Just how much fEC percentage do some of you guys want?? You do appreciate that we are primarily here to teach the next generation, don’t you? A research career for an academic is essential in my view, but should not dominate in terms of the percentage of time.

Having wasted hours on TRAC protocol paperwork, that’s a fairly easy question to answer: here, we are audited as spending about 45% of our time on research, so under the basic philosophy of shifting to paying for that research under fEC and the commensurate increase in funding to STFC in the CSR, that’s the percentage we should get. Accordingly, that’s how much we asked for in our last grant application, and that’s how much the panel approved and recommended should be awarded.

Alternatively, our universities may quite reasonably demand that we cut our research time to that which is funded through fEC, which would probably have an even more detrimental effect on research output than the cuts in PDRA numbers.

As Andy notes, we don’t overproduce PhDs, but we would if we thought that we were training them all to be astronomy researchers. We are not, which is why STFC now ask for clear evidence of a programme of more general training as part of the PhD programme when you apply for your quota award. Almost alone among my colleagues, I believe that the Bologna process will result in a more productive structure, which will produce better training for research and industrial/commercial careers. Andy, it is a shallow sided pyramid though, and you are climbing up the inside, which is why so many fall off.

However an academic career must be seen as a primary goal of this training, and not just something you do if you aren’t good enough to get a job outside. Which is why the 5% increase goes someway towards addressing the low perceptions of an academic career, and the subsequent
low morale amongst academics. Its unfortunate that it also applies to postdocs and teh increase is unfunded on the grants.

Just how much fEC percentage do some of you guys want?? You do appreciate that we are primarily here to teach the next generation, don’t you? A research career for an academic is essential in my view, but should not dominate in terms of the percentage of time.

Anyway, for what it’s worth I think the answers to your questions are:

1. Not really, but that rather depends on the kind of astronomy you do.

2. I think the answer to this is “yes”, but only because we haven’t got the rest of the education system right either. I would much prefer a system where we have 3+2+3 alla Bologna, with more 2 years masters and less PhDs rather than extending the PhD to allow for weaknesses further up the pipeline. In a steady state each PhD supervisor during his or her career will supervise on avaerage only one PhD student who gets a permanent job, which probably means 90% will never make it. I’m not convinced that a majority of these make significant use of their research skills in the wider economy, and many of them are disgruntled to be forced out. The tendency to think of PhD students as cheap labour to be discarded after the award of a meaningless qualification is an aspect of the less acceptable face of academia.

BUT who would pay for longer UG degrees and does anyone have the stomach to undertake the reorganization that would be needed? Answers on a postcard please.

3. I think the pay rise is good in the long term but those who haven’t planned properly may suffer in the short term. I don’t know what fraction of the new dosh that has magically appeared would be needed to allow for the extra wage bill on existing grants but it could be a lot.

It seems to me that the most important point is that however large the pot is, it is always going to be finite, so STFC will always have to make priorities. It is vitally important that it does this better in future than it did last time. It’s the systemic failures we have to fix first.

Luckily we have been awarded a 5% pay rise

Unluckily 12 universities have invested ~2.5m pounds each in Icelandic banks

Luckily 9m pounds of extra funds has been found for STFC science

Unluckily the announcement included Knowledge Exchange and Industry even in its URL
http://www.scitech.ac.uk/KE/Ind/GrantsUp151008.aspx

Luckily the new Science Minister is for expanding STFC science

Unluckily he wants to send astronauts into space

Luckily the Wakeham report pronounced Physics to be in good health

Unluckily it suggested expanding applied but not fundamental physics

Luckily the Wakeham report asked for ring fencing of ex-PPARC facilities and grants

Unluckily RCUK rejected the ring fencing, saying that Astro and PP funds should be tensioned against all the rest of STFC facilities and grants

Luckily we can argue for a better settlement in the next CSR

Unluckily government spending is likely to be cut because of the credit crunch

Maybe someone else can think of another Luckily… at this point – ‘fraid I can’t!

in my – very uninformed – view, its unlikely to be AGP’s decision where this new funding will go, we don’t “do strategy”

so – equally – if there is a consensus on what would be best use for the community (in both the short and the longer term) then it needs to be stated clearly to PPAN/executive.

the announcement of the extra £9M came out part way through the latest of many meetings of AGP. the problem of course is all in the details: how much does astro get (easy – say half?) – how long do we have to spend the money (not clear – but not very long – 2yrs max?) – is it going to be targeted by the exec (who knows?) – how can we ensure the community benefits from it in a way which doesn’t just end up with yet more liabilities after the next CSR (urghh)?

andy’s blog is as good a place as any to start a discussion about good ways to target say ~£4.5M over ~2yrs to provide a clear and significant impact on the scientific or wealth generating output of STFC-supported astro activities. the earlier in the window that any concrete demonstration of the impact is visible – the better – given we have the CSR coming up. should we put more money into exploitation of our highest profile projects in this time window? should we reverse the cuts in fellowships (RF/AF or even reinvent SFs)? should we distribute the money to astro depts on some pro-rata basis and ask them to use it to solve their most pressing problems? should we use it to fund the highest-quality, but unfunded proposals in the 07/08/09 grants rounds?