We have recently replaced continuation/retaining fees by a
submission fee and one of my colleagues more closely
related to the area will be replying to mailbase on this
point. However I can clarify our position in respect of
Paul Hubert's point about when retaining fees were charged.
The title was carefully chosen and the regulations made it
quite clear that the fee was purely to retain the right to
submit after the end of the prescribed period of study and
did not entitle the student to any academic supervision.
We always of course believed (in the administration) that
the supervisor was under a moral obligation to continue
supervision but we equally believed that the student had no
legal right to supervision as a result of paying this fee.
Ric Halliwell
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:00:00 -0000 "Hubert, Paul [STU]"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Can one assume that where institutions charge significant 'continuation'
> fees
> to research students that they also contract to ensure some level of
> academic
> support, that if supervisors take year-long sabbaticals in (say) Siberia
> or
> Taiwan they ensure suitable replacement arrangements etc? Or are these
> fees
> just a penalty for messing up completion rates? Do any members have
> knowledge
> of (un)successful legal action taken by students in situations where
> such
> arrangements have not been made, and is the size of any fee likely to
> have a
> bearing on the possible success of applications for judicial review of
> relevant institutional decisions?
>
> Paul Hubert
>
>
>
----------------------
Dr. Ric Halliwell
Senior Assistant Registrar
Academic Office, University of Hull
Hull, HU6 7RX
01482 465948 (direct line)
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|