ࡱ> eRoot Entry;m` F@U WordDocumenty Z`&ObjectPoolv>;Z[  y;SummaryInformationy (ba  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnortuvwxyz{|}~Equation Native (CompObjjRoot Entry;m` F@U WordDocumenty Z`/ObjectPoolv>;Z[  y;SummaryInformationy (ba & MathType Times New Roman!- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-L FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.69q  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnotuvwxyz{|}~՜.+,0HPt|  Dell Computer Corporationh HIGHER EDUCATION IN SCOTLANDOh+'0 4@ h t   needs of our society; a student support system that delivered promptly and efficiently an equitable means for students to support themselves; a higher education sector where institutions set and maintained high quality and standards; a sector that promoted lifelong learning; institutions that collaborated with each other and across sectoral boundaries to assist the furtherance of teaching and learning, and high quality research. The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council: Operation The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council was set up in 1992 to provide financial support for teaching, research, and associated activities in Scottish HEIs. Before this, Universities had been funded by the Universities Funding Council (UFC) and other institutions by the Scottish Office Education Department (SOED). The government has indicated that resources allocated to SHEFC are contingent on achieving its planned student numbers. SHEFCs aims include the following: meeting government policy on cost effectiveness/ expansion / consolidation achieving institutional responsiveness to demand promoting science and technology ensuring clear separate identification of funding for the purposes of teaching and for research rewarding both efficiency and quality to encourage part time study and 2 year diplomas with a vocational emphasis to widen access. source: SHEFC Circulars Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research. SHEFC agrees with each institution to purchase a specified number of funded places in each subject.( for definitions, see Glossary) In addition HEIs may also enrol additional eligible students on a fees-only basis. This paper is concerned with how the funding system impacts upon the provision of undergraduate places in priority and non-priority subject groups. The analysis therefore excludes the controlled subjects, medicine, veterinary, dentistry and teaching. The annual funding procedure works as follows: SHEFC determines a unit teaching resource per student for each subject, intended to reflect broadly the relative costs of teaching. These are inclusive of the appropriate tuition fee. Gross resources are determined by multiplying the relevant unit teaching resource by the number of full time equivalent (fte) student places which the Council intends to fund (funded places). An estimate is made about the tuition fees which the institution will receive in respect of the funded places, and this is subtracted from the gross resources to give the main teaching grant, which SHEFC contributes. Appendix 2 describes the detailed operation of this system for each year from 1993-94 to 1998-99, including the various measures taken at different times to encourage enrolment in the priority subjects part time, wider access, strategic change. SHEFC determines how many funded places it is able to purchase in the light of the funding resources available from the government. The starting point for the allocation of funded places by institution and subject group is the previous years allocation of funded places amended by any changes or transfers agreed with institutions. Any allocation of extra funded places or reallocation of places is then based on fees-only student numbers and quality assessments. This initial allocation may be subject to adjustment, if, for example, the HEI in question wishes to transfer offered funded places between subject groups. Such transfers have to be agreed by SHEFC but in practice there appears to be a considerable flexibility. SHEFC has applied different rules for determining numbers of funded places to priority and non-priority subject groups, and these rules have also changed through time. Part timers wider access strategic change In 1995, SHEFC decided to re focus the allocation of some of its funding in order to support strategic change in the HE sector in the longer term. Since then, around 2% of SHEFC funding has been made available in the form of Strategic Change Grant, which has been targeted at projects meeting the following priorities: the conduct and implementation of sectoral and regional subject reviews: strategic actions involving more than one institution. A good number of the resulting projects have considered the rationalisation of subject division between institutions, or, institutional mergers, like those between the University of Edinburgh and Moray House Institute of Education, and between Heriot Watt University and the Scottish College of Textiles. The Garrick Committee commented favourably on the use of funding levers to promote long term strategic change. Note, however, that SHEFC is, by statute, a funding rather than a planning body: so its role is that of providing finance to facilitate change, rather than that of taking responsibility for change. Furthermore, the amount of finance which SHEFC has made available for this purpose is relatively small. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that the type of change to emerge from the process so far, has been typified by the merger of large institutions with small specialist institutions, rather than a fundamental reappraisal of the structure of higher education provision as a whole. Published Data Our analysis covers undergraduate courses in non-controlled subjects in the sixteen HEIs in Scotland. Note that there were some mergers of HEIs during the period of study: steps were taken to remove any resulting discontinuities from the data. Data are from the SHEFC Circulars Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research. Each circular sets out, by institution and by subject group, the near final estimates of funded and fees-only places for the year in question, proposals for the number of funded places which it is prepared to support in the coming year and the amount of funding grant allocation SHEFC expects to make. Note that in 1998-99 SHEFC included funding for estates and equipment within the main teaching grant for the first time; these were removed from our data to avoid discontinuity. Significance of fees only places 1. The more there are the lower the average revenue, indication of demand, indication of excess revenue from core funding indication of wish to build up a dept. 3 Student Numbers Student Numbers in Total, and by Priority / Non-Priority The study group amounts to some 91% of all undergraduate students. Table I shows the pattern of change from 1993/4 to 1998/9. Total numbers increased by 10.5% over the period. The largest increase took place between 1993/4 and 1994/5, and was the result of a substantial increase in the number of funded places by just over 5,000, while fees-only student numbers fell by just over 1,000. Note that in 1994/5 the government had reduced fees and increased core funding. As a result of this change SHEFC introduced a package to compensate institutions for the resulting revenue loss on fee-only students. Table ITotal Students: Numbers and % change.% change on period93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Fee-only Number147511363582728295932510448-29.2Fully Funded Number72485775398424985177858068599118.6Total Number87236911759252193472951309643910.5% change in total on preceding year4.51.51.01.81.4 For 1995-96, the original plans were for an increase of 2.6% in student numbers eligible for funding. To achieve this SHEFC had awarded an additional 2,400 funded places to non-controlled undergraduate courses. However in the course of 1995/6 it was decided to allow the conversion of the above fee shift compensation grant to funded places in that year. The effect was that funded places actually increased by 6,710. Given that this decision to allow conversion of the compensation grant was made late in the planning process, HEIs had little option other than to respond by converting fees-only places to funded places. In the event, fees-only students fell by 5,363, (39%). SHEFC failed to meet the governments target in 1995-96 by 2,000 places. Since 1996/7, modest rises in funded places have been accompanied by a larger growth in fees-only places. Over the period as a whole funded places increased by 18.6%, while fees-only student numbers fell by 29.2%. Conclusion: insufficient demand, SHEFC policy has been to give priority to Science, Engineering, Mathematics and Computing: the priority subject groups. Table II below shows a marked fall in the number of fees-only students in priority groups to 350 in 1996-97, but a considerable increase since then. Over the period, the total number of priority students increased by 9.9%, brought about by a rise in funded places of 17.2%, offset by a substantial fall of 51.9% in fees-only students. Table IIPriority Subject group Students: Numbers and % change.% change on period93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Fee-only Number340725525213509361640-51.9Fully Funded Number28562309033317733376333443348717.2Total Number3196833454336973372634280351279.9% change in total on preceding year4.60.70.11.62.5 Elsewhere in the UK there was not the same concept of priority subject. It is of interest however to compare trends in priority subject numbers in Scotland with the UK figures for the comparable subjects. In Maths and Science, Scotland did less well than the UK as a whole: for example, in Maths there was a fall of 3.3% in student numbers from 1994/95 to 1998/99 compared to a growth of 1.9% in the UK as a whole. In Science, the growth was 9.8% in Scotland, compared with 14.1% for the UK. In Engineering, performance in Scotland was comparable to that in the UK. Only in computing did Scotland do markedly better with an increase of 42.8% compared with 28.1% in the UK: however, Scotlands increase was from a relatively lower base. Overall numbers in non-priority subjects increased more than priority, as shown in Table III, with a greater increase in the growth of funded students of 19.5% and a smaller fall of 22.4% in the number of fees-only students. conclusion either move up priority individual subjects from next section or leave out individual subjects in this section Table IIINon Priority Subject group Students: Numbers and % change.