Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;328:1376 (5 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7452.1376
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORAcademic medicine is in a woeful state.1-3 But this is only part of the crisis affecting UK academia as a whole. Pumping funds into academic medicine alone1-4 without tackling fundamental issues would only worsen the situation.
"Top class researchers make excellent teachers, and students benefit from the enhanced quality of the education they receive."5 But the assessment of these two core university activities, by the research assessment exercise (RAE) and the Quality Assurance Agency's audit and review processes respectively, is totally separate, generating serious conflict. Carrying such immense funding implications compared with the Quality Assurance Agency's process, the research assessment exercise wins over education every time. That clinical practice is assessed by a third process only increases the tension, so the saying "a successful clinical academic is one who doesn't see patients" becomes a truism and not just a pathetic old joke.
Preparing for the next research assessment
-->
Alistair R Fielder, professor of ophthalmology
Department of Visual Neuroscience, Imperial College, Room 9L02, Charing Cross Campus, London W6 8RP a.fielder@imperial.ac.uk
Michael Levin, professor of paediatrics, Gareth Tudor-Williams, senior lecturer in paediatric infectious diseases
Department of Paediatrics, Imperial College, London W2 1PG
Read all Rapid Responses