Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Research elite shaken by RAE settlement
5 March 2009
Good news for post-92s but cash spread more thinly. Zoë Corbyn and Rebecca Attwood report
Some of the UK's most prestigious universities have had their funding cut as higher education's traditional hierarchy took a hit at the hands of the 2008 research assessment exercise settlement.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England announced allocations of almost £8 billion to English institutions for 2009-10, including £1.6 billion for research and £4.8 billion for teaching.
David Eastwood, chief executive of Hefce, said the overall settlement was good. In cash terms it represented a 4 per cent increase on last year, which in real terms equated to a 2 per cent rise, with inflation standing at 2 per cent.
He stressed that the unit of resource for teaching had been maintained, and funding for research had increased by 7.7 per cent.
"This settlement provides universities and colleges with resources to help weather the economic downturn," he said, although he added that they still faced longer-term difficulties and would need to plan prudently and invest selectively.
But the overall settlement masks dramatic changes to the funding landscape caused by the 2008 RAE - the first appraisal of universities' research strengths for seven years and the basis for quality-related (QR) research allocations.
The London School of Economics and Political Science, the School of Oriental and African Studies, the University of Essex and the London Business School were among those to suffer actual cuts.
Imperial College London, King's College London and the universities of Surrey, Birmingham, Southampton and Sheffield are some that see real-term reductions (increases below the rate of inflation).
Major winners included Queen Mary, University of London, and the universities of Exeter, Liverpool, Nottingham and Plymouth, which received increases above 8 per cent.
Overall, 87 institutions received above-inflation rises in their total grant compared with last year, but 41 saw either real-term or cash cuts. Of these, 15 saw the latter.
The allocations have confirmed the fears of some large research-intensive universities that the 2008 RAE would hit them in the pocket. The steady concentration of QR cash in the hands of the elite over successive RAEs has been reversed.
The 2008 exercise discovered many research "pockets of excellence" in the teaching-led post-1992 universities. As a result, QR funding has been more widely distributed across the sector.
Some 75 per cent of QR cash previously went to 22 institutions, but has now been shared among 26. The share of mainstream QR funding received by the research-led Russell Group universities dropped from 65 per cent to 60 per cent.
Some 25 institutions have been awarded QR funding for the first time, and institutions that only became universities in recent years have seen significant increases.
The University of Worcester was awarded a total grant increase of 8.4 per cent to £17 million. The University of Winchester witnessed a 5.2 per cent uplift.
Professor Eastwood said that the RAE was the "major reason" for significant variations in institutions' total recurrent grant funding levels between 2008-09 and 2009-10.
But some changes are masked by £24 million in moderation funding provided to enable institutions to manage changes in funding levels caused by the settlement.
Reflecting disappointing RAE results, the five universities that received the most amelioration were Imperial, the University of Reading, the University of the Arts London, the University of Southampton and the Institute of Cancer Research.
Southampton saw a 1.7 per cent total increase, despite a 6.9 per cent fall in its research funding for 2009-10 - the biggest such cut among the large research-intensive universities.
Imperial saw a 5.1 per cent cut in research funds to £92.7 million, and a sub-inflation increase to its total Hefce grant of 0.1 per cent. The total grant to the LSE dropped by 0.8 per cent, dragged down by a research funding cut.
The University of Oxford stole a march on its ancient rival, the University of Cambridge.
Oxford was awarded a 4.7 per cent increase in its total funding to £187 million, bolstered by an 8 per cent rise in research cash. By contrast, Cambridge's total funding increased by 2.1 per cent to £181 million.
The overall allocations provided £4.78 billion for teaching, including £269 million for teaching enhancement and student success, and £143 million to widen participation.
A comparison of "like-for-like" figures given to Times Higher Education by Hefce showed that the London Business School saw the biggest percentage drop in teaching cash - down 56 per cent after a review of funding for small and specialist institutions led to its losing its premium.
Its overall funding fell 0.9 per cent to £6.7 million.
Thames Valley University also saw a decline in teaching cash (down 3 per cent), partly due to the under-recruitment of students. It was the biggest loser of the allocation round. Its total grant fell by almost 12 per cent to £30.2 million.
Institutions feeling the impact of the Government's decision to cut funding to students studying ELQs (qualifications at an equivalent or lower level to those they already hold) included the Institute of Education and Goldsmiths, University of London. Both witnessed a drop in teaching funds of about 3 per cent.
Goldsmiths' total funding was cut by 1.5 per cent down to £26.4 million, while the Institute of Education's cash was cut by 2.1 per cent to £14.2 million.
Where higher education institutions saw a significant rise in teaching grant, this was mostly due to Hefce approving their bids for additional student numbers.
