Talk:Higher Education Funding Council for England

Have removed the following:

"the work of HEFCE, particularly the effect of the Research Assessment Excercise, is controversial. The following article, 'The Art of Punishing' offers a Foucaultian analysis


 * http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n8.html/ Education Policy Analysis Archives"

Apart from any wikipedia policies this contravenes it is actually facutually incorrect. HEFCE does not "run" the Research Assessment exercise - it is run on behalf of all 4 UK funding councils. HEFCE research funding policy may have an effect as suggested, and it is controversial in many ways (though arguably no less fair than any sensible alternative) and I would suggest that the article is re-written to make this point in a wikipedia-like even-handed fashion.

Nordelius 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on the Creative Connexions project which, bluntly, looks corrupt and rather important but I have stuck to the language of original sources. Maybe it needs tidying-up somehow to blend-in but keep the important points. It was part of a wider cluster of unusual beliefs among public sector funders that agreed with the beliefs of lobbyists. - JR veganline.com 31/03/2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC61:7300:C87A:C8C8:D3B7:D5DC (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not clear why one recipient of HEFCE funds would become notable enough to mention here many years later. In any case it doesn't belong in a high-level bullet list naming initiatives, so I've removed it.Phil PH (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. Put yourself in the position of a Wikipedia reader. Why would the appearance of multi-million pound corruption *not* be notable? I will have a think before re-adding in case I can understand your deletion, because I am sure it is not meant as pedentry. Do I need to explain myself better? JR Veganline.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DC61:7300:64CF:4F64:1806:F36B (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The list is a list of funding initiatives. There's a separate section headed 'Criticism'. If you can cite sources criticising HEFCE on the grounds you mention, then by I'd suggest adding it there. If the criticism's your own, then it counts as original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, per No_original_research.