The Research Assessment Exercise ( RAE) was an exercise undertaken approximately every 5 years on behalf of the four UK funding councils (,,, ) to evaluate the quality of research undertaken by British higher education institutions. RAE submissions from each subject area (or unit of assessment) are given a rank by a subject specialist peer review panel. The rankings are used to inform the allocation of quality weighted research funding (QR) each higher education institution receives from their national funding council. Previous RAEs took place in 1986, 1989, 1992, 1996 and 2001.

• About Us • Corporate Vision • Careers • News. OUR DIVISIONS. • RAE Coils • Century Refrigeration • Technical Systems • Refrigeration Systems. OUR SERVICES. • RAE Spare Parts • Coil Order Form • Customer Service • OEM Manufacturing. OUR CONNECTIONS. • Contact Us • LinkedIn.

The most recent results were published in December 2008. It was replaced by the in 2014.

Various media have produced league tables of institutions and disciplines based on the 2008 RAE results. Different methodologies lead to similar but non-identical rankings. Contents • • • • • • • • • • History [ ] The first exercise of assessing of research in Higher Education in the UK took place in 1986 under the Government.

It was conducted by the under the chairmanship of the Cambridge mathematician. The purpose of the exercise was to determine the allocation of funding to UK Universities at a time of tight budgetary restrictions. The committee received submissions of research statements from 37 subject areas ('cost centres') within Universities, along with five selected research outputs.

It issued quality rankings labelled 'outstanding', 'above average', 'average' or 'below average'. Fruity Loops 10 Producer Edition Crackberry. The research funding allocated to Universities (called 'quality-related' funding) depended on the quality ratings of the subject areas. According to Swinnerton-Dyer, the objective was to establish a measure of transparency to the allocation of funding at a time of declining budgets. A subsequent research assessment was conducted in 1989 under the name 'research selectivity exercise' by the. Responding to the complaint of the Universities that they weren't allowed submit their 'full strength,' Swinnerton-Dyer allowed the submission of two research outputs per every member of staff. The evaluation was also expanded to 152 subject areas ('units of assessment'). According to Roger Brown and Helen Carasso, only about 40 per cent of the research-related funding was allocated based on the assessment of the submissions.

The rest was allocated based on staff and student numbers and research grant income. In 1992, the distinction between Universities and Polytechnics was.

The Universities Funding Council was replaced by regionwise funding councils such as the. Behram Bekhradnia, the directory of policy at HEFCE, came to the conclusion that the research assessment needed to become 'much more robust and rigorous.' This led to the institution of the Research Assessment Exercise in 1992. The results of the 1992 results were nevertheless challenged in Court by the Institute of Dental Surgery and the judge warned that the system had to become more transparent.

The assessment panels in the subsequent exercises had to be much more explicit about the criteria for evaluation and the working methods. In 1996, all volume-based evaluation was removed to account for the criticism that volume rather than quality was rewarded. The 1992 exercise also stipulated that the staff submitted for assessment had to be in post by a specific date (the 'census date') in order to counter the criticisms that the staff that had moved on were still counted in the assessment. Exoplanet Detection Software. This led to the phenomenon of 'poaching' of highly qualified staff by other Universities ahead of the census date. In the 2001 exercise, the credit for the staff that moved institutions in the middle of the cycle could be shared between the two institutions. In the 2008 exercise, this was abolished.

The assessment of 2008 also brought in a major change. Instead of a single grade for an entire subject area ('unit of assessment'), a grade was assigned to each research output. This was done to counter the criticism that large departments were able to hide a 'very long tail' of lesser work and still get high ratings and, conversely, excellent staff in low-graded departments were unable to receive adequate funding. Thus the single grades for units of assessment were replaced by 'quality profiles,' which indicated the proportion of each department's research against each quality category. Scale [ ] 2008 [ ] The 2008 RAE used a four-point quality scale, and returned a profile, rather than a single aggregate quality score, for each unit.