Faculty of Engineering
Faculty
Board
ENG06-M2
Minutes of the meeting of the Faculty Board held on 8 November
2006.
Members: Professor
Chris Backhouse (Chair), Dr Lisa Bartlett (abs), Dr Sekharjit
Datta, Professor John Dickens, Professor Phill Dickens, Dr Roger Dixon, Dr Ashraf
El-Hamalawi, Dr Keith Gregory, Dr Jane Horner, Dr Weeratunga Malalasekera, Mrs
Stephanie McKeating (abs), Dr Les Mustoe
(abs), Mr Kushal Pattni
(LSU-appointed student representative) (abs), Professor Shirley Pearce (abs), Dr
Jon Petzing, Mr Bob Reed (abs), Professor Steve
Rothberg, Dr Basu Saha, Dr
Ian Smout, Mr Paul Sobers (elected student
representative), Dr Andy Stapley, Ms Mary Thomas,
Professor Tony Thorpe, Professor Rob Thring, Dr Dave Twigg, Professor Yiannis Vardaxoglou (abs), Professor Richard Wakeman
(abs), Dr Stephen Walsh, Dr Peter Willmot
Apologies for absence: Dr Lisa Bartlett, Mrs Stephanie McKeating, Mr Kushal Pattni, Mr Bob Reed, Professor Yiannis
Vardaxoglou, Professor Richard Wakeman
In attendance: Ms
Marie Kennedy
Also present: Wg Cdr Keith Pearce, Mr A S
Cooney, Dr K Walsh
14. Minutes (ENG06-M1)
The
Minutes of the last meeting of the Board were confirmed.
15. Matters arising from the Minutes:
.1 PhD applications
See item 23.2 (d)..
.2 Annual
Programme Reviews 2004-05
Noted.
.3 Condonement
Noted.
.4 Future Learning and Teaching Strategy
Noted.
16. Admissions
and recruitment (ENG06-P6)
.1 Summary
of data:
UG UK/EU:
Recruitment
of 706 (including 25 ASN and five University elite sports students) was below the
739 target. Recruitment varied
considerably between departments, with Civil and Building Engineering over
target, and Electronic and Electrical Engineering and Mechanical and
Manufacturing below.
UG international:
Slightly
over-target across the University, somewhat offsetting under-recruitment of
home students.
PGT UK/EU
Under-recruitment
of 50 f-t against an aspirational target of 64
reflected a steady University-wide decline in recent years. Part-time students were still enrolling so
the picture was slightly better than data suggested.
PGT international:
A small over-recruitment of 173 (at 11 October) against a forecast of
169.
However, this market caused major concern, as applications had declined
across the University. Indications were
that the recent telephone campaign had helped recruitment, and registrations
also benefited because visas for Chinese students were easier to obtain this
year.
.2 Commentary
on UG UK/EU data:
Conversions were a matter of concern.
Chemical
Engineering: conversions had risen but
numbers were small.
Electronic
and Electrical Engineering: applications
had declined nationally for a number of years.
Civil
and Building Engineering: continued increases
in applications, conversions and intake.
Nationally, these had increased markedly in the past three years, while
in 1998 they had decreased significantly; they may not therefore continue to
rise in future.
Aeronautical
and Automotive Engineering: conversions
had dropped, and recruitment targets achieved only by increased numbers of
concessions. The reduction deleteriously
affected the number of CCOs then available to other
departments.
Mechanical
and Manufacturing Engineering: both
applications and conversions had declined this year, but this was likely to be
a temporary situation, unlike the steady decline experienced by Electronic and
Electrical Engineering. Mechanical had
suffered a much smaller decline (4.3%) than Manufacturing Engineering (23%); only 800 new
students had entered Production and Manufacturing Engineering in the
Marketing:
LU
exposure for UG home students was now better than ever, with two annual Open
Days, and the wide distribution of the Mathematics Z-card. Research conducted during the summer showed
that applicants were happy with the way departments handled inquiries. However, all
Open Days:
Not only
were student expectations of these events rising, but research showed that most
applicants were now attending both University and departmental open days, and
it was therefore essential to provide a variety of experience. Student responses regarding departmental
open days were positive, with the Civil and Building Engineering ‘ice-breaker’
most praised.
