After living with the budget uncertainty and audit consequences of both
the FEFC/LSC's 'fixed price per qualification per student' and HEFCE's
broad tolerance bandwidth methodologies, I can assure you I'd rather
have HEFCE's methodology any day! Certainty is something you cannot put
a price on!! Even the irresistible force of the LSC (or should it be
immovable object?) is intending to move in that direction for the future
(3% tolerance in 02-03).
But speaking from an institution that next year will be at -20%
(according to the simulations), I shall be arguing that HEFCE should do
rather more to converge institutions to within the tolerance bandwidth!
:-(
The real problem with the HEFCE methodology is all the silly extra
things that offset the tolerance band, including the infamous (and
frankly ridiculous) historic buildings premium designed to protect the
Oxbridge elite, and special institutional initiatives like HR
strategies, project capital, TQEF, minority subjects, etc that should
all be mainstreamed into the standard allocation to let institutions
determine their priorities. Why we have to have funding linked to
policy objectives in such a deterministic way defeats me - why don't
they just ask and people might actually have time and resources to
deliver, if they weren't so busy counting, chasing and holding on to
every individual crock of gold?
Mike Milne-Picken
Hopwood Hall College
-----Original Message-----
From: Evans Robin Mr (ACAD) m040 [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 November 2003 14:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Changes to HEFCE T fundin: consultation
Rob Evans
Deputy Academic Registrar
University of East Anglia
Dear All,
Is anyone going to argue that a 10% tolerance band width is hardly
funding identical provision at the same rate!? Presumably those at, or
close to, -5% may find this attractive???????
Rob
|