Future of eight Liverpool departments in doubt

Paul Athans (2nd Year Politics Student at the University of Liverpool) says: “As Students of the Departments involved and the University at large, we feel this is a disgrace and we are committed to preventing this proposal from going ahead. We urge the University of Liverpool to change its policy proposals and to take the views and welfare of the student body into consideration.” “It is obvious that the University does not want consultation on this matter and has tried to avoid democracy at all costs. These proposals have been released two weeks before the guild elections and right in the middle of the Essay season for many, if not all, Students who would be affected by these proposals.” Naomi Roose-Lloyd (2nd Year International Politics and Policy Student at the University of Liverpool) says: “We are staging a protest outside the Senate meeting this Wednesday (11/3) at the Victoria Building, Mount Pleasant at 2pm and are initiating both an online and written petition.” Luke Smith (2nd Year Politics Student at the University of Liverpool) says: “These proposals will undoubtedly affect the welfare and academic provision of both current and prospective students and therefore it is imperative that we act now to Save Our Subjects!”

The words 'baby' and 'bath water' spring to mind. The very idea of closing a whole department merely because it has no 'world leading research activity', despite it's oversubscribed student population, high league table ranking and large amount of staff publications is absolutely ridiculous. It's quite clear future of these departments was sabotaged in advance of this 'assessment exercise'. And all this despite an overall increase in research funding this year. Get this Sir n00b out of our university.

There is a Facebook group called SOS: Save Our Subjects where students affected by these decisions are sharing information and discussing the importance of these departments and the effect this could have on other arts, humanities and social sciences.

In response to David, I would actually say that boycotting the University of Liverpool is the worst course of action available, as the University would no doubt spin this as 'impossible to attract the best students /Lecturers to a failed department' and therefore use it as a loose justification for closure.

In response to Michael - I would say that they don't seem to understand. I read the message as it being important that students not apply to any departmet apply and that no staff to any department or unit apply. As such, there is no issue of failed departments or best students as there will be no students or staff.

In response to Michael - I would say that they don't seem to understand. I read the message as it being important that students not apply to any departmet apply and that no staff to any department or unit apply. As such, there is no issue of failed departments or best students as there will be no students or staff.

"Given the need to invest in excellence, it is not feasible to continue to support these areas in future". Doesn't one invest in order to secure 'excellence'? If it is true that these departments genuinely fail to meet international standards of excellence, then that is a good reason to invest in them while continuing to support the excellence to be found elsewhere.

THES news: "Three departments – politics and communication studies, philosophy and statistics – were judged by the 2008 research assessment exercise to have no world-leading (4*) research activity. The university has questioned whether this is “acceptable” for a member of the Russell Group of 20 research-led institutions. The university is also considering closing the departments of civil engineering, cancer studies, dentistry, American studies and sociology due to their RAE results". The 4* rating of RAE itself had such a ridiculously low threshold , no doubt was deliberately set so that the bulk of UK new universities could have few of these ratings, the above departments/schools not getting a few of these ratings is indeed serious. Were they dozy oblivious of the ramification of not creating excellence? Russell Group universities are known for their reseach excellence and the decision seems right. But area like Cancer Studies is important and perhaps the HEFCE should step in and help to move the group somewhere else. Re: Politics , communication studies and Amercian studies They must have really slept during the last five years. these years Not surprised by the militancy revealed in postings. Boycotts will hasten the closure.

I think it's an absolute disgrace that this is happening. We should get Newby out before he taints our university like he did with the University of West England. It's OUR university and we should be able to have our say in the goings on!!

A grisly prospect at Liverpool, at the hands of a truly grim V-C . I hope all staff and students will join in a full indefinite shutdown of the institution if this decsion goes ahead. In whose interests is this proposed gutting? Not the students, the staff or the people of Liverpool. An absolute disgrace.

Go ahead, take industrial action and shut the university down. John Moores and other nearby universities will benefit. If the Russell Group universities do not shine by virtue of their research excellence, then what is the sense in belonging to this elite group? There are tens of 'teaching universities' in the UK, the post-92 universities. The departments concerned had more than five years to produce research output to satisfy the RAE 2008 criteria of 4* which I agree was too timidly drawn up the benfit the most and does not stand up to serious scrutiny.

