Faculty of Engineering
Faculty
Board
ENG09-M2
Minutes of the meeting of the Faculty Board held 11 November
2009.
Members: Professor Tony Thorpe (Acting Dean and Chair), Dr
Observer: Wg Cdr Angela Hawley (ab)
Apologies for absence:
Sandie Dann, Matthew Frost,
Danish Malik, Sue Morton, Mike Smith, Richard Stobart, Dave Twigg, Stephen Vickers,
Stephen Walsh, David Waugh
In
attendance: Marie Kennedy
Also in
attendance:
Dr Phil Richards and Carys Thomas,
IT Services, and Nick Cope, Faculty IT Co-ordinator (for item 4)
Henk Versteeg (for item 5)
1.
Welcome
New
members and visitors were welcomed to the meeting.
2.
IT
Services: strategic priorities for the
coming year (ENG09-P27)
(item taken out of turn)
The
Director of IT Services introduced key points from the annual consultation
exercise, and invited members’ comments and suggestions. The key feature of this consultation was the
new University Desktop and Laptop Policy, which aimed to improve coherence by
reducing the currently wide variation of desktop packages to three main
options, although each would have optional additional features. This reduction would give the University
better purchasing power, and enable a service-provider’s engineer to be based
on campus to provide desktop support. There
was considerable evidence that more standardisation would reduce the total
cost of ownership (TCO) to the
University: it was estimated that only
one-third of desktops’ TCO was in the purchase price, with the remaining
two-thirds in service provision, particularly if there were a large number of
additional functions. It was also estimated
that the majority of the University’s IT technician time was spent in
supporting staff desktops, and this was largely because of the wide variability
of equipment and functionality. IT
Services hoped to contribute to the ‘silver scenario’ by making savings
of perhaps 2-3% pa on desktop TCO; it did
not intend to centralise purchasing, and the Policy would not affect discipline
and research-specific purchases. The reduced
specifications should be suitable for the standard user but departments would
be free to buy add-ons for staff conducting specialist academic work, and IT
Services would continue to support such requirements.
Evidence
suggested that 44% of staff currently had multiple facilities (such as two
desktops), and a high percentage had access to a laptop; there was therefore also room for improving
coherence if, for example, some staff just used a laptop. Members felt it was important that the Policy
did not inadvertently reduce staff efficiency, or cause health issues such as
RSI.
Members
also pointed out that Faculty desktops were often financed from staff research
income, and that the majority of Faculty IT support staff were funded directly
by the Faculty. The Faculty IT
Co-ordinator anticipated that the Policy would cause some issues with staff
requirements and purchase approval systems, but acknowledged that there was
scope for some vetting of individual choices.
Some
revisions to the University’s Strategy, following the recent Senate/
Council awayday, meant that the University now aimed to reduce its carbon
footprint by 50% by 2020; it was hoped
that the proposed ‘thin client’ desktops to be deployed in some
support services would help meet this challenge.
Phil
Richards, Carys Thomas and Nick Cope were thanked for attending the Board for
this item.
3.
UNITECH (item taken out of turn)
Henk
Versteeg was welcomed to the meeting to introduce the academic/industrial network
which the University had recently joined.
UNITECH currently had nine academic and 15 corporate partners, and aimed
to fast-track students into engineering management positions in multi-national
organisations. The scheme involved three
tiers: an international industrial
internship for a minimum of 12 weeks, an academic exchange in another European
university, and three weeks of joint modules with other students in a
cross-cultural setting. All the academic
partners featured in the THES world university rankings, especially for
engineering; they ranged from relatively
small HEIs to universities with twice the number of Loughborough students.
Some
60-70 students pa had taken part in the five years since the scheme began, and
the Dean and AD(T) had been very impressed in the quality of the recent and
current students they had met in September.
Loughborough would begin active participation during 2010/11, when 10-14
incoming EU students were expected, and it was hoped a similar number of Loughborough
students would attend partner universities.
The selection of students was made by UNITECH, not the home universities,
but UNITECH had undertaken that Loughborough would not have to take a large
incoming cohort if there was only a small outgoing cohort. It should not therefore arise that accepting
UNITECH students on certain popular optional modules would mean that departments
disappointed their own students.
