A study by the Higher Education Policy Institute in the UK of English Universities concluded that the "newer" (ex-Polytechnic) universities were outperforming the "research-led" universities - aside from Oxford and Cambridge - where it came to undergraduate teaching and learning. The large-scale survey, funded by the Higher Education Academy, found that "research-led" provided less contact hours; less small group tutorial teaching and more large classes; and less teaching by qualified academic staff and more by postgraduate teaching assistants.
The authors argue that the university leaders' "obsession" with research is detrimental to students, and is disproportionate, given that foreign students bring in more revenue than does the research assessment exercise.
Which, of course, raises a question - should we pay most attention to what pays most money, or are some activities intrinsically more valuable in ways less easy to reflect on a balance sheet?