Archive for Swansea

Along the bent and Devon-facing seashore

Posted in Biographical with tags , , , , on August 14, 2009 by telescoper

I’ve been off for a few days because my folks have been visiting from Newcastle. The good weather (on Tuesday, at least) gave us the opportunity to go for a drive around the Gower peninsula to the west of Swansea, seeing  some of the sights. I don’t think I’m very good at travelogues, but here are a few memories of the trip.

Along the north coast first: Penclawdd, Crofty and Llanrhidian. Weobley Castle stands decaying and forlorn, overlooking a salt marsh grazed by sheep and horses. In the distance, over the estuary, a nondescript town. Through binoculars I see they’re building a new Asda. What was there 700 years ago when they built the Castle?

Rossili Bay, at the western end of the peninsula. Beaches and dunes under cliffs. Caravans as far as the eye can see. Impatient surfers waiting in wet-suits for the tide to come in. Don’t they check the tide tables? The smell of Fish and Chips fails to lure us.

We drive south. White cottages shining bright in the sunshine, then down steep hills into cool dark tunnels formed by trees either side of the narrow roads, their leaves meeting overhead. I wonder what it’s like down here when it’s raining: the road must turn into a torrent. Then up on top again. Bright sunshine, a small airport and more caravans.

Driving south we come again to the jagged coast and see  Devon  along the horizon in front of us. I’m surprised it is so clear, as it must be at least 30 miles away. It’s dark and solid, a featureless granite wall. It reminds me of Dylan Thomas Reminiscences of Childhood ..

There was another world where with my friends I used to dawdle on half holidays along the bent and Devon-facing seashore…

I had always thought he just knew that Devon was there, not that he had actually seen it. I decide I like the word “dawdle”.

Port Eynon, at the southernmost tip of the Gower. A small beach between two headlands with a larger beach to one side. Fish and Chips and hot tea offer themselves. This time we accept. Inside the café (“The Captain’s Table”) an old newspaper in a frame on the wall tells stories of smuggling and wreck sales. Another, dated 1916, says that three lifeboat men had drowned while trying to rescue a ship that had foundered off the headland where the derelict oyster pans lie.

The sand dunes behind the beach are covered in wild flowers and they are covered in turn with vividly coloured beetles and butterflies. The tide is still out and it’s too far to walk over the rocks to get to the sea to have a paddle.  It’s not difficult to imagine a boat coming to grief in this place. There are flags all over warning about the dangers of the current. It must be a desolate place in the winter.

I think about retirement.

We pass a church with a memorial to the brave men who lost their lives that day in 1916. The lifeboat station was moved in 1919 because the place was too dangerous. Stopping to read the inscription, I’m almost run over on the narrow road by a big van carrying surfers and their gear. I wonder why they’re in such a hurry when the tide is out.

We try to avoid getting snarled up in traffic in Swansea on the way home. We fail.

As an afterthought, we head for The Mumbles, park the car and walk. Ambling along the curved promenade in the evening sunshine, a large and lumpy lady waddles towards us with sweat running down  pale pink arms;  her voluminous black dress conceals a hefty bosom that makes me think of two sacks of Tyne coal. It turns out The Mumbles is named after the French Mamelles – meaning breasts – although it takes its name from the shape of two small islands off Mumbles Head rather than from some distant ancestor of the lady I’ve just seen.

The long promenade sweeps along the side of Swansea bay to the pier and a lighthouse. The tide is still out. It seems miles to the sea, over nasty rocks that look like cinder. No beach. On the esplanade dozens of boats lie stranded, like befuddled whales that have run aground to their doom.

Dogs carry sticks and people carry ice-creams.

It’s evening now and I wonder why the tide seems to have been out everywhere we’ve been since morning.

On the inland side of the Mumbles there is a hotch-potch of closed-down pubs  and up-market bistros, next door to one another, an amusement hall and, next to it, tennis courts. The inevitable Fish and Chips. Nearer the pier  there’s an open-air Café called Verdi’s. It’s packed and doing a roaring trade in ice-creams. The waiters are very handsome but I’m not convinced they are Italian. A man sings “Just one Cornetto” and laughs loudly, but nobody else does.

Back to the car, through the centre of Swansea, and then home in less than an hour. Pimms and Lemonade in the garden before going to the pub for dinner.

The Physics Overview

Posted in Science Politics with tags , , , , , , , , on January 17, 2009 by telescoper

I found out by accident the other day that the Panels conducting the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise have now published their subject overviews, in which they comment trends within each discipline.

Heading straight for the overview produced by the panel for Physics (which is available together with two other panels here),I found some interesting points, some of which relate to comments posted on my previous items about the RAE results (here and here) until I terminated the discussion.

One issue that concerns many physicists is how the research profiles produced by the RAE panel will translate into funding. I’ve taken the liberty of extracting a couple of paragraphs from the report to show what they think. (For those of you not up with the jargon, UoA19 is the Unit of Assessment 19, which is Physics).

The sub-panel is pleased with how much of the research fell into the 4* category and that this excellence is widely spread so that many smaller departments have their share of work assessed at the highest grade. Every submitted department to UoA19 had at least 70% of their overall quality profile at 2* or above, i.e. internationally recognised or above.

