The concentration
of research funds is an inevitable consequence of a system that
funds research on the basis of excellence from limited funds.
The Government is responsible for this system. It is therefore
disingenuous of the Government to deny that it has a policy to
concentrate research.
97. Many submissions argued strongly against the
further concentration of research. The Royal Academy of Engineering
told us that "a concentration policy, too crudely applied,
could damage the ability of young researchers in less favoured
institutions to win funding and affect the flow of talent".[189]
The Institute of Electrical Engineers argued that "concentrating
research into fewer departments would create deserts of research
in many areas of the country, and would adversely impact on local
innovation and wealth creation initiatives, and regional development
plans".[190] The
London Mathematical Society told us that research concentration
could damage vital interdisciplinary links, saying that it would
"damage the symbiotic relationship between mathematical scientists
and other disciplines in research. The vitality of application-driven
research in mathematics depends crucially on research-active mathematicians
being available".[191]
Parents Against Cuts at Exeter stated that "universities
as a whole benefit from being comprised of a rounded comprehensive
range of disciplines and the consequences of the trend towards
concentrating research in a small number of universities will
be an increasing number of specialist universities, reduced provision
of a healthy range and mix of disciplines overall, and regional
deserts in particular subject areas".[192]
In a 2002 Report, The Future of Higher Education, the Education
and Skills Committee remained unconvinced that research concentration
would benefit the UK's research base.[193]
A 2003 review, commissioned by OST and conducted by the Science
and Technology Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at Sussex University,
concluded that "there seems to be little if any convincing
evidence to justify a Government policy explicitly aimed at further
concentration of research resources on large departments or large
universities in the UK on the grounds of superior economic efficiency".[194]
In its Response to our Office of Science and Technology: Scrutiny
Report 2003, the Government dismissed the SPRU study, saying that
it "criticised a caricature of Government policy".[195]
98. There are two main arguments that are often used
in favour of a degree of research concentration: international
competitiveness and critical mass. The 1994 Group of universities
told us that "success in the face of […] international
competition requires […] a proper depth of research expertise
and capability, particularly in science subjects. For the UK,
these considerations require a continued concentration of research
resources".[196]
Oxford University made the same argument on the basis that funds
for research were limited: "to protect Science research,
it is essential that research selectivity applied by HEFCE in
respect of its QR funding is maintained. This is especially so
if the UK is to maintain international competitiveness. If funds
are limited, they must be concentrated in the most successful
and competitive departments".[197]
The Lambert Review made the same argument: "if [the scope
of the Dual Support System] were broadened radically, public resources
would be spread too thinly across the university system, putting
the research-intensive universities at a disadvantage in the competition
for global research excellence".[198]
A Report commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry
from consultants Evidence Ltd, and published in October 2004,
states that "the UK relative international research performance
is second behind the USA in terms of overall research recognition".[199]
Universities UK told us that "the current basic research
profile of UK universities shows research of international standards".[200]
It would be unwise to jeopardise the UK's international standing
in research by taking away resources from those universities that
contribute the most to it.
99. The panel of Vice Chancellors we saw on 9 March
agreed that some degree of research concentration is necessary.
Professor David Eastwood of the University of East Anglia said
that "if we are to be, and to remain, internationally competitive
size matters, critical mass matters and therefore the policy,
which is in effect a settled policy of the concentration of research
resources, is the right one". He also noted the consequences
of following such a policy: "once you commit to that kind
of policy in an expensive research led discipline then it will
have consequences for the provision of undergraduate teaching".[201]
Professor Michael Sterling pointed out that subject provision
at the institutions into which research funds are concentrated
is enhanced by the process: "some Vice Chancellors decide
that strategically chemistry is not important and therefore close
it. Those applicants that would have gone to that university are
now dispersed across the rest and as that process continues applications
at the remaining universities go up and so the viability of their
department gets better and that is tending to happen now".[202]
This suggests that research concentration is a self-constrained
process: it will end automatically when the quality of all remaining
provision is uniformly high. The model endorsed by Professor Sterling
favours depth of provision, at the possible expense of breadth.
