Which? Investigation
Higher education: audit of providers’
website information provision
Summary
With undergraduate higher education fees averaging £8,900 a year in 2015/16 and students’
overall average debt totalling over £45,000, the decision whether to go to university is the most
significant financial decision many young people will take.
Prospective and current students are protected by consumer protection legislation, including the
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) and the Consumer Contracts
(Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (CCRs). In March 2015, the
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published advice on consumer protection law to higher
education providers. The advice included direction on the information which should be given to
prospective students in order for providers to meet their legal obligations under the CPRs and the
CCRs.
Which? has undertaken a review of the information that providers are making available to
prospective students applying for the 2016/17 academic year on their websites, in order to assess
the extent to which providers are complying with their legal obligations.
We found that over three in four universities in our sample are breaching the law by not providing
or making easily accessible all the necessary information on their websites for prospective
students such as information about fees, how students will be assessed, and the contact hours that
students will have with staff. These failures to comply with consumer law were found in the same
month that UCAS applications opened for entry, and five months after publication of the CMA’s
advice.
Within our sample of 50 universities we found that:
 Nearly two-thirds (64%) of providers failed to provide updated information about tuition
fees on their website.
 38 providers (76%) are breaching the law by failing to provide at least one piece of
material information;
 No provider is uniformly adopting good practice in relation to information provision across
all categories of information;
 Three providers are consistently adopting unlawful practice by failing to provide
approximately 30% of the material information required;
 Only one in four providers (24%) are meeting the minimum requirements in the CMA’s
advice across all categories of information;
 There are elements of best practice adopted across universities but it is often not applied
consistently as an approach to information provision.
The CMA’s advice makes clear that the non-provision of any material information is unlawful under
the CPRs and/or CCRs. Each university breaching the rules should alter their practices
immediately.
Good information is critical in empowering prospective students to make an informed choice. In
addition, transparency of information helps drive competition between institutions and ensures
that regulators and others are able to use it to hold the sector to account. In a survey conducted
between March and April 20151 of students due to start university in the 2015/16 academic year,
over a fifth (22%) of applicants said the research process was not straightforward and that course
content was one of the most important factors when making their choice of university (77%).
Students must have access to information on a number of points in order to make an informed
choice on where and what to study. The CMA’s advice states that this should include the number
and type of contact hours a student should expect during the course, the core modules that will
be taught, the methods of assessment, the level of qualifications of the staff that will deliver the
course, the location, and whether the course is accredited so that they may pursue a career in
their chosen field.
Our survey1, conducted between March and April 2015, shows that the majority of students (75%)
use the university website or prospectus to make their first and insurance choices. Without access
to up-to-date material information before confirming their university choices with UCAS for 2016
entry it is possible that some prospective students have not been able to make a fully informed
decision about their course choice.
Our report into the higher education market ‘A degree of value’ published in November 2014,
found that 58% of all students surveyed reported experiencing a change to their course, such as a
change to the course content, the location that the course was being taught, or an increase in
fees, where a third (35%) of those students felt the change to their course was not fair. Students
need to be fully informed about their course before applying in order to assess whether the course
structure is suitable and worth their significant investment, but also to ensure that the course
advertised is what they will receive while at university.
Providing detailed information about the course upfront does not prohibit higher education
providers from making necessary adjustments to a course. Flexibility is rightly given to providers
to update teaching tools or make changes to subject-related theory and practice to the benefit of
students. However the CMA’s advice makes clear that this should not greatly vary the course as
advertised and be restricted to minor and/or necessary adjustments that are unlikely to have a
negative impact on students. In the event of an unavoidable detrimental change, students should
be given clear information about the variations and afforded the right to change higher education
providers.
In recent months we have met and discussed progress with a number of university Vice-Chancellors
and sector representatives. From our engagement with the sector it is clear that many universities
have recognised the importance of compliance with the law and are committed to achieving this.
We recognise that progress is being made by the sector and there are intentions to improve. Our
research shows a snapshot of the information provided by the universities from a key point in the
application process when prospective students are considering what course they may wish to
study.
Providers’ legal obligations
The CPRs prohibit a number of unfair commercial practices, including providing information that is
misleading (a ‘misleading action’) or failing to provide material information that consumers need
to make an informed decision (a ‘misleading omission’). A misleading omission might occur where
a trader fails to provide important information at all, or where that information is provided in a
way that is unclear or ambiguous, or is provided too late to be of use.
