 |
 |
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%