% change on period93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Fee-only Number11345110847751794583898808-22.4Fully Funded Number43923466375107351801524625250419.5Total Number55268577215882459746608516131210.9% change in total on preceding year4.41.91.61.80.8 Student Numbers by Subject Group Table IV shows the percentage change in numbers by subject group year by year, with the last column showing the total percentage change over the period. Table IVChange in Student Numbers by Subject groupPercent Change on Previous YearInitial (1993-94) numbers94/9595/9696/9797/9898/99% change over periodOther Health & Welfare679912.2-10.66.63.76.418.0Science156266.01.52.72.62.215.8Engineering & Technology109191.9-3.6-4.2-1.0-1.8-8.5Built Environment4581-3.8-4.2-0.50.8-2.5-9.8Mathematics, Statistics & Operational Research2287-2.9-2.2-5.71.63.1-6.2Computing & Information Science313613.212.53.44.313.656.0Catering & Hospitality Management2659-1.4-2.64.40.9-2.9-1.8Business & Administrative Studies138703.4-0.3-0.41.90.14.8Social Sciences96706.610.30.51.3-0.619.1Humanities, Languages & Mass Communication135603.94.10.71.20.410.6Art, Design & Performing Arts35055.26.37.23.42.927.7Education6242.452.5-0.93.72.163.8Total872364.51.51.01.81.410.5 The priority subject groups showed a mixed performance. Numbers in Engineering and Maths fell; those in Science showed above average growth. Computing was one of the fastest growing subject groups with 56% growth over the period, however, this was from a fairly low base of 3,136, so that by the end of the period the numbers in Computing were still only 5% of all students. In the non-priority subjects (leaving aside education, which starts from a very small base) the highest growth was in the Art group (27.7%) followed by the Social Sciences which increased by 19.1%. Built and Catering were the only non priority subject groups which declined. The following table shows the percentage fees-only for each year by subject group, priority, non-priority and total. Table VPercent fees-only students, by subject group.93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Other Health & Welfare19.123.616.118.920.421.7Science14.09.01.81.22.04.0Engineering & Technology6.06.30.2-0.53.73.3Built Environment18.010.69.811.410.910.1Mathematics, statistics & Operational Research11.65.24.82.92.76.5Computing & Information Science9.76.82.53.03.59.2Catering & Hospitality Management17.49.64.910.811.510.6Business & Administrative Studies22.121.612.112.313.912.7Social Sciences22.521.814.612.811.614.2Humanities, Languages & Mass Communication22.818.714.913.413.013.6Art, Design & Performing Arts11.414.38.810.112.613.7Education4.69.520.619.622.222.4All Priority Subjects10.77.61.51.02.74.7All Non Priority Subjects20.519.213.213.313.814.4All Subjects16.915.08.98.99.810.8 The government changed the balance between fees and core funding in 1994-95 and again in 1998-99, and such changes are likely to have an effect on the percentage of fees-only students, as the relative price of the two categories of student changes which way. The overall percentage of fees-only students fell to 8.9% in 1995-96 before rising to 10.8% in 1998-99. In 1993-94 the percentage fee-only in non-priority subject groups at 20.5% was almost double that in priority subject groups at 10.7%; by 1996-97, the relative percentages were 13.3% and 1%. Indeed in 1996-97, over Scotland as a whole, Engineering could not fill all its funded places. Within the priority subjects, fees-only student numbers have been relatively more buoyant in Computing. Student Numbers by Institution Table VI shows changes in student numbers by institution. The largest growth to 1998-99, apart from the small college Moray House, was Stirling University at 17.7% followed by Glasgow at 16.3%. Two institutions showed a decline over the period, namely, Scottish Borders Textiles by 8.1% and Abertay by 4.3%. Table VIChange in Student Numbers by InstitutionPercent Change on Previous YearInitial (1993-94) numbers94/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Percent change over periodAberdeen64435.62.43.41.10.813.9Abertay Dundee33516.6-2.0-4.4-5.10.9-4.3Dundee47822.35.40.43.50.312.5Edinburgh College of Art11653.3-0.64.22.7-0.98.8Edinburgh105443.42.53.3-0.21.210.6Glasgow Caledonian85212.60.64.91.31.711.6Glasgow School of Art12493.20.63.70.8-0.48.1Glasgow 103306.23.20.32.83.016.3Heriot Watt33555.62.6-0.22.70.211.3Moray House34018.25.53.93.5-1.931.7Napier69231.8-2.50.73.40.43.7Northern College2754.8-0.6-8.27.57.110.1Paisley52873.9-1.5-6.15.03.04.1Queen Margaret College (QMC)228612.1-4.72.0-0.40.59.1Robert Gordon53023.30.7-1.44.11.07.8St Andrews37304.47.0-0.4-3.45.513.3Scottish College of Textiles737-1.5-7.9-0.31.60.0-8.1Stirling38326.94.31.33.20.917.7Strathclyde87855.51.62.22.80.413.0Total872364.51.51.01.81.410.5Queen Margaret College later became Queen Margaret University College. In terms of percentage fees-only, as shown in Table VII, there was wide variation between HEIs at the start of the period. Leaving aside the small institutions of less than 1,000 students, the highest percentage fees-only at the start of the period were Abertay at 26.8% and Paisley 24.9%, the lowest was Napier at 8.6%. Over the period Abertay radically reduced its percentage fees-only to 4.5%, that is, to less than half the current national average. The only institutions to increase their percentage fees-only were Napier and Edinburgh College of Art. Table VIIPercent fee-only students, by Institution.93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Aberdeen18.415.58.28.78.79.4Abertay26.825.815.811.63.64.5Dundee13.610.87.65.88.011.4Edinburgh College of Art11.312.96.410.212.611.8Edinburgh18.813.59.29.58.28.8Glasgow Caledonian16.013.28.212.914.115.0Glasgow School of Art12.913.04.47.57.05.3Glasgow 14.414.19.48.09.612.2Heriot Watt13.613.06.55.36.56.7Moray House-10.46.715.615.617.814.3Napier8.68.74.95.99.19.2Northern College35.532.622.710.416.722.2Paisley24.924.611.77.711.714.4QMC22.525.816.016.816.516.6Robert Gordon23.318.39.58.212.112.4St Andrews19.012.912.711.88.011.5Scottish College of Textiles4.51.2-8.9-5.93.43.4Stirling22.719.213.112.214.615.0Strathclyde12.512.25.66.47.87.3Total16.915.08.98.99.810.8 Student Numbers : Part time In line with its desire to widen access and to increase the flexibility of the higher education system in responding to the demands of industry, it has been government policy to increase numbers of part time students. In 1994-95, SHEFC introduced a part time incentive grant to encourage more part time provision and greater numbers of part time enrolments. This grant, which offered an incentive premium of 5% of the unit of resource for part time fte enrolments, was intended to run for five years. In 1995-96, a fee support grant was introduced for part time undergraduate places, because lower fees could apply for part time provision per fte place: this grant ceased in 1998-99, and SHEFC used the resources which were freed to increase the part time incentive grant from 5% to 10%, which gave a total grant of 4.475 million. To put this in perspective, the main grant for teaching in 1998-99 was 423.9 million. How successful were these measures in increasing part time enrolments? Head count numbers of part time students almost doubled over the period, while the full time equivalent increased by about 50%, from 4,054 in 1993/94, to 6,188 in 1998/99. In terms of individual subjects, the largest increase in part time FTEs occurred in health and in the humanities: in health, FTE numbers increased from 874 in 1993/94, to 1756 in 1998/99, and the corresponding increase for the humanities was from 289 to1057. Both Science and the Social Sciences increased the number of part time students by more than 50% in FTE terms: and computing also had a relatively large increase, from a small base. Part time numbers in most other subjects were relatively static. As regards individual institutions, most of the increase in part time FTEs was concentrated in a small number of institutions, particularly Glasgow, Paisley, Dundee, and Glasgow Caledonian Universities. Conclusion Because of the policy of consolidating student numbers, there was little or no opportunity during most of the period for institutions to increase either their student numbers, or their overall revenues by taking in more full time fee-only students, (even assuming there was adequate student demand).?? There were, however, no corresponding controls on part time enrolments, both because government was keen to increase part time numbers, and because fees for part timers are not paid by the government. At the same time, certain institutions, particularly smaller institutions, were under pressure from SHEFC to improve their overall viability, by expanding. One option open to such an institution, therefore, would be to expand by increasing the number of its fee only students by bringing in more part time students. It has been postulated, therefore, that there might be a relationship between part time students, and numbers of fee only students, particularly for smaller institutions. In fact, examination of the data does not bear out this hypothesis. First of all, as has already been noted, most of the increase in part time enrolments occurred in a small number of institutions, and these institutions were themselves relatively large. Secondly, examination of changes at the level of subject within institution suggests that there was little evidence of any relationship between fees-only and part-time student numbers: the one exception is the subject of other health and welfare for a small number of institutions, where the figures are consistent with the possibility that the increase in fees only enrolments which occurred later in the period may have been related to increasing part time enrolments. Overall, the SHEFC measures to stimulate part time enrolments were relatively cheap, (less than 1% of the main grant for teaching), and a large increase in part timers did take place over the period. This may seem to suggest that the SHEFC measures were successful. However, the fact that the increase was concentrated in a relatively small number of institutions suggests that other factors were also coming into play. Conclusions on part-time policy 4. Revenues Average Revenue per student Table VIII shows average revenue per student in non-controlled subject groups at HEIs in Scotland. This rose in money terms from 3,881 in 1993-94 to 4,135 in 1998-99, an increase of 6.5%. Average revenue per student for priority groups was considerably higher throughout than for non-priority groups, and grew by 7.3% over the period compared with 6% for the non-priority groups. Over the period as a whole the change in average revenue varied considerably between subject groups. Leaving aside education, where very small numbers of students are involved, average revenue declined in Maths by ?, in Health by 138 and in Art by 52. Those groups where there was a major increase included Computing at 686, Science 440, and Catering 376. Note the apparently anomalous figures for Maths and Computing in 1993-94. This reflects transitional arrangements as SHEFC took over funding. Prior to the establishment of SHEFC, Scottish Office funded Central Institutions received more per Maths student than UFC funded bodies. A weighted composite figure has therefore been estimated for the first year of this study. Table VIIIAverage Revenue per student, by Subject groupChange93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99over periodOther Health & Welfare432840494355427642964190-137.7Science478148715173520552805221440.2Engineering & Technology528952885571561155535591302.6Built Environment406741314185414842414236169.2Mathematics, Statistics & Operational Research392436153651371837963718-205.9Computing & Information Science430449515145513752214990686.0Catering & Hospitality Management446947394955473247994846376.3Business & Administrative Studies300529413227323332503337331.1Social Sciences250624302605265027282723216.6Humanities, Languages & Mass Communication286628903039308631563193326.7Art, Design & Performing Arts456844114629459445924516-52.3Education469045314101415541364189-501.5All Priority Subjects484649355198523052645202356.2All Non Priority Subjects332332673442345435053523199.8All Subjects388138794082409541394135253.4 Components of Change in Average Revenue Explain why we are doing this: to understand what is going on beneath the trends Is it due to changes in % fees only, etc. The change in average revenue over any given period has been split into different components: the derivation of the algorithm used in this decomposition is given in Appendix 1. Table IX shows the results of applying this decomposition to the annual changes in average revenue per student. Table IXComponents of change in Average Revenue per Student, by Year94/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Overall ChangeComponent due to change in % fee-only64.3180.0-3.0-36.6-37.0167.7Component due to change in % core funding-135.7-0.40.9-2.1-6.2-143.5Component due to change in unit of resource72.333.610.282.131.1229.3Component due to change in mix-2.8-10.54.80.67.90.0Total Change in Overall Average Revenue-1.9202.712.943.9-4.2253.4 In the first year there was a fall, of less than 2, in overall average revenue. The effect of the move towards core funding and from fees would have been to reduce average revenue per head by 136 but this was offset by increases of 64 per head due to the reduction in fees-only students, and 72 due to an overall increase in funding levels. In 1995-96, there was an increase in average revenue per student of over 202 per head. Of this, 180 was due to the reduction in the percentage of fees-only students from 15% to 8.9% which occurred in that year. What about the other years Tables X and XI show the components of change for priority and non-priority subject groups. Table XPriority subject groups: Components of change