Mike
I would think most of us share your concerns. What you say about moving
students from one UoA to another seems logical except for the funding
aspect ie moving them from a higher rated to a lower rated UoA or vice
versa
Michael Milne-picken <[log in to unmask]>@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> on
22/10/2001 16:12:29
Please respond to "This list is for the benefit of those working in
academic, financial or spa"
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: "This list is for the benefit of those working in academic,
financial or spa" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: (bcc: Zita Eckett/Registry/Southampton Institute)
Subject: HEFCE Research Activity Survey 2001
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
|