Oxford's Research Ratings Slipping
The new Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) showed that Oxford had slipped to third place, behind the London School of Economics as well as Cambridge.
The results rank each department on a ratings scale from 1 to 5*. 25 of Oxford's 46 entries were graded 5*, compared to 30 of Cambridge's 51 departments. Whilst this assessment would place Oxford second only to Cambridge in terms of most high-performing departments, an index showing the average rating for each institution index puts Oxford in third place behind LSE.
Vice-chancellor of the university, Dr Colin Lucas, said that: "the RAE 2001 has confirmed that, among those universities with the full range of academic disciplines, Oxford and Cambridge remain clear leaders of the field". The RAE is deeply significant, as t is used to determine the formula by which £1 billion of research funding is allocated between universities.
Oxbridge's success was tainted, however, by claims from London universities, that both Oxford and Cambridge manipulate the rankings due to their collegiate system. Oxford included researchers employed by colleges in their submissions to the assessment, but did not list college staff not included in the exercise. An official from LSE said that this allowed Oxford to "pick and choose who they put in".
The HEFCE responded by stating that "Oxbridge staff who are research active are included in the category A totals. Non-research active staff are not in any of the figures". This did not prevent Neil Gregory, head of the research and project development division of LSE from saying: "Cambridge may have 'won' the gold medal, but will they fail the dope test?"
Potentially most embarrassing for the University was that Oxford Brookes' history department gained the highest rating of 5*, whilst Oxford University managed only 5. Head of the history faculty, Dr Felicity Heal, said that whilst the result was disappointing, Oxford is not fearful of the competition. Brookes has 12 history researchers, compared to Oxford's 130.
The tables appear to show good news for British research: 64% of research departments were judged to be producing work of "national or international excellence" in 2001, compared to 43% in 1996. There is apparently no international reference point used for compiling the tables so their real meaning remains unclear.
10th Jan 2002