The
University now needed to identify three corporate partners who would each
contribute €30,000 pa, and to recruit 10-20 high-quality students pa,
probably from MEng finalists who were expected to achieve1st/2:1 degrees. Benefits for corporate partners included a
choice of students with management potential, and benefits for students were
less financial than taking part in an exclusive, prestigious scheme which
provided exposure to a multi-national, a wide networking experience with
high-achieving students from a range of European universities, and an
additional, UNITECH, award. Regulations
and fees had yet to be worked out, but the scheme might replace the DIS placement
year for some students; it was the home
university’s decision whether students could bring credits back to their
own degree. Details would be clearer
following the visit of UNITECH colleagues on 9 December.
Members
were asked to liaise with colleagues such as departmental teaching
co-ordinators to identify suitable students, to encourage admissions tutors to
enthuse applicants, and to consider possible content for joint modules. Further information for staff and students
including fees and student loans would be made available asap to enable students
to make a choice in autumn 2010. It
might be helpful for the Faculty to encourage take-up in the first year by
providing a financial incentive.
4.
Minutes
(ENG09-M1)
Subject
to the amendment to item 5.2, Research Excellence Framework, circulated by email
on 4 November (see below) the minutes of the last meeting were confirmed.
There is no system as yet for automatically transferring
academics’ publications from the University’s publications database
to the Institutional Repository although the Library and CIS are working on a
common interface. Staff who wish to
deposit material should first sign an agreement form which allows their work to
be made available online. Thereafter
they can use the online submission form on the Repository website to submit
their publications to the Institutional Repository. The Library checks the publishers’
copyright policies on their behalf and it in most cases it is the
academic’s own final version of the item which is used (rather than the
publisher produced PDF). For full
details about the Institutional Repository see http://www.lboro.ac.uk/library/resources/InstitutionalRepository.html.
5.
Matters
arising from the minutes:
3.1
REF/
Institutional Repository
In
progress.
3.2
New
research student regulations
The
Research Team had decided that students could lodge an electronic thesis before
all copyright permissions had been obtained but that this would not be
disseminated. The Library was now
offering training in copyright issues.
6.
Constitution,
powers and effectiveness of the Faculty Board (ENG09-P28)
Members
were content with the current terms of reference and constitution. The up-to-date version of the latter, which
included the recent change to members’ terms of office, was available
at: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/ar/calendar/regulations/current/10/index.htm.
7.
Briefing
note for members (ENG09-P29)
Noted.
8.
Periodic
Programme Review 2009: Department of
Electronic and Electrical Engineering (ENG09-P30(a))
The Department
verbally reported on actions taken since the Review in May. The Panel had made two major
recommendations: to reduce the number of
undergraduate programmes, and to reduce the over-reliance for programme
management and administration on a few key members of staff. The Department had already taken action on
the first recommendation, effective from the beginning of the current academic
year. Actions on the second were in
progress. The formal response, which
followed wide discussion of the report within the Department, would be
available within a day or two and would be considered at the next meeting of
the Board.
9.
engCETL
(Engineering Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning) Annual Report
(ENG09-P31)
The
Centre’s Manager selected some highlights of the report. Teaching space was maintained to a high
standard, and good usage was made by students of facilities such as the
plotter, and the Design lab for study and revision. A placement student had worked with each
partner department over the summer on projects for which staff did not have
time; it was hoped the University would
approve funding to repeat the scheme the following year. The four-day Engineering Education Conference
would be hosted jointly with the HEA Engineering Subject Centre in 2010; a staff discount could be obtained via a block booking which would enable colleagues
to attend for (say) just one day.
10.
Mathematics
Education Centre Annual Report (ENG09-P32)
(full
report available at: http://mec.lboro.ac.uk/documents/7th
mec annual report.pdf)
The
Centre’s Director highlighted some key points from the published report. Usage data showed that students from nearly all
the Faculty departments were making increased use of the two Support Centres on
campus, and that demand continued to rise.
A growing number of academic staff were involved in using innovative
technology and teaching methods.
Members
would be provided with a further breakdown of usage data including an
indication of the number of students as well as visits.
ACTION: CLR
11.
Science
and Engineering Foundation Programme Annual Report (ENG09-P33)
The
programme would be retained because it provided a useful additional route to undergraduate
programmes, but numbers were being reduced because the University was
increasingly able to recruit high-quality direct entrants. Although there was apparently no correlation
between SEFS students’ A-Level results and the class of degree they
subsequently obtained, there was a significant correlation between attendance
and achievement. It was also noted that
some direct entry undergraduates who had good Mathematics A-Level grades sometimes
believed they did not need to attend
Semester 1 lectures in Part A, but realised they could not afford to be
complacent when they attended Semester 2 sessions.
