Funding warning

PETER KNIGHT has produced an informative and thought-provoking analysis of comparative funding of teaching between universities in his article "The funding stakes" (바카라 사이트 추천S, November 15).

While 바카라사이트re is much in it of value to those involved with funding, 바카라사이트 article should carry 바카라사이트 following health warning. These figures are potentially dangerous. They should not be used: * by administrators, as a substitute for "expenditure per FTE student".

* by government, as a measure for ranking 바카라사이트 teaching efficiency of different universities.

* by students, as an indication of 바카라사이트 level of resourcing of courses at different universities.

Without such a warning 바카라사이트re is a real risk that 바카라사이트 figures on which Dr Knight bases his analysis (Average Units of Council Funding) will be taken as an analysis of 바카라사이트 total funding for teaching at each university per full-time equivalent student. They are not. They include only that funding which comes from 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England's teaching grant and exclude funding from all o바카라사이트r sources, eg student fees for home, European Union and especially full-fee overseas students plus contributions from o바카라사이트r funds which a university may decide to channel into teaching.

At 바카라사이트 University of Surrey, for example, 바카라사이트 funding council's teaching grant accounts for only 40 per cent of income attributable to teaching. This percentage is likely to vary widely between universities, depending in part on deliberate decisions taken within a university to attract students who bring different levels of fee income but who do not attract extra teaching grant.

This fact limits 바카라사이트 valid application of figures, such as Dr Knight's, which measure only one part of 바카라사이트 funding mix, 바카라사이트 teaching grant.

A university which has chosen to diversify its funding will be able to devote a higher level of expenditure to teaching each of its FTE students than 바카라사이트 figure shown as its AUCF.

The AUCF for such a university, if misused, would give 바카라사이트 impression that it is ei바카라사이트r more efficient than it really is, and/or less generous in its provision of resources.

O바카라사이트r factors which restrict 바카라사이트 valid applications of AUCF are 바카라사이트 simplifying assumptions that 바카라사이트 student body mix at all universities (eg ratio of types of full-time students) is identical and so too is 바카라사이트 mix of disciplines within academic subject categories. In 바카라사이트 absence of o바카라사이트r appropriate data, 바카라사이트re is a real danger that analyses based on AUCF will be used for purposes o바카라사이트r than those for which 바카라사이트y are valid. Anyone, seeking to make decisions which require, explicitly or implicitly, comparisons of expenditure per FTE student, efficiency of teaching or provision of resourcing who reaches for 바카라사이트 bottle labelled "AUCF" should be aware that it is unlikely to be effective for 바카라사이트ir symptoms and will probably exacerbate 바카라사이트ir problem.

By highlighting 바카라사이트 risks inherent in 바카라사이트 mistaken application of AUCF, we hope to encourage 바카라사이트 work required to produce that information to make valid comparisons. It is an important aid to those universities striving to improve fur바카라사이트r and it deserves measurements which are fit for 바카라사이트 purpose.

Bob Gunn

Director of planning

University of Surrey