ARAM and how it's affecting the college

europerson

This web-site gives a good overview of all the issues and important documents (you'll need your user-name and password).

Awayindahils wrote:

ARAM will give the college the opperuntiy to do many things with posisble accusences sucha s no lnaguages in tcd in 10 years and possibly no arts in the next 2 decades being a real reality.

I'm not sure about Arts, but sources have told me that languages will be gone within five years. I won't say too much: I'll leave that to the Trinity News. No-one seems to know the answers to questions like "what will happen the Business/Law and Languages degrees?".

My primary worry is that Trinity will no longer be a university-standard institution, with scholarship in all academic areas, but will become a glorified technical college, with currently glamorous science-based subjects coming to the fore.

In terms of the Students' Union, I think that its only great failure this year has been the way, in which it has failed to keep students up to date with what's happening with ARAM. The SU representatives, who sit on the School Executives, have access to a wealth of information, which needs to be released for discussion among the College community. I'm sure Danger Bob will make a good job of this next year, but, like Hilary, I worry that it could all be too late to educate students by then. I'm not saying we ought to roll back restructuring, as that's obviously too long gone now, but we definitely need more consultation and more education on the issues involved. As we can see, the usually ever-knowledgable Ian didn't even know what ARAM is!

On the Coke issue, I don't see it as a big deal, except, perhaps, for the SU. Companies have been sponsoring buildings, academic prizes and research for years. This really is only a very subsidiary issue, given the context of the allocation of money throughout departments, schools, faculties, etc.

europerson

europerson wrote:

In terms of the Students' Union, I think that its only great failure this year has been the way, in which it has failed to keep students up to date with what's happening with ARAM. The SU representatives, who sit on the School Executives, have access to a wealth of information, which needs to be released for discussion among the College community.

Heh, well ARAM wasn't even discussed properly until the Board meeting of the 5 April 2006. It was discussed on the Heads of School Committee (which no students are on) and at the Resource Management Committee (which Mannion is on) and that met two or three days before Board. As much as the SU should give information out there prior to that, it can't be done on simple hearsay

Oh, and if you're cynical like me, you might query why it was only April when it was discussed.

cuckoo

I've a hypothetical thought, if schools 'give back' money to college in terms of the usage of 'their' students of college services, could there be a situation where, say, Physics build their own library of core texts, stop paying college for library usage and tell their JS and SS students that they're not going to be able to use the college library any more?

I know that idea seems a little extreme, but it seems like ARAM will create little fiefdoms around coll. And, that our 'trinity experience' will vary hugely depending on which course we study.

gilroyb

Awayindahils wrote:

in the short run i have ethical issues with the sponsorship of economics by coca-cola, but more so my real fear is what happens when the fudning isn't going to be made avaible anymore? no more economics in trinity is the only natural consequence i can see.

So you think that when the Coca-Cola sponsorship is gone then there won't be any more economics in Trinity? What about the situation at the moment? To paraphrase, "tis better to have been sponsored and lost, than never to have been sponsored at all".

ARAM is meant to encourage each department to get the most from their assets. Think of what the best lecturers in your department do, I know in economics that currently a number of the top people have little teaching duties, despite the fact many students would love to take courses by them. With ARAM, they will be encouraged to get more productivity out of these people, and students will be better off. O'Hagan has been insulted on this board as either just a money man, killing such courses as BESS, or else someone trying to do a money grab for economics. He can't be both, and he isn't either. Trinity can't be content to live on its reputation. It should be talked of in the same breath as Oxford and Cambridge. UCD is a fine institution Irish institution, but if Trinity had been as dynamic through the years as it should have been, we would be competing successfully internationally, not just nationally. XeduCat, you mention that ARAM would probably be fine in a new college, just not Trinity, but even Trinity needs to change with the times sometimes. Trinity needs to be able to attract the top minds of our generation, not just be a stopping point for newly minted PHD students on their way to more prestigious positions elsewhere.

Excellent post though XeduCat, while I disagree with you on the conclusions of your analysis, your depth of knowledge on the issue is refreshing and very informative.

Boston

cuckoo wrote:

I've a hypothetical thought, if schools 'give back' money to college in terms of the usage of 'their' students of college services, could there be a situation where, say, Physics build their own library of core texts, stop paying college for library usage and tell their JS and SS students that they're not going to be able to use the college library any more?

I know that idea seems a little extreme, but it seems like ARAM will create little fiefdoms around coll. And, that our 'trinity experience' will vary hugely depending on which course we study.

