8269 academics and their bosses have been alerted – the data is in, the numbers are crunched, PBRF scores are out. Who are the winners, who are the losers? Find out more with tec publication. But before you go there…
I predict that any minute now tertiary institutions throughout the land will be posting press releases detailing their successes, each one trying to say “we’re the best” – at least in some category, somehow, if you squeeze the numbers and look at them sideways… well, you get the picture. Speaking of which – here’s one I posted after the last lot of PBRF results were released in 2013.
Last year I stated that the PBRF quality evaluation was a net zero sum game, because irrespective of the outcomes of the quality evaluations of the 8269 staff there is no net increase in the overall funding (that being set by the Government of the day in the Budget). The total quality evaluation dollar amounts are $173,250,000 p.a. The 2018 PBRF process has shifted where this pie is divided up marginally.
The percentage changes are marginal, but they do translate to a loss or gain to individual institutions. In this round, based on these preliminary results, the “big winners” appear to be AUT, VUW and the non-university sector. The biggest loser appears to be UC, but the others seem to have lost a substantial amount. Of course, as I’ve argued before, these $ amounts must be considered in terms of the total $ costs to the institutions and the government to administer the PBRF, likely millions for each institution. The gains of VUW and AUT aren’t really as much as they look and the losses to the other institutions more.
Was this Quality Evaluation PBRF process worthwhile? – I think not. Will the results be celebrated? – I expect so. Will this post do more to expose the emperor’s new clothes and change the system? – one lives in hope.