Cambridge has emerged as the top research university in the latest official research ratings, while its ancient academic rival, Oxford, falls into third place in the national rankings.
A vast improvement in research grades across the academic sector, revealed in the latest research assessment exercise - suggesting that more than half of academics are in world-class research groups - has, however, been overshadowed by the prospect that universities will receive no extra rewards for their improved results.
With 48 out of 51 departments receiving top five and five star grades in the assessment - denoting international standards of research - and more than 96% of its staff submitted to the exercise, Cambridge University secures top place in the league table of research prestige.
Cambridge's vice-chancellor, Sir Alec Broers, said: "We have done very well and we are pleased. It is the result of a lot of hard work and talented people. We are in the midst of a vast expansion of our research and have successfully raised extra income from the private sector as well as government sources."
The London School of Economics, meanwhile, secures second place in the rankings, narrowly ahead of Oxford University and Imperial College London.
Oxford was quick to release a statement stressing it still has more academic staff working in world-class research departments than any other UK university. Dr Colin Lucas, the university's vice-chancellor, said: "The RAE 2001 has confirmed that, among those UK universities with the full range of academic disciplines, Oxford and Cambridge remain clear leaders of the field."
But the 2001 research assessment exercise is likely to be best remembered as the competition that became the victim of its own success. The results suggest that 55% of the 50,000 researchers reviewed by panels of academic referees now work in university departments that are judged to contain work of international excellence. On average, academic institutions improved their average research rating by 0.8 compared with the results of the 1996 assessment.
Unveiling the results for England this week, the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Sir Howard Newby, estimated that an extra £200m a year would have to be found if departments were to be funded on the same basis as before. "Overall we think that this is an excellent outcome, but it has been so good that we are unable to fully fund the outcome."
A major dilemma, Sir Howard admitted, was how to fund both world-class research departments, as well as up and coming research units in new universities. He wants the funding council to delay any funding decisions for a year, and lobby for more money on the forthcoming Whitehall spending review. He said: "I would hope that the Treasury would recognise that the RAE has been a spectacular success in improving the quality of research in the UK."
Universities, however, many of whom have invested heavily in the assessment, will face an uncertain financial future if the funding chiefs put off the decision for another year. Cambridge, for example, is predicting it will be £5m in the red this year. "We are going into deficit this year like a lot of large universities," Sir Alec said. "This would be difficult to cope with, if the ratings are not fully rewarded."
Universities were far more selective in the numbers of researchers and departments submitted to the 2001 assessment compared with previous exercises - a sign of more strategic research management, according to funding chiefs. The four funding bodies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland received 2,600 departmental submissions, about 400 less than in 1996. The 60 assessment panels assessed approximately 200,000 publications submitted by 50,000 academics.
The former polytechnics have also made further inroads into the old academic sector in the research rankings, with many seeing some of the biggest grade increases since the last assessment five years ago. Dr Geoffrey Copland, chairman of the Coalition of Modern Universities, said: "These results show that a number of modern universities have caught up with and now match the achievements of the 'old' universities. Eighteen of the post-92 universities have achieved grade five results and three now have the coveted five star rating. This compares with four gaining five and none with five star in the last exercise."
The improvement in ratings across the sector has also brought the future of the assessment into question. Sir Howard said: "I am sure there will be another RAE. I think it is inevitable that you have to reward research on a selective basis. Whether it is an RAE in the current form I personally have doubts."