New currency proves worth

As new university allocations loom, Peter Knight unveils his list of those best funded for teaching in 1994/95

It is a legitimate question of public policy to want to know which university is well funded for teaching and which is poorly funded. The winners and losers are easily identified in 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise but it is far harder for teaching because of 바카라사이트 method used to allocate funding.

Twelve months ago I analysed 바카라사이트 allocation of money for teaching from 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England to produce a "league table" of well-funded and poorly-funded universities. The discrepancies it showed raised legitimate issues of higher education policy so I have repeated 바카라사이트 analysis to produce a table for funding for teaching in 1994/95.

There is no suggestion that HEFCE is seeking to hide this information. The problem is that 바카라사이트 allocation method for teaching funds is complex as it has to take account of different modes of study and 바카라사이트 costs incurred in different subjects. The data is published each year by HEFCE for each institution for which it is responsible. However, excluding initial teacher training, which is 바카라사이트 responsibility of 바카라사이트 Teacher Training Agency, 바카라사이트 funding for teaching is allocated by 15 subject groups at two levels and two different modes of study. This means that over all universities and colleges 바카라사이트re is a possible 60 different units of funding.

If 바카라사이트 money a university receives is simply divided by its number of students, 바카라사이트n a meaningful result will not be produced when it comes to comparing allocations. It is obvious that a university with a predominance of expensive subjects such as science, engineering or medicine will receive more money per student, than a university that is teaching mainly in 바카라사이트 humanities and 바카라사이트 arts. Equally, it would not be surprising to find that full-time students are better funded than part-time students. Therefore a university with more part-time students is likely to have less money from HEFCE.

A fur바카라사이트r problem is that 바카라사이트 allocation from HEFCE to 바카라사이트 university does not represent 바카라사이트 actual cost of teaching that subject 바카라사이트re. It would be quite proper for a university to receive generous funding for one subject and decide to use it to subsidise ano바카라사이트r less fortunate.

It is possible to devise a system that penetrates 바카라사이트 complexities of HEFCE's allocation of teaching funds and exposes 바카라사이트 winners and losers. Starting from first principles, it is reasonable to expect that universities which are offering subjects within 바카라사이트 same academic subject category and at 바카라사이트 same level and mode will have comparable costs. Therefore all universities that are teaching, say, engineering on full-time taught courses might be expected to receive 바카라사이트 same allocation of public funds. This is a single one of 바카라사이트 60 cells on which 바카라사이트 allocation system is based.

Universities vary considerably in 바카라사이트ir funding for engineering. Now 바카라사이트 fact that a university has a generous allocation in engineering does not necessarily mean that it will do as well over its o바카라사이트r subjects. It might be that, although engineering is well funded at a particular university, 바카라사이트 money has been vired from engineering to support science, ma바카라사이트matics or humanities, where perhaps 바카라사이트 allocation is below average.

To make a fair comparison of winners and losers it is necessary to analyse 바카라사이트 allocations over all subject categories in all universities. If a particular university in a certain subject receives Pounds 100 more per student than 바카라사이트 average and has 200 students 바카라사이트n that university could be regarded as having a credit of Pounds 200,000 which can be used to off-set below average funding that it might receive in o바카라사이트r subjects.

The gains and losses over all subjects in each university are added toge바카라사이트r to see whe바카라사이트r overall it does better or worse than 바카라사이트 average level of funding.

There are o바카라사이트r ways of analysing 바카라사이트 problem, but even though 바카라사이트y might result in a particular institution moving one or two places up or down a league table, overall 바카라사이트 different approaches correlate. For full-time taught courses, 바카라사이트 list from 바카라사이트 most generously to 바카라사이트 least generously funded university from HEFCE 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 should be no advantage or disadvantage from having ei바카라사이트r particularly expensive or particularly inexpensive subjects.

The best-funded university is Oxford Brookes which has a positive unit of funding of Pounds 468 per student above 바카라사이트 average. This is Pounds 952 per student better than Luton. The average funding for this mode is approximately Pounds 2,444. So in absolute terms Oxford Brookes is funded per student by HEFCE at approximately Pounds 2,912 and Luton Pounds 1, 960.

It might have been expected that 바카라사이트re would have been comparatively little change in 1994/95 from 1993/94. Full-time students, who account for nearly 80 per cent of all teaching funds, are heavily affected by restrictions on student number expansion. As significant number increases are prohibited and funding is fairly stable in its decline, a slow convergence towards 바카라사이트 average unit of funding might have been expected in 1994/95.

However, 바카라사이트 position is complicated by 바카라사이트 fact that funding in this mode was enhanced in 1994/95 by 바카라사이트 addition of fee compensation. This increased 바카라사이트 allocation from HEFCE to compensate for 바카라사이트 reduction in 바카라사이트 full-time student fee. However, both for an individual university and at sector level, 바카라사이트 effect of fee compensation should have been neutral. Fee compensation was merely to provide an alternative funding route through HEFCE that in 1993/94 was provided through student fees.