Certain schools have there own libraries, I don't know how they are run or funded, just that their are two "secret" libraries that I know of. Already schools have stop sharing facilities with each other, such as Computer labs.

europerson

Myth wrote:

Heh, well ARAM wasn't even discussed properly until the Board meeting of the 5 April 2006.

You mean to say that ARAM hasn't been discussed at any Board meetings this year? Obviously Board approved ARAM on the 26th of January, 2005 (link).

As much as the SU should give information out there prior to that, it can't be done on simple hearsay

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Apologies for questioning the SU's response, but I just feel that both College (most likely through the SU) ought to be providing all members of College with much more information, not just the Heads of Schools.

Oh, and if you're cynical like me, you might query why it was only April when it was discussed.

Indeed.

Tacitha

ARAM is meant to encourage each department to get the most from their assets. Think of what the best lecturers in your department do, I know in economics that currently a number of the top people have little teaching duties, despite the fact many students would love to take courses by them. With ARAM, they will be encouraged to get more productivity out of these people, and students will be better off.

I'd like to see that - senior people lecturing more, but ARAM should have exactly the opposite effect. For at least two reasons:

- unit for unit, an undergraduate in a lecture theatre attracts less money than a research student. So you should use your senior people to attract postgrads, and leave the undergraduates to less well-known academics.

- more relevant to decision-making, I think: every hour spent teaching is an hour not spent researching. You attract research funding by keeping your senior people on that job. Research, generally, is what counts: for promotions and hence salaries, it's the decisive factor. ARAM intensifies this bias, as you can see from xeduCat's description above of resource allocation according to research activity. The best lecturers aren't always their departments' favourite people.

XeduCat, you mention that ARAM would probably be fine in a new college, just not Trinity, but even Trinity needs to change with the times sometimes. Trinity needs to be able to attract the top minds of our generation, not just be a stopping point for newly minted PHD students on their way to more prestigious positions elsewhere.

The point wasn't, I think, that Trinity is too old and special too change. The point is that it is in theory, and only in theory I think in the case of many departments possible to set up a department to do better under ARAM (leaving aside whether you find the necessary strategies acceptable). In terms of your student body, this involves more Ph.D. students (but absolutely none for more than four years), lots more master's students (new master's degrees are spreading like wildfire this year), fewer undergraduates (especially of the plain vanilla, EU-citizen Arts Block type). In terms of your priorities, it means research, not teaching. ARAM was 'designed' last year, brought in in part this year, and will be applied next year to a large enough proportion of depts' budgets to send the majority bankrupt. One simply cannot alter composition of the student body fast enough to turn a department around from ARAM negative to ARAM positive in that time. So, the current students will suffer, because most are in depts which did not, at the beginning of last year meet the above criteria: how could they suddenly do so now? If your department is bankrupt, it has the option of choosing to try to preserve a range of quality undergraduate teaching at the expense of everything else. If it takes that option, it will be even less of an ARAM-magnet next year.

ARAM is a flawed system (and the flaws have been pointed out - these aren't hiccups), introduced far too quickly because it was unpopular enough to face serious challenges, and, as xeduCat's points out, it was never tested against the data. Change in itself isn't good or bad, but changing with the times shouldn't mean rushing blindly over a precipice.

Awayindahils

gilroyb wrote:

So you think that when the Coca-Cola sponsorship is gone then there won't be any more economics in Trinity? What about the situation at the moment? To paraphrase, "tis better to have been sponsored and lost, than never to have been sponsored at all".

no thats not what i intended to say but i see how it could have been intrepreted that way.

as it stands economics is to have to lecturships, i think thats the term, sponsored by Coke for the next 5 years. this funding is going to go ahead or so it appears, so a huge repuation is going to be built around this exceptionally well funded courses, which will be over subscribed as a result but also will quite posisbly be unable to live up to their level of excelelnce once the Coca-Cola funding is removed.

Thinking about this and remembering the state i was in last night, i don't think im quite as ethically opposed to this funding as i convinced myself last night. i was infact all for the American military sponorship which was an issue in council earlier this year. however i draw a distinction differnce between these two, the funding by the Military was for research, this funding is for direct lecturships. Research is seperate to any undergrad degree, the research students may tutor you but the funding does not effect undergraduate degrees, and while in the short run this funding will be of great benefit to degrees and the quality of courses in the long run it will lead to just another funding vacum.

i concede that my end of economics point is entirely mute and was a bit impassioned/insane.