.3 Course
portfolio:
LU must:
i.
Provide a spread of
traditional and new programmes;
ii.
Enter as many markets as
possible with both short- and long-lived courses, including the non-Mathematical
BSc market;
iii.
Maximise its traditional
markets in Aeronautical, Building and Civil Engineering (exemplified in the way
Electronic and Electrical Engineering was currently adding an Aeronautical
pathway to Systems Engineering programmes).
Another
possibility would be to enter the small (10%) market for General Engineering.
Departments
were recommended to conduct brain-storming sessions to identify new markets.
Data from
the student questionnaire conducted during the summer (both those accepting and
those rejecting Loughborough offers), and data on competitors (HEIs which students selected as CF or CI in tandem with LU),
would be circulated to departments.
The University’s
conversion rate of 15% of applications was lower than that of Imperial,
Nottingham and Leeds (17-18%); smaller universities such as
Sheffield,
Summary of commentary:
Although
Loughborough remained popular, it was now in a more competitive market. It must therefore:
i.
cherish both current and
potential students, and nurture applicants;
ii.
vary its open days;
iii.
widen the course portfolio to attract a more diverse set of applicants.
Discussion:
.1 General Engineering: It was not clear whether this
was a popular programme or whether students were attracted to some prestigious
universities offering it, such as Oxbridge,
.2 Z-cards: Although a good means of
promoting LU, these were passive, and it was important that students engaged
more directly with the University, eg, via an interactive website. A competition for applicants had been
launched, offering an I-Pod prize, and was being monitored. The University website made it difficult to
offer more interactive means at present, and it was hoped a new system next
year would enable the Faculty to develop this approach.
.3 International element: In order
to capitalise on students’ interest in international development, WEDC
could provide modules such as the two currently offered in Civil Engineering; the content could
easily be adapted to all engineering disciplines.
.4 Overseas
recruitment: Two members of the Faculty would be making further overseas trips to
boost international recruitment, in conjunction with the Alumni Office and
International Office. Open lectures on
topical subjects should attract potential students (mainly PGT), who could then
discuss issues such as enhanced employment prospects. A tour to
.5 University-level activities: Members
expressed considerable disquiet that Undergraduate Admissions had not yet sent
any offer letters, and that this affected mainly the best applicants. Offers this year were for the first time
being generated by the new LUSI system, which had experienced problems. It was hoped the letters would be sent in the
next few days. The Board considered it
unreasonable that LUSI should be trialled with such an important part of the
University’s core business, and that it had failed at first try.
Other
roles that the University should provide were also disappointing: eg, no information
was available regarding how competitive LU was in offering students a package
including accommodation. It should be
able to make a strong statement about coming to Loughborough which included
high-quality halls. It was hoped the
newly-appointed Director of Marketing, with recent experience in a less
prestigious university which marketed itself vigorously, would make an impact
in this.
Summary of discussion:
The Dean
would pursue the issue of LUSI.
He would
also discuss with HoDs, especially Electronic and
Electrical Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, and
Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, their departments’ responses to
the data discussed. An action plan would
be developed for each department, in the light of UK/EU undergraduates
remaining the Faculty’s core market.
If current trends continued, a new balance of resources and workload
would have to be arranged between departments.
ACTION: Dean and HoDs
17. Constitution and powers of the Faculty
Board (ENG06-P7)
Agreed appropriate.
18. Membership (ENG06-P8)
i. Noted.
ii. Ratified.
19. Representation on other bodies (ENG06-P9)
Noted.
20. Briefing note for members (ENG06-P10)
Noted.
21. Draft Corporate Strategy (ENG06-P11)
Comments to be emailed to the Secretary (m.kennedy@lboro.ac.uk) by 16 November
latest.
ACTION: all members
22. Periodic Programme Review (ENG06-P12)
No
comments were made.