The CMA’s advice makes it clear that a failure to provide material information that students need
to make an informed decision about a course of higher education could constitute a misleading
omission in breach of the CPRs. This applies at all stages of a provider’s interaction with current
or prospective students, including at the point where prospective students are researching the
courses offered across the market via public sources, such as providers’ websites. The CMA’s
advice states that: “When prospective students are considering which courses and HE [higher
education] providers to apply to, you need to ensure that you comply with the CPRs by providing
them with the material information they need to make informed decisions.”
The CCRs also contains specific requirements in relation to the information that must be given to
consumers before they enter into a contract. The CMA’s advice makes it clear that, in the context
of higher education, information required to be provided under the CCRs must be made available
to students before they accept an offer of a place on a course. Once an offer is accepted, any precontractual information provided to the student pursuant to the CCRs becomes a binding term of
the contract between the student and the provider.
The CMA’s advice sets out the types of information that will be material for students when
choosing a course and which should therefore be available to students when researching or
comparing courses.
Review methodology
We reviewed the website of each higher education provider in our sample between 14 and 25
September 2015.
Courses reviewed
In order to assess the information made available by providers against the information specified in
the CMA’s advice, we compared information on providers’ websites for one single course –
Psychology, in the 2016/2017 academic year - across 50 UK higher education institutions.
We selected Psychology as indicative of a typical undergraduate degree. Psychology was in the top
five most applied for courses for the academic year 2014/2015 according to official UCAS data,
with over 106,000 applications made that year, and is widely provided by 123 higher education
institutions in the UK. The information made available to prospective students of Psychology will
therefore affect a wide pool of potential applicants.
The higher education providers included in our assessment were:
 22 higher education providers that we found adopting unlawful practice in our review of
all higher education providers’ student terms and conditions in February 2014, and offered
Psychology as an undergraduate course; and
 28 additional higher education providers selected at random that offered Psychology as an
undergraduate course.
Categories of information tested
In line with the CMA’s advice, we assessed whether or not the following categories of information
were available on providers’ websites:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The entry requirements which students must meet to be eligible for the course;
The core modules which students can expect to be taught;
The number of contact hours which students can expect to have with university staff;
The workload which a student could expect the course to involve;
The teaching qualifications of the university staff delivering the teaching;
The manner in which students could expect to be assessed i.e. exams or coursework,
or a combination of both;
The award which students could expect to receive upon completion of their course;
Where the course is taught;
How long the course will last;
Whether or not the course is accredited (in relation to Psychology, it is expected that
courses would be accredited by the British Psychological Society).
The fees which students could expect to pay; and
Any extra costs (in addition to fees) which students may have to pay to complete the
course.
Review approach
We reviewed the website of each higher education provider in our sample. As a starting point, we
looked at the course page for Psychology, which was usually accessible via a ‘course finder’ tool of
some kind. If certain material information was not present, we then looked at additional pages of
the provider’s website. Specifically, we also looked at:




Webpages or downloadable documents signposted on the course page as containing
material information;
Course guides signposted on the course page;
School of Psychology or Department of Psychology pages;
Specific pages relevant to particular material information:
i.
For fees, we looked at pages specifically devoted to the provider’s fees; and
ii.
For course location, we looked at general pages relating to life at that
institution, such as ‘Campus Life’, ‘Student Life’ and ‘About the University’.
Where information was not found on one of these areas of the website, we considered the
information to be omitted from the website for the purposes of the CMA’s advice and the CPRs. It
is reasonable to expect that material information about a particular course would be found in one
of the above areas, as students could not be expected to know that they should look outside those
areas for important supplementary information.
Each provider was then assessed in relation to the quality of information provision across each
category of material information. For each category of information, the provider was given one of
three ratings:
1. Unlawful. This rating was applied where we considered the provider to have failed to
meet the requirements specified in the CMA’s advice for compliance with the CPRs and
(where relevant) the CCRs.
2. Poor practice. This rating was applied in cases where it was at least arguable that
sufficient information had been provided to meet the requirements in the CMA’s advice,
but that more could be done to make the position clearer for students. For example, this
grade was applied where the information was ambiguous, given without any explanation or
context, or significantly less useful than information provided by other providers in the
market.
3. Good practice. This rating was applied where the information provided not only met the
minimum standards set out in the CMA’s advice, but was complete, coherent and easily
located.