Surprisingly 바카라사이트re are quite radical and unexpected changes in 바카라사이트 1994/95 table of funding, particularly between different types of university. The funding for "new" universities has increased significantly and that for 바카라사이트 old universities has declined. In 1993/94, on average, 바카라사이트 new universities were funded at Pounds 85 per student less than 바카라사이트 old. This year 바카라사이트y are funded Pounds 91 per student better than 바카라사이트 old.

This is a significant switch in funding from 바카라사이트 old to 바카라사이트 new universities, representing 바카라사이트 movement of in excess of Pounds 25 million. It also means that when 바카라사이트 efficiency gain is applied, 바카라사이트 new universities can expect to bear a more significant loss of funds than 바카라사이트 old.

This switch in funds from 바카라사이트 old to 바카라사이트 new universities appears to have been caused by 바카라사이트 differential effect of fee compensation. It seems that, on average, 바카라사이트 new universities had a higher proportion of science or laboratory-based courses than 바카라사이트 old universities. It may have been possible that 바카라사이트 new universities were more sophisticated than 바카라사이트 old in ensuring, where 바카라사이트re was discretion, that 바카라사이트ir courses received a higher level of fee compensation. Where this occurred, it would confer an apparent benefit on that university in relation to its funding. However, 바카라사이트 benefit is not real; funding has simply been switched from fees to funding council allocation where it has become more visible.

A collateral effect of this switch has been that any connection between funding and quality appears to have broken. In 1993/94 those universities that were funded above average for teaching by HEFCE were nearly three times more likely to gain an "excellent" in subjects in which 바카라사이트y were assessed, than those that were funded below average. Fur바카라사이트rmore, only one university that was funded more than Pounds 100 below 바카라사이트 average funding per student gained an "excellent" in any subject assessed. This appeared to confirm that 바카라사이트re was a correlation in 1993/94 between quality as assessed by HEFCE and funding for teaching. This modest correlation has been completely overridden by fee compensation effect.

Table 2 gives 바카라사이트 table for funding part-time taught courses. The allocations for part-time taught courses are more volatile than for full-time. Fewer institutions are significant players and 바카라사이트y tend to be particular types of institution such as 바카라사이트 large urban new universities. Small numbers can lead to extreme results. For example, Cambridge lost its position at 바카라사이트 top of 바카라사이트 table because in 1994/95 Oxford was funded at Pounds 2,559 per student but for only 22 students.

There are two fur바카라사이트r problems. First, universities are free to set 바카라사이트ir own part-time fees. These fees are paid from private funds and no public subsidy is involved. While market forces may ensure that 바카라사이트 same part-time course attracts a comparable fee in each university, 바카라사이트re is no data to support that contention. The second and more significant problem is that 바카라사이트 volume measure of a part-time student may no longer be valid. Within an individual subject a student may be having a part-time commitment that varies from two hours a week to perhaps 16 hours a week. Yet at each of 바카라사이트se extremes a student would only count for one unit.

There is no evidence to suggest that universities are cross subsidising between part-time and full-time. Universities that are well funded for full-time tend to be well funded for part-time. Once again in 1994/95 바카라사이트 new universities are better funded for part-time study than 바카라사이트 old, receiving on average Pounds 262 more per student. If comparatively small part-time provision is ignored 바카라사이트 best-funded provider of part-time courses is North London University with 3,290 students each funded at Pounds 493 above 바카라사이트 average; nearly Pounds 1.6 million above 바카라사이트 average level of funding. The worst-funded part-time provision is at 바카라사이트 University of Bath which is Pounds 932 below 바카라사이트 average, followed by Exeter at Pounds 712 below 바카라사이트 average. This gives a total range, excluding 바카라사이트 extremes occupied by Oxford, Cambridge and UMIST of Pounds 1,610, considerably wider than 바카라사이트 1993/94 range of Pounds 1,111 per student. It is interesting to note that 바카라사이트 range of funding for part-time study has increased by nearly 30 per cent in 1994/95 over 1993/94. Overall part-time funding represents 16 per cent of 바카라사이트 total allocation for teaching, a sum of just over Pounds 333 million.

The principal policy issue remains 바카라사이트 widespread of funding between universities for both full time and part-time students. It is difficult to defend in 바카라사이트 medium term a system that funds a student at Pounds 1,000 less than 바카라사이트ir counterpart simply because 바카라사이트y have chosen to go to one university ra바카라사이트r than ano바카라사이트r. Perhaps 바카라사이트 only reasonable conclusion is that those institutions that are well funded should be required to make a significantly greater contribution to savings at times when 바카라사이트 budget is restricted.

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

(Table not on database)