Senior managers have to stand up and try to inspire staff and students in telling staff they are a part of a 'world class' university. A crucial point, is that inspiration as a concept is not translated by senior managers as the culture of uncertainty at Liverpool is for cuts, closing departments and battering staff morale. Senior managers would do well to read some books on management: inspiring staff, taking staff with you and valuing the contribution of staff to all aspects of the job. How can senior managers express that it aspires to be a world class university when it treats its hard working staff so shabbily?

This was all so completely predictable the minute the governors appointed Howard Newby choosing to ignore his record to date. How much more of the University will he be allowed to decimate?

Good move. There should be no room for mediocrity. The RAE results show that entire departments and, in some cases, entire universities ought to be shut-down.

Strange that all this talk is about excellence but there is no actual discussion of what excellence is. Is the only thing that justifies excellence is a fairly arbitrary measure by a RAE - panel that if replaced by a new set would have come to different results (which has been demonstrated in multiple studies)? Can excellence be compared across units of assessment when there are no common benchmarks(i.e. Lawyer vs. Chemist)? Can you say that a unit of 9 teaching and administrating for 300 students can compete with the research of a unit of 26 teaching the same number of students and having a full administrative team to support them? Again what is excellence and how can we possibly compare it across units of assessment or toss the term about without ever knowing what it is we are talking about? Is it even fair to say that the only role of an academic is to produce excellence in Research? Isn't a University there to teach and research? If so, shouldn’t there be some type of balance?

So the Department of Statistics and Probability might close after poor RAE results. What were the chances of that happening?

In response to "MIlitant Protest Not the Answer" It is definately not a MILITANT protest and could not be described as "industrial action". No one is suggesting striking or boycotting lectures and the protest is going to be a a peaceful protest. Just to make sure that the campaign against this is visible.

I always thought that Universities were about balancing teaching and research. In the current climate the former category seems to have lost its importance. Just because Liverpool is in the headlines today it doesn't mean that others won't follow next week. If I were a student or prospective student I would be standing up and asking 'what about me?' Good on you Liverpool students for your SOS campaign.

The University has already said that they will honour the current students and those who have applied for 2009/10 entry. Current students are getting too worked up about this in my opinion; it's not going to directly affect them. They're not spending enough time on their own studies at the moment and instead are focusing on campaigning, that quite frankly, isn't going to have any affect. If the University is going to close the departments, they're going to do it; and as a student of the University of Liverpool myself, I would graduate from a University that is successful overall, rather than only successful in certain departments and is failing at other areas.

These departments are being considered to be closed down for a reason - they are not achieving the standards that they should. It is ridiculous to campaign and protest in order to save departments that are frankly giving the university a bad reputation. These students need to spend more time on their studies, and less time participating in business that bears no relevance to them. If they choose to close these departments down current students will not be affected, and neither will students entering in 2009/2010, therefore there is no reason for such irrelevant protests.

I do not want to indulge in the philosophical discussion on 'excellence' except that to say the research work is appreciated by peers here and elsewhere as being of good quality. As I said 4* classification of RAE2008 itself is weak and one would have expected at least a few in that categories in the departments concerned in Liverpool. The VC did not mark the departments' research outputs down below 4*. The departments did it to themselves. It is clear where the problems lie. I do agree entirely with 'Not Concerned' . The curent students should not use this as an excuse to digress from their studies as the exam months are approaching and the academic staff have a responsiblity to cool the issue down a bit. Talk of boycott is irresponsibility. There is always a choice for a staff who loves teaching that much more. one of the 'teaching universities' in Livepool is not far from the U of Liverpool and they could apply to go there or other' teaching universities' in England. Russell Group universities are where research and teaching nicely blend together. At the university level, particualrly in an university like Liverpool U one cannot expect good teaching in research vacuum or in an environment of mediocre research. In fast moving areas like Cancer Studies, one would have expected academic staff lending credibility to what they teach by their own research work, and not delivering 'second hand' knowledge from books. In these days of flux in American politics, in the institutions, society etc.. there, surprising to learn that the department of American Studies did not attract 4* submissions.

Being a current student in the University of Liverpool i have been made aware that some students have received an extension on essays, due to these protests. This is completely ridiculous and should not be allowed.

