Paul

I think the two answers to your questions are 'yes' and 'no'.

HEFCE have already ignored a parliamentary Committee telling them that the
policy is ill-thought-through and rushed, and they can ignore us telling them
that (again) too. This thing is being driven from a higher level. I think to
give them pause now we have to be able to show them that their implementation
of this policy will lead to unequal treatment of institutions in a way that
could give rise to legal challenge.

It may well be that data quality on QUALENT is poorer at WP universities than
others, or that a wider variety of the codes treated as 'unknown' are used at
that kind of institution because of the nature of the intake. But I think it
will be really difficult to demonstrate that any specific institution has
been disadvantaged. I was hoping that my earlier request about graduate
diplomas would bring a real concrete example of different treatment, but so
far everyone who has replied to me has effectively said 'yes, us too', which
makes it an interesting technical anomaly, again not something where anyone
can be concretely shown to have been disadvantaged.

Still hoping, though.

Andrew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK 
> universities [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
> Of Paul Norris
> 
> Dear All
>
Snip
> 
> In short, I think that most of these assumptions on HEFCE's 
> part are at best ill-founded, at worst plain wrong.  I see 
> that para 67 of the latest circular notes "Through basing the 
> withdrawal of funding on historical data, we have sought to 
> keep additional burden to a minimum."  Given the amounts of 
> money involved, I think reviewing/updating this data would 
> have been a good investment of our time.
> 
> Can I check my logic with you good folks?  Have I got my 
> thinking straight and if so is it worth further pursuing 
> these points with our friends at HEFCE?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul
> 
>