Boston

gilroyb wrote:

Trinity can't be content to live on its reputation. It should be talked of in the same breath as Oxford and Cambridge. UCD is a fine institution Irish institution, but if Trinity had been as dynamic through the years as it should have been, we would be competing successfully internationally, not just nationally. XeduCat, you mention that ARAM would probably be fine in a new college, just not Trinity, but even Trinity needs to change with the times sometimes. Trinity needs to be able to attract the top minds of our generation, not just be a stopping point for newly minted PHD students on their way to more prestigious positions elsewhere.

This reads like waffle, no offense but I fail to see how glorified budget cuts attract anyone, let alone the "top minds of our generation". You mentioned senior lecturers, under ARAM the more senior you are, the more a liability you are, experiences and a wealth of knowledge are being traded in, in favor of cheaper, younger staff. I fail to see how raping our knowledge base will propel trinity in the Oxford and Cambridge league. Top researchers are being offered packages and sent on their way, because departments can't afford to pay them.

Crash

College seems to have a very dirty habit of bringing in untested systems, or is this just me? imagine last years exam timetables, but on a funding scale....for FIVE YEARS. thats ARAM to me.

John

Makes me wonder how the neuroscience course will work considering it's based in so many different departments/schools. These funding and management things always wreck my head but from what I gather, I don't like ARAM.

gilroyb

LiouVille wrote:

This reads like waffle, no offense but I fail to see how glorified budget cuts attract anyone, let alone the "top minds of our generation". You mentioned senior lecturers, under ARAM the more senior you are, the more a liability you are, experiences and a wealth of knowledge are being traded in, in favor of cheaper, younger staff. I fail to see how raping our knowledge base will propel trinity in the Oxford and Cambridge league. Top researchers are being offered packages and sent on their way, because departments can't afford to pay them.

That would be true if people who did research could just get the same service from any lecturer. The best students seek out the best PHD supervisors. Cheaper younger staff are only an improvement if they are better than the more experienced older staff.

I wasn't saying that this will get us into the Oxford/Cambridge league, I'm saying that if the college had changed and acted correctly through the years, we would never have fallen so far behind. Research keeps lecturers up to date with specific issues and helps to build Trinity's reputation. From what I see, top researchers aren't being offered big enough packages so are going on their way to bigger and better places.

ApeXaviour

LiouVille wrote:

I fail to see how raping our knowledge base will propel trinity in the Oxford and Cambridge league. Top researchers are being offered packages and sent on their way,

They managed to attract Prof John Pethica FRS (fellow of the royal society) here, former top gun of advanced materials at oxford and Hughes medal winner and was (sabbatical) chair of Sony R&D in japan. If that's not top I dunno what is. Chap practically invented the atomic force microscope.

I don't see these top researchers being sent on their way. I think the aim is the opposite of that.

gilroyb wrote:

From what I see, top researchers aren't being offered big enough packages so are going on their way to bigger and better places.

After talking to a lecturer that's leaving, he told me that this is exactly what ARAM and restructuring are attempting to combat. They're aiming to make each school a lot more autonomous. So say for instance an upstarting researcher gets offered a deal to go to some other university. For trinity to counter that deal they'd have to submit it to the board. The board would then hum and haw and debate. There's basically too much red tape and they'd probably end up losing this potentially great researcher that they (the school) can easily afford to keep. When they become more autonomous the school will very quickly be able to check its books and make a counter offer, thereby keeping him. This particular lecturer I was talking too about this is actually leaving in august for oxford, where he was offered a better deal. The school of physics weren't able to make a counter offer in time. Why? Because ARAM and restructuring are only in their initial steps.

These are its aims. They will benefit some, not others. As xeducat said, it'd be perfectly fine if this was for a new university. As it stands it's gonna annoy a lot of people. But it's not utterly ridiculous.

Boston

ApeXaviour wrote:

They managed to attract Prof John Pethica FRS (fellow of the royal society) here, former top gun of advanced materials at oxford and Hughes medal winner and was (sabbatical) chair of Sony R&D in japan. If that's not top I dunno what is. Chap practically invented the atomic force microscope.

I don't see these top researchers being sent on their way. I think the aim is the opposite of that.

After talking to a lecturer that's leaving, he told me that this is exactly what ARAM and restructuring are attempting to combat. They're aiming to make each school a lot more autonomous. So say for instance an upstarting researcher gets offered a deal to go to some other university. For trinity to counter that deal they'd have to submit it to the board. The board would then hum and haw and debate. There's basically too much red tape and they'd probably end up losing this potentially great researcher that they (the school) can easily afford to keep. When they become more autonomous the school will very quickly be able to check its books and make a counter offer, thereby keeping him. This particular lecturer I was talking too about this is actually leaving in august for oxford, where he was offered a better deal. The school of physics weren't able to make a counter offer in time. Why? Because ARAM and restructuring are only in their initial steps.

