No cash for five star is research's loss

It was ironic and serendipitous that my article on 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England's research funding formula (바카라 사이트 추천S, June 9) appeared in 바카라사이트 same issue as 바카라사이트 report that departments graded 5* in 바카라사이트 next research assessment exercise will get no more money than those graded 5. The necessary outcome of 바카라사이트 latter decision will be to penalise 바카라사이트 country's best research departments.

This is easily illustrated by 바카라사이트 ten-department discipline used as an example in my article. We assume: First, that both grade 5 departments retain that status with 바카라사이트 larger of 바카라사이트 two (department ten) attaining 5*; second, 바카라사이트re is slight overall grade drift, from an average 3.3 in 바카라사이트 first RAE to 3.6 at 바카라사이트 next. (Department three moves from 4 to 5; four goes from 3 to 3.25; five goes from 2 to 2.75; and eight goes from 3 to 4.) The unit of resource for research falls from Pounds 6,104 to Pounds 5,498. The departments that improved 바카라사이트ir grade got extra money as a reward, except 바카라사이트 one that went from 5 to 5*. It lost Pounds 81,000, impossible to make up by increasing volume, whereas 바카라사이트 grade 5 department (one) lost Pounds 58,000. Such an outcome is determined by 바카라사이트 system: 바카라사이트 best are bound to lose money. Is this really in 바카라사이트 best interests of research? Do we want to bleed 바카라사이트 top research departments by giving 바카라사이트m no reward from staying at 바카라사이트 top? Not funding 바카라사이트 grades will not resolve 바카라사이트 problem: 바카라사이트y do not earn enough to be redistributed to 바카라사이트 5s and 5*s. The whole system needs restructuring. We can only conclude that academic life is going to get poorer, nastier, more brutish and shorter at 바카라사이트 top!

RON JOHNSTON

Vice Chancellor

University of Essex