23. Reports from Faculty Officers
.1 Dean’s report
(a) Validation of BUE degrees
NOTED:
i. Loughborough expected to
validate all subjects currently offered at BUE, with the possible exceptions of
Islamic Studies, Pharmacy, and Dentistry.
ii. An Institutional Validation Panel would
take place in January, with the Dean as Senate representative.
iii. Two Subject Validation
Panels would take place in April, with the Dean involved in the Engineering
Panel and the AD(T) chairing.
iv. Approximately 500
students were now in the Preparatory Year, and 200 had entered the first year
of their UG course, having completed the Preparatory Year. BUE intended to increase these numbers
steadily in future years.
v. Opportunities for transfers in both
directions were being discussed.
(b)
NOTED:
i. A virtual School had
started officially on 1 June with John Harper, recent HoD
of IPTME, as part-time Director.
ii. Two Away Days were being held this
autumn: for PGT Admissions Tutors (which
Dr Sahu had attended), and PGR Admissions Tutors.
(c) Pro Vice Chancellor (
Noted.
(d) Sterling Group Tour
NOTED:
Each
year LU supported a tour of
.2 Associate Dean (Research)
(a)
Example of 100-word statement for RAE output (ENG06-P13)
It was
hoped the departmental examples identifying impact of published
Papers,
which had now been circulated to all staff, would help them complete
these statements. It was vital that these statements clearly
identified impact, as this was the only real variable in the forthcoming RAE.
(b) Research student registrations
October 2005 and October 2006 (ENG06-P14)
The
October intake usually comprised 50% of the year’s total. Although registrations had risen across the
University, they had fallen in Engineering, mainly because of the fluctuations
in Doctoral Training Awards;
this should balance in the forthcoming year. Departments should promote as many studentships as possible: each Department would receive from the
University at least two, and each
(c) Grant success rates (ENG06-P15)
NOTED:
i.
Data showed variation
between departments and year on year, and it was difficult to identify any
trends for Engineering.
ii.
Data also demonstrated that
more mentoring of proposers was needed.
iii.
EPSRC intended to allocate more
funding on fewer, larger projects, and to reduce its administration costs each
year. The consequence of these actions would
probably mean that it would limit the number of applications permitted from
each HEI.
(d) Research student applications
and conversions by department
(data distributed by email on 7 November)
NOTED:
i. It was difficult to draw
conclusions from the data, although they showed that, although
ii. The majority of
European applications tended to convert successfully, although number were
currently small, and a large Faculty advertising campaign in Europe last year
had not had any discernible effect. The
International Office had identified a member of staff to promote the European
market. The Faculty needed a means of
reaching potential European applicants, because the conversion rate was good.
.3 Associate
Dean (Teaching)
(a) National Student Survey, 2006
NOTED:
i.
Data from the NSS
‘dissemination site’ had been disaggregated by department and circulated
in October; this
information was not public and could only be used for internal, enhancement
purposes.
ii.
LU was 5th of
109 universities (omitting small, specialist HEIs),
or 1st if data from 2005 and 2006 were combined. Loughborough had fallen slightly behind
iii.
The PVC(T)
had reconvened a Working Group to deal with issues arising from student responses; the weakest area in the University was again
Assessment and Feedback, as it was nationally.
The PVC(T) intended to meet departments,
especially those with some low scores, to discuss their proposed actions in
response to the results.
iv.
The NSS would take place
again in 2007 and continue in future years.
The results had a significant effect on the University’s place in
league tables, and it was important to get good results.
v.
APR and PPR would in future
include sections regarding how departments had dealt with results, especially
any negative data.
vi.
It was difficult for
departments to obtain any worthwhile information from the student open
comments.
(b) Centre for Excellence in Teaching
and Learning (engCETL)
(report
circulated by email on 7 November 2006)
NOTED:
i.
The building had been in use since June 2005, its
teaching facilities were being used by most Faculty departments, and by IPTME
and D&T; student
comments were favourable.
ii.
An additional £30-40K had been allocated to each
department, and the report included reports on how this was being spent.
iii.
Research activities continued to grow, with an
additional three new researchers commencing in December.
iv.
Members could contact the Manager, Adam Crawford,
for further information.
