timeshighereducation pubblica e commenta i risultati del RAE 2008, la valutazione della ricerca inglese, che influenza potentemente i finanziamenti pubblici per le università. Ciò che pesa di più alla fine è il “research power” (a mixture of excellence and volume): questo determina il finanziamento.  Una formula finale  che moltiplica i punteggi medi attribuiti per il volume dello staff di ricerca presentato alla valutazione spiega il cash flow totale ottenuto: così è in testa Oxford (che ha presentato lo staff più numeroso) seguito da  Cambridge, Manchester, UCL, Edinburgh, Nottingham and Imperial College.

Ma THE documenta anche un interessante dibattito: l’ultimo intervento è significativo:

“This discussion has largely ignored the underlying purpose of the RAE. It is not about research quality, or the ‘world class’ work done by Dr X, or Prof. Y. It is a tool invented by civil servants to manage higher education. …   it is an administrative game that academics simply need to play, rather than to take personally. The anxious rants and raves that have featured in this discussion seem to reflect a community that has lost sight of the intrinsic value of its own work. For myself, I have spent four RAEs analysing the rules and playing the game to the best of my ability on behalf of several different departments. But, I have never let it effect my belief in the importance and value of my own research, scholarship or teaching. If, as a community, we are going to discuss this system, let us be clear that its relationship to ‘quality’ is inherently tangential, contingent and largely irrelevant, even when our jobs, and futures and comforts depend on the outcome”.