We are not getting the service we were promised: why university tuition fees should be reduced
The introduction of online learning at universities across the UK constitutes a reduction in the standard of teaching and tuition fees should be adjusted accordingly.
Source: UCL Imagestore
A petition, gaining over 350,000 signatures, demanding for the reimbursement of tuition fees from UK higher education facilities began floating about during lockdown. It claimed that our education was about to be whittled down to “PowerPoint slides” and would not be worthy of £9,250. The government’s response to this petition, and to a flurry of succeeding ones, spoke volumes of their position as an outsider in this matter, unwilling to interfere in higher education affairs. In essence, they said that students should take up their qualms “with their providers”, reminding us of the consumer-based relationship we have with our universities. If indeed we are simply consumers entering a contract with University College London (UCL), let us, with a level-head, assess if the service we are being provided with this year is what we initially signed up for.
UCL boasts world class research facilities on its Bloomsbury campus that provide some of the best learning experiences for its students. There are refurbished labs in the Departments of Chemistry and Earth Sciences and a refurbished Language and Speech Sciences Library. Our student IDs give us access to study spaces in the Cruciform Hub, Senate House, 1-19 Torrington Place, and the new Student Centre. Its libraries run well into the night, and sometimes 24/7, offering a reliable and supportive environment for individual and group study. For students who do not have a conducive environment at home, these would have been a safe haven in which they can thrive and produce their best work. At the peak of the coronavirus pandemic outbreak and the height of exam season, these facilities were completely shut down and, even as campus slowly reopens this autumn, there’s a significant reduction in these services. In-person lectures will be a rarity, with students spending a maximum of two hours a week on campus, and some given the option of 100 per cent online study. In fact, The Open University, which runs completely online, is aware of the value of these in-person facilities, and charges its students significantly less per year for the same qualification level we are receiving. It would also be naïve to neglect the fact that a large proportion of the appeal of university is the ability to be involved in sports teams and extra-curricular societies which require human contact. UCL’s Student Union boasts over 60 sports and dance clubs and 250 societies, all of which cannot now continue as normal. In light of this, Minister of State for Universities Michelle Donelan’s suggestion that the high standards of a true and full university education could be maintained given the circumstances seems highly improbable.
The Competition and Markets Authority, in line with Consumer Law, offers guidance to service providers in light of the coronavirus outbreak with the following: “Sometimes, a consumer will already have received some of the services they have paid for in advance. In those cases, the CMA considers that the consumer would normally be entitled to at least a refund for the services that are not provided.” On entering our three- or four-year contracts with universities, the service we would receive was made clear to us. Since universities are now incapable of providing the full package as promised, students must be protected. This is an industry standard and, given that we are being treated as consumers by the UK government, guidelines on refunds should also apply to students.
We do not underestimate how difficult this period is for UCL and they have taken great measures to accommodate for the problems that arose due to the pandemic. Its “no detriment rule” for final year students, extensions on all exam deadlines and the funding over the Easter period has not gone unnoticed. However, UCL has benefitted for years from our tuition fees, particularly since 53 per cent of its cohort are non-UK students who pay over three times more than home students per year. Given the circumstances, a partial refund for one year, just as 85 other universities across the world have managed to do, seems more than fair.
Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.