The only survey in which common criteria have been used is the PPARC/STFC studentship quota exercise, which has seen a steady increase from 2003 (484) to 2007 (545). Historically, academics have received PDRA support close to the 0.6 PDRAs/academic for 2007. The 25% volume reduction in support between now and 2011 will either lead to 0.45 PDRAs/academic if one optimistically assumes a flat number of academics, or more likely stay close to 0.6/academic as a result of retirements not being replaced plus new hires being made in areas other than STFC.

this is compounded by the fact that the “baseline” funding level for the grants has evolved on a <3 year timescale – even ignoring increasing academic staff numbers – as market pressure has brought more people into the rolling grant pool (where we effectively are required to lock in commitment for their RA support).

i think there is a case to bring money which is in the STFC model for funding new grants in 2009/2010 to the current round to cover some of the shortfall produced by the equivalent movement in standard grant applicants into the current round. *i have to admit to a conflict on this suggestion as the durham RGs were in this round*

with the current recommendations – i think the “average” of the ~20 astronomy rolling grant awarded for april 2008 will have ~2.5 RAs on it – which is hardly a viable level of funding.

as you said – it is not true that grants are level funded – EVEN accounting for the variations in the numbers awarded due to the size of the groups in each round (and their activities) there has been a significant cut this round. so looking at the astronomy side only – in april 2002 there were roughly ~80 PDRAs awarded; for the 2003 cycle the number was ~85; in 2004, 93; 2005: 85; 2006: 102; 2007: 135 and in 2008: ~82 PDRA.

so there was a spike after the last CSR as we used extra money to hire RAs – and hence we might be naturally seen as returning to the long-term average with the latest award (2008 versus 2005). however, these numbers mask both the significant increase in the number of co-applicants on the grants (ie the growth in the number of new academics you mention) – this is definitely in the ~20% range and could be higher (its hard to quantify) – AND an increase in the number and scope of the rolling grant activities in this current round. the latter was triggered by the widely held view (started by a rumor which was claimed to originate with the CEO?) that standard grants were for the chop – so a whole bunch of people whose research is supported from SGs chose to try to roll those activities in this round (maybe producing another 10-20% increase in the number of applicants). this resulted in a larger-than-usual request for support this round (which should have been reflected in moving money from the next two rounds to track the shift in applicants, but i don’t believe this has been done). it may well be that both of these effects were exacerbated by inflation in FEC – where the system appears to lack any mechanism for negative feedback – but the current claim is that we are not spending money for RAs on FEC.

i agree that there is a mismatch in the system between the physics departments recruiting astronomers and the RC money going where the government wants it to go. this could simply be because there is no mechanism to class PP and astro as “loss-leaders” for physics and so siphon some money to these areas to ensure that all those new lecturers have some toys to use. or we could decide that there will be research active and teaching faculty and cut out some fraction of the community from funding based on that. this is close to what is happening anyway as the FEC awards for some staff this round (on rollers – which typical encompass most of a co-I’s research interests) is far below the level you’d expect for a research active academic: as low as 10% (they were capped at 35% round even for our “world-class” applicants – because of the lack of money).

all in all its a mess and not good for younger researchers or our graduate students…