A more detailed guide to how this grading system was applied for each category of information is
set out in Annex 1.
Main findings
We identified 257 (43%) pieces of the information audited that fell into our ‘unlawful’ and ‘poor
practice’ categories of assessment. The full results of our research can be found broken down by
the numbers of universities within each rating category, by category of information (Annex 2), and
the rating of each category of information by university (Annex 3).
In particular, we identified specific trends for certain categories of information where a higher
proportion of universities were falling short, which we believe could cause particular problems for
prospective students when researching courses.
1. Course fees for 2016/17 not provided. Despite our review taking place when prospective
students for the 2016/17 academic year would be researching courses, we found that just
under two thirds (64%) of providers had not updated the information about fees on their
website for the 2016/17 academic year, or did not make it clear to students whether or not
the website had been updated. The level of fees payable for a course will be a significant
factor in a student’s decision-making process and this information should therefore be up-todate and unambiguous.
Universities which fell into the unlawful category for failing to provide
updated course fee information
Anglia Ruskin University
Southampton Solent University
Bath Spa University
University of Bedfordshire
Birmingham City University
University of Bolton
Bishop Grosseteste University
University of Cambridge
Buckinghamshire New University
University of Central Lancashire
Canterbury Christ Church University
University of Chichester
Cardiff Metropolitan University
University of Huddersfield
Glasgow Caledonian University
University of St Andrews
King’s College London
University of Sunderland
Kingston University
University of West England (Bristol)
Liverpool John Moores University
University of Westminster
London South Bank University
University of Winchester
Middlesex University
University of Wolverhampton
Newman University
University of Worcester
Plymouth University
University of York
Queen Margaret University
York St John University
2. Extra costs. Four in five providers’ websites did not state or provide enough clarity on
whether students would incur any compulsory extra costs for participating in the course over
and above the course fees. For the purposes of our review, we have assumed that where no
extra costs are specified on the website then no extra costs will apply (and thus we have not
rated a failure to specify whether additional costs apply as “unlawful”).
However, where information about additional fees is entirely absent it is difficult for students
to determine whether that is due to an omission on the part of the provider or whether in
fact no additional fees will be incurred. In our view, good practice requires that providers
inform students that no additional fees will be payable where that is the case, so that
students can accurately make comparisons between courses.
Universities were categorised as unlawful if the possibility of extra costs on some courses
were mentioned in generic fee information but failed to provide clarity on whether the extra
costs would be incurred for this particular course. Four universities which fell into this
category were Canterbury Christchurch University, Glasgow Caledonian University,
Loughborough University and London South Bank University.
This is important for prospective students to be aware of all costs for the duration of the
course and be able to arrange the appropriate financing, particularly when it is stated that
costs will not be covered by standard student finance arrangements. An example of unlawful
practice:
“Some courses include field trips, additional teaching sessions and registration to an
external body. These need to be paid for separately and are not covered by the
Student Loans Company either by tuition fee Grant or Loan." (London South Bank
University).
3. Information provided via a Unistats link to KIS data without additional context. The Higher
Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) collates information about courses across
higher education institutions in the Key Information Set (KIS), which is makes available via the
Unistats dataset and website. Providers are required by HEFCE to display this information on
individual course webpages via a widget, containing a rotating display which links to further
information on the Unistats website.
We consider there to be a number of difficulties with this approach, for example:
 The display scrolls through a series of different types of information. If a student is
not looking at the display when certain material information is presented, they are
unlikely to realise that it is available.
 Canterbury Christ Church University provided a link to the HEFCE website which was
broken. This is particularly concerning when a university is relying on the widget to
provide material information for the course.
 Plymouth University provided the link at the bottom of the course page below other
banners that contained advertising or other immaterial information, despite HEFCE
advice stating that there should be no break in content before the widget that would
discourage the user from scrolling.
 In most cases, the link was provided without any explanation of what the KIS is or how
it can be helpful for students.
While a display linking to further information on the Unistats website could be helpful to
students, it should be used in a way that is complementary to, and not a substitute for,
expressly setting out material information on the provider’s website in areas where a student
is likely to see it. Regardless of HEFCE’s requirements, it is the responsibility of providers to
ensure that they are providing material information as set out in the CMA’s advice and
meeting their obligations under the CPRs. As such, universities were categorised as following
poor practice where the Unistats widget was displayed without contextual information on how
to use the KIS data.
