A significant reduction in staff numbers at the University of Nottingham over the next 18 months is a serious threat to teaching quality, student experience, and the institution’s reputation. These cuts are not an inevitable necessity but a strategic choice—one that will have long-term consequences for both staff and students.
Disclaimer: many of the ideas explored in this section are not based on detailed university plans but include hypothetical cuts to staff numbers used to illustrate the potential impact of job cuts.
The Student-Staff Ratio
The University’s Student-Staff Ratio (SSR) has fluctuated significantly in recent years. It peaked at 16.8 in 2021/22 before improving to 14.4 in 2023/24. This improvement has not been the result of a substantial increase in staff numbers, but rather a decline in student enrollment, alongside a moderate rise in staff numbers. The latter is also a consequence of improved reporting.
Key trends:
- Student numbers peaked at 36,017 in 2021/22, declining to 34,651 in 2023/24.
- Staff numbers increased from 2,075 in 2020/21 to 2,399 in 2023/24.
Rather than responding to these figures by strengthening student recruitment efforts, management is opting to cut staff—a decision that will push the SSR back up, undermining recent improvements and negatively impacting both students and staff.
The Consequences of a 20% Staff Reduction
We know that the university is considering a 20% reduction in activity. Should these cuts predominantly be found in reducing staff numbers, we will see a decline from 2,399 (based on 23/24 data) to approximately 1,919. If student enrollment remains stable, this will result in an SSR of 18.05—higher than at any point in the last five years. The likely effects include:
Long-term financial instability. A higher SSR could make the University a less attractive choice for prospective students, further affecting enrollment and revenue.
Increased workloads for remaining staff. Less capacity for research, student support, and academic development.
Deterioration in teaching quality. Larger classes, reduced feedback, and fewer opportunities for student engagement.
Damage to league table performance. SSR is a key metric in university rankings, and institutions with lower ratios consistently perform better. A decline in rankings impacts student recruitment and funding opportunities.
Impact on League Table Performance
The Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide, Complete University Guide, and Guardian University Guide all include SSR as a key performance indicator. A worsening SSR has historically correlated with declines in rankings. After years of poor leadership, Nottingham currently ranks as follows:
- Complete University Guide: 30th out of 130
- Times and Sunday Times Good University Guide: 30th out of 131
- Guardian University Guide: 62nd out of 122
- Times Higher Education (THE) World Rankings: 136th
How Would an SSR of 18+ Affect Rankings?
A worsening SSR could push Nottingham out of the top 150 globally, significantly affecting its ability to attract international students.
- Complete University Guide & Times Good University Guide
- These rankings balance SSR with research performance, graduate prospects, and entry standards.
- Universities in the top 30 tend to have SSRs below 15.
- A rise to 18+ could push Nottingham down to 35-40th place.
- Guardian University Guide
- Teaching-related factors make up 66% of the overall score.
- Universities with SSR >18 typically rank outside the top 50, with most clustering in the lower half of the table.
- Nottingham already ranks 62nd, and an increase in SSR could push it towards 70th or lower.
- Times Higher Education World Rankings
- Nottingham currently ranks 136th globally.
- Universities ranked outside the top 150 tend to have SSRs between 18-22.
- A worsening SSR could push Nottingham out of the top 150 globally, significantly affecting its ability to attract international students.
The Real Issue: Recruitment, Not Redundancies
The primary issue facing the University is not overstaffing, but a failure to sustain and grow student numbers. Other institutions facing similar challenges are investing in enhanced recruitment strategies, student support services, and outreach initiatives. In contrast, at Nottingham, as we will discuss in the next segment, we have seen the epic failure of the digital prospectus with applicants unable to find the correct course, chaos with proposals to cut courses in the middle of the application cycle, and a marketing department which is under-resourced and unable to properly serve individual schools.
The folly of course closures
Under the banner of Future Nottingham, the university is closing courses and programmes in what appears to be a precursor to widespread redundancies. Departments must justify their existence under shifting, arbitrary criteria, with viable courses sacrificed to meet the University Executive Board’s demand for a 20% activity reduction. These rushed decisions seem disconnected from both academic and financial realities.