100. The obvious way to resolve the issue of research
concentration to the satisfaction of all parties would be to increase
overall levels of funding for research, thus enabling the system
to provide both depth and breadth. This is the preference of many
of the learned societies, as is shown in paragraph 91. However,
as we set out in the introduction to this Report, we think it
unlikely that the overall pot of money for research will increase
significantly in the immediate future. Thus we have assumed that
any attempt to address the issue of breadth versus depth would
have to operate within current financial limits—the system
would continue to be a "zero sum" game, with funding
gains in one area offset by funding losses in another.[203]
The two scenarios we have considered are as follows:
a) Taking funds away from departments rated 5
or 5* in RAE 2001 and redistributing them amongst departments
rated 4 or lower. This was described by Malcolm Keight of the
Association of University Teachers as "robbing Peter to pay
Paul".[204] Whilst
much of the evidence we received expressed support for the principle
of extra funding for departments rated 4 or lower, very few submissions
countenanced taking funding away from the best performing departments
in order to achieve this.
b) Redistributing the funding that is currently
automatically allocated to 4-rated departments (until it runs
out: see paragraph 89). This was the solution, initially proposed
in the Sir Gareth Roberts's Review, that we recommended as part
of our "three track" approach in Research Assessment
Exercise: a re-assessment.[205]
Under this system:
i. departments currently achieving the highest
scores (5 and 5*) would be exempt from the RAE process and would
be proportionally funded on the basis of their research grant
income;
ii. other departments could continue to take
part in the RAE process. The funding that they received from the
Funding Councils would be based on a formula relating to the volume
and quality of their research. Departments not reaching a minimum
standard of quality would not be funded;
iii. departments could also bid for funds to
develop their research. They would be assessed by subject panels
based upon the RAE units of assessment and would be required to
enter subsequent RAEs to provide a benchmark for improvement.
Applications would be based on a business plan which indicating
how the department in question intended to achieve a higher research
quality rating.[206]
In its Response to our Report, Research Assessment
Exercise: a re-assessment, the Government rejected our recommendation
of the three-track approach on the basis that "the Funding
Bodies' consultation with the sector on the desirability of the
'three track' assessment process had a mixed response. There was
a substantial majority opposed to the idea, which runs counter
to the desire for criterion referencing".[207]
101. There is a serious risk with the implementation
of the first option listed above (paragraph 100a) that the removal
of funding from 5 and 5* rated departments would compromise their
ability to continue performing at the same high level. The University
of York told us that "to penalise Grade 5 and 5* departments
in order to support those with lower research grades would put
the international standing of UK science at risk".[208]
This was the position adopted by the Director General of the Research
Councils: "to move away from the international excellence
that that has achieved to distribute the things more widely is
a policy which would be curious to follow after all the benefits
in terms of international competitiveness and career structures
that the selective funding and 'concentration' have achieved".[209]
In addition, the Institute of Electrical Engineers told us that
"spreading funding too thinly tends only to create mediocrity
amongst many whilst we should be aiming for excellence".[210]
Furthermore, even some 5- and 5*-rated STEM departments are struggling
financially. For example, the chemistry department at Oxford University,
rated 5* in the RAE, announced in November 2004 that it was running
at an annual £1 million deficit.[211]
Removing some of the funds of such departments could only increase
the number of chemistry departments that were struggling to survive.
Instead of
resolving the financial difficulties experienced by some STEM
departments, the wholesale redistribution of research funds would
diffuse those problems more widely.
Such a policy
would threaten the ability of 5 and 5* rated departments to continue
performing at a high level. It would also risk their international
standing, a move that could have adverse consequences for the
UK's international competitiveness and for individual careers.
In the absence of increased overall funding, "robbing Peter
to pay Paul" is not a viable solution to the financial difficulties
of some STEM departments.
102. By contrast, the introduction of a three-tier
assessment process would allow the Government to continue to support
excellence in research and would not penalise departments rated
5 and 5* for their previous success. It would also allow departments
currently rated 4 or lower to compete for funds on the basis of
merit, with funding available for the developmental stage of research
on the basis of bids made by individual institutions. We
urge the Government to reconsider its rejection of proposals for
a three-tier research assessment process. Such a process would
allow departments to bid for funding on the basis of merit instead
of imposing an arbitrary cut off point for departments upholding
the same standard of research activity. Although this would not
increase overall levels of funding for research, it would distribute
existing funds more fairly amongst lower performing departments.
See paragraph 94 for a discussion of changes
to the RAE for 2008.