4. Indicators of quality. 47 out of 50 universities were categorised as following poor or unlawful
practice for failing to provide one or more pieces of information that are indicators of quality
for the course, or demonstrating over-reliance on the HEFCE widget to provide this
information. This amounts to 71% of information on quality of the course across all
universities in the sample not being provided to students. This includes information detailing
contact hours (number and type), expected workload, level of qualifications of staff
delivering and methods of assessment. The poorest performers in these categories were
University of Stirling and University of Huddersfield, which failed to provide information on
three out of four indicators of quality of the course.
Examples of good practice
Whilst no provider consistently provided good practice across all areas, we found a number of
providers employing practices that we would encourage all providers across the sector to adopt.
Universities that more consistently demonstrated good practice across a number of areas were
Leeds Trinity University and University of Greenwich. Examples of good practice in each category
of information are set out below.
1. Entry requirements: University of Bristol provides a clearly presented table of entry
requirements for all types (A’ level, Welsh Bacc, EB, language requirements) and provides
well-signposted links to more entry information directly below.
2. Core modules: University of Greenwich clearly presents information in a dedicated ‘course
content’ tab on the main course page, with each module listed within full-time and part-time
study sections. Further information is provided on linked individual module pages, including:
 module code,
 academic level,
 number of credits for the module,
 designated school,
 name of course coordinator,
 full specification of module (aims, learning outcomes, content, activity, detailed
assessment info including weighting).
3.
Contact hours: Coventry University provides the number and type of contact hours with
detail of expected minimum amount/description of a typical teaching week. Additional
details on optional office hours with tutors are also provided. Information is well presented
and easy to find, with clear titles and signposting. It provides prospective students with a
good picture of overall contact hours for the course to expect.
4.
Expected workload: University of Cambridge provides details of expected workload on the
course page including what a typical day will look like for a student on the course.
University of Greenwich provides a breakdown of hours for lectures, seminars and guided
independent study on the main course page.
5.
Staff delivering: London South Bank University lists all staff on the main course page,
including details of their name, job title, and department on the course page, with a direct
link to individual biographies that include what areas/modules they teach on the course.
Leeds Trinity University lists programme coordinators within individual module pages with a
direct link to full biographies, which includes information on level of qualifications. This is
particularly good practice as some students may choose a course based on the experience of
certain experts in the field.
6. Assessment: University of Greenwich includes comprehensive detail on assessment types
within module descriptions on the course page with details of weightings towards module
grades. This is easy to understand and locate.
University of Sunderland provides details of assessment against each module in a table in the
programme specification document, which is linked from the course page.
7. Award upon completion: It is most easy to understand and locate the award upon completion
when it is included in the course title - BSc (Hons) Psychology. The majority of universities
provide information in this format.
8. Location of course: Kingston University provides the location of the course with a Google map
widget on the main course page.
9. Length of course: University of Portsmouth provides information on the length of the course
for full-time, part-time and an optional sandwich year for work placement/study abroad years
clearly on the course page, with the use of icons and included in its ‘Key Facts’ section.
10. Accreditation: Details of accreditation should be stated clearly on the course page with a link
to the accreditation body. The majority of universities in the sample follow this practice.
11. Fees: University of Portsmouth provides fee information for UK/EU/Channel Islands and Isle of
Man, and International students for year of entry 2015/16 and 2016/17 on the main course
page. It also states that tuition fees may be subject to an annual increase, with a link to the
fees terms and conditions to explain how fee increases are calculated in clear and simple
language.
12. Extra costs: University of Coventry provides a list of any additional costs under a clear
heading 'No hidden extras' on the main course page, with a link to the University’s ‘No hidden
extras’ policy which is presented in a clear and simple format.
Southampton Solent University includes graduation costs on the main course page.
University of West England includes details of extra costs alongside fees information on the
main course page.
For more information,
contact Neena Bhati on 020 7770 7514 or [email protected]
OCTOBER 2015
1
YouthSight, on behalf of Which?, interviewed 992 applicants (due to start university in September 2015), online between
27th March and 2nd April 2015. Data were weighted to be representative of the applicant demographic.
Annex 1 – Grading of categories of information
CATEGORY OF
INFORMATION
Entry
requirements
GRADING
Good Practice
Entry requirements are
easy to find and tells the
student what they need to
know.
Information can be
provided by A-level grade
requirements and/or other
relevant qualifications
required, or by a UCAS
points total.
