You hold a position of responsibility over recruitment in a university.

Today you are about to recruit through clearing a student studying away from home.

Before they’re sent the relevant electronic forms to sign, which of these is true?

a) You are confident they’ll find somewhere to live for the duration of their programme that is of a reasonable distance from campus, of reasonable quality, that is suitable (ie there’s a desk, or can house their dependants) and at a reasonable (ie affordable) price.

b) You have good reason to be not at all confident about that.

c) You honestly haven’t a clue one way or the other.

The question that arises is whether it is institutionally morally ethical to press “send” in scenarios b) or c).

You could reason that as long as students are aware of the local housing situation, you can balance the judgement on the basis that it’s up to them.

So as well as information you do or don’t hold, the other question is whether you disclose that to students. So if you do press send, do you:

1. Make your judgement abundantly clear

2. Be vague (or lie by omission)

3. Lie (directly or via other information that has suggested availability)

I think that the only circumstances under which b) or c) might be remotely justifiable are if you go for option 1.

Anything else and anything even vaguely student centred in the university’s mission/vision isn’t really worth the paper it’s not printed on, surely?

And it may be a legal question, too. CMA says that “There is likely to be other, non-course-related information” that is material to a student’s decision making.

For example accommodation options and whether accommodation is offered by or on behalf of the HE provider, whether it is on or off campus, and whether such it is guaranteed for first year students or is allocated on a first come, first served basis, or whether accommodation is provided exclusively or mostly by private landlords).

Information universities provide in writing, verbally or visually must be correct, and should not contain inaccuracies that may impact students’ decisions. Providing misleading information (which is false or deceptive in any way, including how it is presented) or outdated information could breach the CPRs as a misleading action. Universities should ensure that any claims made, for example in prospectuses or other marketing materials, as well as information staff tell prospective students at an open day or over the telephone, are accurate.

Meanwhile if universities do not provide prospective students with the necessary material information that they need at the appropriate times, including before they make a decision about which HE providers and courses to apply to, this may constitute a “misleading omission” under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Still, legal or not, the public and students’ perception of the moral behaviour of our institutions is at stake here.