In response to those who see that the departments closure is justified by their low RAE score, Philosophy scored 4* in the previous assesment. Is it right to close a department after it fails it's most recent assesment? Philosophy and Politics (I'm afraid I can't vouch for the other departments) at Liverpool have a long and distinguished record and it seems a shame to only look at the short term failings when making a massive decision. Its a real shame that the university is willing to sacrifice departments just as they start to suffer. Perhaps the university should put some of that additional 8% of funding it recently received into helping these 'failing' departments.

"Is it right to close a department after it fails it's most recent assesment? Philosophy and Politics (I'm afraid I can't vouch for the other departments) at Liverpool have a long and distinguished record and it seems a shame to only look at the short term failings when making a massive decision. Its a real shame that the university is willing to sacrifice departments just as they start to suffer. Perhaps the university should put some of that additional 8% of funding it recently received into helping these 'failing' departments" What you are asking is like Govt pumping money in a school which the Ofstead found wanting. That works for schools when the alternative is pupils wandering in the streets making nuisance of themselves and bothering the public. Govt has a statutory responsibility to provide for education upto GCSE. These departments had more than 5-6 years to carry out good quality research and produce publications, to be recognised as a 4* in RAE2008. The 4* in RAE 2008 as as some one posted is itself a diluted rating. The last quality of research rated at 4 was against a scale of 1-6 ( includes 5 and 5*), which should have set alarm bells as this meant slip up can occur and it did. Obviously the departments underachieved. Without good research, these departments are like their counterparts in new universities. Time to sell them off with staff to John Moores?

It's not just the RAE results - they are just a convenient excuse to deal with longer term problems. Having some experience of one of the eight departments mentioned in the article, it is entirely dysfunctional in terms of teaching and administration and, frankly, the administration has just been waiting for an excuse to act.

Observer You should be right. There has to be some serious problems in these departments to slip up so badly. Afterall even the weakest departments in some new universities which I know have a few 4* RAE ratings. Throwing money at failures? Come on, cut the losses and sell them off.

As a UoL employee (I am a lecturer in Pure Mathematics and an EPSRC Advanced Research Fellow), I am appalled by the University's proposals. They are short-sighted, ill thought-out, and counterproductive. There are plenty of cautionary tales that should warn us of a knee-jerk reaction to RAE results. The mere discussion of these plans will compromise our ability to attract world-leading scientists in _any_ area (who wants to work at a department that may be closed after "underperformance" in one assessment?). Likewise, those who can get offers elsewhere - i.e., the best researchers - are likely to leave. I urge everyone to oppose these proposals in the strongest terms. They are detrimental to the University's standing. It is reasonable to ask departments to identify plans to enhance research output. It is reasonable to reward departments that have done well in the RAE. But closing departments or reducing the number of staff is neither called for nor productive.

Closing a department is never an easy decision to take and I would be surprised if the RAE results were the only factor. On a cost basis running down a department is an expensive option since you need to continue to deliver a programme of study to a shrinking number of students. So in he end the rest of the University has to provide considerable subsidy to ensure that the last cohort of students receives the education they are entitled to. I thus doubt that considerable savings are going to be made before the REF system is in place. There are plenty of examples around the system which illustrate that with a little investment the environment and RAE results can be transformed. New and Old Universities alike have seen supposedly lack lusture groups transformed (former Grade 4, 3a and 3b Departments suddenly showing signs of 4* and 3* activity). That does not however mean that other parts of the Department are not struggleing. What is required is a comprehensive review of the issues to try and understand what the problems are. If the Departments have a series of problems they either need to be addressed or the Department closed. In other cases the solution may be investment to stimulate the staff and thus in the long run improve the research and the quality of the teaching environment.

Surely one of the major factors here is whether, with so many poor research departments, the University of Liverpool should still be a member of the Russell Group? Institutions should be members through their current performance instead of relying on past results.

Laura - you mention the unspeakable truth that people in Liverpool have long refused to admit. By most measures, Liverpool is not among the elite, other than in the amount of funding it receives. It is regularly beaten by non-Russell group members in the various league tables that are bandied about for research and teaching quality. If a new grouping of the "top" UK universities were to be formed today, its questionable whether Liverpool would be a member.

