You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Cuts to history departments, particularly in post-92 universities—institutions that were given university status in the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act—risk making the subject the “preserve of elite institutions” in the U.K., warns a report.
There is a “growing divergence” between the subject’s popularity and the job security of historians in U.K. institutions, according to the Royal Historical Society (RHS).
Its report finds that history is in “good health” as a subject of study—it is one of the most popular subjects for undergraduate study in the arts, humanities and social sciences, with more than 40,000 students pursuing it every year.
Despite declining enrollments at the university level, history is growing in popularity in schools, with participation rising in secondary schools and among the general public.
“History is likewise prominent in public life,” the report says. “We read history, watch programs about the past, and visit sites of historical interest in greater numbers than ever.”
The RHS also cites figures showing that, contrary to popular rhetoric, history graduates perform strongly in terms of employability and earnings in the labor market.
However, it warns, in recent years the subject has witnessed an “alarming increase” in the number of departments facing cuts to staffing and to degree options, causing “turmoil and disruption.”
An RHS survey of 66 universities found that 39 U.K. history departments have reported staff cuts, while 32 departments reported the loss of history degrees or courses since 2020.
Emma Griffin, RHS president and professor of modern British history at Queen Mary University of London, told Times Higher Education that two more departments had contacted the society in just the past week to report consultations for more cuts—part of a sectorwide “crisis.”
The society’s report shows that 36 percent of departments reported the closure of one or more degree programs since 2020, and that 60 percent had suffered a fall in academic staffing levels over this period.
“For trained historians, the implications of such changes are far-reaching and include: the threat of redundancy; reduced scope for innovative teaching and research; greater inequality between institutions; and a diminishing of history’s influence and contribution beyond the university sector,” warns the report, which adds that students, too, will find their opportunities more limited.
The RHS survey found that departments at post-92 universities are the worst affected, with 58 percent losing at least one program and 88 percent facing staffing cuts.
This has triggered particular concern because these departments cater to the highest numbers of first-generation students as well as a growing cohort of commuting students, who would be unable to relocate to another university.
Griffin underlined the worry, noting that post-92s typically had an excellent record of serving many first-generation and widening-participation students.
The cuts, she continued, also heavily affect the large proportion of commuting students who can study history only if their local institution offers it.
“With the exit of smaller providers from the sector, those opportunities are being lost,” said Griffin.
“Making history the preserve of elite institutions, therefore, also makes it the preserve of social elites, raising concerning questions about equality of opportunity in the U.K. today.”
