Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social
Mobility and Student Choice - Consultation
You can reply to this consultation online at:
https://bisgovuk.citizenspace.com/he/fulfilling-our-potential
A copy of this response form is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher-education-teachingexcellence-social-mobility-and-student-choice
The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to
Government Information, make available, on public request, individual responses.
The closing date for this consultation is 15/01/2016
Name: David Cloke
Organisation (if applicable): British Medical Association
Address:BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JP
Email Address:dcloke@bma.org.uk
Please return completed forms to:
Alison Haines
Higher Education Directorate
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
Level 1, 2 St Paul’s Place
125 Norfolk Street
Sheffield
S1 2FJ
email:
consultation.he@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Please tick the box that best describes you as a respondent to this consultation.
Alternative higher education provider (with
designated courses)
Alternative higher education provider (no designated
courses)
Awarding organisation
Business/Employer
Central government
Charity or social enterprise
Further Education College
Higher Education Institution
Individual (Please describe any particular relevant
interest; parent, student, teaching staff etc.)
Legal representative
Local Government
Professional Body
Representative Body
Research Council
X
Trade union or staff association
Other (please describe)
Public sector equality duty
Question 1:
a) What are your views on the potential equality impacts of the proposals and
other plans in this consultation?
In our response to the Coalition Government’s Higher Education White Paper
we highlighted medicine’s poor record in recruiting students from disadvantaged
socio-economic backgrounds and urged the Government to ensure that its
policies supported the widening of access to medicine in particular. We also
stressed the importance of graduate entry to medicine as a means of widening
access.
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
We were concerned that the new system of funding teaching in higher
education through a significantly increased graduate contribution would have
consequences for medicine with some of the best students (especially those
from lower income backgrounds) being deterred from entering medicine
because of the amount of debt that it would entail. With fee levels of £9000 a
year, medical students would see their debts increase to around £70,000.
Research suggested that this would further deter the participation of students
from the lowest socio-economic groups, who are more debt averse.
It is notable, therefore, that the proposals in the Green Paper specifically include
consideration of income and economic status specifically in part due to the
known linkage with the protected characteristics (page 15 para 39). We support
this. We specifically note that current standard data sets in such areas are
problematic particularly relating to courses such as (but not limited to) graduate
entry medical courses (GEM courses). Currently data are not reliably collected
for GEM courses regarding an individual entrant’s initial economic status (prefirst degree) as it would be for a school leaver entrant (parental income and
economic status). The lifetime impact of courses such as GEM on an individual
(school to career) is not, therefore, currently quantified and thus the impact of
these recommendations (positive or negative) will not be apparent.
In our response to the 2011 White Paper we called for the impact of the
increase in tuition fees on workforce planning and medical students’ aspirations
to be carefully monitored and suggested that the particular position of women,
who are more likely to take career breaks or train and work part-time, be
considered separately. We also note the lack of evidence regarding the impact
of maternity and pregnancy on student achievement. We would welcome
further work in this area, especially with regard to postgraduate education and
training. We repeat our call for a comprehensive equality impact assessment
on the issues arising from the changes to Higher Education funding and for this
to cover the impact on medicine (and indeed the other professions) separately.
Overall, we welcome the greater emphasis on equality and diversity (including
the recent proposals regarding Sharia-compliant student financial support) and
the benefit that this would bring to patients and society as a whole. However,
we also stress the underlying importance in medicine (and other courses) of
suitability to practice and patient safety.
b) Are there any equality impacts that we have not considered?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please provide any further relevant evidence.
In our response to the 2011 White Paper we expressed concern that the increased
cost to graduates of their first degree would mean that fewer would choose to
participate in postgraduate study. This is of particular concern in medicine, where
the degree course is already much longer and more costly than other degrees and
where future work in medical education and research requires a significant number
of medical graduates to undertake postgraduate courses. We appreciate that
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
further work has been undertaken in this area since 2011 but we reiterate our call
for the inclusion of participation rates in postgraduate study (including by the
protected characteristics listed in paragraph 39) as part of the analysis of the
impact of changes to undergraduate funding and for medicine to be analysed
separately because of its higher costs and the need to encourage postgraduate
study.
Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) (Part A: Chapters 1-3)
Question 2: How can information from the TEF be used to better inform student and
employer decision making? Please quantify these benefits as far as you can.
In general we support the aim of improving access to high quality information about
different courses and institutions including in particular about the financial support
available to students, the hours of study undertaken by students in different
courses and in different institutions and the quality of teaching.
The best information requires a balance of measures with significant effort made to
quantify the quality of provision and outcomes in addition to satisfaction. For
example, there is increasingly helpful longitudinal data on the career progress and
self-perceived preparedness for practice of medical graduates.
We query, however, the direct link made between teaching and ‘productivity’ in the
Green Paper and also suggest that there is a role for the professions as well as
employers in shaping the kind of higher education system that we want. The
linkage between outcomes on satisfaction based measures (NSS) and career
progression and preparedness for practice is weak. This underlines the need to
ensure that genuine measures of success in learning, attainment and personal
development are prominent in the TEF and satisfaction at course exit is not overly
dominant. In addition, there are intrinsic links between teaching at undergraduate
level with teaching at the postgraduate and continuing professional development
levels (the can be undertaken by the same person for example), and these links
would need to be reflected in the TEF model for medicine.
This is likely to mean that the model for TEF may needs to be specific to each
discipline.
Question 3: Do you agree that the ambition for TEF should be that it is open to all
HE providers, all disciplines, all modes of delivery and all levels?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answers.
This depends on the model of TEF and how the data are presented. Whilst it is
superficially attractive to have a single model with a unified output this may mask
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
substantive differences in educational and subsequent personal attainment
between disciplines and types of courses. If this were linked to a ‘satisfaction’
heavy TEF model, this could result in potential students and employers being
misinformed about the quality and outputs of certain disciplines and types of
courses as a whole. We are also concerned at the emphasis on ‘teaching’ rather
than on a broader perspective including the empowerment of the learner, the extent
of their self-sufficiency and critical faculties and the development of their skills in
knowledge acquisition. For medical students and doctors (and others) there also
needs to be consideration of the acquisition of their own teaching skills as well as
their understanding and appreciation of research and research skills. The right mix
of online teaching, formal teaching, clinical exposure and experience is very
important for this group, and how teaching excellence in the more clinical aspects is
delivered will need to be considered and appropriate systems developed. In some
courses consideration should also be given to analysing the extent of graduate
opportunities, readiness for and awareness of those opportunities and the building
and awareness of transferable skills.
Question 4: Where relevant, should an approved Access Agreement be a prerequisite for a TEF award? What other mechanism might be used for different types
of providers?
Yes, though data on the effect of Access Agreements should be assessed by
course and discipline not just by institution for the reasons noted in answer to
question 1.
As noted, however, data on background needs to be reliable with a data
specification that allows for diversity of courses. An example is the issue regarding
data on students entering GEM courses. This lack of reliability will make it
challenging for such courses to be compared to school leaver entrant courses.
Question 5: Do you agree with the proposals on:
a) what would constitute a ‘successful’ QA review
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
To avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary bureaucracy, we highlight the need
for the quality assurance process to take into account or even rely on the GMC’s
quality assurance activities in medicine.
b) the incentives that should be open to alternative providers for the first year of
the TEF
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
We believe that Alternative Providers should be able to demonstrate that they will
meet the expected standards before they enter the sector or offer new courses and
that the relevant regulators need to be confident that this will be the case before the
courses are made available to students.
c) the proposal to move to differentiated levels of TEF from year two?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
This would very much depend on the bases for the decisions and how bureaucratic
the process proves to be.
Page 23 para 24 rightly states that there is no single measure of excellence and
suggests the development of common metrics. As noted above, meaningful data
may need to be type of course and/or discipline specific. If such data are excluded
in an effort to ensure ‘a set of common metrics’ then the measure will be less
meaningful and more subject to manipulation by providers by means of focusing
initiatives on aspects of the metrics (such as teaching hours). If such data are
included (and we believe that it should) then it may be artificial and misleading to
then try and convert these to a common metric.
Metrics and student prospectuses where they use statistics demonstrating that their
graduates are in “employment” should indicate whether this employment is genuine
graduate employment. This would be a robust metric to take into consideration.