103. Many of the objections to research concentration
centre on the assumption that, by differentiating between the
performance of different departments, the funding system questions
the ultimate value of those that perform less well. This need
not be the case. In chapter 6 we make the case for a diversity
of higher education provision. Research is not the only function
of a university: such institutions also teach undergraduates,
engage in scholarship and forge links with businesses. Greater
differentiation of function might enable all departments to thrive
on the basis of their own particular strengths, instead of forcing
all departments to compete—and inevitably many will lose—on
the basis of the strengths of a few. Research
concentration is not an evil per se: it only becomes a
problem when it occurs in a uniform system, where universities
that do not carry out world class research but are nonetheless
strong in other areas of their work, are disregarded.
Teaching funding
104. Teaching funds form the largest of the two main
funding elements given to universities and colleges by HEFCE in
the form of the block grant. In 2004-05, HEFCE allocated a total
of £3,826 million in funds for teaching, comprising 64% of
its total allocations (see figure 4, above). This amount is supplemented
by tuition fees, paid by individual students, the Government,
the Research Councils or other research funding bodies and industry.
Box 4, below, sets out the method used by HEFCE to calculate the
level of teaching grant given to each university or college. As
is shown, the calculation is based on an institution's expenditure
rather than on the cost of their activities.
Box 4: HEFCE's method for calculating the teaching
grant for universities and colleges
Stage 1
HEFCE calculates the standard resource for
each institution. This is a notional calculation of what the institution
would get if the grant was calculated afresh each year. It is
based on each institution's profile of students, and takes into
account:
- the number of students
- subject-related factors
- student-related factors
- institution-related factors
Stage 2
HEFCE calculates the assumed resource for
each institution. This is based on the teaching grant paid to
the institution got the previous year, adjusted for various factors
such as inflation and HEFCE's assumption of student tuition fee
income.
Stage 3
The standard resource is compared with the
assumed resource, and HEFCE works out the percentage difference
between them.
Stage 4
If the difference between the standard resource
and the assumed resource is no more than 5% either way,
the HEFCE grant will be carried forward from one year to the next.
For institutions outside the 5% tolerance band, their grant
and/or student numbers need to be adjusted so that they move within
the tolerance band.
Source: HEFCE, Funding higher education in England:
How HEFCE allocates its funds, May 2004, p 8
105. As Box 4 sets out, there are a number of variables
that are taken into account when HEFCE calculates the level of
teaching grant allocated to each institution. Paragraph 46 sets
out the impact that student numbers have on the grant. Much of
the evidence to this inquiry was concerned with the subject weightings
used by HEFCE. Different subjects need different levels of resource.
For example, subjects that are broadly classroom based are much
less expensive to teach than subjects that require the use of
laboratories and workshops. Consequently, STEM subjects, because
of the need for laboratories and expensive equipment, tend to
be more expensive to teach than arts and humanities subjects.
HEFCE has created four broad groups of subjects, each with a different
cost weighting. These four categories, set out in Figure 7, below,
were changed for 2004-05 on the basis of responses to a HEFCE
consultation conducted in August 2003, Developing the funding
method for teaching from 2004-05.[212]
The subject weightings are designed to ensure that institutions
have sufficient funding to cover the full range of their teaching
activities. Institutions are not obliged, however, to distribute
the grant internally according to the same ratios used by HEFCE
in the calculation: "we do not expect institutions to allocate
their teaching grant internally using the same approach that we
have adopted for the sector as whole".[213]Figure
7: Changes to the subject weightings used to calculate HEFCE's
teaching grant: 2003-04 to 2004-05
| Funding band
| Description
| Cost weight 03-04
| Cost weight 04-05
|
| A
| The clinical stages of medicine and dentistry courses and veterinary science
| 4.5 | 4.0
|
| B
| Laboratory-based subjects (science, pre-clinical stages of medicine and dentistry, engineering and technology)
| 2.0 | 1.7
|
| C
| Subjects with a studio, laboratory or fieldwork element
| 1.5 | 1.3
|
| D
| All other subjects |
1.0 | 1.0
|
Source: HEFCE, Funding higher education in England:
How HEFCE allocates its funds, May 2004, p 11, and informal meeting
with Professor Steve Smith, Vice Chancellor of Exeter University
on 14 December 2004
106. The majority of STEM subjects fall into category
B, which saw its weighting reduced from 2.0 to 1.7 in 2004-05.
