Did HEFCE’s formula really need to change?
A month before last week’s funding formula announcement, we modelled what would have happened had the Higher Education Funding Council for England allocated 2015-16 funding based on the template for previous years: three times as much funding for 4* research as for 3* work.
Our analysis assumed that there would be no changes to HEFCE’s quality and subject cost weightings, and that the available pot of money would remain unchanged. We did not account for London weighting.
The results were mixed. We expected the allocations of the golden triangle of universities in Oxford, Cambridge and London to increase from £319.5 million in 2014-15 to £322.8m in 2015-16. Funding for those in the N8 Research Partnership was projected to fall from £218.9m to £193.9m.
Two global brands, the Universities of Cambridge and Manchester, faced losses of £9m and £13m respectively. On the flipside, several smaller institutions were expected to make considerable gains, which would be vital for them in their efforts to germinate research among faculty and students.
The dilemma for HEFCE was clear. It could tweak its funding arrangements so that the globally visible research-intensive institutions wouldn’t lose as much. Or it could keep things as they were. It chose the former.
As a result, under one projected scenario, the golden-triangle institutions will gain £6m more than we estimated a month ago. The N8 and the University Alliance will lose an extra £2m and £1m respectively. Most other groupings will make slight losses or get broadly the same.
The changes, which also include the division of the total funds into three pots, the removal of the science ring fence and the provision of transitional funding for science, technology, engineering and maths subjects and students, have also made the formula more complicated and difficult to model. The move could leave HEFCE accused of lacking transparency.
HEFCE’s reasoning is that it wants to reward as much 4*, “world leading” research as it can. What matters, it says, is the principle, not the outcome.
On one level, you could argue that this should be celebrated. As global higher education gets ever more competitive, it makes sense to use UK public funds to keep the country among the global leaders.
But the losses suffered by smaller institutions (even if they are in the tens of thousands of pounds), could be the difference between a small amount of research and none at all.
As we report on page 5, regardless of the intent, HEFCE’s formula will be seen as having been changed for the benefit of institutions such as Imperial College London and Cambridge.
Few critics will begrudge Cambridge or Imperial their winnings. But the perception of the rules having been changed to ensure their success will be a very dangerous one if it takes hold. We trust our public institutions because we are confident that everyone plays by the same rules, and that those rules are not made for the benefit of the most powerful and well connected.
By the time we went to press, the Russell Group was predictably satisfied with the outcome. Other mission groups were saying little. Their silence speaks volumes.
This article also appeared in Research Fortnight