ENGINEERING FACULTY BOARD

Faculty of Engineering

Faculty Board

ENG05-M2

Minutes of the 42^nd meeting of the Faculty Board held on 18 May 2005.

Members: Professor C J Backhouse (Chair), Dr P M Carrillo (ab), Dr A R J Dainty, Dr S Datta (ab), Mr J G Dickens, Professor P Dickens, Dr A El-Hamalawi, (ab), Mr O R Folkerd (ab), Dr K Gregory, Dr J L Horner (ab), Professor M G Kong (ab), Dr L R Mustoe (ab),, Dr S T Newman (ab), Dr G J Page (ab), Professor C D Rielly (ab), Professor S J Rothberg, Professor V V Silberschmidt (ab), Professor P R Smith, Dr I K Smout, Dr A Spencer, Dr E S Tarleton (ab), Ms M E Thomas, Professor A Thorpe, Professor R H Thring (ab), Professor R J Wakeman (ab), Professor D J Wallace (ab), Dr P Willmot

By invitation: Dr K Walsh, Mr S T Hughes, Ms T M Marshall

Apologies for absence: Dr P M Carrillo, Dr S Datta, Dr A el-Hamalawi, Dr J L Horner, Professor M G Kong, Dr L R Mustoe, Dr S T Newman, Dr G J Page, Professor C D Rielly, Professor V V Silberschmidt, Dr E S Tarleton, Professor R H Thring, Professor R J Wakeman

In attendance: Ms M Kennedy

16. Minutes

ENG05-M1

The Minutes of the 41^st meeting of the Board were confirmed.

17. Mr C J Bigger

The untimely death of Mr Bigger was noted with sadness, thanks for his service to the Faculty recorded, and the Board’s condolences offered to his family, friends and colleagues. Mrs T M Marshall was welcomed to the meeting as the new Library representative on the Board,.

18. Destination statistics for 2004 graduates

(ENG05-P7)

Mrs J Jones, Deputy Director of the Careers Service, was welcomed to the meeting. NOTED: a 3% increase in UG employment; the high quality of first employment; that employers were similar to previous years; and that relatively high unemployment rates for all Faculties reflected graduates’ reluctance to accept temporary or low quality work. Finalists’ reluctance to invest time in making job applications was unfortunate, as early application often meant better employment. A new category of Work and Study did not distinguish graduates combining part-time postgraduate study with part-time work from those working full-time but working towards professional status such as CEng. Departments could obtain more detailed data following the Careers Advisory Board in June.

19. Strategic Review – Research Schools

(ENG05-P8)

NOTED: that the proposals were part of the University’s strategy to be a research-led institution; that line management would continue with heads of department; that Health and Life Sciences would be the model for three other schools; and that current proposals incorporated comments made previously by Directorates.

AGREED:

That with the following caveats, the Board supported the generic Terms of Reference, Job Description and Person Specification

· Annex A: That relevant HoDs have an input to the review process,

· Job description: That the % FTE for a director be omitted at this stage, and agreed on an individual basis.

· Person specification: That terms such as “dedication, enthusiasm and commitment” were difficult to measure and should be omitted; that “interpersonal skills” be listed under ‘Skills’ not under ‘Other’.

· Membership: That the second bullet point be revised so that HoDs are content with the total list of duties not just research; that the word ‘rights’ in the following paragraph be deleted, and the paragraph incorporated into the second bullet point.

· Performance review: That the timing (“during the third year”) should be more precise, the word ‘Impact’ clarified, and timescales introduced for each critical area.

· Annex B: That the words “and, following discussions with the Head of Department,” be inserted between “consider nominations” and “make a recommendation”.

FURTHER AGREED:

· That the Board supported the establishment of the Research School in Health and Life Sciences

· That the Board supported the establishment of the Research School in Systems Engineering in line with the decision made by Senate in December 2004.

· That the Board was content for proposals for Research Schools in Sustainability and Materials to proceed only if there were (a) evidence of sufficient vibrant research activity in these areas and (b) suitable candidates for directors.

· The % FTE of the director should be commensurate with a well-documented case for the existence of a school.

20. Strategic Review: Graduate School

(ENG05-P9)

NOTED that proposals had fewer iterations than those for Research Schools, but that a change had been made so that the Director would report to both PVC(T) and PVC(R).

AGREED:

· Annex A: To support establishment of a Graduate School, but initially to be within the SSH Faculty, with a possible extension to other faculties in future.

· There was no case for a Director, rather a Chair of the Graduate School should be appointed.

· The Board would be concerned about any possible central administration of postgraduate applications.

· That the person specification was inadequate.

· That the diagram lacked detail and omitted connections with existing bodies such as SRA Team and PDQ.

· Annex B: That the words “and, following discussions with the relevant Head(s) of Department,” be inserted between “consider nominations” and “make a recommendation”.

· Annex C: that the director’s role was insufficiently clear for the Board to be able to comment.

The Board raised the issue that this proposal, together with those for the research schools, involved a significant number of highly research active senior staff.

21. Access Agreement

(Secretary’s note: this item was moved from the agenda for the 87^thmeeting of Directorate so that Board members could receive the report)

Mr H E Jones, Senior Academic Registrar and Manager of the Student Recruitment and Admissions Team, was welcomed to the meeting. OFFA had approved the University’s proposals, and from October 2006, all new UK/EU undergraduates excepting 2005 deferrals would be charged the maximum £3,000 tuition fees,

New (and continuing) students could defer fee payments, but the University would receive the fee income. Only three UK universities would not charge full fees, and a confusing variety of bursaries and payments in kind that were difficult to compare were being offered. Loughborough’s bursary scheme was intentionally simple, clear and accessible: a maximum £1,300 pa would be offered on a sliding scale for families with residual income of £15,000 and £33,000, or doubled for mature students. No bursary involved payment in kind, and, as maintenance awards, would not be offset against fee liabilities. At steady state the cost would be 20% of fee income.

