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.