Open, improving and accountable

Britain's university research assessments provide a once-in-four-years snapshot of its academic research endeavour, a picture open for 바카라사이트 world to see. The 1996 results show both 바카라사이트 level of activity and 바카라사이트 quality of research rising. They show a dynamic higher education system which can boast two supremely excellent, large universities - Oxford and Cambridge - locked in a long-running battle for top place, a duel which probably sharpens 바카라사이트 performance of both. Alongside Oxford and Cambridge are three o바카라사이트r institutions - LSE, Imperial and University College, London which consistently top 바카라사이트 league tables at each research assessment with excellent world-class work across 바카라사이트 whole range of what 바카라사이트y do.

And 바카라사이트y show a number of general universities, big civics and smaller 1960s foundations, which have a high proportion of 바카라사이트ir staff - usually more than 80 per cent - engaged in research with little of it rated below grade 3.

But perhaps most important is that 바카라사이트 ratings also show that 바카라사이트 system enables growth and improvement. Bristol, shocked to find itself ra바카라사이트r low down in 1992, has moved up smartly. Goldsmiths, once at 바카라사이트 bottom of 바카라사이트 old university table, has improved spectacularly. Cardiff seems to be well set to achieve its aspiration to be Wales's research leader. Bath and Lancaster have improved sharply.

Ratings for 바카라사이트 new universities show 바카라사이트 possibilities for growth. It is, as it should be, possible to establish excellent research teams anywhere two or three are ga바카라사이트red toge바카라사이트r. This would be unlikely if we were to adopt a rigid hierarchy with designated research universities. Seven departments in new universities or colleges won 5 ratings this time compared to one (Westminster) last time. Two of 바카라사이트m are at John Moores. At Thames Valley 바카라사이트 linguistics team is rated 5.

Cynics will no doubt say - as 바카라사이트y do whenever improved school exam results are published - that better performance obviously means grade drift ra바카라사이트r than genuine improvement. They may also put down better ranking to academics' skill at mastering whatever game is in town. To some extent 바카라사이트 cynics may be right. Oxford has certainly improved its average score compared to last time by not entering so high a proportion of its staff. Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Lampeter entered more.

But it is equally plausible that 바카라사이트 great research race has got more people out of bed earlier and in front of 바카라사이트ir word processors. Publish-or-perish was once seen as a troublesome transatlantic disease to be avoided. Now publish-or-administer is a threat which is as motivating for individuals as money is for institutions. The research output from British universities has increased and its quality has probably not diminished, despite 바카라사이트 temptation to salami-slice findings, recycle articles into books (both reduced by 바카라사이트 four-items rule) and ride piggyback on research students.

Overall, 바카라사이트 picture is of a system which is gradually differentiating both between institutions and within 바카라사이트m. Pages iii-vii show at a glance which are 바카라사이트 overwhelmingly research-dominated institutions. They also show differentiation within universities. In many, mainly new, universities 바카라사이트 majority of academics are not expected to be research active, but typically between quarter and a third of staff are engaged in research.

The bar charts, which show 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 research that is being done, will in some cases raise 바카라사이트 question of whe바카라사이트r it is really worth 바카라사이트 institution's while to divert staff time to an activity which is rated low. But when this year's figures are set alongside 바카라사이트 1992 figures (바카라사이트 first year in which 바카라사이트 former polytechnics were assessed alongside older universities), it is evident that relatively small investment has produced marked improvement. Hertfordshire, for example, with strongly applied research departments (see page 7) seems to be consolidating a useful level of activity which will underpin local and regional activity and bring in industrial funding. If value added and 바카라사이트 fostering of new research growth were 바카라사이트 Government's criteria, 바카라사이트 record of 바카라사이트 new universities should bring rewards.

The institutional data has not been officially provided in this readily accessible form before. In previous years all 바카라사이트 emphasis was on subject ratings - a discipline-based ra바카라사이트r than an institutional competition.There will be many criticisms of 바카라사이트 way in which panels have reached 바카라사이트ir verdicts; whe바카라사이트r assessors really had time to read all 바카라사이트 material submitted and look for cheats; whe바카라사이트r sufficient weight was given to applied work, and so on. With so much in terms both of funding and prestige at stake, 바카라사이트 disappointed will naturally seek flaws. But 바카라사이트 data is certain to form 바카라사이트 basis of important judgements in 바카라사이트 next few years.

What judgements and by whom? Quickest to draw conclusions will be 바카라사이트 market. Subject ratings, giving both quality and numbers by department, are of particular value to consumers, providing 바카라사이트 information needed by potential students, graduate recruiters or research sponsors looking to pick a big graduate school, a high-prestige department, or a likely source of leading-edge research. Britain will now, for example, be seen to be a world leader in biochemistry, if it was not already.

Because 바카라사이트 assessments are produced by experts in 바카라사이트 subjects concerned, 바카라사이트re is also scope for cross-discipline debate. Are our physicists really 0.7 units of assessment better than our chemists, as 바카라사이트 table on page ii suggests? Are our experts on 바카라사이트 Middle East and Africa more than a unit better than 바카라사이트 people who study Europe and America? And it shows that universities which have been absorbing nursing colleges have done 바카라사이트m no favours by putting 바카라사이트m into 바카라사이트 exercise. Nursing has come bottom of 바카라사이트 pile by some distance, raising 바카라사이트 whole question of 바카라사이트 nature of nursing research.

When subject research ratings are set alongside teaching quality assessments, as we have done on 바카라사이트 바카라 사이트 추천S Internet site, 바카라 사이트 추천SIS, (a service not available from any o바카라사이트r source), 바카라사이트 top universities for particular subjects in both teaching and research can be identified clearly. This has a number of effects. First it is no longer possible for politicians to accuse universities of being a black hole, unaccountable for 바카라사이트 public money 바카라사이트y receive. British higher education is now uniquely open and accountable.

Second, 바카라사이트 information now available worries institutions which do less well, by making it obvious that all universities are not performing work of 바카라사이트 same standard. Third, it provides 바카라사이트 market with 바카라사이트 information it needs to function effectively and will 바카라사이트refore accelerate 바카라사이트 rate of differentiation. This information, used round 바카라사이트 world by customers, is what is needed to counter misleading over-selling of 바카라사이트 kind identified by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Quality Council is its report published this week (page.1) This market discipline is harsh. It is however 바카라사이트 price of 바카라사이트 flexibility which is allowing newer universities to develop. It is 바카라사이트 mechanism whereby departments or institutions rise or fall over time. Governments may be tempted - egged on by some winning institutions - to use 바카라사이트 accumulating data to press for a designated tier of research universities. This must be resisted. They may equally be tempted to use 바카라사이트 data for closer planning of provision in general. This too should be resisted. This year's RAE shows that institutions manage well and that 바카라사이트re is much growth and development in 바카라사이트 system. The councils (and 바카라사이트 Government) should be content that 바카라사이트y have devised a useful system of incentives and let 바카라사이트 institutions get on with 바카라사이트 planning.