Laura and Peter. I agree 100% with both of you. I suspect the VC has relised it too. U of Liverpool I have heard from my academic friends there say that has slipped quite substantially these years in terms of research quality in a number of departments, and the list in THES indicates this. As a posting here says, even with the diluted criteria of RAE 2008 for level 4 rating, quite a few departments have failed to achieve this. Mixing of good with bad departments will be a smoke screen. The Russell Group head now has to seriously consider reconstituting the members of this group. I agree that from what I hear from friends in U of Liverpool that it will be very difficult to be in the Group with so many 'research weak' departments.

All departments must be made accountable for the quality of research AND the quality of teaching they provide. The latter has not seemed to feature in comment on this page. Both represent a good measure of a dept. This is a case of scarce resources and unimited demand. I would prefer to see these resources backing the most highly rated of research interests and the most able of researches. From my office window I can here several hundred nonce students protesting about the closure of a failing department. This will have little bearing upon the remainder of their degree. One will appreciate the irony of these politics/phil students picketing a professorial meeting.

Nonce demonstrators: "All departments must be made accountable for the quality of research AND the quality of teaching they provide".. In my posting I said: "Russell Group universities are where research and teaching nicely blend together. At the university level, particularly in an university like Liverpool U one cannot expect good teaching in research vacuum or in an environment of mediocre research. In fast moving areas like Cancer Studies, one would have expected academic staff lending credibility to what they teach by their own research work, and not delivering 'second hand' knowledge from books". Mixing the research and teaching will not help, unless the teaching is underpinned by good research or spins out of good research. If you ant, teaching with weak research there are over 50 new universities in England.

The Rusell Group Website says: In 2006/07, Russell Group Universities accounted for 66% (over £2.2 billion) of UK Universities' research grant and contract income, 68% of total Research Council income, 56% of all doctorates awarded in the United Kingdom, and over 30% of all students studying in the United Kingdom from outside the EU. In the 2001 national Research Assessment Exercise, 78% of the staff in Grade 5* departments and 57% of the staff in Grade 5 departments were located in Russell Group Universities, and in 2007/08 Russell Group Universities were allocated approximately 66% of the total quality-related (QR) research funding allocated by the Funding Councils. The purpose of The Russell Group is to provide thought leadership and strategic direction for the 20 major research intensive universities of the UK;" Ofcourse teaching is important but conflating research and teaching is simply a smoke screen put up. If a dept's research gets lower than RAE2008 rating 4, its staff cannot turn round say" look teaching is important too". to justify their existence in the Russell Group.

I had posted yesterday saying that I thought students were getting worked up for no reason...etc etc (read 'Not Concerned') But after I talked to some students I realised that cutting these departments WILL affect the current students as staff have declared that if the cuts go ahead they will leave, which leaves current first year and second year students in limbo in regards to their work. They will not be able to have as wide a choice on dissertations as every member of staff is so specialised, but many have said they will leave before the four year phase out so as to secure themselves another job. It isn't just students that will be affected, I now understand. Some of these members of staff have been at the University for years; this is their lives. I was at the protest and I have to say I was extremely impressed with the turnout and the level of support. All I can say now is SAVE OUR SUBJECTS.

Sadly, it may also be a case of the Poltics RAE panel shooting themselves in the foot by adopting a surprisingly narrow definition of the discipline and the quality within it. Just look at the distribution of quality profiles of all the UK departments assessed by this panel... is political science in the UK really so poor by comparison with other related subjects? The net result, combined with the swinging QR cuts to social science, means that even the 'best' will see income reductions and the discipline as a whole will be mortally starved of investment for years to come. Liverpool won't be the only one.