Poor practice
Entry requirements are not
easy to find – for example
because the information is
buried within long
paragraphs, the formatting
of the page is unhelpful or
the information is
otherwise provided in an
unclear way.
Unlawful
Entry requirements are
not given or confirmed
for 2016.
However, the information
is present and it does tell
the student what they
need to know.
Core modules
Core modules are listed
and a description of each
module is given. The
information is easy to find
and tells the student what
they need to know.
Core modules are listed,
but either:
 there are no details
given as to the
content of each
module; and/or
 the information is not
easy to find – for
example because the
information is buried
within long
paragraphs, the
formatting of the
page is unhelpful or
the information is
otherwise provided in
an unclear way.
Core modules are not
given.
Contact hours
Contact hours and type
are provided.
Contact hours are
available, but:
 this information is
only provided via a
small rotating panel
containing a link to
the relevant HEFCE
data without context;
or
 the information is not
easy to find – for
example because the
information is buried
within long
paragraphs, the
formatting of the
page is unhelpful or
the information is
otherwise provided in
an unclear way.
Contact hours are not
provided.
We are of the view that
contact hours may be
given as a percentage of a
student’s time, broken
down on an annual basis,
so long as this is clear. For
example, if a course page
clearly states that the
course is full-time, that
24% of a student’s time in
Year 1 is spent in
tutorials, 25% in lectures
and the remainder in
independent study, the
information will fall into
this category.
However, the information
is present and it does tell
the student what they
need to know.
Expected
workload
Expected workload is
detailed with expected
self-study time per credit,
module or course.
Ratio of independent study
to time in lectures is
provided, but:
 this information is
only provided via a
small rotating panel
containing a link to
the relevant HEFCE
data without
context; or
 the information is
not easy to find – for
example because the
information is buried
within long
paragraphs, the
formatting of the
page is unhelpful or
the information is
otherwise provided
in an unclear way.
There is no indication of
the workload required.
However, the information
is present and it does tell
the student what they
need to know.
Qualifications
of teaching
staff
The qualifications of
teaching staff are stated
clearly, including in a
department staff
directory, which is clearly
signposted with
information about which
aspect of the course they
will teach. The
information is easy to find
and tells the student what
they need to know.
The qualifications of
teaching staff are stated,
but:
 the information is
buried within long
paragraphs, the
formatting of the
page is unhelpful or
the information is
otherwise provided
in an unclear way; or
 staff names and/or
profiles are given but
it is not clear who
teaches which area;
or
 some staff profiles
are given but these
are not all teaching
staff; or
 there is a vague
statement about
staff which does not
mention their
specific
The qualifications of the
teaching staff are not
given.
Information is only
provided through a wider
staff directory, and it is
not easy to locate
department staff.
We are of the view that
it is not acceptable to
give only generic
descriptions of teaching
staff, such as that they
are ‘leaders in their
fields’ or ‘research
experts’, in isolation.
qualifications.
Assessment
The way in which students
are assessed (i.e.
coursework, exams etc.) is
stated clearly.
This information is broken
down at least by year but
can also be broken down
further, such as between
modules.
Details of assessment
types are available, but:
 this information is
only provided via a
small rotating panel
containing a link to
the relevant HEFCE
data without context;
or
 the information is not
easy to find – for
example because the
information is buried
within long
paragraphs, the
formatting of the
page is unhelpful or
the information is
otherwise provided in
an unclear way.
There is no information
as to how students will
be assessed.
We are of the view that
it is not acceptable to
give assessment
information averaged
over a whole course or
make a vague statement
such as ‘students will be
assessed by combination
of coursework and
exams’.
However, the information
is present and it does tell
the student what they
need to know.
Award
The award which students
will obtain at the end of
their course is stated
clearly.
The award is not easy to
find – for example because
the information is buried
within long paragraphs,
the formatting of the page
is unhelpful or the
information is otherwise
provided in an unclear
way.
Information as to the
award which a student
will obtain on completing
the course is not given.
However, the information
is present and it does tell
the student what they
need to know.
Location
The location at which the
course is taught is stated
clearly, including on
another applicable general
page, such as Campus,
Student Life, About the
University.
Course location is not easy
to find – for example
because the information is
buried within long
paragraphs, the formatting
of the page is unhelpful,
the information is
otherwise provided in an
unclear way. However, the
information is present and
it does tell the student
what they need to know.
It is not clear whether or
not there is more than one
The location at which
the course is taught is
not given.
As above, if the
information is present on
the university website
but it is not contained on
a page where the
student could reasonably
be expected to look for
this information, it will
be classified as not
present for the purposes
of this review.
campus and a location for
the course is not provided.
Length
The length of the course is
stated clearly.
Course length is not easy
to find - for example
because the information is
buried within long
paragraphs, the formatting
of the page is unhelpful,
or the information is
otherwise provided in an
unclear way.
The length of the course
is not given.
However, the information
is present or is clear from
the context.
Accredited
Whether or not the course
is accredited by the
British Psychological
Society is stated clearly.
Accreditation is not easy
to find - for example
because the information is
buried within long
paragraphs, the formatting
of the page is unhelpful,
or the information is
otherwise provided in an
unclear way.
Whether or not the
course is accredited is
not stated.
However, the information
is present and it does tell
the student what they
need to know.
Fees
Fees which students will
have to pay for the course
are stated clearly,
including on a specific
fees page.
Clearly states any future
fee increases and how this
will be calculated.
Fees are not easy to find for example because the
information is buried
within long paragraphs,
the formatting of the page
is unhelpful, or the
information is otherwise
provided in an unclear
way.
If the information is on a
specific fees page, then
that page is linked to the
course page.
However, the information
is present and it does tell
the student what they
need to know.
Where it is not clear which
year the fees relate to,
the university will fall into
this category.
Extra costs
Whether or not students
The university does not
Fees are not stated.
We are of the view that
it is not enough to
provide details of fees
for the 2015/2016
academic year, but not
the 2016/2017 academic
year. Where universities
provide only fees for the
2015/2016 academic
year only, they will fall
into this category.
Where it is not stated
that there will be a fee
increase on a course
page or fees page but
there is a ‘yes’ answer to
a fee increase by
inflation on the Unistats
link, universities will fall
into this category.
The university mentions
will have to pay any costs
in addition to their fees is
stated clearly, including
on a specific fees page.
make clear whether
students will incur any
compulsory extra costs for
participating on the
course.
the possibility of extra
costs on some courses in
generic fee information
but does not specify
what the extra costs will
be for the particular
course.
Annex 2 – Table of results – numbers of universities within each rating category, by category of
information.
Category of information
Good practice
Poor practice
Unlawful
Entry requirements
49
0
1
Core modules
24
21
5
Contact hours (number and type)
14
33
3
Expected workload
13
34
3
Staff delivering
9
33
8
Assessment
22
27
1
Award upon completion
49
1
0
Location of course
38
10
2
Length of course
49
0
1
Accreditation information
48
2
0
Fees
18
0
32
Details on extra costs
10
36
4
Leeds Trinity University
University of Greenwich
Aston University
University of Oxford
University of Portsmouth
University of Roehampton
Liverpool Hope University
London Metropolitan University
University of Bristol
University of Leeds
Cardiff University
University of Leicester
Bath Spa University
University of Bolton
Coventry University
University of Central Lancashire
University of Sunderland
Details on
extra costs
Fees
Accreditation
information
Length of
course
Location of
course
Award upon
Completion
Assessment
Staff delivering
Expected
workload
Contact hours Number/type
Core modules
University
Entry
requirements
Annex 3 – Table of results - rating of each category by university
Loughborough University
University of Sheffield
Anglia Ruskin University
Middlesex University
University of Worcester
York St John University
Southampton Solent University
University of Cambridge
University of York
Birmingham City University
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Liverpool John Moores University
Queen Margaret University
Queen's University Belfast
University of Bedfordshire
University of Chichester
University of Westminster
University of Winchester
Details on
extra costs
Fees
Accreditation
information
Length of
course
Location of
course
Award upon
Completion
Assessment
Staff delivering
Expected
workload
Contact hours Number/type
Core modules
Entry
requirements
University
University of West England (Bristol)
London South Bank University
Buckinghamshire New University
Bishop Grosseteste University
King’s College London
Kingston University
Plymouth University
University of Wolverhampton
Newman University
University of Reading
University of Stirling
University of St Andrews
University of Huddersfield
Glasgow Caledonian University
Canterbury Christ Church University
Details on
extra costs
Fees
Accreditation
information
Length of
course
Location of
course
Award upon
Completion
Assessment
Staff delivering
Expected
workload
Contact hours Number/type
Core modules
Entry
requirements
University