The University would need to be mindful of competitors promoting subsidised accommodation, as students perceived fees and accommodation to be part of the same package.

Investment would continue in widening participation for under-represented groups. The SRA Team and Admissions staff appreciated the help given by departments and the LSU in WP activities. An Information Service would be established in UG Admissions to advise prospective students, and meantime departments should refer inquiries to Mr Jones or Mrs Cajkler. The Access to Learning (previously Hardship) Fund would continue as an alternative source of funding, administered alongside bursaries by the Information Service. Continued access to the Student Loan Company meant that low-income students should in future be better protected.

22. Report from Faculty Officers

.1 Dean

(a) The new Vice Chancellor, Professor Shirley Pearce, would start 1 January 2006.

(b) A programme of refurbishment of halls of residence would commence during 2005/06 to increase self-catering provision.

.2 Associate Dean (Research)

(ENG05-P10 and tabled papers)

(a) Research degree submission rates: Noted

(b) RAE 2008: Panel members, some from Loughborough, noted.

(c) Promotion to Senior Lecturer: Noted that the size of grant should be better matched to the unit of assessment, and that staff in some subjects should be compared to peers, not assessed by grant income.

(d) Engineering Excellence PhD studentships: Two nominations were required from each department.

ACTION: HoDs

(e) Delphi: NOTED that Loughborough was one of only six UK universities with which the automotive organisation proposed working in future.

(f) Reviewing research grant proposals: NOTED that problems of limited time and expertise within departments meant that formalising internal reviews of proposals might lead to fewer or late applications. The current system worked reasonably well.

(g) Research grants and contracts: NOTED that data were good but that some income was shared by more than one university. It was important to monitor overheads to determine real income.

.3 Associate Dean (Teaching)

(papers circulated by email ahead of the meeting)

(a) Recruitment: NOTED

UG: The Faculty should meet targets; 25 ASNs were being negotiated.

PG: The number of international PGT applications had risen and processing improved. The increase hid a 24% decline from China, somewhat offset by increased applications from Nigeria and Pakistan, but conversions from these two were poor. Volatility of the international market meant that it would not be clear until registration whether the Faculty had met PG targets.

(b) APRs: NOTED that three Reviews had been conducted; Electronic and Electrical Engineering had been delayed because the department had undertaken a PPR in November 2004, and Wolfson School had just undertaken a PPR. Data were largely positive, and reflected an increased number of MEng students, a higher number of 20-credit modules and less Semester 1 assessment. It was now possible to obtain accreditation for MSc in place of matching sections.

(c) CETL: NOTED that the University had been awarded the Engineering Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (Linking Education with Industry), the bid had included all Engineering departments together with IPTME and D&T. A new building on West Park included space for the Centre, along with PGT pool rooms and DTUS office accommodation. The CETL would be launched in January once the building was complete. Progress reports would be made to Faculty Board and Directorate.

(d) On-line learning: NOTED that a strategy was being developed for replacement or enhancement of Learn; that it had not yet been decided how to spend £290,000 e-learning income; and that half of Engineering modules had no content above that mounted by Computing Services, but that some staff were using other VLEs.

(e) NSS: NOTED that the University’s overall response rate of 75.08% was the 8^th highest among HEIs surveyed. Data would be received in July, before publication in early September to coincide with the major launch of the TQI site. The University would decide whether an institutional commentary should be mounted following examination of these data and would need departments’ comments.

(f) Curriculum Sub-Committee: AGREED: that there was at present no benefit in all departments imitating Computer Science in renaming and marketing UG programmes as ‘with industrial experience’.

23. Award of research degrees

(ENG05-P11)

Degrees were awarded as follows:

Doctor of Philosophy:

X Hu (Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering)

J P Reed “ “ “ “

L Wang “ “ “ “

T L Addington (Chemical Engineering)

N Ahmed (Civil and Building Engineering)

S Cavill “ “ “

M P Spriggs “ “ “

T R Betts (Electronic and Electrical Engineering)

C J Panagamuwa “ “ “

S S Dani (Wolfson School of Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering)

G P Dimitropoulos “ “ “ “ “

N J Teh “ “ “ “ “

24. Actions of the Associate Dean (Teaching)

ENG05-P12

It was RESOLVED to ratify the actions taken by the AD(T).

25. Personal Title

Congratulations were offered to Professor Paul Conway on his personal award.

26. Elected departmental representatives of Faculty Board

Noted.

27. External Examiners’ reports

The deposition of reports was noted.

28. Appointment of Boards of Examiners, Module Boards and

External Examiners

Noted.

29. Curriculum Sub-Committee

Noted.

30. Staff Student Committees

The Board noted the deposition of minutes listed on the Agenda.

31. Date of the next meeting

Wednesday 9 November 2005 at 1.30 pm in the Council Chamber.

(Please note slightly earlier start-time; members of Directorate please note that the Board meeting will be followed immediately by a Directorate meeting)

32. Any other business

Those elected departmental representatives who were completing their three years of office were thanked for their service to the Board.

Author – Marie Kennedy

Date – May 2005