Hail the Phoenix

Joni Mitchell captured it perfectly: 'you don't know what you've got til it's gone'. The repercussions of the demise of the 1994 Group will, I think, be felt for some time yet. Whilst I took plenty of sideswipes at the 1994 Group in its last, doddery years - it was such an easy target, wasn't it? - the gap that it's left is a significant one for the UK's higher education sector.

In essence, we've now got a one brand market place. The Russell Group is the Acme Corporation. It is GUM. I've heard rumours that the Russell Group was not exactly passive in the self destruction of the 94 Group last summer. If this is true, it should be ashamed of the part in played. Whilst all is fair in love, war and the feuding of mission groups, having one citadel of research is not good for the long term health of the UK's research ecosystem.

I've made no bones about believing that increasing funding concentration is a Bad Thing, and  I hope that HEFCE sticks to its guns and 'fund excellent research in all its forms wherever it is found'. I think it would be incredibly detrimental to the whole sector if we moved to a situation where we had a divide between 'research' and 'teaching' universities. It would be harmful to the early careers of many academics, but also to the experience of students. Research should inform teaching, and teaching inform research. Having a strong research ecosystem across the sector is good for the UK as a whole.

However, to ensure its survival this ecosystem needs to be protected. Someone needs to fight the corner of the non-RG universities. Someone needs to speak for the majority. I think its disingenuous - or just plain stupid - to think that individual universities can speak as loudly or be heard as widely as a collective voice.  In the weeks that have followed the closure of the 1994 Group a number of possible candidates have been suggested, such as Universities UK (UUK), University Alliance, and even the Association of Research Managers and Administrators (ARMA). 

I don't think any of these are appropriate. Both UUK and ARMA should be looking after the interests of all in the sector, both non-RG and RG. The University Alliance has a particular mission in supporting and encouraging innovation within it member institutions. What we need instead is either to get rid of all mission groups and just have a single body speaking on behalf of the whole UK HE sector, or a body who can safeguard the smaller research intensive universities. The former is never going to happen; the RG brand has become too useful to its members. The latter isn't going to happen anytime soon either: too many fingers have been burnt, I think, in the sad end of the 1994 Group. The idea behind the Senate Group was a good one, a positive one, but it was ultimately scuppered by delays and self interest.

What we are left with, for the time being, is the RG, and a patchwork of regional groupings, from N8, M5, GW4 and Kent's own Eastern ARC. These do, I think, offer a solution for the moment. They allow the member universities to be more than the sum of their parts, and to spark interesting, interdisciplinary collaborations. They may even, in time, lead to a more 'federalised' sector. But there's always a danger that 'federalised' might lead to 'factionalised', with inter-regional scrapping and the building of walls between the groups.

Despite what some say, and despite the silly playground politics they engender, I think 'mission groups' do have their place. Or rather, in a world where some belong to a powerful mission group, the rest need to have the advocacy offered by one. Let's hope that a phoenix rises from the ashes of the 1994 Group. And soon.

In Memoriam

So. Farewell then
1994 Group

'Sort of a bit like
the Russell Group.
Just a bit smaller and leafier'.

Yes, that could have been
your catchphrase.

But you were sat on
by an elephant.

We loved you
Even if we weren't
Entirely sure
What you stood for.

E J Thribb
(apologies to Private Eye) 

You're Better than That

Well, it feels like an awfully long time since I last posted. 17 Dec! That's almost a month. In the intervening period I've managed to forget everything I once knew, but I'm sure it'll come back to me. Just remind me, what does REF stand for again?

In the meantime the Times Higher gave me a gift that would warm the heart of any research manager: they published my letter. Whilst I live in the county that gave the world 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells', I hope the final piece doesn't come across like that:

For those of you who can't read my shaky mobile phone photo, here's the text online. They had to edit it slightly because of space constrictions (eg I gave the figures for 2010-11 as well), but I hope my point came across. What I was wanting to highlight was the fact that it's very easy to make assumptions based on institutional reputation. Everyone would assume that Russell Group or 94 Group universities would outperform a non-aligned university like the OU. However, when you question this it reveals some surprises.

But the publication of my letter was as a molehill next to the Everest-like achievement of my Private Eye Lookalike publication. I may have forgotten everything I know, but this will stay with me forever.

Stats, Black Eyes and Feathers in Caps

'No sir, a reduction in applications is a definite Feather in
your Cap'

As any research administrator worth their salt will know, The Times Higher published the annual stats for RCUK awards last week. In universities across the land there's fevered analysis, trying to work out (like Colonel Cathcart) whether they represent a Black Eye or a Feather in the Cap - or both, simultaneously.

