NOUS has been commissioned for a portfolio review in 2024. Though it is worth noting that they have also been central in drawing up the KPIs and benchmarks for Strategy 2030 – as they proudly announce here – not least because that previous work shows a drive for centralisation and because ‘alignment with Strategy 2030’ is one of the categories used in the quantitative framework developed in Autumn 2024.

NOUS developed the quantitative framework for the portfolio review, without meaningful input from Education Committees. Deans and the Senior Executive Team are signing off on it — notably, the person leading the ‘project’ is the Principal’s Chief of Staff, so not an education or research professional.

By Spring 2026, management decided to cut at least 295 modules in the School of the Arts, despite pushback and pointing out of inaccuracies in the data. The modules on the chopping block are the modules that make QMUL distinct and which are shaped by research of colleagues. QMUL is destroying what makes QMUL and overriding what it means to get a university education.

Why are colleagues so concerned about NOUS?

NOUS has a track record of centralising and shrinking universities. Everywhere they go, they uproot department-specific expertise (both academic and professional), and reduce the number of programmes. The (un?)intended consequences of this are a drop in student recruitment and then redundancies. 

  • NOUS brackets out research. Research is not part of the quantitative framework they draw up
  • NOUS’s advice is not tailored to the institution, let alone to the discipline specific-needs.
  • NOUS gives the same boilerplate advice everywhere: reduce the number programmes, reduce the number of module codes, scratch joint-degrees and stifle Schools’ autonomy.
  • Reduction in programmes and modules and joint-degrees makes departments invisible on UCAS and unattractive to applicants
  • Track record of sinking departments and leading to job losses e.g.: Alberta (Can), York (Can), Queen’s (Can), Monash (Aus), Plymouth (UK), Portsmouth (UK), Coventry (UK)

What can colleagues still ask?

It’s not because NOUS is here that we have to do, unthinkingly, what they say. They’re a tool, which should be used with caution and critical understanding. Using data consultancies isn’t inherently bad, but neither is it inherently good. The concern is that data gets used unchallenged. Staff’s expertise should be actively incorporated in this – many of us are in fact experts in research and using data to make the world better!

There are things we can ask for clarity on in our departments:

  • Staff should have access to data and data collection methods. 
  • It should be made clear to staff who at QMUL is in charge of the project and who has the final word on its implementation.
  • Staff  should be able to halt and overturn proposals from external consultants.

Management has ignored input from staff, despite acknowledging inaccuracies when pointed out. Their intransigence is a tactic to get people to shut up from exhaustion. We do not have to let that tactic succeed.

How can students help?

Students can make clear that what attracted them to QMUL in the first place was its range of modules and the strength of critical work. In the School of the Arts these cuts mean the loss of at least 295 modules, mostly those which offer intersectional and critical perspectives.

  • Join School-wide meetings with staff and students
  • Talk to tutors, lecturers, and professors about the (proposed) cuts
  • Support open letters and petitions
  • Share the leaflet

More info about NOUS