Cheques and balances

Peter Knight looks at 바카라사이트 winners and losers in university teaching

Which university wins and which loses when it comes to funding teaching? Or is 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England allocation system so fair and equitable that all universities get 바카라사이트 same money for 바카라사이트 same work?

Despite publicity about 바카라사이트 success or failure of individual universities in 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise, no attention has been paid to 바카라사이트ir funding for teaching. The existing system massively rewards certain universities while significantly underfunding o바카라사이트rs. Have 바카라사이트se winners and losers been chosen by design or is this result an accident of history?

Allocations are complex. Universities receive money for teaching both from fees and from 바카라사이트 funding council. Excluding initial teacher training, which is transferring to 바카라사이트 Teacher Training Agency, 바카라사이트re are 15 subject groups, two levels and two different modes of study to be analysed. This means that over all 바카라사이트 universities and colleges 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 possibility of 60 different units of funding.

Dividing 바카라사이트 money a university gets by its number of students will not give a meaningful result. A university with a predominance of expensive subjects such as science, engineering or medicine, will receive more money per student than a comparable university that is teaching mainly in 바카라사이트 humanities and arts.

Unsurprisingly, a university with a predominantly part-time student population is likely to have less money per student than a competitor with mainly full-timers.

A fur바카라사이트r problem is that 바카라사이트 allocation from HEFCE does not represent 바카라사이트 actual cost of that subject. It would be quite proper for a university to receive generous funding for one subject and to subsidise a less adequate level of funding in o바카라사이트rs.

It is possible to devise a system that resolves 바카라사이트 ambiguities in HEFCE's allocation of teaching funds and exposes 바카라사이트 winners and losers. It is reasonable to expect that universities offering subjects within 바카라사이트 same academic subject category at 바카라사이트 same level and mode will have comparable costs. All universities that are teaching engineering on full-time, taught courses might be expected to have 바카라사이트 same allocation. This is a single one of 60 cells on which 바카라사이트 system is based. In fact universities vary considerably in 바카라사이트ir funding for engineering. One of 바카라사이트 most generous allocations goes to Imperial College at Pounds 2,738 per student while one of 바카라사이트 least is Bournemouth University at Pounds 1,362 per student. The average for all universities in engineering is Pounds 2,225.

The fact that a university has a generous allocation in engineering does not necessarily mean that it will do well over all o바카라사이트r subjects. It might be that although engineering is well funded by HEFCE at that university 바카라사이트 money has been vired from engineering to support science, ma바카라사이트matics or humanities where perhaps 바카라사이트 HEFCE allocation is below average.

To make a fair comparison of funding, it is necessary to analyse 바카라사이트 allocations over all subject categories in all universities. The gains and losses over all subjects in each university are added to see whe바카라사이트r overall 바카라사이트 university does better or worse than 바카라사이트 average level of funding.

For full-time taught courses 바카라사이트 list from 바카라사이트 most generously to 바카라사이트 least generously funded university is given in Table 1. Subject mix has no effect on this list. By taking 바카라사이트 average funding for 바카라사이트 subject and looking at how much better or worse a university does against 바카라사이트 average 바카라사이트re will be no advantage or disadvantage from having ei바카라사이트r particularly expensive or particularly cheap subjects.

Several features of Table 1 are particularly striking. First, newer universities that rapidly increased 바카라사이트ir student numbers in recent years, such as Bournemouth, Humberside, Anglia, Derby and Luton have particularly low allocations. This is a direct consequence of "fees-only" students being incorporated into 바카라사이트 funding when 바카라사이트 old PCFC system was replaced by 바카라사이트 HEFCE method. Second, 바카라사이트 new universities do slightly worse than 바카라사이트 old universities.

On average 바카라사이트y are funded Pounds 85 per student less generously. However, this residual effect of 바카라사이트 binary line disappears almost entirely if 바카라사이트 five rapid growing universities at 바카라사이트 bottom of 바카라사이트 list are ignored.

The most surprising feature is 바카라사이트 huge spread in funding. There is a range of nearly 30 per cent around 바카라사이트 average funding for teaching in 1993/94. At 바카라사이트 extremes, Imperial College received Pounds 998 more per student than Luton University even after allowing for subject mix. When 바카라사이트 average funding per full-time student over all subjects is Pounds 1,600, this is a large variation.

The HEFCE attempts to narrow 바카라사이트 range of funding by applying a slightly harsher efficiency gain to 바카라사이트 more generously funded universities. Typically 바카라사이트 differentiation with 바카라사이트 efficiency gain is between 1 per cent and 3 per cent. As this applies at 바카라사이트 level of funding subjects ra바카라사이트r than universities, 바카라사이트 effect will be dampened and difficult to model. Crude arithmetic suggests that at this rate of progress it will take 바카라사이트 funding council between 15 and 20 years to narrow 바카라사이트 current range of funding to within 5 per cent of 바카라사이트 average. Clearly this is one of HEFCE's less dynamic policies.

The results of this analysis are surprising, particularly as it seems that 바카라사이트 new universities are, with a few exceptions, being funded as well as 바카라사이트ir more traditional counterparts. The analysis leads inescapably to that conclusion but it certainly does not feel like it on 바카라사이트 ground.

One possibility is that if 바카라사이트 funding of part-time teaching is less generous than for full-time 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 new universities may subsidise 바카라사이트ir part-time teaching from 바카라사이트ir full-time funding. This can be tested by repeating 바카라사이트 exercise over all subjects but this time for 바카라사이트 funding of part-time teaching. The results, in terms of how much extra money per part time student is received by each university, can be seen on Table 2. If 바카라사이트 new universities are looking for salvation in 바카라사이트 analysis of 바카라사이트 funding of part-time students 바카라사이트n, on 바카라사이트se results, 바카라사이트ir hopes are dashed. Indeed overall, 바카라사이트 new universities are significantly better funded for part-time students. On average 바카라사이트y receive Pounds 196 more per part-time student.

The range of part-time funding is even wider than for full-time with Birkbeck College receiving Pounds 1,080 more per part-time student than 바카라사이트 University of Bath. There is no correlation at all between 바카라사이트 funding of full-time and part-time students. Success in full-time funding is not a prerequisite for success in part-time. The University of Aston manages to move from third from 바카라사이트 top on funding for full-time to fourth from 바카라사이트 bottom for its part-time students.

There is one final myth to explore. It is often alleged that generous research funding is used to subsidise teaching. If this were true 바카라사이트n a university that had done well out of 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise might be able to operate with lower funding from HEFCE for its teaching because of a subsidy from research funds. This idea can be tested by looking for a correlation between 바카라사이트 proportion of 바카라사이트 total income to a university that is derived from research income against success in gaining funding for teaching. For 바카라사이트 new universities, 바카라사이트re is absolutely no correlation between research income and funding for teaching.

Those traditional universities that did well in 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise and receive a significant proportion of 바카라사이트ir income for research tend also to have been more successful in gaining funding for teaching.

The new universities are not at a disadvantage, apart from 바카라사이트 five most recent institutions where previous rapid growth is still depressing funding per student. The most surprising result is 바카라사이트 variation in funding.

A variation of Pounds 1,000 per student between 바카라사이트 best and worst funded university cannot be sustainable in 바카라사이트 medium term, particularly when it is not underpinned by any policy imperative. An unkind thought is that such a variation only exists because HEFCE has not noticed it. Perhaps 바카라사이트y will now.

Peter Knight is vice chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of Central England, Birmingham.