The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council is facing calls to withdraw "ludicrous" proposals on funding for teaching that critics fear could destabilise the sector.
Universities have accused Shefc of ignoring expert advice that urged minimal disruption and of drawing up plans that would mean swings in funding for subjects and institutions, with cuts of up to 15 per cent.
Shefc wants to simplify the system of different prices for 22 subject groups. But universities have been dismayed to find that its stage three consultation paper ignores the working group's proposed blueprint.
The paper does not include calculations of the proposals' effects, but university financial and planning experts have produced their own analyses. Old universities gain 2.3 per cent overall, while new universities suffer a 1.6 per cent cut and colleges' funding falls by 7 per cent. But within this there are dramatic fluctuations. The major winners are medicine, social sciences, mathematics and computing. The losers are art and design, dentistry, business, hospitality and teacher education.
"This degree of turbulence is just ludicrous," said one financial expert. "If you suddenly get these radical changes, internal management will be thrown into disarray."
David Newall, Strathclyde University's director of planning and a member of the working group, said: "I don't think Shefc can appreciate that their proposals will create serious difficulties for university managers throughout Scotland."
Peter West, Strathclyde's secretary, said: "Strathclyde will be pressing Universities Scotland that the whole paper should now be withdrawn. It's a very divisive, irresponsible and ill-conceived document."
Universities Scotland's executive committee will consider institutions' responses today.
A Shefc spokeswoman said it will take the consultation responses into account before making final decisions on the new funding method, expected to begin in 2002-03.
The proposed option has six broader categories with funding levels based on the average for the existing 12 main categories, she said. "The proposal aims to give universities and colleges more freedom to distribute funding internally according to their own judgement. However, it will inevitably mean some swings and roundabouts effects between subjects and institutions."