Question 6: Do you agree with the proposed approach to TEF assessments on
Timing?
☒ Yes
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Assessment panels?
☐ Yes
☒ No
☐ Not sure
☐ No
☒ Not sure
and process?
☐ Yes
Please give reasons for your answer.
There are some key unresolved issues that make this challenging to address. A
key theme of this response is the need to consider discipline specific data and
metrics. Page 28 para 9 states that “In time, it is envisaged that panels will be
convened for each discipline (subject) and include experts in that discipline to make
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
relevant and robust judgements.” We believe that such panels will not be fit for
purpose unless they are discipline specific.
The risk of any process like TEF is that it measures the things that are measurable
and effectively ignores those things that are not and thus, ultimately, has a
distorting effect on the nature of activity being measured. Hence, the introduction
of metrics might lead to courses being designed in such a way as to meet the
measurable metrics rather than modelled solely on the basis of producing the best
learning outputs for the student. In that light, we stress the importance of including
‘soft’ skills (including inter-personal skills) and social values that ideally would be
introduced into all areas of higher education, particularly in disciplines from which
graduates will be dealing with the public.
At a time when IT is expanding what teaching means, such as through the growth
in on-line courses, there is a risk that personal student contact is undervalued. TEF
needs both to reflect the changes in the way teaching is delivered but also ensure
that personal student contact is given the weight that it deserves.
Question 7: How can we minimise any administrative burdens on institutions?
Please provide any evidence relating to the potential administrative costs and
benefits to institutions of the proposals set out in this document.
It is vital that existing data are used where possible and that disciplines that are
subject to professional regulation are able to submit this information as part of the
primary data set not least to avoid costly duplication of effort. An example would be
the UK General Medical Council (GMC) Medical Schools Annual Review (MSAR).
This could be adapted to provide (in whole or in part) a data source that could then
inform TEF.
Question 8: Do you agree with the proposed approach to differentiation and award
as TEF develops over time?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
Differentiation is only meaningful on the basis of high quality data and in the
absence of modelling it is challenging to assess whether such differentiation will be
both meaningful and also be perceived to be meaningful.
Question 9: Do you agree with the proposed approach to incentives for the different
types of provider?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
Financial drivers are powerful and will provide a clear focus for institutional action.
The effect of this will be entirely dependent on the nature of the metrics and the
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
degree to which they can be ‘gamed’. There is ample evidence for such gaming
within REF with potential profound effects on courses that may or may not be
desirable.
Question 10: Do you agree with the focus on teaching quality, learning
environment, student outcomes and learning gain?
☒ Yes
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
We have already noted the importance of outcomes (gain) but note that this may be
challenging to measure and will be discipline specific. Additionally, data
specification relating to added value is currently challenging for certain courses
(such as Graduate Entry Medicine) and there needs to be clear agreement on what
would be used as ‘origin’ data and how students who had entered a comparable
course (MBChB) by very different routes (school leaver vs. graduate) would be
compared.
We also suggest making some reference in subjects like medicine to the specific
impact of teaching on the population the students are ultimately expected to serve.
Opening-up training opportunities for and involving a wider section of the
community could have a very positive effect in ensuring that all parts of society are
represented in the medical profession, reflecting more accurately the demographic
profiles of the people doctors are likely to be treating when qualified.
Question 11: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the evidence used to
make TEF assessments - common metrics derived from the national databases
supported by evidence from the provider?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
The common metrics need to be subject specific, and to incorporate a wide variety
of learning environments. There is also a risk in medicine that there will be overlap
or duplication with General Medical Council collecting for its assessments very
similar evidence about teaching.
Social mobility and widening participation (Part A: Chapter 4)
Question 12:
a) Do you agree with the proposals to further improve access and success for
students from disadvantaged backgrounds and black and minority ethnic (BME)
backgrounds?
☒ Yes
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Please give reasons for your answer.
Because of their particularly poor record in widening access and the importance
of having professions that reflect the communities they serve, medicine and
dentistry should be monitored, assessed and held to account separately from
other courses.
b) Do you agree that the Office for Students should have the power to set targets
where providers are failing to make progress?
☒ Yes
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
We also suggest that the Office for Students should be able to set targets for
discrete parts of institutions and not just for the institution as a whole.
c) What other groups or measures should the Government consider?