These are its aims. They will benefit some, not others. As xeducat said, it'd be perfectly fine if this was for a new university. As it stands it's gonna annoy a lot of people. But it's not utterly ridiculous.

As I said before, Thats great, and works great, when Schools are in the "black", the situation is completely different if you're in the red. A hand full of departments are in the black from what I gather. And I'm not just talking in the red, but massively in the red. ARAM to me just sounds like another one of those system where the strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. If a department is in the RED and stays in the red, they will loose their "best" staff to other universities, or even schools, That will have a knock on affact on their ability to teach more students and attract undergrades and postgrades, especially in schools like mine where you can pick between various separate "departments" for lack of a better word. I can absolutely see how this works for physics, but it's kinda blind to the fact that, that while some students are getting new renouned lectures, others are facing a future where accrediation is in jeopardy. You pick a college and a course expecting what you where told ot remain true, not for it to be a shadow of it'self by th time you reach forth year. If ARAM was fully in, The only engineering degree offered by trinity would be Civil. Thats not good for university, what ever way you cut it.

europerson

europerson wrote:

You mean to say that ARAM hasn't been discussed at any Board meetings this year? Obviously Board approved ARAM on the 26th of January, 2005 (link).


Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Apologies for questioning the SU's response, but I just feel that both College (most likely through the SU) ought to be providing all members of College with much more information, not just the Heads of Schools.


Indeed.

Heh, sorry yeah I was thinking within my own stint on Board.

Time Magazine

ApeXaviour wrote:

They managed to attract Prof John Pethica ...

They being the Physics Department. Work it out.

Change was needed; fair enough. An Economics Dept prof. proposed this fairly simple model; fair enough. The suggestion was that five schools would be underfunded, five overfunded, and the rest unchanged. The numbers have been tilted a way that's not quite like that. Guess which way it is. Guess who's cashing in.

Ian, your analysis is a good bit off the mark. Congeniality and faith [in each other] is important in College for effective operation - not competition - consider something like Broad Curriculum. A university is not a machine which furthers economic desires. It's a machine which educates and that education furthers economic desires. This is an important distinction; very few argue for Arts purely on economic merit but rather on societal.

Furthermore if economic pressures are the causation of all this, the effect of re-structuring on ARAM appears in economic spheres haphazard at best - as a dismal scientist it makes no sense to lump the Economics Dept in with Philosophy. I'd argue against this R&D bubble effect - much creation of wealth is in the general further education of people. It's clear (well, to me, but I'm a dismal scientist) that somebody with an Arts degree will be a far more productive and effcient cinema manager than someone without. The example is analgous to thousands of different situations. Moving to a knowledge economy requires not just specialised knowledge, but an educated and knowledgeable workforce on the whole.

Finally, and all your science whores will hate this, but the emphasis on R&D in general is bullshit. View the linear regression between research and growth in firms. On a macro level, this (approx) 20 degree line from the Y-intercept holds far less economic sway than a society of e.g. economists.

</rant>

ApeXaviour

Angry Banana wrote:

They being the Physics Department. Work it out.

ApeXaviour wrote:

They will benefit some, not others.

I think I've a fair idea tbh.

Angry Banana wrote:

Finally, and all your science whores will hate this, but the emphasis on R&D in general is bullshit. View the linear regression between research and growth in firms. On a macro level, this (approx) 20 degree line from the Y-intercept

I'm sure I'd be convinced if I understood that </sarcasm>

Angry Banana wrote:

holds far less economic sway than a society of e.g. economists.

I'm not sure intel et al. would make our country much more money if they were made up of economists tbh.

Boston

Angry Banana wrote:

They being the Physics Department. Work it out.

Change was needed; fair enough. An Economics Dept prof. proposed this fairly simple model; fair enough. The suggestion was that five schools would be underfunded, five overfunded, and the rest unchanged. The numbers have been tilted a way that's not quite like that. Guess which way it is. Guess who's cashing in.

</rant>

well what way did it work out, who is underfunded, who is over funded, and who has remained the same.

Nietzschean

ApeXaviour wrote:

I'm not sure intel et al. would make our country much more money if they were made up of economists tbh.

