Faculty of Engineering
Faculty
Board
ENG07-M1
Minutes of the meeting of the Faculty Board held on 23 May
2007.
Members: Professor
Chris Backhouse (Chair), Dr Lisa Bartlett (abs), Dr Sekharjit
Datta (abs), Professor John Dickens, Professor Phill Dickens, Dr Roger Dixon, Dr Ashraf
El-Hamalawi (abs), Dr Keith Gregory, Dr Jane Horner,
Dr Weeratunga Malalasekera,
Mrs Stephanie McKeating, Dr Les Mustoe
(abs), Mr Kushal Pattni
(LSU-appointed student representative) (abs), Professor Shirley Pearce (abs), Dr
Jon Petzing, Mr Bob Reed, Professor Steve Rothberg,
Dr Basu Saha, Mr Ian Smout (abs), Mr Paul Sobers (elected student
representative) (abs), Dr Andy Stapley, Ms Mary
Thomas, Professor Tony Thorpe, Professor Rob Thring,
Dr Dave Twigg, Professor Yiannis
Vardaxoglou, Professor Richard Wakeman,
Dr Stephen Walsh, Dr Peter Willmot
Apologies for absence: Dr Lisa Bartlett, Dr Sekharjit
Datta, Dr Ashraf El-Hamalawi, Mr Ian Smout, Mr Paul
Sobers
Also present: Wg Cdr Jon Osborne, Professor Rob Parkin, Dr K Walsh
In attendance: Ms
Marie Kennedy
1. Welcome
Wg Cdr Osborne, new DTUS
representative, and Professor Parkin, Head of Department designate of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering, were welcomed to their first meeting.
2.
Mr John Harper,
Director of the
NOTED
that recent and current activities included:
-
holding workshops for PG
admissions tutors, and a PG Open Day;
-
reviewing research
programme regulations and the Notes for Guidance;
-
developing a system for
monitoring research student progression and review of research programmes;
-
facilitating communication
between the International Office and academic departments;
-
helping develop
international links/programmes;
-
facilitating provision of
PG study/common rooms;
-
reviewing PGT provision
including the role of the Research Schools;
-
re-badging
some existing and providing some new scholarships and prizes, and developing
loyalty bursaries and scholarships;
-
further developing the
research student skills training programme;
-
establishing a conference
fund for research students;
-
helping develop a PG
marketing strategy and improve presentation of opportunities (webpage and
short-form brochure);
-
developing a co-ordinated
policy regarding fees and discounts;
-
helping standardise research student applications procedures.
FURTHER
NOTED:
The
3. Destination statistics for 2006 graduates (tabled
papers)
Mrs Ruth
Grainger, Careers Centre Adviser, was welcomed to the meeting to provide
employment data for the Faculty’s students.
NOTED:
Graduate
employment data continued to show a steady profile for the University’s
students across a number of years.
Proportions of graduates in employment had again increased; fewer graduates
were pursuing full-time further study but more were combining employment and
further study, perhaps because of debts incurred during their undergraduate
years. Demand for the Faculty’s
graduates continued to be high and data showed they entered appropriate
graduate employment
FURTHER
NOTED:
-
That the ‘work and
study’ category included graduates in full-time employment who were
working towards chartered engineer status, and who should be distinguished from
graduates working part-time while studying.
-
Data available on the
Careers Centre website included breakdowns of Eng and MEng
programmes, and breakdowns of graduates in engineering/non-engineering
employment were available from Careers Advisers.
-
National comparisons which
showed that salaries for engineering graduates were second only to Medical
graduates could be used in recruitment publicity.
The
Guardian ranking of some
ACTION: Dean
4. Changes to Ordinance XV, Study Leave (ENG07-P1)
NOTED.
5. Minutes (ENG06-M2)
The
Minutes of the last meeting of the Board were confirmed.
6. Matters arising from the Minutes:
6.1 Admissions and recruitment
2007
recruitment data were healthy, and the Faculty should meet targets.
6.2
Draft Corporate Strategy
NOTED.