in Average Revenue per Student, by Year94/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Overall ChangeComponent due to change in % fee-only116.8228.917.8-68.5-84.3210.8Component due to change in % core funding-126.4-1.00.0-0.3-14.2-142.0Component due to change in unit of resource105.937.112.9104.639.5300.0Component due to change in mix-7.6-1.41.1-2.5-2.3-12.6Total Change88.7263.731.933.3-61.4356.2 Table XINon-Priority subject groups: Components of change in Average Revenue per Student, by Year94/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Overall ChangeComponent due to change in % fee-only33.8151.9-14.7-18.6-9.8142.5Component due to change in % core funding-141.0-0.11.4-3.1-1.7-144.5Component due to change in unit of resource52.831.68.669.426.3188.7Component due to change in mix-1.2-8.616.23.63.013.0Total Change-55.6174.911.651.217.8199.8 The average revenue for priority subjects increased more than for non-priority, by 356 as compared to 200: the reasons for this are twofold. First, over the period as a whole, the component due to the change in % fees-only contributed 211 per head in priority subjects but 142 in non-priority subjects. Secondly, the total funding component constituted 300 in the priority subjects, compared to 189 in non-priority. What does this mean Expand Components of Change in Average Revenue by Subject Group Table XII shows clearer explanation the components of the change in average revenue over the period as a whole by individual subject group (excluding Education). Over the period, the % fee-only component was negative for Health, Computing and Art. Within the priority subjects, Science had the largest % fee-only component at 354. As regards the component due to change in core funding, Built and Health lost most. Column 3 shows the component due to the change in unit of resource. Only Mathematics showed a fall: as noted above, this reflects transitional funding arrangements for Maths and Computing. Table XII Components of period change in Average Revenue due to change in% fee only% core fundingunit resourcemixTotalOther Health & Welfare-184.0-265.9229.382.9-137.7Science354.0-180.9268.7-1.5440.2Engineering & Technology105.6-95.4292.5-0.1302.6Built Environment213.3-278.6220.713.8169.2Mathematics, Statistics & Operational Research203.4-125.9-213.2-70.2-205.9Computing & Information Science-53.6-117.2793.163.7686.0Catering & Hospitality Management244.3-132.8249.715.1376.3Business & Administrative Studies255.7-98.3167.56.3331.1Social Sciences176.3-105.9138.18.1216.6Humanities, Languages & Mass Communication260.0-103.9188.5-18.0326.7Art, Design & Performing Arts-82.2-213.6244.4-0.9-52.3 Difference Between Notional and Average Revenue, by Subject Group The units of teaching resource determined by SHEFC very broadly reflect the relative costs of teaching in each subject group and are inclusive of the appropriate tuition fee. (SHEFC, e.g., 1995-96, page 5). In the following, we refer to this as notional revenue per student. A table of notional revenue per student is given in Annex . Table XIII shows the difference between notional and average revenue per student, by subject group and by year. Table XIIINotional Revenue - Average Revenue per student, by Subject group93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Other Health & Welfare485841572663742886Science337328654676175Engineering & Technology1602487-19151156Built Environment296301280328325364Mathematics, Statistics & Operational Research2361491418381188Computing & Information Science21924893114135406Catering & Hospitality Management557367189425461454Business & Administrative Studies481600341344399340Social Sciences347468315277258286Humanities, Languages & Mass Communication458487396358357346Art, Design & Performing Arts241475294341442556Education156392859817935920All Priority Subjects2582815537106203All Non-priority Subjects422537371383414435All Subjects362443256258303350SHEFCs stated position is that a large difference between notional and average revenue could well be indicative of a combination of high demand, together with efficiency savings achieved by the institution. (SHEFC, e.g., 1995-96, page 8). In addition, however, the following factors could also contribute to the observed pattern: (a) the validity of SHEFCs basic funding assumptions for the subject group in question: for example, if a given subject group was relatively over-funded, the institution could afford a larger number of fees-only places in that subject group. In fact, senior academics, responsible for University administration and interviewed in this study, took the view that the unit teaching resource used by SHEFC does not reflect costs. (b) the opportunity cost of a fees-only place: the larger the absolute difference between the core funding element and the fee-only element in one subject group relative to another, the greater the incentive for the institution to transfer funded places from the second subject group into the first. (c ) Variations between subjects and institutions in the number of part-time students. As noted above, institutions may have an incentive to bring in part-time students on a fees-only basis, since the fees for part-time students were not funded by the government. However, as the earlier analysis indicated, there does not appear to be any relationship between part-time and fees-only students, except possibly in the case of Other Health and Welfare. (d) Variations in the differential could also reflect variation in the quality of provision. This is not an area, however, on which the particular data examined in this paper throw any light. (e) Finally, institutions may cross-subsidise between courses. So it may be that the observed revenues as derived in this paper do not reflect what institutions actually spend on the individual subject groups. To throw light on which of the above is likely to be playing a part: Looking at the detail in the table, it can be seen first that, in 1998-99, the overall difference between notional and observed revenue, averaged over all students, was 350 per student. The difference was larger for non-priority subject groups, at 435, compared with 203 for priority. The variation was even more marked between individual subject groups. Leaving aside the smallest subject group, of Education, the largest difference occurred in Health, at 886, representing 17.5% of the unit teaching resource for Health. There was also a large difference for Art, of 556, that is, 11% of its unit teaching resource. In Engineering, the difference was only 156, that is 2.7% of the unit teaching resource for Engineering: in Science the corresponding figure was 175, ( 3.2%). It is also noticeable that the difference between notional and average has remained particularly high throughout for Health, in line with the fact that the percentage fees-only students in Health has been relatively high throughout the period, [see Table V]: as already noted, this may relate to the importance of part-time students in Health. Overall, there is evidence, from discussion with senior academics that (a) holds, that is, that SHEFCs unit teaching resource does not relate well to the relative costs of teaching in the different subject groups. There is also some weak evidence that (c ) above may hold in at least one subject. But, the variations between notional and average revenues observed in Table XIII are so marked that it appears likely that at least some of the other factors outlined above are operational as well. It is not possible to determine this from the available data: however, given the scale of the observed effects, and the potential importance for higher education policy of the underlying factors which may be responsible, this points to the need for some direct action by SHEFC in the longer term to arrive at a better understanding of this whole area. Average Revenue by Institution Table XIV shows average revenue per student by institution. Table XIVAverage Revenue per student, by InstitutionChange 93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99over periodAberdeen365936933966395840454044384.9Abertay373336003917403443074288554.8Dundee378938684007407340844085296.3Edinburgh College of Art44284315455044394445444012.0Edinburgh358236983861385239744001419.2Glasgow Caledonian395039534157403240794052102.1Glasgow School of Art445843874713462547364813355.0Glasgow 381838053988406941004054236.6Heriot Watt411041264387444044694489378.8Moray House514346514314431443194515-628.6Napier41994162432642914250427777.7Northern College391137294121456244074172261.7Paisley396738173974411940243941-25.6QMC404038174192418042754258217.9Robert Gordon404040614377442343774347306.9St Andrews353336513672370938583786252.9Scottish College of Textiles463348445259519050705115482.0Stirling330133353534356835703651350.1Strathclyde412441034329430743334380256.2 Variations between institutions are largely dependent on the particular subject mix within institutions, so the major points of interest relate to the change in average revenue. The components of change are analysed in Table XV, excluding Moray House. Table XVComponents of period change in AVREV, for institutions due to change in% fee only% core fundingunit resourcemixTotalAberdeen308.6-166.8231.511.6384.9Abertay564.3-210.3185.115.7554.8Dundee24.0-139.4238.1173.6296.3Edinburgh279.9-120.1245.813.7419.2Edinburgh College of Art-22.4-210.5236.88.212.0Glasgow Caledonian6.2-163.3193.965.4102.1Glasgow School of Art294.4-199.0244.315.4355.0Glasgow104.2-114.8247.4-0.3236.6Heriot Watt216.6-122.3287.4-2.9378.8Napier-59.7-47.9213.6-28.377.7Northern College384.6-369.3224.921.4261.7Paisley129.8-204.7191.6-142.3-25.6QMC107.5-230.2223.2117.5217.9Robert Gordon366.2-223.5213.4-49.3306.9St Andrews301.4-149.3213.2-112.5252.9Scottish College of Textiles-28.82.2262.0246.6482.0Stirling250.6-154.7227.726.6350.1Strathclyde160.5-113.0257.0-48.3256.2Note that in this table the mix refers to within subjects The largest increase was in Abertay, mainly due to the reduction in the percentage of fees-only over the period: from 26.8% to 4.5%, (see Table VII). Neither Napier and Paisley experienced significant growth; however, the underlying pattern of the components of change of these two institutions is quite different. Note that Paisley started the period with a very high percentage, 24.9%, of fees-only students compared with a very low percentage 8.6% in Napier. During the period Paisleys percentage fees-only fell significantly while Napiers increased slightly. Difference between Notional Revenue and Average Revenue by Institution Table XVI shows the difference between notional and average revenue per student by institution. The figures are more uniform than those of Table XIII which showed comparable differences by subject group. Is that all? Table XVINotional Revenue - Average Revenue per student, by Institution93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Aberdeen389462220249254291Abertay544710421328148192Dundee273324204179271441Edinburgh College of Art220407209333423476Edinburgh376370236250206228Glasgow Caledonian361404253409471537Glasgow School of Art281434152255253216Glasgow303416275223280355Heriot Watt281416194146177201Moray House-318252637651745587Napier180238131153257284Northern College9021161806380634907Paisley560734328215389494QMC575868544586594679Robert Gordon540586288239388442St Andrews415356332304225290Scottish College of Textiles8461-287-1859690Stirling451519358339445408Strathclyde267363176200241235 Relative Shifts in Funded and Fees-only Student Numbers Over the period as a whole, the relative numbers of fees-only and funded student numbers varied, while the total number of students increased. For Scotland, the total number of students increased by 9,200, (10.5%), between 1993-94 and 1998-99. This comprised a decrease of 4,300 fees-only students, that is -4.9% of the original total number of students, together with an increase of 13,500 funded places, an increase of 15.5% on the original total number of students. Chart 1 looks at the corresponding changes by individual subject group, excluding Education. On the horizontal axis is plotted the change in funded places, and on the vertical axis the change in fees-only places, both expressed as a percentage of the original total number of students. The figures in brackets on the chart are the change in the average revenue per student over the period, from Table XII. The transverse lines drawn on the chart represent contours of constant growth: for example, the line marked zero growth represents all points where the percentage change in funded places exactly compensates for any change in fees-only students. There are three high growth subject groups, Computing, Art and Health, and in these subject groups there was an increase in both funded and fees-only students. For Health and Art this resulted in a decline in average revenues. There are also subjects which experienced moderate growth, Social Science, Business, Humanities and Science. In all of these, the increase in funded places more than offset the decline in fees-only: all experienced at least moderate growth in average revenue. In Engineering, Maths, Built and Catering number fell. Chart 2 is the corresponding chart for institutions, excluding Moray House. Most institutions fall into a fairly tight group, where the increase in the number of funded places more than offsets a decline in the number of fees-only places, leading to overall growth in student numbers. It is also noticeable that the former UFC funded institutions tend to be positioned towards the upper right (i.e., higher growth) area of this grouping. The main outliers occur among institutions experiencing small growth or decline in student numbers. Of these outliers, Abertay shows a combination of a relatively large increase in the number of funded places more than offset by an even larger decline in fees-only. This contributed to Abertays large (555 per head) increase in average revenue. By contrast, Scottish Borders Textiles and Napier showed a pattern of relatively small changes in both funded and fees-only places. 