Flawed Justifications and Marketing Failures
Closures are based on a superficial analysis of enrolment numbers, ignoring broader trends and cross-programme contributions. Many courses show normal admissions fluctuations, not long-term decline. For example, Mathematical Physics—earmarked for closure—dipped in 2023–24 but rebounded in 2024–25. Are temporary declines being used to justify permanent cuts?
University management fails to acknowledge its role in falling applications. Departments report ineffective marketing, while the university’s digital prospectus has misdirected prospective students to the wrong courses. Members in one faculty have reported that when Campus Solutions came in, around £2m in fees were lost owing to the fact that the turnaround for applicants was so long, they went elsewhere.
These issues, particularly during peak application periods, hinder recruitment. Declining applications may stem from internal failures, not lack of demand—problems that can be fixed without resorting to job losses.
Damage to Reputation and Recruitment
Nottingham has built its reputation on academic diversity, but cutting courses—especially in STEM and interdisciplinary fields—makes it less attractive to students and faculty. Fewer specialist courses push applicants toward competitor institutions. The same is true of the best researchers, denied the opportunity to teach the course that matter to them.
Beyond recruitment losses, abrupt closures damage the university’s perceived stability. Applicants, parents, and employers expect consistency. A pattern of course cuts signals uncertainty, deterring future talent. Other universities’ experiences highlight these risks. As reported in The Guardian, Canterbury Christ Church’s English Literature cuts sparked national concerns over eroding critical skills, while The Financial Times has warned that reductions in core science subjects threaten industrial strategy. Nottingham risks similar long-term harm.
The False Promise of Financial Savings
Closing courses is unlikely to generate meaningful savings. Many require minimal additional resources, as they rely on existing teaching capacity. Their elimination does not cut costs significantly but instead dismantles modules serving multiple programmes, reducing academic diversity and specialist research-led teaching.
One particular programme, run jointly by two different Schools in the Faculty of Science, has been earmarked for closure, despite the fact there are currently more than 50 students on the course. That means it currently generates around £500,000 annually. As most modules are shared with other programmes, closure will not yield major savings. Leaders may assume students will transfer to related courses, but this is unlikely—most will go elsewhere to find that unique blend this joint course provides, taking their fees with them.
This also raise an issue of protectionism. There are some courses that act as feeder courses to other schools and departments. However it is becoming apparent that those running these courses no longer want their students sent to schools other than their own. This fundamentally is not what a university is about, and fundamentally goes against the notion of a pluralist education.
Financial risks extend beyond lost tuition. Department closures often drive out research-active staff, reducing grant income and industry partnerships. This weakens Nottingham’s research rankings and future funding opportunities. Past cases show the dangers: as The Guardian reported, cutting Black Studies at Birmingham City and to research on racial disparities in the UK have effectively erased entire academic fields, undermining diversity in higher education and damaging institutional reputation.
Chaotic and Illogical Decision-Making
Perhaps most concerning is the top-down, opaque nature of these decisions. Senior managers appear fixated on arbitrary 20% cut targets rather than making evidence-based choices. Some courses have even been earmarked for closure mid-admissions cycle—after offers were made—causing chaos for students and staff.
A more transparent, consultative approach could allow departments to propose alternatives, such as targeted marketing or curriculum adjustments, instead of outright closures. Universities that engage staff and students in decision-making are more resilient and innovative.
These closures are a short-sighted response that fails to consider long-term financial sustainability or Nottingham’s broader mission. Instead of weakening its academic offerings, the university should focus on proactive recruitment strategies and staff engagement to secure its future. Other institutions’ experiences show that reckless cuts often lead to reputational damage, skill shortages, and financial difficulties—risks Nottingham cannot afford.
A workload and work-related stress crisis made worse
The University’s plan to significantly reduce staff numbers as part of the Future Nottingham initiative poses a serious threat not just to jobs, but to the quality of education, the student experience, and the health and wellbeing of remaining staff. While framed as a strategic restructuring, such a drastic reduction in workforce is, in reality, a direct transfer of burden onto those who remain.
