JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ADMIN-PLANNING Archives


ADMIN-PLANNING Archives

ADMIN-PLANNING Archives


ADMIN-PLANNING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ADMIN-PLANNING Home

ADMIN-PLANNING Home

ADMIN-PLANNING  June 2010

ADMIN-PLANNING June 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Son of MASN

From:

Edward Lazell <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities

Date:

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:38:25 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

It doesn't have to be about aggregate vs intake. It should be quite
possible to exempt, or to compensate for, adverse side-effects to WP/LL
entry routes. The intake control could be modified.
Admittedly this would be more complexity for us, but we're ELQ-checking
everyone's entry quals anyway...

-----Original Message-----
From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Fisher
Sent: 18 June 2010 14:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Son of MASN

I'm sorry, but I'm completely with Mario here. I would die (or at least
I
would send my VC to die) in a ditch before I would accept an aggregate
control. For institutions like mine which were on a powerful growth path
before the cap came down, the effects of an aggregate control would be
catastrophic. 

From a WP point of view you could argue that an aggregate control would
disincentivise our Year Zero programmes, which are a key WP tool for us.
This
is just as valid as the point about FD top-ups, although it will affect
slightly different institutions in different ways. There is no way to
implement a control without adverse consequences, and I fully agree with
HEFCE that they got the better deal going.

Andrew  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mike Milne-Picken
> Sent: 18 June 2010 10:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: HEFCE Definition of Non-completion Redux
> 
> HEFCE (Mario Ferelli) argued strongly against an aggregate control,
> which would be more draconian as it would (for example) limit degree
> length and prevent development and innovation.  He felt that an intake
> control, warts and all, gave the sector more flexibility to see its
way
> through the period of restraint.
> 
> I wasn't convinced.
> 
> Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Academic, financial or space planning in UK universities
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fiona Loughran
> Sent: 18 June 2010 10:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: HEFCE Definition of Non-completion Redux
> 
> Dear Mike
> You have raised some very interesting issues here, from a funding
> perspective and from a student perspective.
> 
> The current HEFCE method of controlling new entrants also means that
it
> is better for an institution to recruit students to three year courses
> than to one or two year courses, as you can then get three years
> benefit in terms of student funding and fees. This may lead to
> reductions in Foundation Degree and HND courses, which also have WP
> benefits, as well as the issues you rightly raise about progression to
> top-up years.
> 
> One option would be for the sector to encourage HEFCE to move to a
> control on total FT UG funded students, rather than focusing on new
> entrants (assuming that such a control is here to stay for financial
> reasons).
> 
> This would give the Government greater control over the student
support
> costs, as these could actually increase with the current control if
> many institutions moved to three year courses rather than one or two
> year courses.
> 
> It would also remove the potential impact of the current control on
> courses and progression routes likely to benefit WP students.
> 
> This is something that could be raised with HEFCE through the current
> teaching funding consultation (eg Question 9 asks if you consider that
> any other principles or features should be fundamental to our teaching
> funding method?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fiona Loughran
> Director of Planning
> University of Portsmouth
> Tel: 023 9284 3526

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________


<HTML>
<p><font size="1">Please consider the environment. Do you need to print this email? <br />
This e-mail, and any attachments, are private and intended only for the personal and confidential use of the 
designated recipient(s) above. Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying are prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. <br />
Although the Royal College of Music ICT Department checks emails and attachments for known viruses and other 
defects, you open attachments at your own risk. The Royal College of Music accepts no responsibility for any loss 
or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use of this message.  Full contact details are found at 
www.rcm.ac.uk.
<br />
</font></p>
</HTML>

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager