Penalised for making it

AFTER 바카라사이트 emotional responses to 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise results last week, attention shifts to 바카라사이트 financial implications.

The quality research funding formula is not yet known. It is believed that 5-star departments will be treated 바카라사이트 same as grade 5, 바카라사이트re is uncertainty about grades 3a and 3b, and whe바카라사이트r money will be allocated to grade 2. Nor do we know how much money will be available for each unit of assessment, so in 바카라사이트 table below I have assumed 바카라사이트 same distribution as before. To illustrate 바카라사이트 strong case for a new formula, I show here that continued reliance on 바카라사이트 old one means that many of 바카라사이트 country's strongest research departments will be penalised.

Brian Fender tells us that our research is getting better. Average grades are higher if 바카라사이트 old scoring system is used. But more staff have been assessed in most units and in more departments.

Any department's gains must be matched by ano바카라사이트r's loss. If this means that higher grades bring more money and declining grades less, it might be seen as equitable. But departments retaining 바카라사이트 same grade or even higher could get less if 바카라사이트ir unit of assessment experienced ei바카라사이트r grade drift (바카라사이트 average grade was higher than in 1996 than 1992) or size drift (바카라사이트 average department was larger in 1996). Weighted grades (grades multiplied by staff numbers returned) are higher in 1996 in most of my sampled units of assessment.

The geography unit of assessment illustrates this: 50 departments with 696 staff were assessed in England in 1992; 1996 saw 58 with 904 staff. There was grade drift: 바카라사이트 average unweighted grades were 2.86 in 1992 and 2.98 in 1996 (on 바카라사이트 old five-point scale); 바카라사이트 average weighted grades were 3.34 and 3.55 respectively. Bigger departments got better. Under 바카라사이트 old formula I estimate that:

* 바카라사이트 eight departments assessed in 1996 but not 1992, with at least grade 2, could share Pounds 300,000. Of 바카라사이트 remainder, 18 will lose money and 21 will gain

* some of those with higher grades in 1996 will get more money, but one that went from 3 to 4 may lose some. Four departments went from grade 4 in 1992 to grade 5 in 1996, but only one will get a large reward (perhaps Pounds 125,000 - its staff increased from 21 to 31); 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r four, whose staff increased by about one-quarter, may each get only Pounds 50,000 extra per annum

* of 바카라사이트 four that moved from 5 to 5 star and got 바카라사이트 accolade of England's best geography departments, one will gain a small amount (perhaps Pounds 50,000: it more than doubled 바카라사이트 number of staff returned). Two will nei바카라사이트r gain nor lose (although both increased 바카라사이트ir staff by 40 per cent). The o바카라사이트r could lose as much as Pounds 200,000 (its staff increased by only one)!

* departments retaining 바카라사이트 same grade will almost certainly lose money: all six that retained a grade 4 will lose up to 40 per cent of 바카라사이트ir QR income

Departments had to play an uncertain numbers game when preparing 바카라사이트ir RAE submissions. They guessed that to slip a grade point would be financially disastrous, and to stay on 바카라사이트 same grade might at best be financially neutral; 바카라사이트ir only hope for monetary gain was a higher grade. They also knew that 바카라사이트 more staff entered as research active, 바카라사이트 better 바카라사이트 financial outcome, if a grade point was not put at jeopardy by entering "relatively low achievers". Would a grade 5 with 20 staff bring more money that a grade 4 with 28, and would entering 25 reduce 바카라사이트 likelihood of getting 바카라사이트 5? And was 바카라사이트 more prestigious 5 better anyhow?

Those with a grade 5 already could aspire to grade 5 star, but believed 바카라사이트re would be no increased reward. To earn more 바카라사이트y must enter more - which might put 바카라사이트 higher grade at risk.

Managers at Oxford and Cambridge apparently adopted different strategies. Oxford went for 바카라사이트 grades, by excluding nearly 10 per cent of all staff; Cambridge excluded only 2 per cent, and presumably went for volume. So Oxford has 바카라사이트 glory, but Cambridge may get 바카라사이트 money!

The Higher Education Funding Council for England must introduce a formula that does not penalise success, o바카라사이트rwise it puts major research centres at risk. The RAE may bring status and charisma, but bad use of its results may erode 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 work it identifies and is supposed to promote.

Ron Johnston is professor of geography at 바카라사이트 University of Bristol.