UKVI got new rules. Hours they count em

It has now published the official version of the changes previously discussed to apply from today – and there’s a few additional tweaks.

The TL;DR is that unless you apply and get special permission, a course’s timetable (in totality and across multiple years if there are multiple years) a student’s timetable can only have a maximum of 20 per cent “remote delivery” in it.

The rub is that the definitions of “remote delivery” and “in person” aren’t about an hour of teaching’s design so much as they’re about options:

“Remote delivery” doesn’t mean an hour designed to be experienced off-campus. It’s an hour where there’s no need or requirement for the student to attend the premises of the student sponsor – in other words, if they have the option, it counts as remote.

In person, on the other hand, is timetabled learning that takes place in-person and on the premises – in other words, they’re required to attend.

Or think of it like this:

The now published rules specify that an individual student can’t be granted remote delivery due to unforeseen circumstances (like a car breaking down), but it can be granted for a whole student body (like extreme weather closing a campus). Flexibility applies only in broad, systemic scenarios.

If remote delivery is used due to a student’s protected characteristics, universities have to keep records of the delivery plan, justification, and any evidence, and be prepared for audits.

The percentage of remote delivery must be calculated from the original course start date to the new end date if a student is retaking elements or exams.

When assigning a Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS), universities will have to complete relevant fields on remote delivery and ensure consistency with their annual CAS allocation application.

If a student’s course (maybe via changes or the realities of the design of electives or whatever) ends up exceeding the permitted percentage of remote learning (above 40 per cent, or 20 per cent without approval), the university has to stop sponsoring the student and report the issue to UKVI.

This suggests the penalties for non-compliance will be clearer and stricter – and in that scenario the university would surely also owe the student significant compensation given the mess up.

For clarity, the changes are about design – if a student chooses to attend remotely more than permitted (skipping in-person classes), that would be an academic engagement issue, not a direct breach of these new percentage rules – although universities do still have to track engagement in the usual way.

The complexity is really about anything beyond core modules with traditional hours of teaching in the timetable. In theory a university has to look at every possible pathway or combination of electives, assume that a student won’t come to campus if they are told they have the option not to, and calculate the percentage for a student’s course on the “worst case scenario” (where “worst” means maximum deciding to not come in).

In other words, when calculating remote delivery percentages, universities must assume that students will take all available remote options. This means even if students have a choice between in-person and online for certain sessions, those sessions must still be counted as remote delivery.

If you want to go over that 20 per cent (up to 40 per cent) for remote, you have to get a green light for that course from UKVI before assigning a CAS.

Oh, and stuff like writing dissertations, conducting research, undertaking fieldwork, carrying out work placements and sitting exams are explicitly excluded from the calculation on “taught” hours.