DISCUSSION ON BUFFER BODIES

 

- Page 2 -

 

Page: << 1 2

Folke Hjalmers' reaction to Stig's points and Bahram's comment:

 

I know that you no longer can make any big changes but if you haven't done it I will suggest you to again consider the suggestions from:

Roger: - higher education institutions must have freedom of action if they are to respond effectively to increasing domestic and international competition

Bahram: "To be fully effective buffer bodies need to be responsible for distributing Government funds to universities"  and to say at the end of that paragraph, "Without such responsibilities the full benefits of buffer bodies are unlikely to be realised".

I understand that you have considered my suggestions to changes. I agree to everything in your paper but I had been very happy if you had made some of the changes, which are marked with the light blue in the attached document (for the background - see my earlier paper).

GOOD LUCK!
Folke
 

Ossi V Lindqvist's reaction to Stig's points and Bahram's comment:

 

Hei:

In Finland , FINHEEC does not deliver any money and that is a very good thing. We can concentrate on quality issues.  I'm in Near East now and unable to answer more.  Thank you Ladimir for an excellent conference.

regards,
Ossi L.

 

Bahram Bekhradnia's final conclusion:

 

Dear Ladislav

It seems to me that we don't have a consensus about this.  As this issue goes beyond what we agreed at the conference my advice would be to drop it and stick with your text, which is faithful to the conference outcome, and in my view quite a powerful statement anyway.

Best wishes
Bahram

 

Folke Hjalmers' conclusion to Stig's points and Bahram's comment:

 

Ladilsav,

Probably Bahram is right but because I made my comment about the buffer bodies which Stig Ekman read and build out I would try to expla i n why I made my first comment. I think there are at least three types of buffer bodies, namely a buffer body which

1) have funds from the government and distribute money to the universities accord i ng to some rules

2) have no funds at all and just got all plans from the universities and then send a suggestion to the governm en t which make all decisions and distribute  the money directly to the universities

3) concentrate on ev alua tions, quality questions and similar things.

The Swedish  buffer body is of the 3) type and as I understand it we find it  OK as in Finland . But it was a type 2) body we had in Sweden as Stig commented more in detail than I did and it was not working. It became a negative filter between the universities and the government.

I don´t take a copy of this b eca use I just look  this comment as personal comment to you.

Folke
 

Sig Ekman's note on Bahram's second comment:

 

Dear Ladislav,
I agree completely on the comment and suggestion from Bahram.

Best regards
Stig

Page: << 1 2