A PRESTIGIOUS university has been hit by Britain's first tuition fee rebellion from hundreds of students angry at reduced teaching hours and attempts to have essays marked by undergraduates instead of lecturers.
Some 600 students reading economics and finance at Bristol have signed a complaint arguing that the university has failed to improve its teaching since tuition fees were raised to more than £3,000 in 2006. Instead, they claim standards have deteriorated. In a seven-page complaint to the university they write: "Since 2006 the university has charged more and delivered less. We demand results today."
The rebellion may be copied by students at other universities as the number studying for degrees increases while funding to teach them is squeezed. It will make it harder for universities to justify a further increase in fees in a review this summer by John Denham, the universities secretary. Eric Thomas, Bristol's vice-chancellor, has argued that the f3,145 limit on tuition fees is too low, although he acknowledges the recession has ruled out an early increase.
The protests at Bristol have been led by Robert Denham, a former grammar school pupil from Croydon, south London, and Roderick McKinley, who attended the independent Westminster school. "Bristol gives a good education, but it is not good enough," said Denham (who is not related to John Denham). "There had been a lot of general moaning but the spark was a decision to cut the length of exams from three hours to two."
One academic at Bristol, who declined to be named, said: "It has created a sensation at the university. This is the most important student rebellion in this country in a generation. Thney should be proud." The complaint by Denham, McKinley and fellow students analyses the university's finances and points out how it has benefited from increased income. "Revenue per student from tuition fees has increased and we simply ask that the quality of our education be improved accordingly," it says, before listing grievances, all of which it claims have been sparked by the university's cost-cutting:
* Some student essays are already being marked by fellow undergraduates, instead of academics, in a trial that could see strugglers giving marks to high-flyers.
* The prospectus suggested lectures would be given to groups of about 100 students. In reality, they contain up to 380, although 150-200 is more typical.
* Tutorials for small groups have been withdrawn for many students. Some of the rest contain up to 30 undergraduates. "The [department] should be providing more contact with academics, not less," the complaint states.
* Money from tuition fees is being diverted to other parts of the university rather than improving education for undergraduates.
David Willetts, the Tories' shadow universities secretary, who has helped broker negotiations at Bristol, said: "The students have done a very impressive and thorough analysis of the education they are entitled to expect for paying their fees. This will be a powerful trend that universities ignore at their peril." He added: "The only way universities could ever win an argument for higher fees is to show this would benefit the students and parents paying the fees. They have to wise up."
The dispute at Bristol - which the complaint acknowledges still offers a "top-class education" - shows even the most prestigious universities are under severe pressure from Labour's mass expansion of higher education. Universities say that they may have to make thousands of redundancies to achieve £180m efficiency savings by 2011. Academics are being balloted by the University and College Union on action in support of a 6% pay claim.
The previous hike in fees sparked one of the most serious backbench rebellions of Tony Blair's premiership. Bristol, which celebrates its centenary this year, is still negotiating with students over their complaints. A spokesman said several of the changes described by the undergraduates as a decline in quality had been carried out only after consulting them - for example, changes to class size and to exam time. He said that students were not receiving less teaching time than those studying economics and finance at rival universities.
Bristol has described as "not true" the idea that increased tution fees were intended to lead directly to improved teaching. Instead, it says they are aimed at strengthening the finances of universities.