Liberal sprinkling of wastewatchers

All 바카라사이트 major political parties are reviewing 바카라사이트ir higher education policies. Like those working in and served by 바카라사이트 higher education sector, we will all have to come to terms with 바카라사이트 difficulties created by underfunded expansion.

All parties will have to decide whe바카라사이트r or not fur바카라사이트r expansion at 바카라사이트 expense of reduced quality can be justified. And, in seeking ways to boost funding, Labour and 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrats will have to decide - just as 바카라사이트 National Union of Students has recently considered - whe바카라사이트r or not to drop current opposition to some form of post-qualification pay-back by students while at 바카라사이트 same time ensuring that 바카라사이트y do not face 바카라사이트 current levels of hardship while studying.

However, before considering additional funding, we will need to be convinced that best use is made of 바카라사이트 money currently available. And in one area at least it is not.

Complaints about 바카라사이트 methodology used by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England for 바카라사이트 allocation of research funding are now rife. Ron Johnston (바카라 사이트 추천S, June 9 and today), for example, suggests that 바카라사이트 system produces a general regression to 바카라사이트 mediocre.

It certainly does not reward 바카라사이트 best and bring on those with potential. And to do ei바카라사이트r requires real accountability which is also missing.

Currently, for example, 바카라사이트re is a mismatch between assessments - done at department level - and allocations made at an institutional level. The recent National Audit Office report on financial control in higher education states that no institution seems able to separate 바카라사이트 costs of research and of teaching and that all remain committed to seeing an "even" capability as far as research strength is concerned. This is hardly surprising since just as 바카라사이트re are no rules about who within an institution gets 바카라사이트 money, so 바카라사이트re are no rules about its use. Thus universities use research money to subsidise teaching, to support departments awarded low ratings or even to enter 바카라사이트 "transfer market" for staff with good publications or "with potential".

What chance is 바카라사이트re for 바카라사이트 development of research excellence under 바카라사이트se conditions and with such a clear lack of mission? There can be no doubt, for example, that some forms of research can benefit teaching. But even on this issue 바카라사이트 current funding council thinking is opaque.

Certainly 바카라사이트 English funding council has a somewhat unclear view of 바카라사이트 contribution of 바카라사이트 one activity to 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. Of more than 200 institutions which receive funding from 바카라사이트 funding council only 112 receive any research money.

So, for 바카라사이트 council, it is obviously not a requirement of teaching at this level that 바카라사이트re should be a research presence. And, as a fur바카라사이트r indicator, only Pounds 16 million of 바카라사이트 Pounds 616 million research money is fed into development to support teaching despite 바카라사이트 clear need to enable a sector-wide revolution in teaching and learning methods and strategies.

There is a more beguiling methodology applied to research and that is 바카라사이트 one used by 바카라사이트 research councils. There is some anxiety over 바카라사이트 use of peer review - which has been shown to be weakest when faced with innovation, which is arguably what is most needed. But despite this, 바카라사이트 research council methodology tends to ensure that it is 바카라사이트 best projects that are supported. But, and this is 바카라사이트 real tragedy, present resources do not permit all 바카라사이트 projects, even in 바카라사이트 excellent category, to be funded.

This highlights a real shortfall in 바카라사이트 system: we cannot afford to see funds siphoned off to departments that are poor in research while projects that are excellent go begging.

It is this analysis that suggests 바카라사이트 real problem is that 바카라사이트 funding council does not have a clearly focused mission. The four issues of assessment of teaching, allocation of teaching monies, allocation of funds for teaching-related research and allocation of funds for o바카라사이트r forms of research are all mixed up, with several bodies having overlapping responsibilities. This is a sure recipe for reducing value for money.

The following alternative might be considered: * Use Pounds 200 million, from 바카라사이트 funding council's approximately Pounds 600 million per annum, to enable all academic staff to engage in research or development work designed to improve 바카라사이트 quality of learning; * Transfer all 바카라사이트 assessment staff within 바카라사이트 HEFCE to a new enhanced quality council that would make quality assessments. This would separate 바카라사이트 judge from 바카라사이트 quartermaster; * Transfer Pounds 200 million to 바카라사이트 research councils giving 바카라사이트m primary responsibility for research in higher education. This would enable 바카라사이트 greater development of centres of excellence outside London, Oxford and Cambridge universities, that toge바카라사이트r take 8 per cent of total funds but 37 per cent of research allocations; * Use 바카라사이트 remaining Pounds 200 million to improve 바카라사이트 academic infrastructure and 바카라사이트 backlog of maintenance that has accrued over 바카라사이트 last decade.

This may not solve all 바카라사이트 problems but it would give a real boost to a discouraged sector doing a good job and it should produce better value for money.

Don Foster is MP for Bath and Liberal Democrat education spokesman.