More UK university history departments are cutting jobs and courses

The reduction of history departments, particularly in post-1992 universities – institutions granted university status under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 – risks turning the subject into a “reserve for elite institutions” in the UK, the report warns.

According to the Royal Historical Society (RHS), there is a “growing discrepancy” between the popularity of the subject and job security for historians in UK institutions.

His report says that history is in “good health” as a subject of study – it is one of the most popular undergraduate subjects in the arts, humanities and social sciences, taken by more than 40,000 students each year.

Despite declining student enrollment at university level, history is growing in popularity in schools, with increasing participation in secondary schools and among the general public.

“History also figures prominently in public life,” the report says. “We are reading history, watching programs about the past and visiting places of historical interest in more numbers than ever before.”

The RHS also provides figures showing that, contrary to popular rhetoric, history graduates perform well in terms of employment and labor market earnings.

However, he warns that in recent years this subject has witnessed ‘alarming increase’ in number of departments facing redundancies and so that degree optionscausing “riots and disturbances”.

An RHS study of 66 universities found that 39 UK history departments reported staff cuts and 32 departments reported losing history degrees or courses since 2020.

Emma Griffin, President of the RHS and Professor of Modern British History at Queen Mary University of Londonsaid Higher Education Times that two more departments contacted the society just last week to say they were consulting on further cuts as part of an industry-wide “crisis”.

The society’s report shows that 36 percent of faculties reported closing one or more degree programs since 2020, and that 60 percent have suffered from academic staff cuts during this period.

“For trained historians, the consequences of such changes are far-reaching and include: the threat of dismissal; reduced opportunities for innovative teaching and research; greater inequality between institutions; and the diminishing influence and contribution of history beyond the university sector,” warns the report, which adds that students will also find their options more limited.

The RHS study found that departments universities suffered the most after 1992with 58 percent losing at least one program and 88 percent facing staff reductions.

This was of particular concern because these departments have the largest number of first-generation students, as well as a growing group of students who will not be able to transfer to another university.

Griffin highlighted the concerns, noting that post-’92 students tend to have an excellent record of serving many first-generation and at-large students.

The cuts, she continued, also greatly impact the large proportion of students who commute and can only study history if their local institution offers it.

“With smaller suppliers leaving the sector, those opportunities are lost,” Griffin said.

“Making history therefore the preserve of elite institutions also makes it the preserve of social elites, raising troubling questions about equality of opportunity in Britain today.”