Institutions receiving big increases in teaching cash included the Guildhall School of Music and Drama (up 15 per cent), Harper Adams University College (14 per cent), Bishop Grosseteste University College Lincoln (12 per cent), Edge Hill University (9 per cent) and the University of Teesside (9 per cent).
Allocations at a glance
- Total funding for 2009-10 is £7.99 billion – 4 per cent up on last year
- Total funding for teaching is £4.78 billion
- Total funding for research is £1.57 billion
- 87 institutions have been awarded above-inflation total funding increases
- 41 institutions have seen real-term funding cuts
- 15 institutions have seen cash cuts
Share of total recurrent grant by mission groups
- Russell Group 33.2%
- 1994 Group 14.1%
- Million+ 17.5%
- Other 35.2%
As the figures are for England only, the Russell Group includes 16 large research-universities, the 1994 Group 18 smaller research-intensive universities and the Million+ group represents 24 post-1992 universities.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zoe.corbyn@tsleducation.com.
Readers' comments
The lumbering goliaths take a bloody nose at the hands of some plucky young upstarts!
An interesting and yet largely predictable outcome. - something had to give in the face of a lack of investment. However, is the in fighting between different lobby groups in the University sector helping to increase overall funding to levels which would make the UK competitive on a global stage? Would there not be a significant benefit in speaking as one voice to highlight the problems being faced. Even the article above makes differentiations between lobby groups which are largely superficial and, possibly, disruptive. I am reminded of dominoes and the ease with which one falls and topples the next.
Stop whining and start competing - it is called survival of the fittest.
But it is not the survival of the fittest. Theoretically the RAE is a competitive exercise, but lobbying by the 'research intensive' Universities has resulted in the ring-fencing of funds for science at the expense of the Humanities and Social Sciences, thereby favouring most of these Universities. This has been bad news for the post-92 Universities who have also suffered from the funding formulae and the decision to increase research funding by 7.7 per cent, while maintaining funding for teaching. Clearly yet another good example of where the 'invisible hand' of the market has failed to deliver.
UK universities should start being independent and rely less on govenrment money. If they claim to be so great, then they should seek funding by themselves.
A great result for UK Research in this economic climate; science and engineering has been partially protected and pockets of excellence will be more justly rewarded. And that in some institutions where it has often been an uphill struggle for those pockets to survive… yet alone grow. Meanwhile we are still rightly concentrating our support in our world-leading institutions.
Yet again this narrow visioned goverment deals a blow to the Arts and Humanities in the same way it has endeavoured to destroy rural Britain it has no understanding of the importance of either and crass political gain drives its every move.
Despite signficant reductions in demand both at UG teaching and PG research in the STEM subjects and continued growth of A&H, this governement persists with the misconcieved notion that STEM subjects delivery tangible results and clearly this goverment doesn't have the wisdom to recognise the increased importance of the Arts and Social Sciences in troubled times and should be seeking much greater input from those with an understanding of the past and an understanding of underlying issues to our current crisis. If we know not our past how can we prepare for the future.
Also masked within the figures are significant disparities between STEM subjects and social science/arts. It seems that the settlement to institutions has been smotthed by protecting some disciplines and cutting others. Preliminary calculations, as of this morning, suggest at least one top department (RAE 2001 5-rated) that has improved its league position with one of the highest proportions of 4* work in the country in RAE2008 (and the highest proportion in its University) is likely to receive a substantial budget cut (maybe £200,000) with consequent job losses.
STEM subjects receive some small protection because we need doctors, engineers, physicists, chemists and Earth scientists. Social sciences and the arts are important but when it comes to employment a degree in a STEM group subject will put any student in good stead. Rather than sink to internecine squabbling let us join in celebrating the success of all the winners across the board.
You report that "Reflecting disappointing RAE results, the five universities that received the most amelioration were Imperial, the University of Reading, the University of the Arts London, the University of Southampton and the Institute of Cancer Research."
You should remove the Institute of Cancer Research from that list: its RAE results were outstanding, as the author would soon discover on checking the RAE outcomes.
These results are almost as predicted in my article on the THE website of 30 December 2008 entitled
RAE Reaction:Fair Attempt to Achieve the Impossible.
The only reason that so few of the top funded universities of 2001 did not lose money after 2008 is that HEFCE have injected a massive increase in the QR fundiing from £920million in 2008/09 to the equivalent value of around £1080million for 2009/10. That is why teaching allocatopns have been held at 2% I guess.
My above article also discusses peer review and other topics readers might find interesting to comment on.
Disclaimer: All user contributions posted on this site are those of the user ONLY and NOT those of TSL Education Ltd or its associated trademarks, websites and services. TSL Education Ltd does not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with any comments, opinions or statements or other content provided by users.