CVCP have asked me to post these messages to the list for the benefit(?) of
other institutions.

Dennis Barrington-Light
---------------------- Forwarded by Dennis
Barrington-Light/REG/Central-Admin on 04/09/98 16:13
---------------------------


[log in to unmask] on 24/08/98 10:36:08

To:   Dennis Barrington-Light/REG/Central-Admin
cc:
Subject:  RE: Islands Fees






> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Dennis Barrington-Light [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:   20 August 1998 11:45
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> Subject:     RE: Islands Fees
>
> Reply from DfEE. Hope it helps. May I suggest you contact DfEE dircet
> if you have questions on this?
>
> Antoinette
>
>
> Tracey has offered the following reply to Mr
>      Barrington-Light's questions:
>
>      The majority of courses will have pre-specified compulsory
>      elements in advance of the start of the academic year.
>      Individual elements (modules) of a course can be assigned to
>      one of the four price groups via departments and cost
>      centres. To help with this process we refer you to HEFCE
>      guidance in:
>
>      Report 98/19 'Assignment of departments to academic cost
>      centres' - maps departments at all institutions to 40 (41)
>      cost centres;
>
>      Report 97/25 'Assignment of departments to academic cost
>      centres' - Annex A maps 40 cost centres to the 4 price
>      groups; and
>
>      Circular 10/97 'Funding Method for Teaching from 1998-99:
>      additional decisions' June 1997.
>      - Annex A discusses the mapping of 10 subjects to the 4
>      price groups.
>
>      We recommend that using a straight forward MAJORITY RULE
>      each course is assigned to ONE of the four price groups. If
>      for example 30% of a course falls into price group D, 40%
>      into C and 30% into B, then group C rates should be charged.
>      If a course falls 50% into group D and 50% into group B then
>      there are obvious grounds for the mid group rate C to apply.
>
>      However, we appreciate that modular courses are difficult to
>      assign to cost centres in advance of the student having made
>      his/her choices. In these instances please try your best to
>      charge the most reasonable of the four recommended rates and
>      bear in mind that the Islands authorities may wish to
>      scrutinise your rationale.
>
>
>      Should the new rates create serious financial difficulties
>      for institutions (either in terms of fee levels or
>      implementation costs), the most sensible alternative is to
>      continue charging 97/8 rates. However, it should be borne in
>      mind that implementation of the proposed new arrangement  of
>      a flat rate fee may not be possible as soon as 1999/2000,
>      and that this price group arrangement must be assumed to
>      apply indefinitely.
>
>
>      Tracey Spencer,
>      (0171) 925 5333.
>
>
>
> Dear Antoinette
>
> Thanks for your message.  It doesn't surprise me that CVCP weren't
> consulted about this change.  The DfEE seem determined to make as many
> changes as possible at short notice this year! Thanks for taking up my
> question with them.  I am currently assuming that we will have to opt
> for
> the lower of the two fees if there is a split.  However, my senior
> colleagues are away on leave at the moment so I can't do very much
> about
> getting the fee rates approved for a couple of weeks.
>
> Dennis
>
> > Dear Dennis
> >
> > On your first question, I am seeking advice from DfEE.
> >
> > On your second point, the CVCP was not, so far as I am aware,
> consulted
> > on the fee proposals for 1998/99. I asked the DfEE whether  the
> > proposals were subject to negotiation if institutions took exception
> to
> > them and they said that they were not. Their logic is that they wish
> to
> > bring the fee rates into line with the HEFCE price groups and
> > weightings. The only point to bear in mind is that these are
> recommended
> > fees from the DfEE - institutions can choose to take a different
> > approach but will need to weigh up the benefits to them of doing so.
> >
> > I am sorry not to be more helpful and will certainly come back to
> you
> > when I have more information on your first point.
> >
> > Antoinette Titchener-Hooker
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dennis Barrington-Light [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 19 August 1998 10:34
> > > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject:   Islands Fees
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am in receipt of your circular 1/98/120 regarding fees for Island
> > > students.
> > >
> > > I have a two questions that aren't addressed in the circular:
> > >
> > > 1.  As Price Groups are based on cost centres and subject sare
> > > allocated to
> > > more than one cost centre, how do we decide which fee to charge where
> > > a
> > > subject is spread across more than one Price Group e.g. our Modern
> > > Languages course?
> > >
> > > 2.  As the new arrangements are completely different to the current
> > > ones,
> > > we will have to completely rewrite our fee regulations and the
> > > computer
> > > programs that generate the fee liability.  Is this worth the cost and
> > > effort if the new arrangements are only likely to last for one year?
> > > Couldn't CVCP have suggested that we continue with the present
> > > arrangement
> > > for one more year whilst the 1,000 pound option was considered? This
> > > adds
> > > yet more cost and work at a time when we are currently overstretched
> > > and
> > > for very few students.
> > >
> > > Dennis Barrington-Light
> > > Head of  Student Records and Statistics
> > > University of Cambridge, 10 Peas Hill, Cambridge  CB2 3PN
> > > Tel:    01223-332303 (Direct line)    Fax:    01223-331200
> > > Email:  [log in to unmask]
> > >
>
>
>
>






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%