We have received extensive evidence suggesting that the new weighting
for category B subjects is insufficient to meet their teaching
costs. Richard Sear, a lecturer in the School of Electronics and
Physical Sciences in the University of Surrey, told us that the
teaching grant "is inadequate to pay for teaching physics
degrees in the way they have been traditionally taught in the
UK, i.e. with substantial time in experimental and computing labs,
and a relatively high staff to student ratio".[214]
The Royal Academy of Engineering said that STEM subjects "receive
less than 50 per cent of the funding for medicine despite being
equally, if not more, expensive in terms of resources for equipment
and laboratory staff and the cost of industrial projects and design".[215]
The University of Central England stated that "reduction
in the weightings means that students will have less practical
work and more PC-based stimulation. A reduction of laboratory-based
sciences takes them further away from the practical needs of industry".[216]
Senior scientists from the pharmaceutical industry told us that
"for undergraduate chemistry teaching, the single most important
problem is that the funding weighting given to the subject is
totally inadequate and in no way reflects the cost of providing
good education and training in the subject and complying
with modern standards of safety".[217]
The UK Deans of Science told us that they had received estimates
of the effect of the changed weightings on three universities:
"these led to the removal for the 2004-05 session of approximately
£750,000 for one Science Faculty and around £1,000,000
each from two others, despite their increasing costs".[218]
Both the UK Deans of Science and the Council of Professors and
Heads of Computing told us that HEFCE's decision to move computer
science from band B to band C has caused "reductions in staff
at a time when […] employers are increasingly demanding higher
level skills in this area".[219]
107. Not all the subjects contained in funding band
B cost the same amount of money to teach. The Royal Society of
Chemistry, for example, told us that "the money universities
spend on chemistry is 37% per student more than pharmacy, 19%
more than the biosciences, 17% more than earth and environmental
sciences and 12% more than with engineering, to take four examples,
yet all are in the same band and therefore funded equally through
the HEFCE funding formula".[220]
This difference in costs means that the more expensive STEM subjects
in band B benefit less from the current subject weightings, although
this imbalance may be compensated for by the recipient university
when it distributes teaching funding internally. Paragraph 112
shows that when HEFCE consulted on changes to the subject weightings,
it proposed splitting funding band B to reflect the differences
in costs between subjects in that band, but that the proposal
was rejected.
108. One of the signs that HEFCE's teaching grant
is insufficient to cover the costs of teaching STEM subjects is
found in widespread reports that STEM departments are subsidising
their teaching activity from research and other funds. Astra Zeneca
told us that "nearly all Chemistry Departments conduct undergraduate
teaching at a loss, and recoup the shortfall through HEFCE research
funding".[221]
Dr Tina Overton from the Department of Chemistry at the University
of Hull told us that "the teaching funding formula does not
support science teaching and departments rely on cross subsidy
from research streams to maintain staff and equipment levels".[222]
Professor Tom Blundell, President of the Biosciences Federation,
told us that "I have done an analysis on our school in Cambridge
and I think the teaching looks as if it is about one third under
funded and that is actually funded through research activity".[223]
By contrast, HEFCE told us that "it is possible for departments
to remain viable where the majority of income comes through teaching
resource. For example, in 2003-04 there were some 42 departments
of chemistry with significant student numbers. Sixteen of these
do not receive HEFCE research funding, although they do earn research
income from other sources".[224]
Professor David Eastwood, Vice Chancellor of the University of
East Anglia supported this position, telling us that early indications
from the application of the TRAC methodology suggested that research
had a greater deficit than teaching.[225]
It would be unacceptable if
universities had to use research funds to subsidise teaching activity.
In order to ensure that both teaching and research are supported
at a sustainable level, the Government needs to have a clear understanding
of the costs of each type of activity. We recommend that it uses
the TRAC methodology to produce a comprehensive analysis of the
costs of research and teaching relative to the level of funding
that each activity receives.