7. Periodic Programme Review:
Department
of Civil and Building Engineering (ENG07-P2 and P2a)
NOTED
The
report was very positive and the Panel had made only minor recommendations. One of these was that the Department should
hold three meetings of Staff-Student Committees each year, as required by the
Code of Practice. The Department had
requested that the University review this requirement as the Department’s
students preferred just one meeting each semester. The report had also recommended that the University
consider the appropriateness of an AD(T) being a
member of a Panel reviewing their own department. The presence on the Panel of the
Students’ Union Vice President (Education and Welfare) had been found
helpful to both Panel and department, and in future the LSU VP (E&W) would
be a formal member of such Panels.
8. Reports from Faculty Officers
8.1 Dean’s report
NOTED:
(a) Dean of Engineering
The next
Dean would be Professor S J Rothberg, currently Head of the Wolfson
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, who would commence a
three-year term of office on 1 August 2007.
(b) Head of the Wolfson
The new
Head of Department would be Professor R M Parkin, who
would commence a three-year term of office on 1 August 2007.
(c) Faculty IT Co-ordinator
Mr N J
Cope would commence a three-year period from 1 August 2007.
(d) Appointment of Chief Operating Officer
This new
role would comprise the duties of the current Registrar together with that part
of the previous Bursar’s role concerned with the University’s
commercial activities. The financial
part of the Bursar’s role was now being undertaken by Ms R Wiggans as Director of Finance.
(e) University’s Strategic Plan
15 Implementation
Plans for each element of the Strategic Plan would be considered by Heads of
Department during an away-day on 24 May 2007.
The Strategy remained broadly the same as before, but details were being
developed.
(f) Internationalisation
This part
of the Strategic Plan, for which the current Dean would take responsibility,
aimed to provide both international and home students with an international
experience aimed at helping them maximise their potential. The
(g) Employer Engagement/Enterprise
To help
meet the government’s target of 50% attendance in HE,
the Funding Councils were encouraging HEIs to work more
closely with industry, with a view to validating company training. The University was currently in discussion
with Ford and other major employers.
Although there was currently no clear agreement on what was meant by
‘employer engagement’, the University and Faculty were already very
involved with external organisations in a number of ways, not least having a
high proportion of students on work placements, and the establishment on campus
of two national centres for engineering: the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and
Learning in Engineering (engCETL) and the Higher
Education Academy Subject Centre for Engineering.
It had
been proposed that the University’s main contact for work with industry
and commerce in this respect would be the Business School’s Professional
and Management Development Centre which already ran a number of non
credit-bearing short courses.
NOTED that WEDC also had considerable experience of such work.
(h) Validation of BUE degrees
The Institutional Validation
Panel, chaired by the PVC(T) and with membership
including the Dean of Engineering, the AD(T)s for the SSH and Science Faculties
and the Librarian, had been held in January.
Two Subject Validation Panels, chaired by the AD(T)
of the Engineering and SSH Faculties respectively, with membership including
subject specialists from relevant departments, had been held in April. Those students that members of each Panel met
were younger than home students but were very articulate, mature and
cosmopolitan, and those staff met by Panels were
highly motivated.
The reports from each Panel, which
would shortly be considered by Learning and Teaching Committee and Senate,
would highlight a number of issues that would require monitoring in
future. These included the shortage of
appropriate staff;
with rising student numbers, this issue would become of increasing
importance. BUE had aimed to recruit 70%
of its academic staff with UK HE experience, but current staff
were largely Egyptian with no such experience. Cultural differences, which should decline in
coming years, centred around assessment, and assessed
student work would require monitoring.
BUE welcomed input from
Loughborough staff, for example in delivering one-week modules.
Loughborough had already received
three applications form BUE students who wished to study Engineering
here in preference to
(i) Reward Review
All
applications for promotion to Senior Lecturer had (deservedly) been approved in
the recent Review, and it was gratifying to note how well staff
were performing against current metrics.
8.2
Associate
Dean (Research)
(paper circulated by email ahead of the meeting)
(a)
RAE
NOTED:
The
University would make returns under 28 units including human ergonomics.
Key
dates:
- The University aimed to get as
many research students as possible to complete by 31 July 2007.
- The most important immediate
task for staff was to complete their output statements (maximum 100 words), as
these were likely to be the distinguishing feature of submissions. They should include evidence. Staff should also try to improve their entries
for personal esteem before 31 December 2007.
FURTHER
NOTED:
The PVC(R)
could provide some funding to support staff to maximise their personal esteem
rating, for example by attendance at major conferences. Some funding was also available for staff to
pay overseas visits or to invite distinguished international colleagues to
Loughborough.