Now concerned: "but many have said they will leave before the four year phase out so as to secure themselves another job. It isn't just students that will be affected, I now understand. Some of these members of staff have been at the University for years; this is their lives" That is life in this day and age of competitive funding situation. If these staff were in the university for years and were thinking smugly it is jobs for life, spare a thought to private companies ( not banks) folding up throwing hundreds out of jobs when they do not win contracts as the real world competition strikes. They had years to produce good research and they have failed. Paul: "Just look at the distribution of quality profiles of all the UK departments assessed by this panel... is political science in the UK really so poor by comparison with other related subjects.." So shoot the panel members for the narow scope!!. Move the goal posts!! Did it ever occur to you how difficult it is to produce research of international quality in science and medicine, and many academics in these areas work hard spending hundreds of hours in labs, clinical studies etc.. to get the right data so that publications are accepted in such prestigious journals as Nature, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine etc.. They have done it in Liverpool U, UCL, Imperial, Warwick, Dundee.. Why should the HEFCE and govt support mediocre social science research in U of Liverpool if the likes of London School of Economics are competing for funds. These institutions deliver quality teaching based on quality research. If departments in a Russell Group university fail to shine in research, and instead indulge in political arguments, argue about teaching not underpinned by good research then we know they are sliding down the hill fast.

Now concerned: "but many have said they will leave before the four year phase out so as to secure themselves another job. It isn't just students that will be affected, I now understand. Some of these members of staff have been at the University for years; this is their lives" That is life in this day and age of competitive funding situation. If these staff were in the university for years and were thinking smugly it is jobs for life, spare a thought to private companies ( not banks) folding up throwing hundreds out of jobs when they do not win contracts as the real world competition strikes. They had years to produce good research and they have failed. Paul: "Just look at the distribution of quality profiles of all the UK departments assessed by this panel... is political science in the UK really so poor by comparison with other related subjects.." So shoot the panel members for the narow scope!!. Move the goal posts!! Did it ever occur to you how difficult it is to produce research of international quality in science and medicine, and many academics in these areas work hard spending hundreds of hours in labs, clinical studies etc.. to get the right data so that publications are accepted in such prestigious journals as Nature, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine etc.. They have done it in Liverpool U, UCL, Imperial, Warwick, Dundee.. Why should the HEFCE and govt support mediocre social science research in U of Liverpool if the likes of London School of Economics are competing for funds. These institutions deliver quality teaching based on quality research. If departments in a Russell Group university fail to shine in research, and instead indulge in political arguments, argue about teaching not underpinned by good research then we know they are sliding down the hill fast.

The professors there don't get paid to chill. If they can't perform, they should be closed down. Otherwise it is a waste of time and money.

Ken: Ken Best? Bring from overseas?

Some of these people's comments are ridiculous! Firstly, stop telling students to work harder! Closure has nothing to do with how hard the students in these departments are working as academic research is completely unrelated to undergraduate work. Secondly, of course the closures would affect the students on these courses. If people's jobs are on the line I doubt the staff will stay at the university for the next three/four years waiting for their current teaching to end. Instead lecturers and support staff will need to start looking for new jobs and thus, the quality of these degrees will quickly diminish. There also seems to be a question of funding. I don't pretend to know lots about this but it seems that some of the smaller departments are unable to perform enough research as they are often denied the appropriate funding. I think the idea of closing these departments is ridiculous! If I'd have known this was on the cards before coming to the university I would have applied elsewhere. It should be Newby who leaves not our hardworking lecturers!

The " hardworking " lecturers did not produced research outputs to get eventhe dumbed down rating of 4 in RAE2008. It is not the problem with the VC, but the problem is with the underquality research performed in these departments. Getting rid of messenger is no solution as he will be replaced with another messenger who will do exactly the same or will be a bit harsher as the U of Liverpool's position as a Russell Group university is under threat. What prevented these departments from actively seeking external research funding? It is ridiculous to say that they 'were denied appropriate funding' as there are more than one source for research funding, and any university can only provide a very basic level of research funding and the rest is through external support. If funding was the problem , obviously these departments were unable to attract external funding because of their poor research potential. Now because of their research rating, they cannot attract much external funding. They had over 5 years to demonstrate good quality research output, and they failed. As simple as that. I cannot see any other way out. A bidder may show up. But who wants a bunch of departments who have no quality threshold to show. Some one suggested John Moores, the post-1992 university.

I work in a post-92 university. Our university does not attract the good quality students and staff the U of Liverpool attracts. Yet our similar departments each had a few RAE 2008 4 rated submissions. They did so under great strain- getting students under 'widening participation' meant very hard often 1:1 attention with mostly weak students, teaching work loads twice the number of contact hours compared to a Russell Group university, attracting external funding was that much difficult but yet the staff of these departmentsachieved it albeit the funding levels were 30% of what similar depts in the nearest Russell Group university managed to get from external sources. Yet the staff worked hard to produce quality research to get the ratings 4 which they richly deserve. They knew without this effort, the departments would close. It appears these depts of U of Liverpool were sitting smugly on past glory. I also call for reconstituting the Russell Group membership. I suspect that U of Liverpoll might lose, and even one ot two post-1992 universities may qualify.