5. Summary and Conclusions Recommendations What conclusions can be drawn from the above ? Pick up on all highlighted in text Was the governments policy on overall numbers achieved? The governments targets on overall student numbers were largely met, with relatively small shortfalls in three of the years. Moreover, SHEFC did not have to impose large penalties for non-compliance, either in under achieving or over shooting against targets. The mechanism did therefore largely achieve the overall targets. However, the targets may themselves have been conditioned by what the system could deliver: so it is not certain that more challenging targets would be achieved. This is particularly so since SHEFCs primary control mechanism is via control of funded places, whereas the governments targets are expressed in terms of total numbers of funded and fees-only students. There is thus a potential mismatch between the control mechanism and the target, which might in certain circumstances make achieving the governments target more difficult. Was SHEFCs policy on priority subject groups successful? On the face of it, no. The growth in the total number of priority group students was less than that in non-priority groups. For two of the priority subjects, Engineering and Maths there was a decline over the period. The rate of growth in Computing was high but this was from a relatively small base. Other than in Computing, performance was either worse than or no better than that in the rest of the UK where there was no corresponding priority mechanism. The view that the policy on priority subjects has been ineffective was confirmed in discussion with senior academics in two major higher education institutions. Two reasons were highlighted. First, for most of the subjects, the basic problem is lack of student demand, whereas the policy on priority subjects is purely a supply side mechanism. Second, in the one subject Computing where there is buoyant student demand, there is a supply constraint which is not addressed by the funding mechanism: that is, the high cost of attracting and retaining good quality staff. Third, the way in which the conversion of the compensation package into funded places was handled in 1995-96 was announced so late in the planning process that it probably had little or no effect on overall student numbers in that year: it is quite possible that the only effect of the exercise was the conversion of fees-only to funded places. Given that there were greater numbers of fees-only in the non-priority subjects, the way in which the transfer was handled may also have resulted in disproportionate growth in non-priority subjects. Did the funding mechanism itself constrain success? Our findings suggest that the funding system did probably militate against the success of the higher education sector. SHEFCs basic assumptions about the underlying unit teaching resources may have had adverse consequences. SHEFC establishes an underlying unit teaching resource which varies by subject and by year: it does not vary by size of department or size of institution. This latter feature is potentially crucial: in effect, SHEFCs model assumes that there are no economies of scale except in so far as a large institution or department may choose to utilise economies of scale to enrol a relatively high number of fees-only students. SHEFCs approach is inadequate in two respects: 1. It is very likely that there are significant economies of scale to be reaped: the existence of economies of scale is well established in other sectors of education. 2. SHEFCs funding policy does not contain incentive elements which would enable these economies to be realised. SHEFC does indeed have the mechanism of the strategic change grant. But as has already been noted, the resources devoted to this are relatively small, and the mechanism is basically facilitative. It appears unlikely in itself to be able to deliver the radical rethink on the structure of HE provision which would be required if the potential for economies of scale was being seriously addressed. Given SHEFC is limited to being a funding, rather than a planning body, this criticism is perhaps pointing more to a weakness in the overall mechanism for planning higher education in Scotland rather than being a criticism of SHEFC itself. But in a climate of scarce resources, where the teaching resource per student has been radically reduced over the years, questions of how to obtain best value for money have to be addressed. It appears that the structures for doing this in Scotland are lacking. If this criticism is accepted, then it implies the need for a new mechanism, which could take a radical view of the structure of higher education in Scotland, in order to increase the efficiency of delivery. Of course, it would neither be wise nor feasible to restrict the focus of such a body purely to considering efficiency, in terms of minimising the unit teaching resource required to provide a given standard of teaching. The design of the optimal higher education system has to achieve an appropriate compromise among other aspects as well, including the current needs of the market, a vision for future market, social access, geographical coverage, What can we say about actions of individual institutions? The key note is diversity. Institutions started the period in quite different positions. They experienced differences in growth patterns, their percentage of fees-only, patterns of subject mix, and thus in average revenues. It is clear from the diverse pattern of change that SHEFC rules were far from a straight-jacket; there was considerable flexibility for institutions to carve out their own way forward. What can we say about the product the student is buying? By subject, the difference between notional and average revenue varies between almost 1,000 in Health and in Education to just over 150 in Engineering. The range between institutions is even larger. These figures are not subject to simple interpretation because of the potential for cross subsidisation of teaching costs between subjects. Nevertheless, the range is so large that it does pose serious questions about whether there are marked variations in efficiency or in quality of product. In addition, the fact that for some subjects, particularly Health, the difference between notional and average revenue is consistently large through time, must raise the question as to whether the SHEFC estimate of unit teaching cost for these subjects is correct. Has the system favoured former UFC funded rather than former SOED funded institutions? Yes. Examination of Chart 2 suggests that there were indeed fairly consistent variations between the former UFC funded and the former SOED funded institutions. Former UFC funded institutions are the ones which tend to be clustered in the high growth area, but in such a way that they are still preserving reasonable increases in average revenue. Former SOED funded institutions tend to exhibit lower growth, and a good number have smaller increases in average revenue. Again it is not clear why this pattern is evident but it could be because the former UFC funded institutions were more adept at reacting to the potentialities of the SHEFC funding system or that they tended to have a more buoyant underlying student demand. References and Data Sources Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research,1993-94, SHEFC, circular letter no 14/93 Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research,1994-95, SHEFC, circular letter no 13/94 Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research,1995-96, SHEFC, circular letter no 10/95 Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research,1996-97, SHEFC, circular letter no 16/96 Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research, 1997-98, SHEFC, circular letter no 7/97 Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research,1998-99, SHEFC, circular letter 8/98 Main Grants in Support of Teaching and Research, 1999-2000, SHEFC, circular letter 13/99 Serving Scotlands Needs: The Governments Expenditure Plans, 1999-2000 to 2001-2002. CM4215, March 1999 Appendix 1: The algorithm for decomposing changes in average revenue. This annex shows the derivation of the algorithm used to decompose the change in average revenue per student. The components in this decomposition represent: the effect of the change in the proportion of fee-only students: the effect of the change in the proportion of core funding: the effect of the change in the unit teaching resource: the effect of change in the mix of the numbers of students in different cells. Notation. In what follows, the index  EMBED Equation.2 denotes year, j denotes institution, and k denotes subject group. Let  EMBED Equation.2  denote the core revenue per student in year  EMBED Equation.2 and subject group k:  EMBED Equation.2  denote the tuition fee revenue per student in year  EMBED Equation.2 and subject group k:  EMBED Equation.2  denote the number of fees-only students in year  EMBED Equation.2 , institution j and subject group k:  EMBED Equation.2  denote the number of funded places in year  EMBED Equation.2 , institution j and subject group k. Let  EMBED Equation.2  denote the proportion of students in cell  EMBED Equation.2 who are fee-only: thus  EMBED Equation.2  ( If  EMBED Equation.2 =0, then it is convenient to define  EMBED Equation.2 ) Let  EMBED Equation.2  denote the proportion of the total unit teaching resource for subject group k in year  EMBED Equation.2 which is core funding: thus  EMBED Equation.2  . Let the index L denote an aggregation category: that is, a group of institution/subject cells. (For example, all the subject cells within an institution might represent one aggregation category: or all the institution cells within a subject.) If L is a given aggregation category, and if  EMBED Equation.2 is a cell within that category, then let  EMBED Equation.2  denote the proportion of all students in the aggregation category L in year  EMBED Equation.2 who belong to cell  EMBED Equation.2 : thus  EMBED Equation.2  . Finally, let  EMBED Equation.2 denote the average revenue per student in year  EMBED Equation.2 and aggregation category L. Derivation of Algorithm. The total revenue in cell  EMBED Equation.2 can be written as  EMBED Equation.2  Thus the average revenue per student in cell  EMBED Equation.2 can be written as  EMBED Equation.2 , and hence (1)  EMBED Equation.2  EMBED Equation.2 , and (2)  EMBED Equation.2  We now define the following four components: Proportion fee-only component  EMBED Equation.2  Proportion core funding component  EMBED Equation.2  Total funding level component  EMBED Equation.2  Mix component  EMBED Equation.2  It is then straightforward, if tedious, to check that the sum of these four components gives the expression derived at (2) above, for the difference in average revenue for aggregation category L between year  EMBED Equation.2 and year  EMBED Equation.2 , thus establishing the basic decomposition used in the paper. Note that a) If there is no change between the two years in the factor in question, then the relevant component in the above decomposition is zero. For example, if there is no change between the years in the proportion of fee-only students within each cell of L, then the above proportion fee-only component is zero. b) There are several other ways of defining similar decompositions, and the choice of one particular approach is, to a certain extent, arbitrary: however, the particular decomposition used here seemed to the authors to have a certain logic which made it preferable to other possibilities. c) In Tables 4.5 and 4.8, where components of change are given for the whole period studied, these have been obtained by aggregating the individual yearly components of change over the period. Appendix 2: The Funding Method and Changes to It. The financial data in this paper concern the main recurrent grant for teaching to HEIs and their tuition fee income. Funding for minor grants associated with teaching outwith the main funding method has not been included. 