Learning and Teaching Committee

Curriculum Sub-Committee

Subject: Degree Titles

Origin: Unconfirmed Minutes of Learning and Teaching Committee on 6 November 2003

CSC was asking LTC once again to consider providing guidance on the minimum difference in content between degree titles, having found itself in some difficulty in this respect in dealing with proposals from both Chemistry and Electronic and Electrical Engineering. CSC was concerned that under the proposals in question students might obtain different degrees, having followed identical or almost identical module pathways.

A lengthy discussion took place, during which reference was made to the proposals from Electronic and Electrical Engineering for new MSc programmes in Mobile Communications and Networked Communications, to run alongside the existing MSc in Digital Communication Systems (LTC03-P44, item 3); the position was explained in an e-mail from Dr Gregory, circulated to members before the meeting. There was a possibility that students remaining on the ‘general’ DCS degree could choose taught modules identical to those undertaken by students on either of the two new ‘specialised’ programmes, but this would in practice be unlikely. It was pointed out that if generalists were restricted in their options to core modules, many of the specialist modules would not be viable. It was noted that similar groups of ‘general’ (broad-based) and ‘specific’ (specialised) programmes were also in operation at undergraduate level.

The following points were noted in the course of a full discussion:

· Whereas the title of a degree should accurately reflect the subject area studied, the choice of title was also influenced by marketing considerations and by the likely career aspirations of the students. Multiple degree titles were sometimes proposed solely on these grounds. It was accepted that marketing strategy was important especially for departments in deficit.

· Notwithstanding the misgivings of CSC, some members saw no persuasive argument against two different degree titles being used to describe the same modular pathway, if both titles reflected accurately what had been studied and there was a clear rationale for both titles being available.

· The same titles could reflect quite different programmes of study at different providing institutions. The information provided by the transcript was important in interpreting the degree title.

· One would normally expect the project or dissertation undertaken by an individual student, especially on a Masters programme, to be in a subject area that relates to the degree title. This was not to rule out the possibility of a project or dissertation extending beyond the boundaries of a single subject area.

· The University had a duty to make all award/degree pathways clear to students, especially where a group of programmes shared common modules.

· The University might wish to avoid the quality/recruitment implications of a significant proliferation of degrees.

· The FHEQ provided guidance on the use of ‘and’ and ’with’ in degree titles, which was generally understood, and the University should continue to observe it.

The Committee concluded that it would not be helpful to be prescriptive about the minimum difference in content between degree titles. It was inclined to accept circumstances such as those described in Electronic and Electrical Engineering as good reason why students might feasibly obtain different titles for the same module selection, though this would be very unusual.

The Committee would nevertheless expect a major project or dissertation undertaken by an individual student to be in a subject area reflected in their award title. The project/dissertation module should make this expectation clear.

Any department proposing a group of new programmes/titles with a high proportion of common modules, or proposing to add a new programme/title to an existing group of this kind, should be required to produce information clearly defining the award pathways and to justify the differentiation of the award titles. Proposals of this type should be flagged up during the strategic phase, bearing in mind that the case might not be entirely academic.

Departments running groups of programmes with a high proportion of common modules should clearly define the award pathways for the benefit of students, by means other than the programme regulations if necessary.

In the case of the Masters programmes in Chemical Sciences (item 3.1 on the agenda paper), the Committee noted that the Department did not wish to use different project modules for each title, but agreed that the Department be required to state in the project module specification that individual students’ projects should map closely to their award title.

In respect to the undergraduate programmes in Chemical Sciences (item 3.2), the Committee was informed that separate Programme Boards would need to be held for each distinct degree title. The Student Records and Examination system could not presently cope with students on different programme codes appearing on a combined list. It was suggested that in the interests of equity, the same classification thresholds should be adopted in all the Programme Boards concerned.

The Chair of CSC was invited to discuss further with the PDQ Team the scope for streamlining paperwork and the approvals process that lay behind the Chemistry proposals.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date – November 2003