With recent benefit changes making life more difficult financially for many people
with disabilities and the fact that society’s attitudes to disability are slow to change
this group deserves further consideration for measures to widen access to and
improve support in Higher Education. Particular consideration needs to be given
regarding access to medicine building on work done by the GMC. These groups of
people are more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people and, therefore,
access is harder. Changes to the discretionary Disabled Students’ Allowance
(DSA), which covers the extra costs that disability can lead to whilst studying, and
reliance on the policies of individual HE providers need to be monitored for their
impact on widening access, particularly in high cost subjects such as medicine.
More should be done to build on the best practice of some HE institutions to make
improvements to the support for disabled students.
Question 13:
a) What potential benefits for decision and policy making in relation to improving
access might arise from additional data being available?
As we value evidence-based decision-making in the policy arena as much as in
medicine and acknowledge the importance that useful and accurate data play in
building that evidence, we hope that decision-making would improve as a
consequence of additional data being made available. If the data being collected
are not helpful in terms of improving or facilitating decision-making then we would
question whether it would be helpful to collect such data.
b) What additional administrative burdens might this place on organisations? If
additional costs are expected to be associated with this, please quantify them.
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Unsure, though we would suggest that this be continually monitored.
Opening up the sector to new providers (Part B: Chapter 1)
Question 14: Do you agree with the proposed single route into the higher education
sector?
☐ Yes
☒ No
☐ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer, including information quantifying how the
potential cost of entry would change as a result of these proposals.
Higher education is a vital part of a complex learning/progression/employment
ecosystem. This is particularly true of some vocational courses. For example,
much of the teaching in medicine is provided by and funded through the NHS and
the NHS remains a near monopoly employer of graduates. In additional, there are
substantive legislated hurdles to setting up new courses. The potential for the rapid
arrival of new providers could potentially destabilise many elements and have a
profound effect on quality unless carefully managed.
Student numbers, therefore, need to be considered in the context of the
competition for clinical placements in the NHS and the cost of delivering medical
education in the Service. As there is a fixed supply of clinical placements and of
supervisors in the NHS there is an effective ceiling on the number of medical
student places. There would be concerns about the maintenance of quality if that
ceiling was breached. A further effective cap on medical student numbers is the
number of places on the Foundation Programme. To avoid students committing
themselves to 5-6 years of study and the £70,000 of debt that goes with it and still
face unemployment at the end of it, the number of places on the Foundation
programme should rise in line with the number of places for medical students
eligible to work in the UK.
In addition, given the current national spread of medical schools and the link
between where doctors are educated and trained and their eventual place of work,
it would be inappropriate just to allow market forces to determine where graduates
are educated. For example, if Newcastle medical school closed, there wouldn’t be
a medical student in the whole of the north across from Whitehaven to North
Yorkshire. They are needed across the country and so should be trained across
the country with adequate funding and intervention for schools who score less well
on TEF.
Question 15:
a) Do you agree with the proposed risk-based approach to eligibility for degree
awarding powers (DAPs) and university title?
☒ Yes
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Please give reasons for your answer.
We reiterate our answer to question 5 that providers seeking eligibility for degree –
awarding powers should be able to demonstrate that they will meet the expected
standards before being given such powers and for the relevant regulators to be
confident that this is will be the case before the courses are made available to
students.
We believe that it would not be appropriate for teaching-only bodies to award
medical degrees, since the study of medicine necessarily involves a strong and
active research component. A body, tendering for the right to award medical
degrees (leading to MB BCh or BChir) should normally be required to demonstrate
a strong research background in medical and life sciences. This should be
comprehensive enough to cover the full curriculum of medical study as well as
employing a sufficient number of appropriately-qualified medically-trained
academics.
b) What are your views on the options identified for validation of courses delivered
by providers who do not hold DAPs?
We are wary of the prospect of the Government itself giving degree-awarding
powers and also of the suggestion that the proposed central validating bodies should
agree to an approach that promotes competition, diversity and innovation. The
approach should be a more arms-length one based on maintaining and enhancing
quality.