Sub-panel 19 takes the view that the research agenda of any group, or of any individual for that matter, is interspersed with fallow periods during which the next phase of the research is planned and during which outputs may be relatively incremental, even if of high scientific quality. In the normal course of events successful departments with a long term view will have a number of outputs at the 3* and 2* level indicating that the groundwork is being laid for the next set of 4* work. This is most obviously true for those teams involved with very major experiments in the big sciences, but also applies to some degree in small science. Thus the quality profile is a dynamic entity and even among groups of very high international standing there is likely to be cyclic variation in the relative amounts of 3* and 4* work according to the rhythm of their research programmes. Most departments have what we would consider a healthy balance between the perceived quality levels. The subpanel strongly believes that the entire overall profile should be considered when measuring the quality of a department, rather than focussing on the 4* component only.

I think this is very sensible, but for more reasons than are stated. For a start the judgement of what is 4* or 3* must be to some extent subjective and it would be crazy to allocate funding entirely according to the fraction of 4* work. I’ve heard informally that the error in any of the percentages for any assessment is plus or minus 10%, which also argues for a conservative formula. However one might argue about the outcome, the panels clearly spent a lot of time and effort determining the profiles so it would seem to make sense to use all the information they provide rather than just a part.

Curiously, though, the panel made no comment about why it is that physics came out so much worse than chemistry in the 2008 exercise (about one-third of the chemistry departments in the country had a profile-weighted quality mark higher than or equal to the highest-rated physics department). Perhaps they just think UK chemistry is a lot better than UK physics.

Anyway, as I said, the issue most of us are worrying about is how this will translate into cash. I suspect HEFCE hasn’t worked this out at all yet either. The panel clearly thinks that money shouldn’t just follow the 4* research, but the HEFCE managers might differ. If they do wish to follow a drastically selective policy they’ve got a very big problem: most physics departments are rated very close together in score. Any attempt to separate them using the entire profile would be hard to achieve and even harder to justify.

The panel also made a specific comment about Wales and Scotland, which is particularly interesting for me (being here in Cardiff):

Sub-panel 19 regards the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance collaboration between Scottish departments as a highly positive development enhancing the quality of research in Scotland. South of the border other collaborations have also been formed with similar objectives. On the other hand we note with concern the performance of three Welsh departments where strategic management did not seem to have been as effective as elsewhere.

I’m not sure whether the dig about Welsh physics departments is aimed at the Welsh funding agency HEFCW or the individual university groups; SUPA was set up with the strong involvement of SFC and various other physics groupings in England (such as the Midlands Physics Alliance) were actively encouraged by HEFCE. It is true, though, that the 3 active physics departments in Wales (Cardiff, Swansea and Aberystwyth) all did quite poorly in the RAE. In the last RAE, HEFCW did not apply as selective a funding formula as its English counterpart HEFCE with the result that Cardiff didn’t get as much research funding as it would if it had been in England. One might argue that this affected the performance this time around, but I’m not sure about this as it’s not clear how any extra funding coming into Cardiff would have been spent. I doubt if HEFCW will do any different this time either. Welsh politics has a strong North-South issue going on, so HEFCW will probably feel it has to maintain a department in the North. It therefore can’t penalise Aberystwyth too badly for its poor RAE showing. The other two departments are larger and had very similar profiles (Swansea better than Cardiff, in fact) so there’s very little justification for being too selective there either.

The panel remarked on the success of SUPA which received a substantial injection of cash from the Scottish Funding Council (SFC) and which has led to new appointments in strategic areas in several Scottish universities. I’m a little bit skeptical about the long-term benefits of this because the universities themselves will have to pick up the tab for these positions when the initial funding dries up. Although it will have bought them extra points on the RAE score the continuing financial viability of physics departments is far from guaranteed because nobody yet knows whether they will gain as much cash from the outcome as they spent to achieve it. The same goes for other universities, particularly Nottingham, who have massively increased their research activity with cash from various sources and consequently done very well in the RAE. But will they get back as much as they have put in? It remains to be seen.

What I would say about SUPA is that it has definitely given Scottish physics a higher profile, largely from the appointment of Ian Halliday to front it. He is an astute political strategist and respected scientist who performed impressively as Chief Executive of the now-defunct Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and is also President of the European Science Foundation. Having such a prominent figurehead gives the alliance more muscle than a group of departmental heads would ever hope to have.

So should there be a Welsh version of SUPA? Perhaps WUPA?

Well, Swansea and Cardiff certainly share some research interests in the area of condensed-matter physics but their largest activities (Astronomy in Cardiff, Particle Physics in Swansea) are pretty independent. It seems to me to be to be well worth thinking of some sort of initiative to pool resources and try to make Welsh physics a bit less parochial, but the question is how to do it. At coffee the other day, I suggested an initiative in the area of astroparticle physics could bring in genuinely high quality researchers as well as establishing synergy between Swansea and Cardiff, which are only an hour apart by train. The idea went down like a lead balloon, but I still think it’s a good one. Whether HEFCW has either the resources or the inclination to do something like it is another matter, even if the departments themselves were to come round.

Anyway, I’m sure there will be quite a lot more discussion about our post-RAE strategy if and when we learn more about the funding implications. I personally think we could do with a radical re-think of the way physics in Wales is organized and could do with a champion who has the clout of Scotland’s SUPA-man.

The mystery as far as I am concerned remains why Cardiff did so badly in the ratings. I think the first quote may offer part of the explanation because we have large groups in Astronomical Instrumentation and Gravitational Physics, both of which have very long lead periods. However, I am surprised and saddened by the fact that the fraction rated at 4* is so very low. We need to find out why. Urgently.