1993-94 In arriving at funding levels for 1993-94, SHEFC used as a basis the 1992-93 units of teaching resource as determined by the former funding bodies: the Universities Funding Council and the Scottish Office Education Department. Differences were small or easily dealt within all subject groups with the exception of Mathematical Sciences, IT and Computing. For this group, separate units of teaching resource were determined for 1993-94 for former SOED and UFC funded institutions. Adjustments to 1992-93 levels in unit teaching resource were made to reflect inflation and the need for efficiency gains. As regards student numbers, the starting point for the distribution of places was the number of places funded in 1992-93. Additional places for 1993-94 were funded by reference Preferred CustomerPreferred Customer@F@>H AA'A*AyH @HA,@5@H @HA6A=A>AH@H@HAH@H@H@H @I @NI @tI @I @I @ J @AJ @jJ @J @J @J @K A?@]K @K @K @K @L @>L @iL @L@O@OAOAVAWAOAsAt@@O@BO@hO@O@O@O@ P@0P@bP@P@P@P@ Q@+Q@[Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@0R@XR@R@ARMAAM@@RAAY@ZAZAAhZAAtZAA[AG[A@[@bAAe@e@gAA˝AAAA-AHAcAAkAElAAlA Al@!AlA"@lA#AKpATpAKAUpAP@8q@qAɠ@AtAQAsuAjȗɗʗ՗ $%-3:@EKLSX_ekqr|bubbbubbbubbbubbbubb 30 V %˜Ș̘јҘ&,178@FMSX^_kqx~bubbbubbbubbbubbbubbbub 30 V(ƙ͙әؙޙߙ %+,:@GMSYZekrxbbubbbubbbubbbubbbubbb 30 V(ɚϚ֚ܚ NO͝ubbbubbbubbz z z z z z z | 30 V  (,048<@AIMQUY]abimquy 30  5 N30  y}ßǟ˟ϟӟן؟#'+/34<@DHL 30  (LPTUaeimquyzѠՠڠޠ 30  (  $()7;?CGKOP[_cgkost 30  (šɡʡ֡ڡޡ)o@AB]mZ[afOLBz z z z z z z z  z z z z z z z  z z z z z z z z z z z z z  30  'BC:/0;BMN-iopgz z z z z z z  z z z  z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 6z !  4& 57kl_`z9:}HINjm1IJZrs,O [\d_`hefm!  %&?DINS 3 G 7"5 N3 G 7"A^vAvAmAvAA@v@3wAAAAɟAʟA|wAwA̟AwA͟A!xAΟA)xAϟAxAПAx@`yAAu~AA@{~@ܟ@@ݟAߟA"AEAOAXA@@ZAʠAAˠAA̠AA:@Ҡ@RAAA!@AAATAUAcAgAlAuAv!|AAAAɧAͧAΧAAAA A!A=AKAAA@@ؑAӠ@ڑApAޠA{AAAA AARAAUA@j@OA@mA@vAAAAAAAAAA@@A֝@@@Am@@@@[AA@A)A~HIGHER EDUCATION IN SCOTLANDPreferred CustomergDNormalPreferred Customer49Microsoft Word for Windows 95@, @= @aۿ@L& #xjhJxmJTiJ i-1 FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Eq  !"$'()*-/0123456789:;<=>?@BEFGHKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^`cdehjklmnopqrstuvwxz}~ܥhc e7/t#####f4#^R 1#(]___=6 X Td#{E###!|hDocumentSummaryInformation8_1003214202F  _1003214201F _1003214200FA4AAA;AA?@AA@AAC@A)A@AAZA>AAAAAAQA@Y@@A0A@@@5@@@=@ACASATAk@l@AAܩAݩA@AA+A,A5A;AAF@AAAAAAAAƮ     j "2#$%&'()*+,-./013C456789:;<=>?@ABDSEFGHIJKLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdfmknopqrstuvwxyz{}~s_1003214199 F_1003214198F_1003214197 F_1003214196F_1003214195F_1003214194F_1003214193 F_1003214192F_1003214191F#_1003214190F##_1003214189F##_1003214188F##_1003214187 F#m+_1003214186Fm+m+_1003214185Fm+`4_1003214184F`4`4_1003214183F`4`4_1003214182F`4`4_1003214181F`46<_1003214179}F6<6<_1003214178 wF6<6<_1003214177qF6<6<_1003214176kF6<@^E_1003214175eF@^E@^E_1003214174$`F@^E`L_1003214173ZF`L`L_1003214172#!UF`L 'V_1003214171OF 'V 'V_1003214170&"IF 'V_1003214169CFB_1003214168(%=FBB_10032141677FBSX]^puz >CHMRW\]NNNNNNNNN 3 G 7"(4##]E7ï####]@Revision 3 July 2000 HIGHER EDUCATION NUMBERS AND FUNDING IN SCOTLAND Jim Cuthbert Margaret Cuthbert Summary This paper analyses data on student numbers and teaching resources, for undergraduate students at Higher Education Institutions in Scotland over the period 1993-94 to 1998-99, in order to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the funding mechanism in achieving higher education policy. Trends in student numbers, and average revenue per student are analysed by subject group and institution: and an algorithm is developed to split the change in average revenues into components reflecting different underlying factors. The main conclusions drawn are that, while the funding mechanism was relatively effective in achieving overall student numbers, there were a number of weaknesses. In particular, the policy to encourage certain subjects as priority was largely ineffective: the basic funding model does not allow for economies of scale: and the observed variations between institutions suggest that there were unexplained differences either in quality or efficiency between institutions. vision, access, strategic change, part timers 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine: the trends in student numbers in higher education institutions (HEIs) in Scotland, by subject group and by institution; the trends in average revenue per student, analysed again by subject group and by institution, and the main factors causing changes in the average revenue received. what these trends indicate about the effectiveness of government policy and of higher education for the future. Recommendations 2. Background Higher Education Policy Policy has developed over the period under study. In 1993, the then government gave its aim as: In higher education, our main effort will be to consolidate on the basis of the remarkable expansion of the sector which has taken place in recent years. In all sectors, the key themes will remain improved quality of provision, increased opportunity and choice for pupils and students, and greater responsiveness and accountability on the part of institutions.: ref. Scottish Office (1993). In 1995-96, the objective of meeting the increasingly diverse demands of students, employers, and society as a whole, through more flexible provision was added: ref. Scottish Office (1996). At the same time, the government asked SHEFC to use its funding to stimulate part time study. The Dearing Committee, and its Scottish component, the Garrick Committee which were set up in 1996 have more recently influenced policy. They noted concerns with regard to: quality assurance the fall in funding per student (by some 40% in twenty years) the need for alternative progression routes the need for improved collaboration between institutions Government policy evolved in the light of these reports and was finally summarised in formal response in 1999. In particular, the governments vision for higher education in Scotland, (Governments response to the Garrick Report, 1999), included: equal access for everyone who had the potential to benefit from higher education regardless of the individuals social or economic background; a higher education sector that, through its teaching and research, supported the competitiveness of the Scottish economy and helped meet theOpCUtj U W 4!  4  4U V !C$D$E$T$'B(U((***++++++&+0+1+2+8+>+D+J+9d; / a     0 4J+P+V+W+X+h+n+t+y+~+++++++++++++++9d; / a 9d; / a +++++++,,,*,+,/,3,7,;,?,@,A,B,(019d; / a   9d; / a 111122232425262B2I2J2K2Q2W2]2c2i2o2p2q2222222222 3 J b&6 P3 J b&0222222222222233 3333,3<3=3A3E3I3M3Q3R3S3T3467 70" (3 J b& 3 J b& 777777777777777788 8888%8+81868;8@8E8 3 J b&; Z3 J b&E8K8L8`8f8l8r8x8~8888888888888888888888 3 J b& 3 J b&88899999999999999::::::1 F/  " (3 J b&:::1:9:?:E:K:Q:W:l:m:::::::::::::: / %Z / %Z; Z/  :::::::::::;; ; ;;";';,;1;5;:;?;@;o;t;y;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;; / %Z(;;;;;<< <<<<9<?<C<H<M<Q<U<Y<Z<j<o<s<x<|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< / %Z(<== = ====!=%=*=/=3=7=<===C=I=M=Q=U=Y=]=b=c=d=>?c@e@n@@@@@@@ / %Z$@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@A AAAAAA A9A=AAAEAJANA 5 U0 D5 UNARASAeAjAoAsAxA}AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBB'B,B0B4B9B>BCBDBfBkBpBuBzBB 5 U(BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBC!C&C*C/C4C9C:CDCHCLCQCVC[C`CaCwC|CCCCC 5 U(CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCFFFGHGHpHqHrHsHtHuHvH 5 U"vHwHxHyHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH6 Pj nt{6 Pj nt{HHHII IIIIII,I1I5I:I?IDIHIMINIUIZI^IbIfIjInIsItIIIIIIII j nt{ j nt{#IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJJ J J"J'J+J/J3J7JLJLOLSLWL[L_LcLhLiLoLuLyL}LLLLLLLLOOOO?O@OAO j nt{%AOBOCOIOOOUO[OaOgOhOqOvO{OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO  [10 D [1OOOOOOOPP P PPPP#P'P+P/P0PDPIPNPRPWP\PaPbPyP~PPPPPPPPPPPPP  [1(PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPQQ Q QQQQQ"Q&Q*Q+QRCRHRMRRR  [1(RRWRXRdRiRnRrRvRzR~RRRRRRRRRRRRUVVVVZ]`ubbbb|ciCiHiMiSiTivi{iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijj jjjjj j>jCjHjMjRj 0A /(RjWj\jbjcjmjrjwj|jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjkk k kkk$k)k.k3k8k>k?k 0A /(?k@kAkikkmmmmm*mPmQmRmSmUmVmWm]mcmimomum~mmmmmmm   o_O?/!5 N  o_O?/!mmmmmmmmnn nnnnn.nJnOnTnYn^ncninjn{nnnnnnnn   o_O?/!   o_O?/!   o_O?/!nnnnnnnnnnn9qqqqqqqqqqqqqq5 N  o_O?/!   o_O?/!   o_O?/!qr rrrr%r,r-r>rTrZr`rerkrqrwrxrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs ssss&s5s:s?sv   o_O?/!'?sCsHsMsSsTsasfslsqsvs|ssssssssssssss5 N  o_O?/!   o_O?/!   o_O?/!sssst tttt t1tGtLtRtXt^tctitjt{ttttttttttttttttuuu#u(u   o_O?/!v'(u-u2u6u:u?u@uMuSuYu^ucuhunuoupuruw3w4wmwyyzz&z'z(z3zBzPz 0   o_O?/!   o_O?/!PzTzZz[zrzyzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz{ {{{{!{"{Q{W{^{e{k{r{s{{{  ({{{{{{{{{{{{{||!|'|+|1|2|B|H|O|U|Y|_|`|||||||||||||||  (||+}~~~;<=>?@ABCDEFGIJKQW]ciopOOOOOOOOOO 3 I_: X3 I_p HLPTWZ^_OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 I_(_ŀɀ̀рҀ !%)-156aeimquyzOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 I_(zÁǁˁρӁԁ#'+/34AEIMQUYZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 I_(ZSD؉ى.ّؑ67Amnopqsz{|z z z z z z  z z  z z z z  6 Pa 7\ĒɒΒӒؒݒ "',16;AB[`ejoty~      a 7\(“Ǔ̓ѓ֓ۓ "#,16;@EJPQ]bglqv{     a 7\(AǮAϮAЮAۮAAAAA@MANApA@AAAAA۪@d@Af@@fAAA@AAAAA/A0A8A5A=ApAyA~AїAҗAIAA[AAAA'ApAAAHAAKA@NAQ@AXAAwAA'@}@AYAA~A9AAMAAAAfAsA@#@A@@A@AAAAA3@#A$@%@(@AA@#@&A'A@1@3@4@5@ 1Times New Roman Symbol &Arial"qhFfʚH-H1r#xhWE"$THIGHER EDUCATION IN SCOTLANDPreferred CustomerPreferred Customerto the number and proportion of students enrolled in 1992-93 on a fees-only basis, and, as in all subsequent years, extra places were granted to reward excellence in teaching. SHEFC decided to set thresholds above which fees-only student enrolments were to be rewarded. This threshold system was designed to favour the priority subject groups of Science, Engineering and Technology, and Mathematical Sciences, IT and Computing. For these priority subjects, a lower threshold was set at, at a level of fees-only enrolments representing 5% of the level of funded places. Above this threshold, there was a reward of three additional funded places for every four fees-only student numbers. For non-priority subjects, the remaining planned additional undergraduate places were distributed among these groups according to thresholds determined in proportion to the Scottish average percentage of fees-only students in each group, with the rate of reward of one additional funded place for every two fees-only student numbers. 