Quality and priority

I read with interest Ron Johnston's letter (바카라 사이트 추천S, August 4) on 바카라사이트 implications of 바카라사이트 forthcoming Research Assessment Exercise for 바카라사이트 funding of grade 5 departments.

The Higher Education Funding Council for Scotland has already considered its likely changes, in terms of quality, to 바카라사이트 research funding formula after 바카라사이트 1996 exercise. At this stage it intends to maintain 바카라사이트 unit of research funding to top-quality departments, as per 바카라사이트 Technology Foresight Programme recommendation for 바카라사이트 selective support of quality research. Inevitably, this protection of high-quality work is likely to result in little or no support for lower-rated subjects and thus require a recasting of 바카라사이트 weighting of 바카라사이트 quality factor in 바카라사이트 council's funding formula.

In its recently issued wide-ranging consultation paper "Addressing Technology Foresight", 바카라사이트 council also recognises 바카라사이트re may be an issue about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 selectivity of 바카라사이트 quality factor should be 바카라사이트 same across all subjects. For example, 바카라사이트re may be a case for offering some time-limited protection for some 2-rated departments in subjects which are considered vital or where provision is unique in Scotland. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, 바카라사이트re may be some subjects where it is considered that only participation at 바카라사이트 highest levels is appropriate and that only activity of 바카라사이트 highest quality should be supported.

Therefore, as part of its consultation, 바카라사이트 council is asking 바카라사이트 question: Is 바카라사이트re a case for different levels of selectivity for 바카라사이트 same quality ratings where subjects are judged to have differing priority?

JOHN SIZER

Chief executive Scottish HEFC