Learning and Teaching Committee

Curriculum Sub-Committee

Subject: Degree Titles

Origin: Notes of Programme Development and Quality Team Meeting on 8 December 2003

The Team discussed with the Chair of Curriculum Sub-Committee some of the issues raised by recent proposals processed through CSC and Learning and Teaching Committee, specifically those from the Department of Chemistry, which had drawn together a number of award/degree titles within a single set of programme regulations and a single programme specification.

Both the Department and PDQ felt that a major advantage of this approach was a considerable saving in staff time by avoiding duplication of paperwork for degrees that shared many of the same modules. It was agreed that at the UG level as well as the PG level, APR/PPR should deal with the programme as a whole, with admission, progression and feedback data not being disaggregated by degree title. It was the view that other departments operating several programmes with a high proportion of common modules should be permitted to group their programmes together as Chemistry had done in order to simplify administration. There were terminology issues relating to the new structure but these should not be insurmountable. As regards Programme Boards, the Student Records and Examinations system could not presently cope with students on different programme/title codes appearing on a single list (and there were other priorities for CIS development work). It would be possible however for the same Programme Board to produce different lists for different programmes/titles.

It was noted that the Chemistry Department had also hoped to be able to benefit from the revised structure by being able to bring a new degree title into being more quickly than was possible under the present structure, and thus to be able to respond rapidly to market needs, especially internationally, and maximise recruitment. It was agreed however that it was important to ensure that any new title accurately reflected the content of the degree and to have the title approved at University level through the usual channels including CSC. A department would need to produce supporting information defining the award pathway and justifying the differentiation of the award title on the basis of content. Strategic approval via the relevant Directorate and Operations Sub-Committee would also be required. The approval process could only be speeded up by exercising Chair’s action wherever possible. The Chair of CSC considered it difficult to act on such matters in the absence of a clear-cut rule for deciding whether a new degree title was justified on the basis of difference in content and since each case would have to be considered on its merits remained sceptical whether in practice it would be appropriate for decisions on new titles to be taken without consultation with other members of the committee.

Author – Robert Bowyer

Date –December 2003