1994-95 In allocating funds in 1994-95, SHEFC made the following changes to the method. Mathematical Sciences was split from IT and Computing: both were still to be regarded as priority subjects. The method of determining the main teaching grant was broadly the same as in the previous year. There was, however, a significant change in tuition fee levels. To compensate institutions for the reduction in income for fees-only students within the governments planned total number of students, SHEFC provided compensation. The starting point for the allocation of funded student places was the number of funded student places in 1993-94. Each institution was given the opportunity to adjust this starting point by requesting transfers of funded student places, (within specified limits), between funding subject groups, in order that its pattern of funded places could develop in line with its strategic plan. In addition, SHEFC decided that it would not be appropriate to allow significant numbers of unfilled places to remain in any subject, if there was an opportunity for an institution to transfer funded places to other subjects where enrolments exceeded funded places. An upper threshold was introduced, to limit the award of extra funded places on the basis of fees-only. These upper thresholds varied by subject, and for priority groups were set at high levels. 1995-96 In 1995-96, there was a relatively small number of additional funded student places in the initial plans. The total number of funded places however, increased markedly as institutions were allowed to transfer their compensation for the reduction in tuition fee levels for 1994-95 into funded places. As discussed in the main text, this change took place at a relatively late stage in the planning process. 1996-97 Due to concern about under-enrolment against the governments planned student numbers, SHEFC applied clawback for unfilled funded places in most areas where this occurred. There was also concern about excessive growth of fees-only numbers in some areas, and SHEFC took steps to penalise this by introducing a monetary deduction: this, however, was only applied to one institution. There was no overall increase in the number of available funded places, so the threshold system for non-priority subjects did not apply. Thresholds still applied to priority subjects, to be used for places re-allocated. 1997-98 The total number of funded places remained about the same as in 1996-97, however there were around 350 places available for reallocation, mainly due to under-enrolment in some subjects in some institutions in 1996-97. The places were re-allocated to the four priority subject groups. Clawback for under-enrolment in 1996-97 was also applied, and one institution was penalised for a marginal breach of the consolidation policy. 1998-99 Changes took place in student support and tuition fee arrangements, and this brought concern that some institutions might have difficulty in achieving their planned student numbers. As a result SHEFC relaxed the clawback arrangee XIII that there are significant variations between subjects in the difference between notional and average revenue. What factors might contribute to this observed pattern? 14 .AsSsSHEFC Changes in in average revenue sI() Iverage evenue IIs this a strong enough discussion?and future economyand .in in Is a useful conceptAny concluding, wrapping up sentence?Dearing, Garrick HESA 17 .A X and XI 145 (1997)(1997) Finally, the Cubie 4'444444@Aabן؟34TUyz ()OPstɡʡ()BE]lm[:0N*+,-w uDz;eKuDz;acvKuD^MU^UVUV]bc]bc U]bcPwx;<OPQRpq&'()UVijzuDr;acvK uDs;eKuDs;acvK uDt;eKuDt;acvK uDu;eKuDu;acvK uDv;eKuDv;acvK uDw;eKuDw;acvK uDx;eKuDx;acvK uDy;eKuDy;acvKuD-jkl1234;<OPQRvwOPc uDk;eKuDk;acvK uDl;eKuDl;acvK uDm;eKuDm;acvK uDn;eK uDn;vK uDo;eKuDo;acvK uDp;eKuDp;acvK uDq;eKuDq;acvKuD uDr;eK/cdef23FGHI\]pqrs|}zs uDb;eKuDb;acvK uDc;eKuDc;acvK uDe;eKuDe;acvK uDf;eKuDf;acvK uDg;eKuDg;acvK uDh;eKuDh;acvK uDi;eKuDi;acvKuD uDj;eKuDj;acvK-7TUhijk,-.0CDEFRSfghi~uDZ;acvK uD[;eKuD[;acvK uD\;eK uD\;vK uD];eKuD];acvK uD^;eK uD^;vK uD_;eKuD_;acvK uD`;eKuD`;acvK uDa;eKuDa;acvKuD^.META HCompObj,.fObjInfo/Equation Native  0Ole %PIC 03#LMETA $CompObj24fObjInfo5Equation Native (Ole CPIC 69ALMETA .CompObj8:,fObjInfo;+Equation Native & Ole aPIC <?_LMETA LCompObj>@JfObjInfoAIEquation Native DOle {PIC BEyLMETA iCompObjDFgfObjInfoGfEquation Native bOle PIC HKLMETA CompObjJLfObjInfoMEquation Native |Ole PIC NQLMETA PCompObjPRfObjInfoSEquation Native Ole PIC TWLMETA ObjInfoVXEquation Native Ole PIC Y\LMETA CompObj[]fObjInfo^Equation Native Ole PIC _bLMETA ObjInfoacEquation Native Ole PIC dgLMETA TCompObjfhfObjInfoiEquation Native <Ole .PIC jm,LMETA CompObjlnfObjInfooEquation Native 4Ole ;PIC ps9LMETA 3TCompObjrt1fObjInfou0Equation Native /<Ole GPIC vyELMETA @$CompObjxz>fObjInfo{=Equation Native <(Ole UPIC |SLMETA MLCompObj~KfObjInfoJEquation Native HDOle oPIC mLMETA ]CompObj[fObjInfoZEquation Native VOle {PIC yLMETA t@CompObjrfObjInfoqEquation Native p4Ole PIC LMETA $CompObj~fObjInfo}Equation Native |(Ole PIC LMETA TCompObjfObjInfoEquation Native @Ole PIC LMETA @CompObjfObjInfoEquation Native 4Ole PIC LMETA DCompObjfObjInfoEquation Native Ole PIC LMETA $CompObjfObjInfoEquation Native (Ole PIC LMETA @CompObjfObjInfoEquation Native 8Ole PIC LMETA CompObjfObjInfoEquation Native LOle PIC LMETA ObjInfoEquation Native dOle PIC LMETA ܥhc e7&5dI1d($&&&=czXT{FCompObjfObjInfoEquation Native Ole PIC LMETA TCompObjfObjInfoEquation Native <Ole PIC LMETA TCompObjfObjInfoEquation Native @Ole )PIC 'LMETA "$CompObj fObjInfoEquation Native (Ole 6PIC 4LMETA .XCompObj,fObjInfo+Equation Native *@Ole BPIC @LMETA ;$CompObj9fObjInfo8Equation Native 7(Ole OPIC MLMETA GXCompObjEfObjInfoDEquation Native C@Ole [PIC YLMETA T$CompObjRfObjInfoQEquation Native P(Ole hPIC fLMETA `DCompObj^fObjInfo]Equation Native \<Ole tPIC rLMETA m$CompObjkfObjInfojEquation Native i(Ole PIC LMETA yDCompObjwfObjInfovEquation Native u<Ole PIC LMETA $CompObjfObjInfo 12EFGHZ[nopqCDWXYZcdwxyz \d`hf&]bc ]a bc U]a bcUVU uDU;eKuDU;acvK uDV;eKuDV;acvK uDW;eKuDW;acvK uDX;eKuDX;acvK uDY;eKuDY;acvKuD uDZ;eK5uation Equation.29q  .1  `& ` & MathType Times New Roman- 2 `4ik 2 `-~ 2 `1 & "Systemn-L|j mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &` & MathType Times New Roman0- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-LjiJtmJiJ = [w(i,j,k)-w(i-1,j,k)][fr(i-1,k)+cr(i-1,k)][1-x(i-1,j,k)y(i-1,k)] j,kL ymb FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29qL2 G .1   -&`- & MathType Symbol- 2 <=Symbol- 2 USymbol- 2 *nTimes New Roman- 2  `2 N[w(i,~k` 2 j,k` 2 |k)~ 2  -~ 2  w(i~k 2  -~ 2  1,` 2 6j,k`2 1k)][fr(i~~~~k 2 -~ 2 I1,` 2 k)~ 2 1+ 2 Qcr(i~~k 2 -~ 2 Q1,`2 k)][1~ 2  -~ 2 !x(i~k 2 #-~ 2 0$1,` 2 %j,k`2 &k)y(i~~k 2 )-~ 2 k*1,` 2 +k)]~Times New Roman!- 2 j,PH 2 k 2 L & "Systemn-KLL2j(iJmJiJ = w(i,j,k)[fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)-fr(i-1,k)-cr(i-1,k)][1-x(i-1,j,k)y(i-1,k)] j,kL  FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q3 K .1   .&. & MathType Symbol- 2 <=Symbol- 2 USymbol- 2 *nTimes New Roman- 2  ` 2 rw(i,~k` 2 #j,k`2 k)[fr(i,~~~~k` 2 S k)~ 2  +2  cr(i,~~k` 2 k)~ 2 6-~ 2 fr(i~~~k 2 0-~ 2 1,` 2 (k)~ 2 -~ 2 tcr(i~~k 2 -~ 2 t1,`2 k)][1~ 2 !-~ 2 "x(i~k 2 $-~ 2 S%1,` 2 &j,k`2 'k)y(i~~k 2 *-~ 2 +1,` 2 ,k)]~Times New Roman- 2 j,PH 2 k 2 L & "Systemn-L37jhJxmJTiJ = -w(i,j,k)[fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)]x(i-1,j,k)[y(i,k)-y(i-1,k)] j,kL  FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29qW)  .1   %&@% & MathType Symbol- 2 <=Symbol- 2 WSymbol- 2 *pTimes New Roman- 2  ` 2 6-~ 2 tw(i,~k` 2 %j,k`2  k)[fr(i,~~~~k` 2 U k)~ 2 +2  cr(i,~~k`2 k)]x(i~~k 2 a-~ 2  1,` 2 }j,k`2 xk)[y(i,~~k` 2 ek)~ 2 -~ 2 y(i~k 2 !-~ 2 K"1,` 2 #k)]~Times New Roman- 2 j,PH 2 k 2 L & "Systemn-LW)pjmJiJ(nJ = -w(i,j,k)[fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)]y(i,k)[x(i,j,k)-x(i-1,j,k)] j,kL  FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q(  .1   %&$ & MathType Symbol- 2 <=Symbol- 2 WSymbol- 2 *pTimes New Roman- 2  ` 2 6-~ 2 tw(i,~k` 2 %j,k`2  k)[fr(i,~~~~k` 2 U k)~ 2 +2  cr(i,~~k`2 k)]y(i,~~k`2 k)[x(i,~~k` 2 j,k` 2 k)~ 2 @-~ 2  x(i~k 2  -~ 2  1,` 2 "j,k` 2 #k)]~Times New Roman<7- 2 j,PH 2 k 2 L & "Systemn-L( jTiJlmJiJ avrev(i,L) - avrev(i-1,L) = w(i,j,k)[fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)][1-x(i,j,k) j,kL  y(i,k)]            - w(i-1,j,k)[fr(i-1,k)+cr(i-1,k)][1-x(i-1,j,k) j,kL  y(i-1,k)]    . FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q1   .1   -&,K & MathType@Times New RomanP--2 U4avrev(i,~~k` 2 UL) ~` 2 U-~2 U avrev(i`~~k 2 U -~ 2 Uc 1,` 2 UL) ~` 2 4= 2 x ` 2 hw(i,~k` 2 j,k`2 k)[fr(i,~~~~k` 2 I k)~ 2  +2 cr(i,~~k`2 k)][1~ 2 -~ 2 x(i,~k` 2 j,k` 2 k)~ 2 %y 2 ui,k` 2 pk)]~2 E@ `````````` 2 E `` 2 E-~ 2 E ` 2 Ew(i~k 2 E -~ 2 E 1,` 2 E2 j,k`2 E-k)[fr(i~~~~k 2 E-~ 2 E1,` 2 Ek)~ 2 E+ 2 Ecr(i~~k 2 E#-~ 2 E1,`2 Ek)][1~ 2 EA-~ 2 E x(i~k 2 E!-~ 2 E!1,` 2 E#j,k` 2 E$k)~ 2 EQ%y 2 E&ik 2 EU'-~ 2 E'1,`2 EM)k)] .~`````Times New Roman!- 2 j,PH 2 k 2 L 2 yj,PH 2 k 2 \LSymbol- 2 K 2 Symbol- 2 Vd 2 Times New RomanP-- 2 (~ 2 E&(~ & "Systemn-L1 4jՄf, [fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)][1 - x(i,j,k)y(i,k)]     4 XM .1  & @%@ & MathTypePTimes New Roman-2 `[fr(i,~~~k` 2 `k)~ 2 `+2 `cr(i,~~k`2 `jk)][1 ~` 2 ` -~2 `  x(i,`~k` 2 `j,k`2 `k)y(i,~~k`2 `k)] ~````M&MathTypeUU [fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)][1 - x(i,j,k)y(i,k)]    & "Systemn-L 4@jhhJxmJTiJ avrev(i,L) = w(i,j,k) j,kL  FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q0 R .1   &@ & MathType Times New Roman-2 4avrev(i,~~k` 2 L) ~` 2 '= 2 i ` 2 X w(i,~k` 2  j,k` 2 k)~Times New Roman- 2  j,PH 2  k 2  LSymbol- 2 : Symbol- 2 *T  & "Systemn-L0P jՄf, [fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)][1 - x(i,j,k)y(i,k)]     4 XM .1  & @%@ & MathTypePTimes New Roman-2 `[fr(i,~~~k` 2 `k)~ 2 `+2 `cr(i,~~k`2 `jk)][1 ~` 2 ` -~2 `  x(i,`~k` 2 `j,k`2 `k)y(i,~~k`2 `k)] ~````M&MathTypeUU [fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)][1 - x(i,j,k)y(i,k)]    & "Systemn-L 4@j mJiJ(nJ (i,j,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .      !"#$%&'()*+-245678:?ABCDFILNOPQRTWXY\^_`abcdefghijklnsuvwxz1  `&  & MathTypePTimes New Roman- 2 `4(i,~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-IL4@jhJ|mJiJ  [fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k)]fr(i,k) + ff(i,j,k)cr(i,k) = [fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k)][fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)] - fo(i,j,k)cr(i,k)= [fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k)][fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)][1 - x(i,j,k)y(i,k)]    . FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q)*  .1  &&%@ & MathTypepTimes New Roman-2 `@ [fo(i,`~~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ 2 `+2 `ff(i,~~~k` 2 `U j,k`2 `P k)]fr(i,~~~~k` 2 `k) ~` 2 `+2 ` ff(i,`~~~k` 2 `j,k`2 `k)cr(i,~~~k` 2 `k) ~` 2 4=2 x [fo(i,`~~k` 2 5j,k` 2 0k)~ 2 +2 ff(i,~~~k` 2  j,k`2  k)][fr(i,~~~~k` 2 ?k)~ 2 +2 cr(i,~~k` 2 k)] ~` 2  -~2  fo(i,`~~k` 2 j,k`2  k)cr(i,~~~k` 2 !k)~ 2 4=2 x [fo(i,`~~k` 2 5j,k` 2 0k)~ 2 +2 ff(i,~~~k` 2  j,k`2  k)][fr(i,~~~~k` 2 ?k)~ 2 +2 cr(i,~~k`2 k)][1 ~` 2 L-~2  x(i,`~k` 2 j,k`2 k)y(i,~~k`2 >"k)] .~````` & "Systemn-L)*j mJiJ(nJ (i,j,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1  `&  & MathTypePTimes New Roman- 2 `4(i,~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-IL4@j mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &` & MathType Times New Roman+- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-Lj(mJiJ(nJ avrev(i,L) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29qM4  .1  &` & MathTypePTimes New Roman-2 `4avrev(i,~~k` 2 `L)~ & "Systemn-LM4$@jhJtmJPiJ w(i,j,k) = fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k)(fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k)) j,kL  FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29ql  .1  & & MathType "-\\Times New Roman4- 2 @w(i,~k` 2  j,k` 2 k) ~` 2 n= 2  `2 x fo(i,~~k` 2 x j,k` 2 xk)~ 2 xb+2 xff(i,~~~k` 2 x;j,k` 2 xNk)~2  (fo(i,~~~k` 2 (j,k` 2 ;k)~ 2 +2 ff(i,~~~k` 2 j,k` 2 k))~~Times New Roman- 2 Jj,PH 2 J k 2 J LSymbol- 2 J Symbol- 2   & "Systemn-LlLjmJiJ(nJ (j,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1  @& & MathTypePTimes New Roman- 2 `4(j,~k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L4@j mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &` & MathType Times New Roman- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-Lj$mJiJ(nJ w(i,j,k)  FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1  &@ & MathTypePTimes New Roman - 2 `@w(i,~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L4p@jmJiJ(nJ (j,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1  @& & MathTypePTimes New Roman- 2 `4(j,~k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L4@jx iJtmJpiJ y(i,k) = cr(i,k)(fr(i,k)+cr(i,k)) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1   & & MathType "-_Times New Roman%- 2 @y(i,~k` 2 mk) ~` 2 w= 2  `2 j cr(i,~~k` 2 j% k)~2 s(fr(i,~~~~k` 2 f k)~ 2  +2  cr(i,~~k` 2 k))~~ & "Systemn-L j mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &` & MathType Times New Roman0- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-LjmJiJ(nJ y(i,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29qh4  .1  & & MathTypePTimes New Roman- 2 `@y(i,~k` 2 `mk)~ & "Systemn-Lh4@j0iJ|mJxiJ x(i,j,k) = 0. FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q 4  .1  &` & MathTypePTimes New Roman!