(b)
Funding Council changes/grants
- The new chair of the
EPSRC Council was likely to increase its emphasis on output and impact of
research. EPSRC was also likely to
follow the AHRC in restricting the number of proposals it accepted, in order to
improve the success rate. It was
therefore likely in future to allocate funding to fewer but larger
projects.
- EPSRC would in the next
few years be making calls for ‘Grand Challenges’, related to the
environment and crime; topics were
likely to be those listed in the report.
The bidding process would be the same:
expressions of interest would lead to a sandpit to develop a project. It was important for the University to be
part of a sandpit, and it would begin discussions with possible partners so
that it was able to respond as soon as bids were called for. Grand Challenge projects were only likely if
matched funding was obtained from government departments.
(c)
Proposed review mechanism for research degree programmes (ENG07-P3)
The
University would review its research programme administration in the light of
the QAA report on Loughborough’s research degree training,. The AD(R)s would discuss this early in 2008, using one sample department
from each Faculty; the Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
had been selected to represent Engineering.
Proposals
included a minimum number of supervisory meetings (probably 12 pa) and notes of
the meeting to be signed by supervisor and student. Proposals also included an annual assessment
of progress; this
was already common in the Faculty.
(d)
Research students:
-
Recruitment
-
Changes to regulations
-
Faculty research studentships webpage
NOTED
The
webpage provided additional information.
Not all departments had yet filled their studentship quota.
FURTHER
NOTED
Some
departments were increasingly negatively affected by agency agreements signed
by the University which not only caused departments a significant reduction in
fee income but also payment of an agency fee, although neither of these had
been included in the budget.
8.3
Associate Dean (Teaching)
NOTED:
(a) Annual Programme Reviews (ENG07-P4)
Documentation
reviewed included External Examiners’ reports, Staff Student Committee
minutes, intake, progression and achievement data, and student feedback.
The
reports showed a largely positive picture.
Although overall progression rates were good, student re-sit data,
especially in Part B, suggested the development of a re-sit culture.
The
reports, together with any comments made by the Faculty Board, would be
considered by Learning and Teaching Committee in June. They would also probably be among evidence
reviewed by the Institutional Audit team in March 2008.
(b) National Student Survey, 2007
The
University’s final response rate was 77.77%, a significant improvement on
the 2006 rate of 69.98%, and even on the 2005 figure of 75.08%. It was also significantly higher than the
national average of 59%. The University
was proud of its good relationship with the Students’ Union, and was
grateful for the latter’s support in helping achieve this high response
rate. This good relationship was further
demonstrated by the recent visit of the LSU President and Vice President
(Education and Welfare) to the BUE, where they had made presentations to staff and
students, and shadowed students attending lectures.
(c) Institutional Audit 2008
The full
Audit Visit would take place from 10 – 14 March 2008 inclusive, with the
Briefing Visit from 4 – 6 February inclusive. A member of the QAA would meet University staff,
including the PVC(T) and AD(T)s, in July to discuss
preparations.
The
Audit Visit would not include any Departmental Audit Trails (DATs) as it had for the last Institutional Audit in 2004,
but the team would meet a selection of staff in pursuing a number of thematic
trails. One of these trails was likely
to be the University’s internal reviews, notably Periodic Programme
Reviews.
The
Students’ Union had again been invited to make a Student Written
Submission, and representatives would be present at the July preparatory
meeting. They were also member of the
Audit Steering Group.
(d) Recruitment (data circulated by email
ahead of the meeting)
UK/EU Undergraduate:
Engineering
applications were 10% higher than at the same time last year, conversions were
23-26% higher, and the Faculty should fulfil its quota. The University must exceed its intake target
to allow for withdrawals during the period between registration in early October
and presentation of HESA returns in December.
International Undergraduate:
Applications
and conversions were higher than at the same time the previous year, and
demonstrated the influence of Loughborough’s high standing in a number of
league tables. International applicants
were very sensitive to such information.
UCAS data:
These
showed that applications for Engineering at Loughborough equalled or exceeded
national comparisons.
UK/EU PGT:
Similar
numbers of applications had been received but showed a continued decline across
a number of years. However, DL
programmes such as the REST programme were buoyant, and data for all part-time
applicants were needed to provide a more realistic picture.
