KING KONG/PLANNING PERMISSION (1999)

The following is a quote from the 1998 prospectus describing the MA Performance Studies 'course' at the supposedly prestigious Central School of Speech and Drama in London:

"The course seeks to combine academic excellence with innovative performance practice and is taught by leading practitioners and academics."

Public sponsorship in the region of £40,000 has been granted on the basis that the MA in Performance Studies would be provided as outlined in the various course documents. The failure to provide the course as it is currently validated has serious implications on matters of funding and validation. The following is a letter written by myself and a fellow student to the British Academy regarding the questionable academic standards of this course.

RE: MA PERFORMANCE STUDIES, CENTRAL SCHOOL OF SPEECH AND DRAMA 1998/99

We are currently registered on the above course, and are in receipt of studentships from the British Academy. We understand that you have been dealing with ________ the other BA funded student on this course. We wish to register our strong concern about academic provision on this course. As you are probably now aware, Dr Susan Melrose, the previous course leader left prior to our registration last October 1998. After spending the first term without a course leader, Nigel Ward was appointed to begin teaching in January. We feel that this appointment was not made in the student's best interests. The current situation is that over 50% of the students registered on this course have expressed dissatisfaction with the standards of teaching and supervision. On Friday 11th June the student group met with solicitors at the NUS headquarters to discuss possible legal action against Central for breach of contract. (We have subsequently been advised that legal action would be unlikely to succeed, as course hours have been delivered despite lack of quality). In a meeting with the Head of Academic Studies and Head of Department on the 15th June, Central refused to acknowledge the existence of problems or even to discuss fully student concerns pertaining to issues of appointment and tuition. From ________ experience, it is now obvious that the internal grievance process will not offer any valuable recompense. Although Central have agreed to provide alternative/extra supervision for those students who requested it (ourselves included) at this late stage in the year we feel extremely doubtful that adequate supervision for dissertation will actually be provided. Neither of us wish to acknowledge a wasted year by withdrawing - indeed we have a strong determination to complete this course. However, it now seems clear that Central has failed in its responsibility to deliver the course on which we enrolled and for which we are funded. We have suffered a complete loss of confidence in both the institution and the course leader. We cannot help but feel that the circumstances outlined above have had a negative impact on our academic work this year, and feel angered by the fact that this will no doubt be reflected in our final marks. The British Academy should be aware of this situation and of its impact on us as students, not least because of the large sums of public money involved. In the light of our experience we believe that the Academy should consider carefully before funding students for this course in the next academic year.