Haha

Ian, your analysis is a good bit off the mark. Congeniality and faith [in each other] is important in College for effective operation - not competition - consider something like Broad Curriculum.

In your opinion it is, that doesn't make you correct. And most enviroments in business are all compedative but departments do find ways to work with each other. Sure it adds competition and in the short term will probally cause agro, but a college is supposed to be full of smart people. They should be well able to figureout how to work within the bounds of ARAM to get the funding they need, and lecturers from other depts(of course assuming their in the black).

A university is not a machine which furthers economic desires. It's a machine which educates and that education furthers economic desires. This is an important distinction; very few argue for Arts purely on economic merit but rather on societal.

It might be a facility of education, and i'm not suggesting scrapping any dept at all, but with limited resources the lion's share should goto the depts which are likely to produce the grads that can attract in foreign investment, and bring the most tax back into the govt.

It's clear (well, to me, but I'm a dismal scientist) that somebody with an Arts degree will be a far more productive and effcient cinema manager than someone without.

how? i'd love to see your reasoning for that........

Finally, and all your science whores will hate this, but the emphasis on R&D in general is bull****. View the linear regression between research and growth in firms. On a macro level, this (approx) 20 degree line from the Y-intercept holds far less economic sway than a society of e.g. economists.

where are these graphs? proof that economists are more essential to the economy than R&D? R&D can bring funding into the college from the govt and private industry.....let the econmists whore themselves out to companies if they need more money, if yer a valueable asset to the college then it should be able to cash in on that.


As for engineering , I have sympathy for any dept that goes into the red straight off and will end up in the downward spiral as suggested, it may have been a better idea to leave it a few years for depts to re-org themselves before loosing funding, rather than just work out the new setup and cut them off.

Boston

Nietzschean wrote:

Haha
As for engineering , I have sympathy for any dept that goes into the red straight off and will end up in the downward spiral as suggested, it may have been a better idea to leave it a few years for depts to re-org themselves before loosing funding, rather than just work out the new setup and cut them off.

That exactly it, departments are still getting used to the fact that their money is coming through different channels. Departments that had been sitting on their hands as student numbers dropped (yes their own fault) now don't have the money to impliment what they should have years ago.

Tacitha

Departments that had been sitting on their hands as student numbers dropped (yes their own fault) now don't have the money to impliment what they should have years ago.

That's not generally correct - remember the number of undergraduates at TCD hasn't dropped, and is governed by centrally-determined quotas per course. As things stand, you have plenty of depts which meet their permitted maximum, have more students than ever and a much worse staff:student ratio than twenty years ago, and are still in the red.

Becoming ARAM-attractive isn't about attracting more students, but about attracting more of a certain type of student. Depts which haven't presciently achieved this may not have been sitting on their hands: they may have felt that their priorities lay with undergraduates, that jobs for postgrads in their fields were limited, that they had to make decisions about what to do with a small number of staff according to the character of their discipline. They may have been centres, specifically established for undergraduates (European Studies) or postgraduates (Women's studies).

In any case, the allocation according to research profile means that student type and numbers are only part of the problem, and brings in yet another variable over which some depts have very limited control.

I have problems with any suggestion (not so much on the board here, but I have heard such things around college) that all depts have to do is work a bit harder and smarter to save themselves, and that the problem is inertia among overpaid academics. The fact that college was unwilling to actually release ARAM data and details of charges before the system was voted in at board is a pretty good indication that this does not offer everyone a formula for survival and success.

shay_562

You pick a college and a course expecting what you where told ot remain true, not for it to be a shadow of it'self by th time you reach forth year.

This is the part that worries me. If the French department is cutting programmes, I have to assume that BESS French (which was a key part of me picking this degree option) is going to be among the first to go, and that's just one very obvious effect of ARAM on me and dozens of other first years. Foolishly, I picked a college based on their prospectus and open day, rather than investigating their financial plans for the next decade to ensure that my course would still be viable by the time I finished it. I think the biggest problem in all of this is that, with the exception of a handful of people, no one (least of all the students) has the slightest idea what's happening. Hell, even on this forum (where the posters generally seem to know all the ins and out of college) most of it is pure speculation. When exactly are we going to get solid information on what's being cut from each department? And surely the college has some kind of responsibility to be publicising this better to students - if I weren't best friends with a giant hack (no offense) or on this forum (which, let's face it, only applies to about 50 students in the college), then I wouldn't even know what ARAM is.