Question 16: Do you agree with the proposed immediate actions intended to speed
up entry?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
Our concern remains that providers should be able to demonstrate (including to
relevant professional regulatory bodies) that they will meet the expected standards
before courses are made available to students.
Provider exit and student protection (Part B: Chapter 2)
Question 17: Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a requirement for all
providers to have contingency arrangements to support students in the event that
their course cannot be completed?
☒ Yes
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer, including evidence on the costs and benefits
associated with having a contingency plan in place? Please quantify these costs
where possible.
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
For providers of medical education, planning with the NHS would be needed as
NHS Local Education Providers (LEPs) providing placements under NUT (National
Uplift for Teaching – formally the Service Increment for Teaching (SIFT)) would
also need substantial contingency arrangements for the protection of both
educational and clinical services in the NHS.
If the location of clinical placements changed as a result of the exit of a provider
from the sector then arrangements would need to be made to ensure that NUT
funds followed the student whilst at the same time ensuring that clinical services
were not disrupted.
We support the suggestion that assistance should be provided to ensure the
availability of a discipline in a region for the reasons noted in our answer to
question 14.
Finally, we would welcome clarification on how the proposed policy builds on or
differs from existing HEFCE policy on collaborations, alliances and merger (CAM)
activity in the HE sector.
Simplifying the higher education architecture (Part C)
Question 18:
a) Do you agree with the proposed changes to the higher education architecture?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
Whilst we welcome a regulatory structure that has a greater focus on the student
experience we believe that this should not be the only interest reflected in the
regulator of higher education providers and believe that there are wider public and
professional interests that need to be considered by the regulator. In that light we
wonder whether the title Office for Students is appropriate and possibly risks an
element of Orwellian doublethink.
b) To what extent should the Office for Students (OfS) have the power to contract
out its functions to separate bodies?
☐ Fully
☒ Partially
☐ Not at all
c) If you agree, which functions should the OfS be able to contract out?
We suggest that regulatory functions related to medical degree courses could
reasonably be contracted out or delegated to the General Medical Council. Overall,
however, we would be concerned at the possibility of expertise already within
HEFCE being lost.
d) What are your views on the proposed options for allocating Teaching Grant?
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Option 1: BIS Ministers set strategic priorities and BIS officials determine formula.
☐ Agree
☒ Disagree
☐ Not sure
Option 2: BIS Minister sets strategic priorities and allocation responsibilities
divested to OfS
☐ Agree
☐ Disagree
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer,
We support the maintenance of the arms-length principle regarding the allocation of
the teaching grant and would not support a specific role for BIS and its ministers.
This would risk making the whole funding system extremely volatile and at the
mercy of the whim of ministers who may change their mind about what constitutes
priorities on a yearly basis. This, in turn, could limit the longer term forecasting
power of institutions.
Question 19: Do you agree with the proposal for a single, transparent and light
touch regulatory framework for every higher education provider?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer, including how the proposed framework would
change the burden on providers. Please quantify the benefits and/or costs where
possible.
We suggest that there should be a single and transparent framework, but rather
than ‘light touch’ we prefer ‘risk-based’ regulation, which is proportionate,
accountable, and targeted – moving away from a one-size fits all approach to
ensuring that regulatory effort is targeted at providers who may be failing.
Question 20: What steps could be taken to increase the transparency of student
unions and strengthen unions’ accountability to their student members?
We note that many students unions undertake significant pastoral work on behalf of
the students they represent. We would add, however, that there are other
representative bodies of students that could be formally recognised as having a
part to play, such as Medical Student Societies. In addition, to ensure that students
unions are fully representative, consideration should be given to how to enable
students on intensive courses to take part in their activities.
Question 21:
a) Do you agree with the proposed duties and powers of the Office for Students?
☒ Yes
☐ No
☐ Not sure
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Please give reasons for your answer.
The powers proposed seem comprehensive and broadly correct. We would like to
see the Office having a duty to enhance as well as respect academic freedom. We
would also suggest that the Office should report to parliament more generally on
the state of the Higher Education sector and not just on matters to do with widening
access. The duty to provide data should be extended to parliament. However, the
paper should specifically acknowledge the role of the General Medical Council
(GMC) in quality assuring undergraduate medical education and of regulating
doctors. We repeat our call for the quality assurance of medical education to be
formally delegated to the GMC to avoid duplication of effort and the over-regulation
of medicine.
b) Do you agree with the proposed subscription funding model?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
We query whether a funding model wholly based on the institutions subscribing to it
risks undermining its capacity for independent action on behalf of students and
other stakeholders. We would suggest that at least some central funding from
Government, perhaps ring-fenced for particular purposes, should be considered.