These departments may or may not be any good. Churning out papers for the RAE game would not be my principal criterion of usefulness.

The post from "nonce demonstators" calling protesting students nonces is offensive and should be removed!

Since when an academic staff or a teacher accepted his/her department or his/her school is any bad? "Churning out papers for the RAE game would not be my principal criterion of usefulness" Then best to join post-92 university and not stay in Russell Group university. churning out papers is not going to get a good peer rating. Yes, UCU and NUT do not want any kind of monitoring. But these days the competition will take of that. The departments concerned know this.

Since when an acaemic staff or a teacher accepted his/her department or his/her school is any bad? "Churning out papers for the RAE game would not be my principal criterion of usefulness" Then best to join post-92 university and not stay in Russell Group university. churning out papers is not going to get a good peer rating. Yes, UCU and NUT do not want any kind of monitoring. But these days the competition will take of that. The departments concerned know this.

Slow down. Far too much ignorant comment here. 1) Univ of Liverpool hardly likely to be relegated from the Russell Group, the membership of which is determined by research income, an area where the university is strong and getting stronger. 2) The departments being closed are not weak departments - but they are departments where the RAE rating provides 'food for thought'. The appropriate response is neither the 'status quo' nor drastic surgery: it is rather for the University to think about where to go from here. 3) The University has some very big and successful research 'beasts' in Arts and Social Sciences - most obviously English and History - and maybe in truth their success has made departments like Politics and Philosophy look more problematic to the University administration. But surely if these departments can 'deliver' in the current context so too - with work - can those deemed to be underperforming. You don't solve these problems by denying them - but nor do you solve them by rushing to drastic solutions. You address them by hard work and careful strategy.

PT Very surprised to read what you hacve posted. So the success in other departments makes the departments of politics, philosophyand Statistics look weaker. That is a new spin ! These departments had over 5 years to deliver. Are you sure that when U of Liverpool is right at the bottom of the premier league in all aspects, it will not fall off or pushed? I took a quick look at the RAE Web site, and have lsited the following. The first entry in each row of number is how many 4* ratings the dept has: U of Liverpool 4* 3* 2* 1* Philosophy 0 25 60 15 0 Politics and International Studies 0 15 55 25 5 Statistics and Op Res 0 35 50 15 0 Demontfort University Politics and International Studies 5 15 45 30 5 University of Hull Politics and International Studies 10 25 40 20 5 Philosophy 5 30 45 20 0 Brunel University Statistics and Op Res 15 35 40 10 0 It is a rought look. The 0s in the first entry of rows in the three depts should say what is wrong. Interesting to see the non-Russell Group Unis are shining. Sounds like complacency to me. Come on, I can't see how these departments surviving with 0s in 4* ratings.

PT: "Univ of Liverpool hardly likely to be relegated from the Russell Group, the membership of which is determined by research income, an area where the university is strong and getting stronger". Let us follow your argument. Assume that university X a very new university previously an institurte, main focus was teaching, seures support from an Oil Sheikh to the tune of say £6 billion to carry research in an area the doner is interested. This research income can be more than what the top universities in the Russell Groups get. So the University X can calim its place in the Russell Group?

Don't get me wrong (don't confuse 'is' and 'ought' since we are talking about philosophy). It might well be that membership of the Russell Group should not be defined by research income - but it is - and the gulf there is enormous (because most of the the RG insts have medical schools and are big)!! I think - without checking the stats - that Liverpool's research income is probably about 50% or more higher than the highest income of a non RG University (Queen Mary? Durham?). Whether that is right or wrong is another matter...