Boston

shay_562 wrote:

This is the part that worries me. If the French department is cutting programmes, I have to assume that BESS French (which was a key part of me picking this degree option) is going to be among the first to go, and that's just one very obvious effect of ARAM on me and dozens of other first years. Foolishly, I picked a college based on their prospectus and open day, rather than investigating their financial plans for the next decade to ensure that my course would still be viable by the time I finished it. I think the biggest problem in all of this is that, with the exception of a handful of people, no one (least of all the students) has the slightest idea what's happening. Hell, even on this forum (where the posters generally seem to know all the ins and out of college) most of it is pure speculation. When exactly are we going to get solid information on what's being cut from each department? And surely the college has some kind of responsibility to be publicising this better to students - if I weren't best friends with a giant hack (no offense) or on this forum (which, let's face it, only applies to about 50 students in the college), then I wouldn't even know what ARAM is.

If I hadn't asked the Question, "why won't you be teaching this course next year". I'd be sitting here still thinking I had a viable choice of subjects next year.

Time Magazine

ApeXaviour wrote:

I think I've a fair idea tbh.

I'm sure I'd be convinced if I understood that </sarcasm>

I'm not sure intel et al. would make our country much more money if they were made up of economists tbh.

Yeah, intel are a fantastic investment. In fact, I'm going to adopt yissers' line of argument: I'm not suggesting we shut the Physics Department down.

Rather, I'm taking Dr. Seán Declan Conrad Barrett, M.A. (Dub, NUI, MC M), PhD (NUI), FTCD (1986)'s view that economists and business innovators (and private buses) drive the economy, not R&D.

I'm saying that it seems very, very political; and not in the interest of the College community.

ApeXaviour

Angry Banana wrote:

In fairness, europerson knows quite a bit about accepting the authenticity of reports; particularly ones on economic matters.

Of that I've no doubt. However authenticity =/= proof. Though maybe myself and Neitsch are thinkin too abstractly. Also I'd like to pick one sentance out of that that seemed to sum up the article for me (admittedly I only skimmed over it)
"You can be too rich or too thin. Spending more does not necessarily help, but spending too little will hurt". Would I be correct in intepreting that as: increasing your R&D spending may not be the answer to your problems but removing it will be to your demise?
I see only a vague connection from that to your argument. Also in a university sense, what do we have other than R&D (and hence spin-off companies) to make money? Ok well maybe there's the tourism aspect but I can see little else. Similarly with intel or any other tech company or software company or pharmaceutical company (which Ireland is littered with). Forgive my lack of an economic knowledge, but nomatter their marketing unless they can continually produce the next generation of products it looks to me like they're down the drain.

angryb wrote:

In fact, I'm going to adopt yissers' line of argument: I'm not suggesting we shut the Physics Department down.

I don't think we're saying shut arts etc. down either. They should always have a large chunk of the pie.

angryb wrote:

Rather, I'm taking Dr. Seán Declan Conrad Barrett, M.A. (Dub, NUI, MC M), PhD (NUI), FTCD (1986)'s view that economists and business innovators (and private buses) drive the economy, not R&D.

I'm saying that it seems very, very political; and not in the interest of the College community.

Right ok fair enough. You opened a can of worms there earlier with the whole R&D vs. Economists tangent .

So ANYWAY back to the baseline. The reasoning behind ARAM is political?
To what end?

Is it because hegarty is provost and he's just giving the school of physics a nod and a wink? Do you honestly believe that!?
Or is it because this is what hegarty sees as getting the college into the top fifty rankings. He's become starry eyed at the prospect and blind to all else but the precious rankings.

Time Magazine

ApeXaviour wrote:

what do we have other than R&D ... to make money?

Financial services. 'Nuff said really.

So ANYWAY back to the baseline. The reasoning behind ARAM is political? To what end?

To paraphrase Andrew83, Patrick will have an article in this in Trinity News tomorrow .

europerson

Speaking of these "Top 100" rankings, this is interesting:

For the natural sciences, engineering and IT, Trinity is ranked 94th in the world by THES.

On the other hand, the social sciences are ranked 80th. I can't find a link to an online source, but I've read it in print as a student of the School of Social Sciences and Philosophy.

Surely we ought to be funding academic areas, in which we excel...?

ApeXaviour

Angry_Banana... I'm still interested in this what exactly you think is so political about it?

ab wrote:

Financial services. 'Nuff said really.

It's not, I've never heard of it. Elaborate

cuckoo

I'm now confused, is ARAM intended to tidy up the financial housekeeping of college, or is it to improve TCD's rankings in league tables?

xeduCat

You should call up the Provost and ask him that. It's a very good question...