109. We received evidence that the calculation of
the new subject weightings was flawed because it looked at expenditure
rather than cost. Professor Michael Sterling, Vice Chancellor
of Birmingham University and Chairman of the Russell Group of
universities, explained that:
"In chemistry it was held that expenditure
was going up. Why was it going up? It was going up because the
student number was going down and it was difficult for chemistry
staff to find alternative jobs outside the academic world. So
essentially you had a high cost base remaining in staffing costs
and a declining number of students and therefore your unit cost
was going up. If you contrast that with engineering, engineering
numbers were going down but staff numbers were also going down
because engineering could make the transition into the commercial
industrial world much more easily, so your cost base was going
down. What appeared to happen is that the unitary resource, the
spend, was going down for engineering and HEFCE then drew the
conclusion that you do not need to spend as much money on engineering
because the unitary resource is lower but you need to support
the science one."[226]
There would be very little to be gained by discussing
at length here the relative costs of chemistry and engineering
provision. What Professor Sterling's example demonstrates is that
a number of factors influence a department's expenditure: many
of them will be unrelated to the costs of teaching the subject
in question. HEFCE told us that "currently our funding method
uses expenditure as a proxy for cost in each subject area. This
is the best information available, but we are piloting a means
of looking more closely at costs based on the TRAC methodology,
and may use this information in making future allocations".[227]
It has since asked consultants to examine cost-based approaches
to funding to inform its ongoing review of the teaching funding
method. The consultants are due to report on their findings by
the end of June 2005.[228]
Departmental
expenditure is a flawed basis from which calculate the level of
teaching funding allocated to STEM departments. This seems to
have been accepted by HEFCE: we understand that it has commissioned
research on possible cost-based approaches to funding, including
an approach based on the TRAC methodology.
110. Throughout the course of this inquiry, HEFCE
has insisted that STEM subjects have not been disadvantaged by
the change in teaching weightings. In written evidence, and subsequently
repeated by Sir Howard Newby in oral evidence, HEFCE stated that:
"The change in weighting affects the relativities
between subject allocations. Changing the relativities naturally
has an effect on the base unit of funding used to calculate grant
allocations. When the weighting for SET subjects was changed from
2 to 1.7, this led to only a slight shift in resource for these
subjects of -3.4%. Moreover, the allocations made to HEIs [higher
education institutions] included additional funding for teaching,
meaning that the overall grant for 2004-05 was allocated against
a higher base. Taking this into account, the resource for SET
subjects actually increased by 5.5%."[229]
We have not received any statistics that contradict
this statement. However, the proportion by which the resource
for category B subjects has increased or decreased is meaningful
only in context. This is a point made by Universities UK in written
evidence. It states that, whilst the impact of changes to the
subject weights will vary between institutions "depending
on the particular circumstances of that institution and the way
in which resources are allocated internally […] there are
two additional and more fundamental issues that need to be considered—the
inadequate funding base for university teaching and learning and
the historic basis upon which the funding is allocated".[230]
Professor Boucher, a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering
told us that "yes, there has been a modest increase but it
is an increase that is still in a situation where there is chronic
under funding".[231]
Set against this "chronic under funding", which is attested
to by a majority of those who submitted evidence to this inquiry,
even an increase in teaching funds of 5.5% is likely to be insufficient
to meet the actual costs of running STEM departments.
111. STEM
subjects might have seen a slight increase in their levels of
teaching resource, even after the change in subject weightings
for their category was reduced from 2.0 to 1.7. However, any such
increases need to be set against a history of chronic under funding
for teaching. We recommend that the Government uses its research
into the costs of teaching, facilitated by the TRAC methodology,
to reach a settlement for STEM subjects that accurately reflects
their cost.
112. When HEFCE consulted on its adjustment of the
teaching funding weightings, it initially proposed to split price
band B into two separate categories: B1 (containing physics, chemistry,
chemical engineering and mineral, metallurgy and materials engineering)
and B2 (containing other laboratory sciences and engineering).
The proposal, made on the basis of expenditure data, was intended
to increase the ratio of funding for the four subject areas that
had seen the most significant decline in student demand, leading
to increased unit costs. In its publication on the outcomes of
its consultation, HEFCE framed the proposal as "a policy
question: to what extent should HEFCE provide higher rates of
recurrent funding to support subject areas of national importance
that are in decline?" HEFCE abandoned the proposal on the
basis that "a significant majority of institutions did not
favour splitting price group B. It was also not generally supported
by the broad science and engineering subject bodies, who perceived
that science and engineering as a whole would lose out, even if
the B1 subjects gained".[232]
We are not convinced that this opposition was well founded. Throughout
the course of our inquiry we observed the special pleading used
by many of the learned and professional societies to advance the
cause of their particular area of specialism. However, the benefits
of such tactics for one subject have to be weighed against the
negative consequences for all the others.
It would be a matter of regret if, when HEFCE changed the subject
weighting for teaching funding, competition between the science
and engineering bodies about the relative importance of their
areas of specialism had prevented some subjects, such as chemistry
and physics, from receiving the funding uplifts that they so badly
needed. The scientific community needs to pull together to ensure
that future discussions about funding are resolved in the interests
of science as a whole, regardless of the interests of individual
specialisms.
