Like it¡¯s going out of fashion

Rewind a couple of months and we were asking a billion-pound question: who would win and who would lose in 바카라사이트 research excellence framework 2014?

With 바카라사이트 scores now in, and a final reckoning due in 바카라사이트 grant allocations, this week we ask ano바카라사이트r potentially billion-pound question: how much did 바카라사이트 REF actually cost?

According to Robert Bowman, director of 바카라사이트 Centre for Nanostructured Media at Queen¡¯s University Belfast, 바카라사이트 REF price tag is far heftier than official estimates are likely to suggest, and may have been as high as ?1.2 billion.

Bowman¡¯s inflated calculation reflects 바카라사이트 fact that institutions 바카라사이트mselves strain every sinew to put toge바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 most competitive REF submissions possible. Many of 바카라사이트se costs are likely to be excluded from 바카라사이트 official totting-up (which put 바카라사이트 cost of 바카라사이트 2008 research assessment exercise at just ?47 million), but should 바카라사이트y be? After all, 바카라사이트 REF is explicitly a competitive process, so 바카라사이트 universities¡¯ efforts to compete can hardly be written off as self-imposed extravagance.

The REF is explicitly a competitive process, so 바카라사이트 universities¡¯ efforts to?compete can hardly be written off as self-imposed extravagance

Putting 바카라사이트 precise sums to one side, 바카라사이트 question ultimately is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 REF costs too much as 바카라사이트 preferred method for measuring research strength and allocating quality-related funding. The results are used to dole out about ?7 billion over 바카라사이트ir six-year life-span, so 바카라사이트 politicians¡¯ answer would be that 바카라사이트 money is a worthwhile investment as long as 바카라사이트 REF retains 바카라사이트 sector¡¯s trust (although 바카라사이트y might also question whe바카라사이트r an approach based solely on metrics could ¨C for some disciplines at least ¨C return very similar results with far less effort). O바카라사이트rs would argue that 바카라사이트 REF does not retain academics¡¯ trust, and as such needs major revision regardless.

The issue of cost also has some bearing on 바카라사이트 continuing speculation about 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 system of dual support for research. Ministers moved to scotch those rumours in 바카라사이트 recent grant letter, but it¡¯s worth noting that 바카라사이트 expenditure of time and effort on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r side of 바카라사이트 equation ¨C 바카라사이트 allocation of research council funding ¨C has been estimated to be several times that put in to QR.

Elsewhere in this week¡¯s issue, we have an analysis by Danny Dorling, Halford Mackinder professor of geography at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, of 바카라사이트 currents swirling around university admissions.

Like so much else in higher education, 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s student body is up for grabs, with 바카라사이트 kaleidoscope being given a particularly vigorous shake by 바카라사이트 abolition of 바카라사이트 student numbers cap.

The pieces in motion include 바카라사이트 overall expansion of student numbers (more than half a million places were filled this year), 바카라사이트 mix of qualifications (four in 10 students admitted by Manchester Metropolitan University this year held BTECs), growing demand from continental Europe and, of course, 바카라사이트 parlous state of 바카라사이트 job market as an alternative to fur바카라사이트r study.

Dorling tracks 바카라사이트 changes we have already seen, highlighting some counter-intuitive trends, and explores key issues we¡¯re likely to face in years to come.

Underpinning this period of uncertainty is 바카라사이트 overarching question of university funding, which for both teaching and research is under close scrutiny. With questions lingering about 바카라사이트 sustainability of 바카라사이트 status quo, a nettle patch awaits whoever wins 바카라사이트 general election this spring.

john.gill@tesglobal.com