To put this into perspective, we know that the university is exploring 20% cuts in activity across all schools and departments. If a team loses 20% of staff, that could equate to a 25% increase in workload for each of those who are left behind. To see this, imagine a team of five people working 40 hours each week—200 hours of labour in total. If one person is made redundant, and there is no coherent and realistic plan to reduce the amount of work this team does, the remaining four must shoulder the same 200 hours. That’s 50 hours a week per person—a ten-hour increase per head. This is not just a strain; it’s an unsustainable intensification of workload.
The University of Nottingham’s current policy on workload management for academic staff suggests that a workload calculated as taking anywhere from 80-120% of the employees contracted time is acceptable. UCU UoN Workload Working Group, supported by UCU National Health and Safety Officers, has declared this an unacceptable work-related stress hazard and is campaigning for a maximum of 95% for all employees. For a full time staff member, a workload of 120% requires them to work a full 6th day every week without compensation. They do not get a 120% salary and are simply expected to sacrifice family time and wellbeing for free. According to a recent FOI request, 4 out of 5 faculties knowingly and consistently give employees workloads over 100%. With a likely high proportion of staff in all job families already working beyond their contracted capacity, any additional workload will be crippling. Administrative, Professional and Managerial (APM) colleagues don’t even have a workload model, so their workload percentage could be anyone’s guess.
This FOI request also showed over 4,700 days of sick leave for work related stress were taken in the 2023-24 academic year, with a further 2,707 taken between 1st September 2024 and 14th March 2025. To put this into perspective, the former is equivalent to more than 21 years of work. Furthering the demand and pressures on staff members by redistributing work of colleagues made redundant will only increase the number of people at UoN made ill by excessive workloads.
These impacts are not just operational; they are legal and ethical concerns. Employers have a statutory duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999) to protect staff from harm including workplace stress. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the UK regulator for such matters, requires employers to undertake formal Business Unit Stress Risk Assessments, with significant penalties for non-compliance. Yet, despite these clear legal obligations, some universities have failed to act responsibly. A recent example involving the University of Birmingham prompted an HSE inspection and highlighted the serious consequences—legal and reputational—that can follow neglect. UCU UoN has now reported UoN to HSE for legal failings in this regard. Despite repeated requests for H&S legal compliance documentation relating to workload stress from September 2024 – April, 2025, there is still no evidence that the university is meeting its legal duty.
Work-related stress is not a fringe issue. In 2020–21 alone, over 800,000 UK workers reported experiencing it, according to HSE data. And while individual wellbeing is paramount, it is also worth noting that a supported and healthy workforce is a more productive one. A workplace that respects its staff and takes their health seriously is better positioned to deliver a high-quality student experience.
These kinds of cuts, already rolling through the UK higher education sector, including at the University of Nottingham, follow a familiar and damaging pattern. When institutions face financial strain—whether from broader sector challenges or from overinvestment in poorly planned capital projects—they tend to slash variable costs. That means cuts to administration, modules, courses, departments, and most worryingly, people. Redundancies may balance budgets in the short term, but they do so at the expense of the very staff who uphold the university’s core work.
The University of Nottingham has been misrepresenting staff-to-student ratios by aggregating academic staff with Administrative, Professional, and Managerial (APM) staff—distorting the reality of teaching capacity. Unless a substantial number of courses and administrative functions are axed alongside staff cuts, the workload on remaining staff will become unmanageable. We are committed to challenging this kind of distortion because it masks the real, human cost of these decisions.
Ultimately, the Future Nottingham proposals risk doing lasting harm to both the university’s people and its reputation. The quality of education, the student experience, wellbeing support, estates and the institution’s research standing all rely on a healthy, supported workforce. Cutting jobs to balance budgets is not only short-sighted—it is a breach of trust, a blow to morale, and a danger to the university’s long-term success, delivered by all University staff: Academics, APM and technicians together. We are the university.