After all the recent mission group shenanigans, I thought it would be interesting to see how the internecine factions within the Russell Group and 94 Group are performing. For this exercise, I've averaged out the figures for the following four groups:

• RG Old: i.e. the original Russell Group, namely Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Imperial, KCL, Leeds, Liverpool, LSE, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Oxford, QUB, Sheffield, Southampton, UCL, Warwick
• RG New: i.e. those that jumped ship from 94 Group and joined the RG in the summer, namely York, Durham, Exeter, QMUL 
• 94 Former: i.e. those that jumped ship from 94 Group but are currently unaligned, Bath, St Andrews, Surrey 
• 94 Current: i.e. Birkbeck, UEA, Essex, Goldsmiths, IoE, RHUL, Lancaster, Loughborough, Reading, SOAS, Sussex.

So, first, let's look at overall award value:

No surprise there: the old, 'big science' universities are getting the lion's share of the funding. What is interesting though, is that those universities that recently left the 94 Group to wander in the wilderness are actually generating more RCUK income than those that were invited into the hallowed portals of the RG earlier in the year.

Next application number:

Once again, no surprise: application numbers are down across the board. This is probably largely due to the Research Councils demanding demand management. They want less applications so their success rates don't look quite so pitiful. Interesting, again, the recent departees are putting in more than the newly anointed RGers. Some would say that the newly anointed are showing their quality: less is more. Others might say they are lazy laggards. I couldn't possibly comment.

Next, award number:

Once again, the Russell Group reign supreme, getting almost double the number of awards as their new intake. There had better be some sock pulling amongst those whipper-snappers. Moreover, RG are getting, on average, four times as many as the remaining 94 Group.

Finally, success rate:

A tight cluster here, around the late twenties/early thirties, but interestingly the wandering homeless outdo the folk on the hill (both old and new money).

So what to make of all this? I'll leave that to my fellow research administrators to decide on black eyes/feathers in their caps, and ultimately stats can be twisted to mean whatever you want them to mean (a nice blog post on this from Cash4Questions, here), but I hope it provides a pause for thought and a rethink about how we see ourselves.

The 94 Seven Join and Leave another Mission Group

'Please sir, we're looking for a mission group to join.
And leave'

The Council for the Defence of British Universities was launched today to act as a champion of traditional academia in the face of current economic and policy challenges. Welcomed by many in the Sector, including the British Academy, the launch was marred somewhat by the fact that it was followed shortly after by news that seven of its original members had decided to leave.

'Membership of the Council for the Defence of British Universities does not reflect the type of university we are, nor sit well with the future direction of the University’s strategy,' said Bath's VC, Prof Glynis Breakwell.

A spokesman from the University of Surrey concurred. 'The decision to leave the Council has not been taken lightly and reflects the University’s response to the changing higher education environment. It will continue to seek and develop new, mutually beneficial relationships with other leading UK and global academic institutions, and intends to leave further umbrella groups as and when the opportunity presents itself.'

It is believe that all 7 founding members, who have also left the 94 Group recently, are intending to apply for membership of rival mission group, The Council for the Destruction of British Universities, otherwise known as The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Bath to Join Million+ Shock

Coffee time in the Million+
Senior Common Room

Following its departure from the 94 Group, Bath has shocked the sector by applying to join Million+ rather than the Russell Group.
'Membership of the Russell Group does not reflect the type of university we are, nor sit well with the future direction of the University’s strategy,' said Bath's VC, Prof Glynis Breakwell. 'The Russell Group is perceived as too 'Old Skool', and we feel the future lies with Million+'.
However, it is still uncertain whether Million+ will accept Bath's membership application. 'To be honest, I'm not sure we want them,' said Million+ Chair, VC of the University of East London, and former Avengers star Prof Patrick McGhee. 'Current members will have to vote on whether we want to admit a pre-92 institution to be in our gang.'
Other universities have tried and failed to join Million+. It is understood that, when upstarts Exeter, York, Durham and QMUL joined the Russell Group in March this year Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial tried to jump ship and join the elitist Million+, but were refused.

'It's a Sad End to a Great...Um...'

Medics were today called to a house in the leafy home counties to try and resuscitate a local celebrity.

Known only as '94', the once glamorous patient had recently cut a shuffling, slightly confused figure, and friends had become increasingly concerned by his apparent lack of direction.

'He used to corner people at parties,' confided one university, that wished to remain anonymous. 'He'd plead with them to be his friend, to join him. When they didn't, he'd start to rant and swear. It was frankly embarrassing'.

Lately he had been seen at bus stops in the dodgier university towns, with a can of Special Brew, shouting at the passing cars. On more than one occasion the police had to be called, and one of his fourteen remaining friends had to bail him out.

It is believed that 94 had issues around maintaining his position in society.  When passers-by started to concentrate their funding elsewhere his friends abandoned him, and his descent accelerated.

'It's a sad end to a great..um, a great...er,' said another university, eyes darting around the room. 'By the way, have you seen Russell?'