Secretary’s note: members can
obtain further information on the following items (c) – (g) via the LTC
agenda and papers at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/committees/learning_teaching/meetings/ltc06-a3.htm
(c) HEFCE additional capital funding for
learning and teaching
NOTED:
Loughborough
would use this funding to create more informal space for students in various
locations across campus. The canopies of
both S and T buildings would be enclosed to make the entrance areas more
welcoming, and provide social space for students. Space for student group work would also be
made in the Chemical Engineering/IPTME entrance area.
(d) TQEF funding
NOTED:
The
University had submitted to HEFCE plans for allocating this three-year funding; from 2007, LEARN
would be replaced by an open-access VLE.
(e) Institutional Audit
NOTED:
The next
QAA Audit was likely to be in spring 2008.
No Discipline Audit Trails would be conducted, but the team would pursue
a quality enhancement agenda via
thematic trails.
(f) E-learning funds
NOTED:
Wireless
networking was being installed in locations across campus; Loughborough was apparently in the
vanguard among universities with this.
Members were puzzled as to why departments had not been informed when
buildings were networked, as this was good marketing for the University. It may have been because Computing Services
had concerns about security, but it was now policy to support wireless
networking across campus.
(g) Burgess Group consultation
NOTED:
The
University’s response to the report acknowledged problems with the
current honours degree classification system, but had not welcomed the
proposals to change to a pass/fail grading.
The Diploma Supplement (an enhanced Transcript) was likely to be
introduced to comply with the EU/Bologna framework.
.4 Transfer
Technology Transfer Manager’s report
NOTED:
i.
The
Government planned to establish an Energy Technologies Institute, a major
initiative of £500m over ten years, on condition that this funding was matched
by industry. To date, four companies had each committed £5m per annum,
including E-On with whom the University has a close relationship.
ii. Loughborough
intended to bid to host this Institute, perhaps as part ofan
East Midlands or even joint East/
iii. EMDA's
Regional Economic Strategy was now in an operational phase, with around £20m budget across four years to establish innovation networks in Transport,
Healthcare and Environment.
iv. In the Strategy document, SEIC
had been noted as a potential host organisation
for the Transport hub, focused on cluster activities inaerospace,
automotive and rail industries in the
v. Linked to this initiative, MAA
had been looking at the industrial inputs to academic courses in the aerospace
area. Following an initial meeting with Dr Jane Horner (Aeronautical and
Automotive Engineering) and Mr
John Hooper (Electronic and Electrical Engineering),
they had invited LU to a further workshop which might also be attended by a
CETL representative.
v. The DTI had called for bids for
£40m research funding in its Autumn 2006 Technology
Programme. All call themes had potential relevance to research
activities within the University.
24. Award
of research degrees (ENG06-P16)
Degrees were awarded as follows:
Doctor of Philosophy:
M S al-Rashidi
(Chemical Engineering)
P P Prokopovich ( “ “ )
A Alajmi
(Civil and Building
Engineering)
H K Elhag
(
“ “ “ )
J R Gardiner ( “ “ “ )
S E N Godfrey ( “ “ “ )
W Pan ( “ “ “ )
I A Straker
(
“ “ “ )
V Fux (Electronic and
Electrical Engineering)
A Saparon
( “ “ “
B Ashraf
(Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering)
P A Ducker ( “ “ “ )
V Esat ( “ “ “ )
P A Higgs ( “ “ “ )
P J Misselbrook ( “ “ “ )
A J
J W Proctor ( “ “ “ )
C Steele ( “ “ “ )
A
Master of Philosophy:
G Jameison
(Chemical Engineering)
25. Actions
of the Associate Dean (Teaching) (ENG06-P17)
RESOLVED to ratify the actions taken by the AD(T) on behalf of the Board.
26. External Examiners’ reports
NOTED.
27. Appointment of Boards of Examiners, Module
Boards and
External
Examiners
NOTED.
28. Curriculum Sub-Committee
NOTED.
29. Staff Student Committees
NOTED.
40. Date of the next meeting
2 pm on
Wednesday 23 May 2007, in the Council Chamber.
Author – Marie Kennedy
Date – November 2006
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved