Website closes after Hesa withholds data

May 1, 2008

A website that branded named universities "rubbish" and "shocking" on the basis of data on staff-to-student ratios has been shut after its owners were refused access to official statistics.

WillISeeMyTutor.com caused controversy when it launched last year as a site allowing prospective students to compare institutions by their staff-to-student ratios.

The ratios were calculated using data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, but many in the sector complained that the data were "skewed" and the comparisons they allowed were inaccurate.

The University of Bedfordshire even threatened legal action against the site after a course was labelled "shocking".

Now it has emerged that WillISeeMyTutor.com has been forced off-line by Hesa, which has refused to supply data to those behind the site, who claim to be two academics and an IT specialist but have never revealed their full identities.

In a statement on the site, WillISeeMyTutor.com said its mission was to "empower" prospective students. It criticised Hesa for withholding data. Describing the decision as "unacceptable", it accused the Government-run agency of acting in the interests of universities to the detriment of prospective students.

Hesa said: "A body that appeared to conceal, whether fully or partially, its identity, or the identity of those individuals behind its operations, was not considered by Hesa to be operating on a basis of good faith and was not an organisation that Hesa believed was in its best interests to enter into a contractual relationship with," it said.

"Although the dissemination of information about higher education is part of our mission, we also have a responsibility to protect the sector from potentially incompetent or irresponsible use or misuse of such information," it said.

john.gill@tsleducation.com

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October