Knownaginta: Probably the Best Mission Group in the World

I read with interest in this week's Times Higher that the 94 Group was considering a name change. As you can imagine, this unleashed enormous excitement at Fundermentals Towers, as it combines two of our favourite things: mission groups and branding exercises.

Yes, this is a great opportunity for a self-selecting coterie to come up with a fresh-faced new image and some broad, aspirational tag lines. In fact, rather than farming this out to an expensive branding agency, we at Fundermentals would like to offer our services for free.

We'll offer them a range of options. We have to think carefully about the name. We could either have:

• A name with some basis in reality, like a translated word. For example, we could have '94' in Latin: 'Nonaginta Quattuor'. Which has a learned ring to it, and is sure to please all the fresh faced students brought up on a diet of Harry Potter, as it sounds a bit like a spell. Maybe we could get the collective VCs to dress up as Dumbledore et al? No harm in appealing to the masses when we've got to part them with £27k. 
• Or a name that is based around a neologism with no baggage. You know, like Aviva, or Carillion. Or Consignia. I don't think anyone's using that at the moment. 
• Better still, how about a combination of the two. Combine 'Nonaginta' with 'Knowledge' and what do we get? 'Knownaginta'! Bingo!

Yes, I can see it now. The Knownaginta Group. I tell you, I'm wasted in university administration.

Next we need to think about a new tag line. Their current one, 'To Promote Excellence through Research and Teaching', is just a bit...meh. I mean, which university or mission group doesn't do that? No, I think they need to either go for honesty ('Protecting our Interests - Together'), or something Blairite, bold - and ultimately meaningless. How about: 'Building our World on the Foundations of Knowledge'?

Hmm. I'll have to develop a new Priorities Generator to help me out with this one.

Alternatively, they could just steal the tag line that already exists.

• 'Knownaginta: Because You're Worth It'. 
• 'Knownaginta: Think Different'. 
• 'Knownaginta: It's Good to Talk.' 
• 'Knownaginta: Probably the Best Mission Group in the World'.

Right, this is getting silly now. I think the Fundermentals' readership should have a go. I'm willing to offer a spangly prize - which may or may not be a pen stolen from the ARMA Conference -  to the best combination of new name and tag line for the 94 Group. Over to you, Twitter...

Light up the Cigars, Boys

I was very excited to read today about the elevation of the Universities of York, Durham, Exeter and Queen Mary's to membership of the Russell Group. My excitement was tempered, however, by a concern that RG was beginning to lose its elitist edge. After all, with this move the 94 Group becomes more of a select group than the RG: 94 has a svelte membership of 15 against the morbidly obese RG 24. In fact, the Russell Group is now less selective than the University Alliance (23 members), and only slightly more selective than the Million+ group of post-92 universities (26 members).

It's ironic that, in the year it reaches the age of majority, RG should run to fat so quickly. RG is going to have to start thinking about how to slim down, to regain the trim figure it cut in its prime.

Might I suggest the Fundermental Diet? It comes highly recommended by snobbish institutions the world over, and is remarkably simple. All it needs is for a self-selecting group within its ranks - let's say, for the sake of argument, Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial - to break away and form a 'premier' body. Let's call it the 'Premiership' RG (TM).

This would make total sense. After all, we need to protect the elite from the influence of the riff raff and the hoi polloi. You know, those concretey, provincial johnny-come-latelys. These - sniff - Million Plusers.

But why stop there? There are always a few extra ounces, a few competitors, to shave off. Once the Premiership RG is up and running the case could, nay should, be made for distinguishing between the 'Ancient' Premiership (TM) of Oxford and Cambridge, and the 'Modern' Premiership (TM) of Imperial.

If this distinction isn't made, how will league tables, potential students and funders tell them apart? We need this distinction or all sorts of chaos will ensue. Institutions might be treated equally, with quality research being recognised wherever it is found - and then where would we be?

Yes, these distinctions, these groupings, are very, very important. Ultimately, however, there needs to be a Supreme Champion of Champions, a Summa Cum Laude University, by itself, for itself, standing proud, above the rabble, alone. A touchstone university, that would act as the university against which all universities should be measured. A Premiership RG of one.

But how can we select this RG Sine Pari? Of course, for this we should rely on the tried and tested methods of self-selecting groups the world over. Light up the cigars, boys, and let's fill this room with smoke.

A Closer Look at ERC Award Figures

I had a look at the ERC awards page yesterday. It made interesting reading. In the three rounds they have stats for (two Starting Researcher, one Advanced), there were 136 Fellowships based at UK universities. 70% of these were at Russell Group universities, 14% went to 94 Group universities, 7% went to small specialist centres (such as MRC institutes or Cancer Research centres), leaving the remaining 9% (or 12 awards) to be split between the 100 or so other universities in the UK, including Strathclyde and Portsmouth, who have a respectable 2 a piece.

I'll have a pint of whatever they're drinking...