- 2 `@x(i,~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k) ~` 2 `= 2 ` 0.`` & "Systemn-HL 4d@jHf, (fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k))14 / .1   &$$ & MathTypePTimes New Roman-2 `4(fo(i,~~~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ 2 ` +2 `Lff(i,~~~k` 2 ` j,k` 2 ` k))~~/&TMathTypeUUH (fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k)) & "Systemn-L14 @jiJmJiJ x(i,j,k) = fo(i,j,k)(fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k))    if  (fo(i,j,k)+ff(i,j,k))>0  : FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q+  .1   '&' & MathType "-'Times New RomanT- 2 @x(i,~k` 2 j,k` 2 k) ~` 2 = 2  `2 jU fo(i,~~k`      !#$%&(-/01235:<=>?AFHIJKLNSUVWXZ_abcdeglnopqsxz{|}~2 j0j,k` 2 j+k)~2 (fo(i,~~~k` 2  j,k` 2  k)~ 2  +2 ff(i,~~~k` 2 Vj,k` 2 Qk))~~2 o if (f````k~``~~ 2 o(i,~k` 2 j,k` 2 k)~ 2 +2 ff(i,~~~k` 2 I!j,k` 2 D"k))~~ 2 r$> 2 %0 :``k & "Systemn-L+j hJtmJPiJ (i,j,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1  `&  & MathTypePTimes New Roman!- 2 `4(i,~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L4@j$mJiJ(nJ x(i,j,k)  FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1   & & MathTypePTimes New Roman0- 2 `@x(i,~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L44@j mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &` & MathType Times New Roman!- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-Lj$hJtmJPiJ ff(i,j,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1  `&  & MathTypePTimes New Roman5-2 `@ff(i,~~~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L4[@j mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &` & MathType Times New Roman!- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-Lj$mJiJ(nJ fo(i,j,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q34  .1  &` & MathTypePTimes New Roman-2 `@fo(i,~~k` 2 `j,k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L34@j mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &` & MathType Times New Roman!- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-Lj hJpmJLiJ fr(i,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1  @& & MathTypePTimes New Roman0-2 `@fr(i,~~~k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L4@j mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &` & MathType Times New Roman!- 2 `4ik & "Systemn-Lj mJiJ(nJ cr(i,k) FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q4  .1  `&  & MathTypePTimes New Roman!-2 `4cr(i,~~k` 2 `k)~ & "Systemn-L4@g     j "2#$%&'()*+,-./013C456789:;<=>?@ABDSEFGHIJKLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdfilk}~sj mJiJ(nJ i FMicrosoft Equation 2.0 DS Equation Equation.29q  .1  &`X$ $@Revision 3 July 2000 HIGHER EDUCATION NUMBERS AND FUNDING IN SCOTLAND Jim Cuthbert Margaret Cuthbert Summary This paper analyses data on student numbers and teaching resources, for undergraduate students at Higher Education Institutions in Scotland over 6"ݟߟӠCN eft ! z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z %the period 1993-94 to 1998-99, in order to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the funding mechanism in achieving higher education policy. Trends in student numbers, and average revenue per student are analysed by subject group and institution: and an algorithm is developed to split the change in average revenues into components reflecting different underlying factors. The main conclusions drawn are that, while the funding mechanism was relatively effective in achieving overall student numbers, the&?^p>]5T^} !#$%'(./1236705=py~їҗ'AHKQXw}~UuPaP uDP U]a bc U]bc ]a bc]bcUFGTfgo3X Y g  3 E s!  4;! ; 4.re were a number of weaknesses. In particular, the policy to encourage certain subjects as priority was largely ineffective: the basic funding model does not allow for economies of scale: and the observed variations between institutions suggest that there were unexplained differences either in quality or efficiency between institutions. vision, access, strategic change, part timers 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine: the trends in student numbers in higher education institutions (HEIs)̠ҠӠޠ)4;?@CFGIY~ġšơʡˡ̡͡ΡϡСѡڡ)*012kwx|TUcgluvɧͧΧ !=KUV^uPaM U]bc]bcUVZCommittee of Inquiry into Student Finance (1999), conducted a review of tuition fees and financial support which has had implications for higher education funding and student support. The evidence of considerable differences between notional and average revenue between institutions and between subjects is also relevant to the governments response to the Cubie report. It is interesting to note that, if the government had decided to continue to charge fees, they would have been open to criticism in the light of the above figures: namely, of charging a uniform price for a product where certainly the teaching resource input and possibly the quality were variable. period The evidence suggests that the policy was not successful. The reasons for this pattern are: an explanation could bethatAnnual Report, Scottish Office, 1993 Serving Scotlands Needs: The Governments Expenditure Plans, 1995-1996 to 1997-98, CM2814, 1995 The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, (Dearing Report) 1997 The Scottish Committee of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (), 1997 Higher Education Statistics Agency: Statistical Reports Fairness for the Future, the Independent Committee of Inquiry into Student Finance, December 1999IIV 2318 .A 23a prov:the aed table.However,ciency or in quality of product: and it does point to the need for SHEFC to take active steps to achieve a better understanding of the underlying factors at work.2G2L2Q2V2[2_2d2j222222KCSTklܩݩ+,5;FMNp   !)˫ZdfstvƮǮϮЮۮ   !#UuPa^ U]bc[There is some evidence that the former UFC funded institutions may indeed have faired rather better. Annexed Table 18 .A The Government Response to the Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, (Garrick Committee), 1998 18 18 23 23(Cubie), 18v!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!!} #.[8;C2M[UfCoy2 m~(   yr2F23@RS[?@Py  D } x * V"#];:` .'^_L!M!\!$$$$Z&[&c&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'''"'('.'4':'@'M'S'Y'_'e'k'q'w'''''''''''w+?-@-I-------------------------. ....%.+.1.>.D.J.P.V.\.b.g.|........../////////////////0 0 00"0(0-02070<0C0W0]0c0i0o0u0{0000000000000000000011111111111112222222(20262<2B2H2N2d2{222222222222222222222223333#3(3,31373f3k3p3u3z3~33333333333333334440464:4?4D4H4L4Q4a4f4j4o4s4w4|44444444444444455 5555!5&5*5.545:5@5D5H5L5P5T5Z5[567\8e888888888888888888888899 9999094989<9A9E9J9\9a9f9j9o9t9z999999999999999:#:':+:0:5:;:]:b:g:l:q:v:|:::::::::::::::;;;!;&;+;1;;;?;C;H;M;R;X;n;s;w;{;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;>>?AAABjDjHjLjPjUj}jjjjjjjjlTmUm]m^mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnn#n)n/n6nGnanhnmnqnvn|nnnnnnnnnnnnnnoo ooo$o*o/o4o:oAoBoCoLoMooooooooooooo{ŔʔϔԔٔޔߔ "',16;ABFK      a 7\(KPUZ_djky~•Ǖ͕Ε #(-2     a 7\(27=>JOTY^chnopmnxȗ z z z : X30 V a 7\ in Scotland, by subject group and by institution; the trends in average revenue per student, analysed again by subject group and by institution, and the main factors causing changes in the average revenue received. what these trends indicate about the effectiveness of government policy and of higher education for the future. Recommendations 2. Background Higher Education Policy Policy has developed over the period under study. In 1993, the then government gave its aim as: In higher education, our main ef 5:?DINST^chmrw|}NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 3 G 7"(_1003214166)'1F_1003214165+FOle PIC *-L %&'34567~͘yNNNNNNz z z z  z z  z `% 3 G 7"&K@Normala c$@$ Heading 4Ua "A@"Default Paragraph Font @ Footer 9r )@ Page Number B@ Body Texta  @" Header 9r the unit teaching resource was ed onlevels, with adjustments for inflation and the needs for efficiency gains In one subject group, Mathematical Sciences, IT and Computing, there had been a significant difference between the unitspplied in 1992-93 by the former funding bodies, For this group, separate applied into thefunded ects, a lower threshold was set group decrease t2 23  .A.inging:.. 3 .A Clearly, the effect of this system is that, the larger the proportion of fees-only students, the lower the average revenue per student available for teaching. Hence, the percentage of fees-only students is a key factor affecting the availability of teaching resources. T̘͘'ۙZy'*,56=>?VWst˝-Hc !"#KPQjmɟʟ̟͟ΟϟПܟݟߟ"EOXɠʠˠ̠ U]bc]bcUVuPa]his is why a substantial part of this paper is concerned with examining variations in the percentage fees-only students. Strategic Change into 6 .A . s . Trends in Priority Subjects Relative to the UK % change1993-94 nQueen Margaret College s-only students, by Institution -ere restrictediess-,It is difficult to understand the contributory factors bearing on the observed changes in average revenue. To understand this better, the overall change in average revenue has been split into several components reflecting different underlying causes, such as the change in the percentage of fees-only students. , together with the full definitions of the components used, are2 eThe year that saw the biggest change waswhen As the tables indicate, twas due to the change in the unit of resourcewas , for each subject group, (excluding Education), .Tss Environment . It is clear, therefore, from Tablpfort will be to consolidate on the basis of the remarkable expansion of the sector which has taken place in recent years. In all sectors, the key themes will remain improved quality of provision, increased opportunity and choice for pupils and students, and greater responsiveness and accountability on the part of institutions.: ref. Scottish Office (1993). In 1995-96, the objective of meeting the increasingly diverse demands of students, employers, and society as a whole, through more flexible provision qwas added: ref. Scottish Office (1996). At the same time, the government asked SHEFC to use its funding to stimulate part time study. The Dearing Committee, and its Scottish component, the Garrick Committee which were set up in 1996 have more recently influenced policy. They noted concerns with regard to: quality assurance the fall in funding per student (by some 40% in twenty years) the need for alternative progression routes the need for improved collaboration between institutions Government policy evolved in the light of these reports and was finally summarised in formal response in 1999. In particular, the governments vision for higher education in Scotland, (Governments response to the Garrick Report, 1999), included: equal access for everyone who had the potential to benefit from higher education regardless of the individuals social or economic background; a higher education sector that, through its teaching and research, supported the competitiveness of the Scottish economy and helped meet thee XIII that there are significant variations between subjects in the difference between notional and average revenue. What factors might contribute to this observed pattern? 14 .AsSsSHEFC Changes in in average revenue sI() Iverage evenue IIs this a strong enough discussion?and future economyand .in in Is a useful conceptAny concluding, wrapping up sentence?Dearing, Garrick HESA 17 .A X and XI 145 (1997)(1997) Finally, the Cubie 4'4444446"ݟߟӠCN eft !