No this doesn't seem very fair at all - how can you use the grades from
1996 and the primary volume indicators from 2001?
The stats from the RAE team confirmed that less people were returned as
'research-active staff' in 2001 than in 1996 - 50,430 in 1996 decreased to
50,159 in 2001 and the latter figure includes a significant number of A*
staff which didn't exist in 1996. It is also clear that almost everyone
was generally more 'selective' about who was returned to secure higher
grades at the expense of greater volume.
This approach seems to me to allow HEFCE to make some major savings in
02/03 by using the (mostly) lower grades fo 1996 and the (mostly) lower
volume numbers 2001 to calculate the QR funding for 02/03. I certainly
wouldn't imagine that they would ever agree to the opposite - i.e. utlising
the (mostly) higher grades from 2001 with the (mostly) higher volumes of 1996!
Can they really do this?
Jenny Laffan
At 16:12 22/10/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Apologies for cross-posting
>
>This document has just been posted on the web (01/61).
>
>It seems to confirm the 'word on the street' that HEFCE will use 1996
grades but 2001 volume data to allocate QR for 2002-03. (I understand HEFCE
officials made a statement at last week's data seminars to the effect that
this would go to the November HEFCE Board).
>
>Has anyone else worked out what to do about staff or research groups
supervising research students who have moved UoA between 1996 and 2001? If
we assume students should follow staff, then the students should also
logically move.
>
>But if the UoA into which they have been moved was ungraded in 1996 (or
lower graded than the one they have moved into), then surely institutions
in such a position will lose money in 2002-03, at least until the new
grades come into effect sometime in the next decade.
>
>Doesn't seem very fair!
>
>I haven't even begun to think about students crossing UoAs, or supervised
by non-returned members of staff.
>
>The circular seems strangely silent on guidance or safeguards to funding -
almost as if data collection had nothing to do with funding policy! (as if
...!)
>
>Anyone else share these concerns?
>
>
>
>
>Mike Milne-Picken
>Head of Planning & Performance Review
>University of Central Lancashire
>PRESTON
>PR1 2HE
>Tel: +44 (0)1772 892391
>Fax: +44 (0)1722 892943
>[log in to unmask]
>www.uclan.ac.uk/planning
>
Jenny Laffan
Senior Planning Officer
University of Bradford
Richmond Road
Bradford
BD7 1DP
01274 233108
[log in to unmask]
|