Morphological proportionality in elite age group North American divers.

The purpose of this investigation was to describe the morphological parameters that characterize elite age group divers. Comparisons are made to normative age group data from the Coquitlam Growth Study and the constancy of important characteristics from age group to age group is examined. Data were collected on 27 male and 28 female elite divers who participated in the 1990 North American Age Group Diving Championships. Body build, body composition and skinfold corrected diameters were determined from 36 anthropometric parameters and analysed by ANOVA, t-test and Phantom z-scores procedures. All age groups except the 14- to 15-year-old males were significantly (P < or = 0.05) shorter than their norms but recorded higher androgyny index values. The estimated relative muscle mass increased significantly (P < or = 0.05) with age for males at all ages (40.8-46.3%). The 16- to 18-year-old females had a significantly (P < or = 0.05) larger relative muscle component compared to the younger age groups (40.1-38.4%). When normalized for height, active tissue development of the extremities was comparable between the sexes except in the forearm. The results indicate that at all age levels short stature is an important characteristic for divers. Analysis of regional active tissue development provides further insight into sport-specific prerequisites for success at elite levels.     

The Merging of the PCFC and the UFC: Probable,Desirable or Inevitable?

Post-war growth of higher education has attracted the interest of national governments. They are properly concerned with higher education's contribution to economic success and equity, and the efficient and effective use of public funds. They can intervene by means of legislation (which is unwieldy), exhortation (which is ineffective), or funding incentives. Funding councils must operate within a social and political context which determines the balance between planning and the market, central and local direction, public and private funding. They have only four strategies to choose from: deficiency-, formula-, contract-, and core-funding. The first was nearly fatal; the last is the preferred option for the future.
There are two issues: the merging of the two funding councils (PCFC and UFC), and the ending of the binary system. The first could produce a welcome single guiding intelligence for UK higher education, and economies of scale. The second raises the question of the funding of fundamental research. The merging of PCFC and UFC and the reorganisation of research-funding is a two-headed nettle. It must be grasped soon.