Dear all,

We're not sufficiently far down the line yet to start noticing pitfalls at
Cambridge, but here are two that I've come across in previous institutions.
They both relate to service teaching. (I hope that they wont be recognised by
anyone other than my sucessors in those jobs!)

First: teaching maths to engineers. In one institution, there was reasonably
broad acceptance of the idea that, on academic grounds, maths should be taught
by mathematicians, who, for reasons of research 'critical mass' should be
employed in the mathematics department (there were some agreed exceptions to
this rule of thumb). Since the model had to implement agreed academic
strategy, we clearly had to come up with a way of encouraging departments such
as engineering to 'franchise out' their maths FTEs to maths. However, if you
follow the HEFCE methodology then, depending on how far you break departments
down into different cost centres, you find that maths taught by someone in an
engineering department is likely to be returned to an engineering cost centre,
and so be resourced at the engineering level. If we accept the argument
underlying the HEFCE T methodology, then maths is cheaper to teach than
engineering. So, by employing a mathematician 'in house' to do their maths
teaching, the engineers are able to make a profit on their HEFCE T funding
(income at Band B, but costs more similar to Band C). Two possible solutions:
either control such issues outside of the RAM, through an academic policy
committee (since the RAM is not a panacea); or fund by subject of study rather
than cost centre: then the decision whether to frnachise out or not is budget
neutral.

Second: teaching management to engineers. School of Management find it more
rewarding to teach their own students than to teach engineers. Consequently,
they demand a premium (e.g. they say that they want to receive band B funding,
since the students are engineers). Clearly, they dont understand how cost
centres work (they do now!). But in a highly devolved institution, where
Schools are very powerful, is there not some merit to their argument? Ought
the two Schools to be allowed to argue a transfer rate between themselves? (I
am not necessarily persuaded that they ought, but it is food for thought.)

In both cases, I think that a large part of the answer is that we should not
be afraid to use the freedom that we are given to apply HEFCE funds in the way
that we deem appropriate to institutional strategy, i.e. not necessarily in
accordance with the formula by which HEFCE determine our standard resource. In
this first case, by funding by subject not cost centre; in the second, by
adjusting the HEFCE weightings if this is agreeable to those concerned. I
think that it is of crucial importance that RAMs should reflect, and be a tool
for the implementation of, University strategy. And since the HEFCE model does
not include a direct link between activity and income (those extra students
just take you out of the tolerance band!), I have always found it possible to
persuade the relevant committees to diverge from the HEFCE methodology and
weightings (to greater or lesser extents) when designing local RAMs.

Malcolm Edwards

Malcolm S Edwards MA STM PhD,
Assistant Registrary,
General Board Division,
University Offices,
The Old Schools,
Trinity Lane,
Cambridge CB2 1TT

Telephone 01223 339665