HEFCE are currently seeking responses to their proposals regarding the
consultation paper HEFCE 2003/42, "Developing the funding method for
teaching from 2004-05: consultation". A supplementary document, "Review of
the assignment of academic cost centres to price groups", outlines the
analysis that underpins the proposals for changing the price groups and
their weightings.
Discussions at Northumbria about our response have raised several questions,
which may be of interest to others:
· Does the lack of base data and evidence to statistically support the
conclusions hinder response to the consultation? Was revising the scope of
the base data set part way through the exercise acceptable, especially after
data cleansing for anomalies had started?
· Do the charts and their associated information leave more questions than
answers? Do the charts really allow for easy comparisons between different
cost centres?
· Is the strength of the relationship between expenditure and FTE
convincing? Does it not look particularly weak in some cases (eg
Archaeology)?
· Could better graphical evidence have been included to support the proposed
groupings? Are scattergraphs the best option, especially when considering
the outliers in those cost centres which currently span different price
groups?
· Is the argument for placing Information Technology and Systems Sciences
(25) in the same price group as Computer Software Engineering (39), Group C,
really backed up by the statistical evidence?
Regards
Em
Emma Bailey
Information Analyst
Corporate Planning Dept
Northumbria University
Tel : (0191 243) 7291
|