International PGT:
Engineering
applications were slightly lower than the previous year, although higher for
the University as a whole. However, the
decline for the Faculty was mainly among students from
Enrolments
for the University’s pre-sessional English
Language programmes were high: these
were usually a good indicator of final intake.
FURTHER
NOTED:
Some
ACTION: AD(T)
(e) Learning and Teaching Implementation Plan
15 Plans
intended to implement the University’s Strategy would be considered by
Learning and Teaching Committee and by Senate in June.
(f) HEFCE funding for vulnerable subjects
The
Department of Chemical Engineering would benefit from this initiative to halt
the decline in applications for ‘stem subjects’. The Royal Academy of Engineering was also
engaged in widening participation for vulnerable subjects, acting as an
interface between universities and schools.
(g) EngCETL update
(Positive)
feedback received from users of teaching space in the past academic year was
being externally evaluated. The Centre
would be subject to a HEFCE formative evaluation the following week, and a summative evaluation in two years. It was developing a number of project
proposals including some with partners who had not previously worked with the
CETL. JISC funding had been received for
a web project and for an administrative project such as Co-Tutor. Three research students recruited in the past
year were engaged on projects concerned with sponsorship, virtual laboratories
and problem-based learning. The
possibility of a poster competition for students who had completed their
placement year was being considered; any such posters would make good
recruitment material and could act as a focus for Open Days.
8.4 Transfer Technology Manager’s
report
NOTED two main activities:
1. Energy Technologies
Institute:
This was a £1B initiative to reduce the carbon footprint
through advances in technology. Loughborough
was a member of a consortium including Nottingham and
2. iNETs:
emda would implement a regional
innovation strategy, a critical element of which would be to develop four iNETs or innovation networks in the areas of Healthcare,
Transport, Food and Drink, and the Environment. Preferred
bidders had been selected for each of these iNETs, and
would proceed to the contract stage. The University had a role in all four, but
was leading, together with the Midlands Aerospace Alliance, on the Transport iNET. Subject to contract negotiations, this should start operation
in spring 2008.
The iNETs would be involved in
developing emda strategy for their respective
sectors, including brokering linkages between companies and universities,
running networking events, and administering a HE Innovation Fund. The latter would be used to support collaborative
regional HE bids into national funding streams.
FURTHER NOTED:
The Transport iNET was a novel
initiative which would concentrate on research and development rather than
skills or education.
emda was promoting the
9. Award
of research degrees (ENG07-P5)
APPROVED the following awards:
Doctor of Philosophy:
V B Georgiev
(Aeronautical and Automotive
Engineering)
Y Hu “ “ “
M
Satria “ “ “
H Sun “ “ “
G K al-Sharrah
(Chemical Engineering)
R
Ghorashi “ “
A
Khan-Siddiqui “ “
H Deng (Civil and Building Engineering
P M Grimley “ “ “
Z Ismail “ “ “
H Li “ “ “
X Sun “ “ “
Y Tang “ “ “
M M M al-Rawi (Electronic and Electrical Engineering)
J P Barton “ “ “
D F Rankin “ “ “
Y He (Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering)
C
S A Masood “ “ “
M S M
Perera “ “ “
K K J
Ranga Dinesh “ “ “
10. Personal
Titles
Congratulations were offered to:
-
Professor Richard Holdich, Professor of Chemical
Engineering
-
Professor Stephen Ison, Professor of Transport Policy
-
Professor Andrew Dainty, Professor
of Construction Sociology
11. Actions
of the Associate Dean (Teaching) (ENG07-P6)
RESOLVED to ratify the actions taken by the AD(T) on behalf of the Board.
12. External Examiners’ reports
NOTED.
13. Appointment of Boards of Examiners,
Module Boards and
External
Examiners
NOTED.
14. Curriculum Sub-Committee
NOTED.
15. Staff Student Committees
NOTED.
16. Date of the next meeting
2 pm on
Wednesday 21 November 2007, in the Council Chamber.
17. Any
other business
This was the last meeting of the
Faculty Board which the current Dean would chair. On behalf of Board members, the Head of the Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
thanked the Dean for his excellent service to the Faculty over the past six
years.
Author – Marie Kennedy
Date – May 2006
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved