There's not much to laugh at nowadays, but point your web-browser to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_216000/216975.stm
for the "official" league tables comparing higher education institutions
in the UK. "Research productivity" is defined (as I read it) in terms of
amount of grant from government to support research divided by number of
PhDs gained *at* that institution - I stress *at* because some places
listed do not themselves have the power to award degrees.
So the great universities of Britain - "Oxford, Cambridge and Hull" come
at some nondescript position in the middle of the table; colleges of
performing arts come right down the bottom (vide UKCGE documents on the
need for PhD equivalents in this area), and university-colleges with no
research funding come top.
On the other hand, this system does suggest that a PhD gained at CERN is
of no value, while a theoretical insight based on pure thought is
infinitely worthwhile. Maybe I'm just being a force for conservatism.
Lest the wrath of the web-master descend upon me, I'll ask the questions:
Was any statistician involved in this charade? But would s/he dare
own up? Discussion to radstats please?
R. Allan Reese Email: [log in to unmask]
Associate Manager Direct voice: +44 1482 466845
Graduate Research Institute Voice messages: +44 1482 466844
Hull University, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Fax: +44 1482 466846
====================================================================
Hull Univ - moving up in the First Division. Daily Telegraph 4/8/99
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|