need for reform. Universities are facing significant funding gaps, yet their commitment to nurturing future researchers and supporting postgraduate education remains unwavering.

According to Skoobuzz, as measures to address funding shortfalls emerge, it is crucial to ensure a balanced approach that safeguards academic excellence and innovation. This issue affects the financial landscape of higher education, the broader research ecosystem, and the pipeline of global talent contributing to the UK's academic sector.