153 HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and
Department for Education and Skills, Science and Innovation
Investment Framework 2004-2014, July 2004, p 74 Back
154
Q 472 Back
155
See Fourteenth Report from the Science and Technology Committee,
Session 2003-04, Responses to the Committee's Tenth Report,
Session 2003-04, Scientific Publications: Free for all? (HC
1200), passim. Back
156
Bahram Bekhradnia, Higher Education Policy Institute, Government,
Funding Council and Universities: How Should They Relate?,
February 2004, p 3 Back
157
Bahram Bekhradnia, Higher Education Policy Institute, Government,
Funding Council and Universities: How Should They Relate?,
February 2004, p 9 Back
158
Ev 237 Back
159
Ev 89 Back
160
Second Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session
2001-02, The Research Assessment Exercise (HC 507), and
Eleventh Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Session
2003-04, Research Assessment Exercise: A re-assessment
(HC 586) Back
161
Q 519 Back
162
Q 50 [Danielle Miles] Back
163
Q 432 Back
164
Ev 237 Back
165
HM Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department for
Education and Skills, Science and Innovation Investment Framework
2004-2014, July 2004, p 95 Back
166
Ev 301 Back
167
Bahram Bekhradnia, Higher Education Policy Institute, Government,
Funding Council and Universities: How Should They Relate?,
February 2004, p 13 Back
168
Q 179 Back
169
Ev 196 Back
170
HC [2001-02] 507, and HC [2003-04] 586 Back
171
Fifth Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session
2002-03, The Future of Higher Education (HC 425-I), p 17 Back
172
Q 196 Back
173
Ev 83 Back
174
Ev 232 Back
175
Q 340 Back
176
Q 339 Back
177
HC [2003-04] 586, p 20 Back
178
Ev 166 Back
179
Q 421 Back
180
HC [2003-04] 586, p 21 Back
181
Department of Trade and Industry, The Sustainability of University
Research: a consultation on reforming parts of the Dual Support
system, May 2003 Back
182
"Higher Education Research", Letter from Lord Sainsbury
of Turville to Vice Chancellors, 6 January 2005 Back
183
HC [2004-05] 8, p 23 Back
184
Ev 118 Back
185
Ev 235 Back
186
Q 209 Back
187
Ev 166 Back
188
Q 209 Back
189
Ev 151 Back
190
Ev 96 Back
191
Ev 240 Back
192
Ev 190 Back
193
Fifth Report from the Education and Skills Committee, Session
2001-02, The Future of Higher Education (HC 425-I), pp
16-17 Back
194
N. von Tunzelmann, M. Ranga, B. Martin and A. Guena, The Effects
of Size on Research Performance: A SPRU Review, June 2003,
p iv Back
195
HC [2003-04] 588, p 7 Back
196
Ev 85 Back
197
Ev 97 Back
198
HM Treasury, The Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration,
December 2003, p 86 Back
199
Department of Trade and Industry, PSA target metrics for the
UK Research Base, October 2003, p 12 Back
200
Ev 258 Back
201
Q 411 Back
202
Q 441 Back
203
Ev 147 Back
204
Q 395 Back
205
Review of research assessment: Report by Sir Gareth Roberts
to the UK funding bodies, May 2003 Back
206
HC [2003-04] 586, pp 10-11 Back
207
First Special Report from the Science and Technology Committee,
Session 2004-05, Research Assessment Exercise: a re-assessment:
Government Response to the Committee's Eleventh Report of Session
2003-04 (HC 34), p 2 Back
208
Ev 167 Back
209
Q 224 Back
210
Ev 96 Back
211
Donald MacLeod, "Cash crisis at Oxford's chemistry department",
The Guardian, Monday 29 November, 2004 Back
212
HEFCE, Developing the funding method for teaching from 2004-05,
August 2003 Back
213
Ev 90 Back
214
Ev 290 Back
215
Ev 151 Back
216
Ev 214 Back
217
Ev 114 Back
218
Ev 84 Back
219
Ev 105 Back
220
Ev 185 Back
221
Ev 120 Back
222
Ev 229 Back
223
Q 349 Back
224
Ev 91 Back
225
Q 449 Back
226
Q 442 Back
227
Ev 91 Back
228
Ev 301-302 Back
229
Ev 90 Back
230
Ev 259 Back
231
Q 346 Back
232
HEFCE, Funding method for teaching from 2004-05: Outcomes of
consultation, June 2004, p 8 Back