The cost of regulation should be a joint public and university burden due to the
significant vested interest the public has in the success of HE institutions.
Question 22:
a) Do you agree with the proposed powers for OfS and the Secretary of State to
manage risk?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Please give reasons for your answer.
We would welcome the opportunity to review more detailed proposals as to how
this will operate. We believe that the data that the Secretary of State can require
the Office for Students to provide should also be made publically available through
parliament.
b) What safeguards for providers should be considered to limit the use of such
powers?
N/A
Question 23: Do you agree with the proposed deregulatory measures?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Please give reasons for your answer, including how the proposals would change
the burden on providers. Please quantify the benefits and/or costs where possible.
We note the reference in paragraph 68 to the costs associated with the Freedom of
Information Act. We believe that the openness and transparency of decisionmaking that comes with the Act leads to better and more cost-effective decisions.
We also believe that the Act enables staff collectively and individually to hold
employers to account for their actions and would, therefore, oppose universities
being exempt from the provisions of the Act.
We also note that the Coalition government in its White Paper was committed to
fostering a culture of giving, and we recognised that there was a role for voluntary
giving in higher education at the time, though only for additional non-core activity.
In that context, however, we would wish to see a strengthening of the provisions in
paragraph 9 of Chapter 3: Further deregulation, with regard to those who have
donated funds or land.
Reducing complexity and bureaucracy in research funding (Part D)
Question 24: In light of the proposed changes to the institutional framework for
higher education, and the forthcoming Nurse Review, what are your views on the
future design of the institutional research landscape?
The REF is perceived by many of our members as a very time consuming and
expensive exercise. It drives a relatively short-term culture (what will produce
results within 4 years), and tends to result in the cutting down of ‘small saplings’ in
favour of ‘large trees’. Smaller specialities in medicine, such as paediatrics, tend,
therefore, to struggle. There needs to be more emphasis on identifying and growing
promising new teams and areas. We don’t think it will be easy to reduce the
burden on institutions and individuals, but better data infrastructure would help.
Question 25:
a) What safeguards would you want to see in place in the event that dual funding
was operated within a single organisation?
We would like to see how the mechanism of dual support would be maintained
under these new arrangements. The process should be peer-reviewed and taken
at arms-length from the government. Whilst this applies to England only,
information on the implications for the wider UK context would be welcome.
b) Would you favour a degree of hypothecation to ensure that dual funding
streams, along with their distinctive characteristics, could not be changed by
that organisation?
☐ Yes
☐ No
☒ Not sure
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
Please give reasons for your answer
Question 26: What are the benefits of the REF to a) your institution and b) to the
wider sector? How can we ensure they are preserved?
N/A
Question 27: How would you suggest the burden of REF exercises is reduced?
We are aware there will be separate review of the REF process to which we look
forward to contributing. Anything that can be done to reduce the burden of the REF
on institutions and to make the exercise (if it continues) more encouraging of
medical research would be welcome.
Question 28: How could the data infrastructure underpinning research information
management be improved?
N/A
Do you have any other comments that might aid the consultation process as
a whole?
Please use this space for any general comments that you may have, comments on
the layout of this consultation would also be welcomed.
We agree that degree classification (Chapter One, paragraphs 36-41) is well
overdue for review as the current classifications are increasingly meaningless.
More granular awards need to be considered including GPA in medicine.
We suggest the involvement of patients, patient groups and carers in the further
development of proposals regarding medical education.
Thank you for your views on this consultation.
Thank you for taking the time to let us have your views. We do not intend to
acknowledge receipt of individual responses unless you tick the box below.
Please acknowledge this reply ☒
Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice
At BIS we carry out our research on many different topics and consultations. As
your views are valuable to us, would it be okay if we were to contact you again from
time to time either for research or to send through consultation documents?
☒Yes
BIS/15/623/RF
☐ No