$&'(23& z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z ,̠ҠӠޠ)4;?@CFGIY~ġšơʡˡ̡͡ΡϡСѡڡ)*012kwx|TUcgluvɧͧΧ !=KUV^uPaM U]bc]bcUVZCommittee of Inquiry into Student Finance (1999), conducted a review of tuition fees and financial support which has had implications for higher education funding and student support. The evidence of considerable differences between notional and average revenue between institutions and between subjects is also relevant to the governments response to the Cubie report. It is interesting to note that, if the government had decided to continue to charge fees, they would have been open to criticism in the light of the above figures: namely, of charging a uniform price for a product where certainly the teaching resource input and possibly the quality were variable. period The evidence suggests that the policy was not successful. The reasons for this pattern are: an explanation could bethatAnnual Report, Scottish Office, 1993 Serving Scotlands Needs: The Governments Expenditure Plans, 1995-1996 to 1997-98, CM2814, 1995 The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, (Dearing Report) 1997 The Scottish Committee of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (), 1997 Higher Education Statistics Agency: Statistical Reports Fairness for the Future, the Independent Committee of Inquiry into Student Finance, December 1999IIV 2318 .A 23a prov:the aed table.However,ciency or in quality of product: and it does point to the need for SHEFC to take active steps to achieve a better understanding of the underlying factors at work.2G2L2Q2V2[2_2d2j222222KCSTklܩݩ+,5;FMNp   !)˫ZdfstvƮǮϮЮۮ   !#$%(2UuPa^ U]bc_There is some evidence that the former UFC funded institutions may indeed have faired rather better. Annexed Table 18 .A The Government Response to the Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, (Garrick Committee), 1998 18 18 23 23(Cubie), 18 Glossary Eligible student, or student eligible for funding: one who is domiciled in the UK, or EC: is entitled to pay home fees: is taking a course open to any suitably qualified applicant and whose course is not funded from other public sources. Undergraduate: This includes those taking undergraduate degree, diplomas and certificates, HNDs, HNCs, other advanced courses and a small number of non-advanced courses that are eligible for funding from SHEFC. Funded place: a place offered to an eligible student, and on which SHEFC will provide main teaching grant. Core funding per student: we have designated the SHEFC main teaching grant per student as core funding per student. Fees Only students: SHEFC funds HEIs on the basis of specified numbers of funded places in each subject group. Where there are more students eligible for funding than the allocation of funded places, the institutions only receive tuition fees for these extra students. The difference between the total number of students eligible for funding and the number of funded places is referred to as the number of fees only students. Unit teaching resource per student: This is the total resource from fees and main teaching grant available per funded student place. Notional revenue per student: the amount of unit teaching resource per student; i.e., the amount of revenue which would notionally be received per eligible student, if they were all fully funded . Average revenue per student: the number of funded places times the relevant unit teaching resource, plus the number of fees-only students times the relevant tuition fee, divided by the total number of funded and fees-only students. Controlled subject group: in certain subject areas, the pattern of funded places is given special consideration mainly because of central planning requirements for the professions concerned. The courses where numbers of funded places are planned centrally are: undergraduate medicine (pre-clinical and clinical), veterinary medicine (pre-clinical and clinical), undergraduate veterinary science, and teacher education (various courses). Priority subject group: The designation of certain subjects as priority reflects the governments stated objectives of promoting science and technology courses to meet the economys need for highly qualified manpower. The priority subjects have been engineering, science, maths and computing, throughout the period. 24IDOD^DcDgDlDqDvDzDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEE EE#E'E+E/E3E7E=ETEYE]EaEeEiEnEsE|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFF F FFFF+F/F3Fments for under-enrolment and provided resources to support institutions facing significant reductions in undergraduate fee income because of low recruitment. No increase was planned in student numbers eligible for funding by SHEFC. All of the funded places available due to reallocation were allocated to priority groups, again on the basis of thresholds. Table Notional Revenue per student, by Subject Group93/9494/9595/9696/9797/9898/99Other Health & Welfare481348904927493950385076Science511851995238525153565396Engineering & Technology544955365578559257045747Built Environment436344324465447645664600Mathematics, Statistics & Operational Research416037643792380138773906Computing & Information Science452351995238525153565396Catering & Hospitality Management502651065144515752605299Business & Administrative Studies348635413568357736493676Social Sciences285328982920292729863008Humanities, Languages & Mass Communication332433773435344435133539Art, Design & Performing Arts480948864923493550345072Education484649234960497250715109All Priority Subjects510452165253526753705405All Non-priority Subjects374538053813383739193958All Subjects424343234338435344424485 PAGE 23 PAGE 19  .Aular 1For each subject group, oSY[ G H W Y \ g ~ K f & CKU]%j!!B$E$T$'''A(B(D(S(T(U(((**5*8*b*|***+0+1+W+X+++++,,@,A,,,--0'01112]bc U]bc]bcMVMVUVU^MUX12I2J2p2q2222233R3S377 777778899999999::l:m::::: ; ;?;@;;;;;<<Y<Z<<<<<==<===b=c=f@n@@aCCCDDFGG>HGHpHiLLLLOOk?kAk U]bcU]b]bV^MUV U]bc]bc]bcVAkikkkkkmmPmSmUmVmmmmmnninjnnnnnq8qqqqqqq,r-rwrxrrrssSsTssssssssst titjtttuu?u@unuouw+w,w2w4wlwmw}wwyyyyz[zrzzzzzz{"{ ]a bc U]a bcc U]bc]bc U]bc]bcUMUVT"{Q{s{{{{{|2|B|`||||||*}+}~~;ԁZىّڑ7Amz{AB~"#PQޔߔABjk͕Ε=>nonoxȗNO͝c]bcM U]bcUUVVc ]a bc]bcX23;&3d}ر %δεlPa^&dر δlz z z z z z z z z z  v!!!! !!!! ! ! ! ! !!!! !!!!! } #.[8;C2M[UfCoy2 mu~(   yr2F23@RS[?@Py  D } x * V"#];:` .'^_L!M!\!$$$$Z&[&c&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'''"'('.'4':'@'M'S'Y'_'e'k'q'w'''''''''''w+?-@-I-------------------------. ....%.+.1.>.D.J.P.V.\.b.g.|........../////////////////0 0 00"0(0-02070<0C0W0]0c0i0o0u0{0000000000000000000011111111111112222222(20262<2B2H2N2d2{222222222222222222222223333#3(3,31373f3k3p3u3z3~33333333333333334440464:4?4D4H4L4Q4a4f4j4o4s4w4|44444444444444455 5555!5&5*5.545:5@5D5H5L5P5T5Z5[567\8e888888888888888888888899 9999094989<9A9E9J9\9a9f9j9o9t9z999999999999999:#:':+:0:5:;:]:b:g:l:q:v:|:::::::::::::::;;;!;&;+;1;;;?;C;H;M;R;X;n;s;w;{;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;>>?AAABjDjHjLjPjUj}jjjjjjjjlTmUm]m^mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnn#n)n/n6nGnanhnmnqnvn|nnnnnnnnnnnnnnoo ooo$o*o/o4o:oAoBoCoLoMoooooooooooooooop pppp"p)p:pTp[p`pdpipnpvppppppppppppppppp qqqq"q'q.q/q1qrr5stuxxxz~~ #>څaŏՐ >Rfgr4ٽ,Q>*|Fi $STUVWZ[agmsy ',16;@Fuz u12:HIQ8~z:;&'.//23Skl QR\tvwxvI(Yz z z z z z z  z z z z z z z z z z  z z *z *z *z *z z z z z z z z z z z z z *z *z *z Ez *z *z *z z z  z  z z z z z ooop pppp"p)p:pTp[p`pdpipnpvppppppppppppppppp qqqq"q'q.q/q1qrr5stuxxxz~~ #>څaŏՐ >Rfgr4ٽ,Q>*|Fi $STUVWZ[agmsy ',16;@Fuz u12:HIQ8~z:;&'.//23Skl QR\z z z z z z z  z z z z z z z z z z  z z *z *z *z *z z z z z z z z z z z z z *z *z *z Ez *z *z *z z z  z  z z z z z z *z *z z  z z z  z z z z z z U} } } } ]1vvU9]1vU9]1vU9]1vU9]1vI I I 9]1vz  z z z h h h z z z z ||||||h h h z z z z ((((ANANN=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  z z z z TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTz z z z z  z z z z z 1     111111111111111111111z z z z >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>z z z z  z z z  z  z  z z z z z z z  z z .................z z z z z z z q q q q q q q q q q q z z z z q q q q q q q q q q q z z q q q q q q q q q q q z z z z z z z z z z z z  z z z z z z  z z z z z z z z z z  z z z z z z z  z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNz z z z  z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 6z z z *z *z *z *z z z z Fz Fz Fz z Fz z z Fz z Fz z bz z z z z Fz Kz z bz z z Fz z Fz Fz z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 12OAk"{wjc&̠K#{|}~U J++12 7E88::;<@NABCvHHI{J8KLAOOP{QRRVgg/iRj?kmnq?ss(uPz{|p_zZ{K2ȗyLBS!"$RfhOceAUW !#-AC$8:ey{ ')<PR+-\prSgi::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !!Zat@Preferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.doc@HP DeskJet 870C SeriesLPT1:HPRDJC03HP DeskJet 870C SeriesHP DeskJet 870C Series7 d,,HP DeskJet 870C SeriesLPT1 ,,HP DeskJet 870C Series7 d,,HP DeskJet 870C SeriesLPT1 ,,MVUVMiSTNi67p"#GmmSTNi67p@  n.oSTNi67p@  n.lSTNi67p"#GmnSTNi67p"#Gm1Q0>?D7Q0>?sz>?@# % ) * ] ^ b c w x z { ) * + , STUV_i"#`hklm,-`n^ K!L!$$$$X&Y&/(((v+--.//Y8Z8[8<<<>>?AV?VV#W$W])`*`+`.b}fffffgg7gwgggg.hAhBhDhEhnhohk l(l)l.lllUmop1qJq*r-rrrrrrrrDs^s_srsssusvsssssssCtDttt uz#z'z)z0z~~!#fǂ23مڅa{OP^bgpqĎȎɎ8FŏЏkqrѐҐՐ %&-8>?@FGHJFR fgۨũŸ̸θݸ;߹ݼ7ٽ3=/9;=RSW,Q8%v|F~$%-.67BWYabdhi  '*/8@s| 4> QX~DXz *z *z z  z z z  z z z z z z U} } } } ]1vvU9]1vU9]1vU9]1vU9]1vI I I 9]1vz  z z z h h h z z z z ||||||h h h z z z z ((((ANANN=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  N=AA  z z z z TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTz z z z z  z z z z z 1     111111111111111111111z z z z >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>z z z z  z z z  z  z  z z z z z z z  z z .................z z z z z z z q q q q q q q q q q q z z z z q q q q q q q q q q q z z q q q q q q q q q q q z z z z z z z z z z z z  z z z z z z  z z z z z z z z z z  z z z z z z z  z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNz z z z  z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 6z z z *z *z *z *z z z z Fz Fz Fz z Fz z z Fz z Fz z bz z z z z Fz Kz z bz z z Fz z Fz Fz z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 12OAk"{wjc&̠K2{|}~U J++12 7E88::;<@NABCvHHI{J8KLAOOP{QRRVgg/iRj?kmnq?ss(uPz{|p_zZ{K2ȗyLBS&"$RfhOceAUW !#-AC$8:ey{ ')<PR+-\prSgi::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: !!Zax@Preferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Highst|~@AA@@@AA @W AA% AAAġA AšAơAʡ@ A A>@ AAˡA@rAsA̡At@AA͡A@AAΡA@AAϡA@AAСAAA@AѡAڡAA)A*A0A1A2AkAwAxA|AA@@@AA@AFA@KAU@AAAA%@sA@@̘A͘A'AA@Z@Ay@A@@@U AA A @!A!A#@B$ @D$@@@B( @U(A@*A,AA-@'0A@t2@46@7@7@A@d@AAD@D@@@T3@F@>H AA'A*AyH @HA,@5@H @HA6A=A>AH@H@HAH@H@H@H @I @NI @tI @I @I @ J @AJ @jJ @J @J @J @K A?@]K @K @K @K @L @>L @iL @L@O@OAOAVAWAOAsAt@@O@BO@hO@O@O@O@ P@0P@bP@P@P@P@ Q@+Q@[Q@Q@Q@Q@Q@0R@XR@R@ARMAAM@@RAAY@ZAZAAhZAAtZAA[AG[A@[@bAAe@e@gAA˝AAAA-AHAcAAkAElAAlA Al@!AlA"@lA#AKpATpAKAUpAP@8q@qAɠ@AtAQAsuAjA^vAvAmAvAA@v@3wAAAAɟAʟA|wAwA̟AwA͟A!xAΟA)xAϟAxAПAx@`yAAu~AA@{~@ܟ@@ݟAߟA"AEAOAXA@@ZAʠAAˠAA̠AA:@Ҡ@RAAA!@AAATAUAcAgAlAuAvAAAAɧAͧAΧAAAA A!A=AKAAA@@ؑAӠ@ڑApAޠA{AAAA AARAAUA@j@OA@mA@vAAAAAAAAAA@@A֝@@@Am@@@@[AA@A)A~A4AAA;AA?@AA@AAC@A)A@AAZA>AAAAAAQA@Y@@A0A@@@5@@@=@ACASATAk@l@AAܩAݩA@AA+A,A5A;AAF@AAAer Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.docPreferred Customer?C:\My Documents\Higher Education\revised HE paper June 2000.doc@HP DeskJet 870C SeriesLPT1:HPRDJC03HP DeskJet 870C SeriesHP DeskJet 870C Series7 d,,HP DeskJeAAAAAƮAǮAϮAЮAۮAAAAA@MANApA@AAAAA۪@d@Af@@fAAA@AAAAA/A0A8A5A=ApAyA~AїAҗAIAA[AAAA'ApAAAHAAKA@NAQ@AXAAwAA'@}@AYAA~A9AAMAAAAfAsA@#@A@@A@AAAAA3@ AA@#@&A'A!@1@3@4@5@ 1Times New Roman Symbol &Arial"qhFfB:H&-H0m~"dWE"$THIGHER EDUCATION IN SCOTLANDt 870C SeriesLPT1 ,,HP DeskJet 870C Series7 d,,HP DeskJet 870C SeriesLPT1 ,,xxxuMVUVMiSTNi67p"#GmmSTNi67p@  n.oSTNi67p@  n.lSTNi67p"#GmnSTNi67p"#Gm1Q0>?D7Q0>?sz>?@# % ) * ] ^ b c w x z { ) * + , STUV_i"#`hklm,-`n^ K!L!$$$$X&Y&/(((v+--.//Y8Z8[8<<<>>?AV?VV#W$W])`*`+`.b}fffffgg7gwgggg.hAhBhDhEhnhohk l(l)l.lllUmop1qJq*r-rrrrrrrrDs^s_srsssusvsssssssCtDttt uz#z'z)z0z~~!#fǂ23مڅa{OP^bgpqĎȎɎ8FŏЏkqrѐҐՐ %&-8>?@FGHJFR fgۨũŸ̸θݸ;߹ݼ7ٽ3=/9;=RSW,Q8%v|F~$%-.67BWYabdhi  '*/8@s| 4> QX~DXstux@AA@@@AA @W AA% AAAġA AšAơAʡ@ A A>@ AAˡA@rAsA̡At@AA͡A@AAΡA@AAϡA@AAСAAA@AѡAڡAA)A*A0A1A2AkAwAxA|AA@@@AA@AFA@KAU@AAAA%@sA@@̘A͘A'AA@Z@Ay@A@@@U AA A @!A!A#@B$ @D$@@@B( @U(A@*A,AA-@'0A@t2@46@7@7@A@d@AAD@D@@@T3