tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post2194751212396911340..comments2024-01-11T10:42:04.473+00:00Comments on Hawk/Handsaw: What is the Russell Group for?Paul Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-70786714552603223902009-03-22T20:48:00.000+00:002009-03-22T20:48:00.000+00:00Pharyngula has a post vaguely related to this...<A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/eroding_our_intellectual_infra.php#comments" REL="nofollow">Pharyngula</A> has a post vaguely related to this...Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-86839207064428751942009-03-21T15:43:00.000+00:002009-03-21T15:43:00.000+00:00Dr Aust:Thanks for the comment, and the links to t...Dr Aust:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comment, and the links to the THE: had seen the first one, but not the second one.<BR/><BR/>The comments to the THE pieces seem to be generating more heat than light. It seems to me that the criteria for the different RAE rankings are fairly obscure. What, for example, is the difference between work that is "internationally excellent" (3*) and work that is "internationally recognised" (2*)? What actual criteria must be met for a 4* rating? I spent some time on the RAE website, and it seems that you need to look at the "Criteria and working methods" documents for each panel to find out what the rankings mean, and the definitions are still (inevitably) somewhat ambiguous and subjective.<BR/><BR/>To me, it still isn't clear that there was anything disastrously bad about the research performance. And in any case, I would question that the results require hitting the panic button and closing the departments.<BR/><BR/>As you say, I suspect there's more to it than just the RAE results...Paul Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18101626906004768474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4477385342066275897.post-79946306791708270172009-03-20T22:02:00.000+00:002009-03-20T22:02:00.000+00:00Hear hear, Paul.Speaking as a veteran watcher of R...Hear hear, Paul.<BR/><BR/>Speaking as a veteran watcher of Russell Gp Univ politics I suspect there must be some other reason Liverpool wish to "lose" these departments in addition to RAE score. <BR/><BR/>My experience of RAE-driven merger/closures, at least for science Departments, has been that RAE results will get you merged / taken over - but it takes more than just RAE to get you shut down with threat of redundancies (see Exeter Chemistry).<BR/><BR/>One example might be if the Univ bosses think (for instance) that Stats as a degree is not getting enough good undergraduate students... or there are a lot of expensive older staff in these Depts they would like to "persuade" into early retirement. <BR/><BR/>Merger/takeover also usually means some there is some other Department keen to "expand" by subsuming the (better RAE-rated and/or younger staff) bits of e.g. Stats.<BR/><BR/>There was quite an extended discussion of the Liverpool news over at the <I>THE</I> <A HREF="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405704&c=1" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405763" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com