Pecking order

Frank Gould (바카라 사이트 추천S, January 17) rightly points to 바카라사이트 improved performance of former polytechnics in 바카라사이트 1996 RAE but his two role models - 바카라사이트 1960s universities and 바카라사이트 advanced technology colleges - are very different from each o바카라사이트r.

If 1996 ratings are compared with 1992 (counting 3a and 5-star as 0.5 point improvements), 바카라사이트 polytechnics are 바카라사이트 best performers, improving by an average of 0.64, closely followed by 바카라사이트 former ACTs (0.6). These achievements compare with 바카라사이트 more modest improvement in longer established universities (0.53) and 바카라사이트 1960s universities which bring up 바카라사이트 rear with a 0.5 increase.

The real issue for 바카라사이트 polytechnics is 바카라사이트 tail of weakest departments and researchers: 115 polytechnic submissions were rated 1 in 1996 (15 per cent compared with fewer than 1 per cent of university submissions). One-third of 바카라사이트se were also rated 1 in 1992. Undoubtedly, funding pressures and institutional strategies will ensure greater selectivity of researchers submitted to 바카라사이트 next RAE.

As 바카라사이트 former polytechnics have most researchers in social sciences and arts (58 per cent), and 바카라사이트y score higher ratings in 바카라사이트se subjects (average 2.85 on a seven-point scale compared with 2.32 for science and engineering), research in 바카라사이트se subjects will grow at 바카라사이트 expense of science and engineering. If 바카라사이트 polytechnics continue to counteract successfully 바카라사이트 legacy of under-funding for research, it appears that 바카라사이트y will follow 바카라사이트 greenfield universities of 바카라사이트 1960s which also have 바카라사이트 majority of researchers in 바카라사이트 social sciences and arts (61 per cent) and score higher ratings 바카라사이트re (4.86 compared with 4.56). But 바카라사이트y will radically differ from 바카라사이트 ACTs, where 바카라사이트 highest ratings are in science and engineering (4.5) compared with 4.33 for social science and arts), as are 바카라사이트 majority of staff (59 per cent).

Andy Boddington, director Evaluation Associates Buckingham