First sorry for the typos in my earlier posting. I asked that question because the RESARCH INCOME is not the criterion for the membership of the Russell Group but RESEARCH INTENSIVE criterion is. The research income is metioned as the effect of the RESEARCH INTENSIVE nature, and hence the Russlell Group of Universities together has larger research income than non-RG universties. The critical yardstick is hence is the ' research intensive' nature. You have misunbderstood this. Here is the extract of the home page from Russell Group website: ============================= "The Russell Group is an association of 20 major research-intensive universities of the United Kingdom. Formed in 1994 at a meeting convened in Russell Square, the Group is composed of theVice-Chancellors/Principals of the Universities listed opposite. There are also a number of active working groups. In 2006/07, Russell Group Universities accounted for 66% (over £2.2 billion) of UK Universities' research grant and contract income, 68% of total Research Council income, 56% of all doctorates awarded in the United Kingdom, and over 30% of all students studying in the United Kingdom from outside the EU. In the 2001 national Research Assessment Exercise, 78% of the staff in Grade 5* departments and 57% of the staff in Grade 5 departments were located in Russell Group Universities, and in 2007/08 Russell Group Universities were allocated approximately 66% of the total quality-related (QR) research funding allocated by the Funding Councils. The purpose of The Russell Group is to provide thought leadership and strategic direction for the 20 major research intensive universities of the UK". ========================== So if the research income is he main criterion, the university X (analogy) in my earlier posting will become a Russell Group university. It is the research intensive nature that attracts resarch funds. By the way, it shows how important the RAE ratings are. Durham in the Times Good University league table is ranked at 8, and Liverpool at 34. That is more objective way of looking at U of Liverpool vis-a-vis other universities. U of Liverpool hence is not doing well comparatively. This is why the VC is so jittery as any one in his place will be.

Thanks. Having just looked at Liverpool's RAE results the thing that interests me is why their VC seems so keen on STEM. I knew the Liverpool English department was strong. Looking more closely I see that their real stars also include History (which I knew), Archaeology and Architecture. Their STEM results other than for Physics and Chemistry aren't good. Does anyone know why the people at Liverpool are now going on about expanding STEM when it doesn't seem that strong? And is that their real problem around RG status. The Russell Group institutions tend to be the STEM-intensive ones - and that is where Liverpool is weak.

Not sure what you mean by STEM. But the departments which registers 0 RAE ratings are Philosophy, Politics and International Studies, Statistics and Op Res. Other research weak departments at least have 5 4* ratings. If STEM indicates science, technology, engineering and mathematics these departments/faculties are relatively strong with even civil engineeting registering 5 4* ratings. As a posting point out in another thread, even post-92 university like Demontfort has a double digit 4* submissions in Politics and International Studies, similarly a some what lowly non RG University of Hull has stronger 4* ratings in the above three departments. I fully agree with the VC. The above 3 depts should not be in a Russell Group Univ.

Aha. I was intrigued by all that has been happening at Liverpool - and having put my ear to the ground I think I have the story. The University has for some years invested heavily in Science / Engineering / Medicine in the hope this would pay off in RAE terms. The new VC - Sir Howard Newby - appears to have endorsed this strategy. But when the RAE results came out for Liverpool they were not as expected. A lot of so-called STEM subjects did poorly (Cancer Studies and Dentistry bottom in the UK, engineering poor, and anticipated stars like Biology indifferent). By contrast lots of Arts / SS areas did very well (English, History, Archaeology, etc). This meant that the committment to invest in STEM was impossible to reconcile with the investment in excellence. All this evidently sent the University management into a tizzy. They were committed to continuing major investment in STEM (not least because departments there - like banks - were too big to fail). But they also realised they had to protect the strong non-STEM subjects that had stopped Liverpool's indifferent overall research rating being even more dismal. It seems that the attempt to close Philosophy and Politics was part of a plan to move the resource into the successful Humanities departments - so that they could remain strong - whilst keeping the investment in STEM going even though it had not hitherto 'paid off'. I leave it to others to disentangle the rights and wrongs of all this. But it does I think explain why Liverpool moved so quickly in taking a hard line towards the underperforming departments. And that will have to be my last post on this affair!

Unfortunately, this is exactly what is about to happen to the CTCCS (Centre for Translation and Comparative Cultural Studies) at the university of Warwick. The Centre will be closed down by the end of the current academic year. We students are shocked and it seems difficult to get detailed information about the reasons behind (apparently financial), the way in which it will affect our research and anything we could do in order to prevent it.