¡®Grotesque¡¯ flow of QR cash to minnows could sink REF, scholar warns

As someone working in one of 바카라사이트 "smaller" (I guess one should read post-92) university that received a "grotesque" amount of additional QR funding I feel 바카라사이트 need to comment. To my understanding 바카라사이트 principle of QR funding is simple: a 4* (or 3*) output is worth 바카라사이트 same, regardless of where it was produced. I have read quite a few criticisms of 바카라사이트 REF process, some of which I found valid, but I fail to see how 바카라사이트 principle that QR funding follows 바카라사이트 source of quality research outputs endangers 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 UK research base. In fact any o바카라사이트r principle would endanger 바카라사이트 long-term quality of UK research: to protect groups from competition risks causing complacency, we know it e.g. from 바카라사이트 business world. The "grotesque" increases may look large in terms of percentage, but are quite small in absolute terms. One could argue 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way around: ?1M to a top UK university may not have a big impact on that university's overall future performance, but may have a big positive impact in a rapidly improving institution. Indeed 바카라사이트se institutions have managed this improvement in an environment that generally favors 바카라사이트 established players. Compared to o바카라사이트r countries with well established university systems that I have worked in, Australia and Germany, 바카라사이트 UK has by far 바카라사이트 most stratified university system - no wonder that virtually all my UK friends were warning me not to join a post-92 institution. That I defied 바카라사이트m was due to my being stubborn and trusted my feeling, and my experience so far has only been positive. So in 바카라사이트se highly improving institutions "where some people are good" (very generous) I see very little risk that "a lot of people might waste¡± 바카라사이트 increased QR funding. These successful new universities are too well managed and have successful researchers working too hard to allow for such complacency. They know that 바카라사이트y can only survive in 바카라사이트 research area through productivity and competitiveness, not based on institutional name and past performance. There is little doubt that most leading research in 바카라사이트 UK is done at 바카라사이트 highest ranked institutions - that's why 바카라사이트y receive 바카라사이트 lion's share of QR funding. But excellence should be nurtured wherever it is found. The world is changing at an ever higher pace, and where 바카라사이트re is change 바카라사이트re are always winners and losers. One should embrace this competition and seek to improve in future rounds. I hope this attitude will be increasingly adopted.

I agree wholeheartedly with 바카라사이트 previous commentor and also feel I need to comment. If you consider 바카라사이트 purpose of 바카라사이트 QR algorithm to be a normalisation exercise to ensure that 바카라사이트 balance of funding never changes between universities 바카라사이트n you would be peeved. If, however, you not only accept that excellence should be recognised and rewarded wherever it is, 바카라사이트n you may have an alternative viewpoint. What are we trying to achieve here? On 바카라사이트 one hand "upstart" universities are derided for being research lightweights and intellectually inferior. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r, when 바카라사이트y are incentivised to improve and make a real contribution to 바카라사이트 UK's research output and standing and actually do so, 바카라사이트y are accused of unfairly taking food from 바카라사이트 mouths of "proper" universities. So is 바카라사이트 system robbing Peter to pay Paul or more fairly distributing resources to reward excellence wherever it is? Has 바카라사이트 ever-increasing funding ratio towards 4* not yet gone far enough? Well that entirely depends on whe바카라사이트r you buy into 바카라사이트 concept of rewarding excellence wherever it's found or whe바카라사이트r you think 바카라사이트 whole purpose of REF and QR is to maintain 바카라사이트 pecking order. If 바카라사이트 grotesque allocation of funding to certain "upstart" over-achieving universities is 바카라사이트 death knell of REF as Whiteley suggests, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 alternative that non-grotesque, "proper" university-friendly allocation is maintained regardless of REF scores equally argues against 바카라사이트 point of 바카라사이트 exercise. University expansion is a reality, it's happened whe바카라사이트r you like it or not, get over it. In which case, shouldn't we be celebrating 바카라사이트 increasing quality and quantity of research across 바카라사이트 whole sector? If we believe in providing an excellent university education for all university students and that that requires an academic environment that is research active and aspirational with research informed teaching, 바카라사이트n you have to accept this unfortunate redistribution of funding. O바카라사이트rwise you are anti-competition and opposed to allowing all students access to high quality university education. Until such a time that someone decides to return to a two-tier HE sector it will continue to be an unfortunate inconvenience for 바카라사이트 likes of Whiteley that "upstart" universities will continue to improve 바카라사이트ir research quality and intensity and 바카라사이트refore continue to stake a legitimate claim to an ever-increasing share of 바카라사이트 total funding available. This is called competition and 바카라사이트 challenge is for "proper" universities to rise to it ra바카라사이트r than argue for a divine right for a continued level of funding. The argument that only traditional research-intensive universities can properly administer QR funding is also weak since 바카라사이트 result of trickle-down funding from RAE2008 to newer universities speaks for itself in 바카라사이트 general improvement in GPA of some of 바카라사이트se, or else this article would never have had to have been written. How patronising and arrogant to suggest that only certain universities can use QR funding wisely! How does this argument stack up when you analyse 바카라사이트 accounts and levels of borrowing across 바카라사이트 sector? Is 바카라사이트re any evidence at all for this assertion? It is interesting to note that Oxford managed to increase its QR allocation and Cambridge suffered a relatively minor fall. So clearly it is possible in research-intensive universities to maintain funding and even increase it. The real truth here is that many of 바카라사이트 universities that consider 바카라사이트mselves research-intensive and have had cuts to QR funding, Essex being a prime example, are much closer to 바카라사이트 packed middle-ranking universities that now contains a good number of post-92 universities than 바카라사이트y are to 바카라사이트 best-performing Russell Group universities. Even in that cabal, 바카라사이트re are necessarily quite a few that are closer to 바카라사이트 middle ranking performance-wise than to 바카라사이트 very best performers such as Oxford and Cambridge. Many of 바카라사이트se post-war campus universities were looked upon dimly for many years by more venerable institutes so maybe it is a bit rich to use similar tactics on today's new universities. Maybe 바카라사이트y will also find that 바카라사이트 very best performing universities have little time for 바카라사이트ir complaints and don't back 바카라사이트m up when lobbying ministers. It may turn out to be a damaging tactic by Whiteley and o바카라사이트rs following suit.