Say something very insulting about as many Russel group Unis as you can!

Im unsure what this is, im only familiar with the Russell Group

This applies to all of them:
Spending millions of pounds of tuition fee income on subsidising research damages the quality of the degrees you teach.

wdym?

I just need it for a few of the many RG unis.

This applies to all of them:
Spending millions of pounds of tuition fee income on subsidising research damages the quality of the degrees you teach.

I'd imagine having tutors working at the cutting edge of their subject would be a bonus to teaching quality? Do you have any links to studies on this that I could read?

I'd imagine having tutors working at the cutting edge of their subject would be a bonus to teaching quality?

In 2018 as an example Manchester received £149,273,000 in research council grants. That means that Manchester used £37,318,250 of tuition fee income to subsidise the costs associated with delivering the research that those grants covered. That's the equivalent of ~4,000 UK student's tuition fees going directly into covering research costs and not going towards the costs of teaching them at all.
UCL had about the same amount of research council grant funding. Cambridge was just under £214m, Oxford just under £160m (https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/finances/table-5 )

Being a good researcher doesn't make you a good teacher.

I'm not sure what you mean about links to studies?

That's not quite true though is it. I have no idea about the numbers (and obviously it would vary by uni) but universities have sources of income that aren't research grants and tuition fees. Patents, investments, alumni, etc.

Less than half of Oxford's income comes from research and teaching income https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/finance-and-funding

I know they have other sources of income. The point is that research grants and contracts from the UK research councils are DELIBERATELY under-funded by 20% with the university supposed to source those funds from their other sources of income. For most universities that other source is from tuition fee income (in many cases specifically from international tuition fees or from UK tuition fees for classroom based subjects). Outside tuition fee income few universities have any substantial profit making activities that would provide the subsidy REQUIRED to cover the *deliberate* underfunding.

"The principle behind Full Economic Costing (FEC) funding is that Research Organisations should indicate in their grant proposals the full economic cost of a project. We will then pay a fixed percentage of 80% of this sum"..."Research organisations, in accepting an FEC grant, undertake to provide the remaining 20% from their own resources."

The sums above are the research grant and contract income for a handful of Russell Group universities - and therefore the amount that the 20% underfunding to be covered by other sources of income that they have to find.

To take Manchester in 2018/19 as an example again. The £150m made up 29% of their total income for the year. Teaching funding (tuition fees 44% and teaching funding grants 12%) made up 56% of their income, 13% came from "other sources", 1% from investment and 1% from endowments.

The 20% underfunding for Manchester is coming from their tuition fee income. Other research funding bodies (industry, charity, government) don't cover the 20% underfunding.

For UCL investments made up 0.5% of their income, donations and endowments 3%, tuition fees 38% and teaching grants 14% (so 52% of their income from teaching) and then "other income" makes up 12%.

University finances don't have huge other income sources to find that 20% from. It comes from tuition fees.

Go go go!!

Extra points for unis that arent as famous as Oxbridge and the London unis (eg. sheffield etc.)

Universities that have a strategy to increase research grants and contracts at a faster rate than they’re growing student numbers ...

And it would be lovely if it was that simple, but it’s not. UK research funding is very tightly constrained and some research councils have been flat cash (i.e. falling in real value year on year) for multiple years. Also grant success rates are always low – often 25%, and you can be banned from re-applying if you have too many failed grants, so management cannot simply say “go get more grant money”. If your institution brings in more research money, it means someone else is bringing in less, its a zero sum game across all universities.

Growing research income at a faster rate than student numbers or other income sources is a specific part of the strategy for a number of members of the RG.

Yes the pot isn’t growing - the tactic is about increasing their share. And without securing another source of income every increase in research grants means more tuition fee income diverted away from teaching the students who paid.