Dossier by EFiM on failings of top up fees is considered by University
Campaign stresses that further talks are needed before celebrating victory
The grievances of students enrolled in the School of Economics, Finance and Management (EFiM) have finally begun to be met by the University.
Following the recent student campaign against the School (Epigram 213), asking for more resources and citing several other key grievances, the University has now entered into a constructive dialogue with the organisers of the rebellion, holding talks at Senate House.
Controversy remains over the Vice Chancellor’s office’s position on the purpose and proper use of tuition fees. Barry Taylor, Communications Director and part of the Vice-Chancellor’s senior executive team, told Epigram that 'the introduction of top-up fees was not about this [that teaching quality ought to rise with them] and the vice-chancellor did not say this'.
Contrarily, the impetus for the introduction of top up fees was outlined by Charles Clarke in 2004, Secretary of State for Education at the time, stating: 'Vice-chancellors will say that these proposals will generate hundreds of millions of pounds of new money for them to spend on improving the quality of teaching and to compete with the best universities in the world'.
The justification for the introduction of tuition fees was trumpeted by campaign group as the reason for asking for a fairer share for students enrolled in EFiM.
However, Mr Taylor told Epigram that the University is now addressing the students’ grievances, “students in EFiM have made important points to which the department, the faculty and the University are listening. A constructive dialogue is in progress”.
The group are purportedly happy at the University’s eventual response, but remain adamant that students should not have to campaign to this degree in order to make changes.
It is Epigram’s understanding that the University is likely to reduce tutor group sizes and introduce tutorials in some core modules in line with the campaign’s suggestions. However, the students have not been given any guarantees to report back to six hundred signatories of a petition in favour of the group’s demands.
Bob Denham, one of the group and a third year economist, was keen to emphasise that 'universities need to prove their case. There isn’t an honest soul in the country who wouldn’t say yes to more money in these times. I say, no more earning without earning.'
It is feared, that the rebellious students’ aims are likely to be met short, due to the dire financial realities of the University, which is now making serious cutbacks (see page 6).
Tuition fees increasingly discussed in the national media. On March 17, shortly after the rebellion, the Financial Times published an editorial on what students should expect in exchange for tuition fees, writing that 'institutions are needlessly vague – and occasionally dishonest – about who will be teaching what and how frequent lectures and seminars will be'. The editorial acknowledgements mirrored one of the students’ key complaints, that degree programmes did in no way live up to the promises given in prospectuses.
It remains, however, that explicit guarantees from the University in response to the students’ campaign are yet to be granted and fulfilled.
JON WILTSHIRE