12.
Reports
from Faculty Officers
7.1 Acting Dean
(a) Senate and Council Away Day, October 2009
Senate
and Council had revised some aspects of the University’s Strategy to 2016
including sustainability, sport and sports governance, value for money, and the internal academic
structure. The main driver had been the expected future
HEFCE reductions in HEI funding, and the possibility of more variation in fees.
A significant proportion of the
additional income Loughborough had gained from the recent RAE had been
allocated to offset the expected reduction in income, and the University was
making savings in (for example) reduced energy consumption. Despite uncertainties about future income,
Loughborough would continue to strive to improve its position in international
league tables.
(b) engCETL and sigma funding
Noted the continued funding for the two CETLs including core
staff.
(c) Pharmacy
Pharmacy was one of three new subject areas to be introduced
in line with the current University strategy and structure. New History programmes had recently commenced
within an existing department, but a proposed Pharmacy programme, probably
offered by the Chemistry Department, was unlikely to begin until the economic
context was more certain. The programme
would require some capital investment including some refurbishment of the
Chemistry and Chemical Engineering buildings.
7.2 Associate
Dean (Research)
NOTED:
(a) Research Excellence Framework
Members’
views were needed on the HEFCE consultation document on the REF (http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2007/ref.asp). The PVC(R) would submit a combined response
on behalf of the University by the 16 December deadline, and staff comments should
be sent via the AD(R) by the end of
November. The University was likely to
support a delay of one year to the proposed census date of late 2012. HoDs were asked to begin considering the
impact statements that would be required, and to include support from any
external contacts.
ACTION: all members
(b) EPSRC ‘demand management’
EPSRC proposed
to implement its ‘demand management’ from April 2010. Principal Investigators (PI) who had
submitted a proposal in the last few months had received letters warning them
of the possibility of ‘black-listing’ if three or more proposals
were rejected or fell within the lower 50%.
Any PI in this position would in future only be able to make one
submission pa even as a
Co-Investigator. It also appeared that
EPSRC would not allow proposals to be withdrawn in anticipation of possible
rejection if (say) they received poor peer reviews. ‘Demand management’ was subject
to review but seemed likely to become effective.
(c) Research student academic misconduct regulations
The
Academic Registrar was redrafting the regulations with a view to streamlining
procedures.
7.3
Associate Dean (Teaching)
(a)
Recruitment
2009/10:
The
University had achieved its target intake, and quality continued to
improve; only a few departments had been
allowed to make concessions or offer CCOs this year.
- UCAS 2009 intake press release (ENG09-P34(a))
Data
showed that acceptances had risen in all Faculty subjects except Building and
Manufacturing Engineering.
- Average A-Level scores (ENG09-P34(b))
The
majority of Faculty departments had increased their entry requirements, and the
average intake now had more than 300 points;
this pattern was likely to continue.
- Intake and population at 5 October 2009
(ENG09-P34(c))
Undergraduate
The Faculty
had achieved its target intake of 730 UK/EU students with only a small amount
of over-recruitment in one department;
targets for 2010 were likely to be similar. The SEFS intake had declined significantly,
in line with policy. The new
‘adjustment period’ during which students who had achieved higher
than expected A-Level grades could change their first-choice HEI had had little
impact at Loughborough: only eight
students had transferred out - students
seemed to have preferred to transfer courses within the University - and only a
few inquiries had been received from applicants wishing to transfer in.
The DTUS
intake was lower than in the previous two years, and followed a predictable
pattern of student university choices.
The AD(T) and the Teaching Co-ordinator of the Aeronautical and
Automotive Engineering Department would visit Welbeck with the aim of increasing
the number of applicants who made Loughborough their first choice for 2010/11. The DTUS connection was important to the
University, not only because of the MoD connection but because it helped to
widen the student mix. Admissions tutors
might therefore consider some grade relaxation to avoid deterring DTUS
applicants who might otherwise accept offers that required lower grades. The University might also consider some grade
relaxation for some low-achieving subject areas, and the AD(T) would facilitate
discussions between admissions tutors and the Undergraduate Admissions Office.
ACTION: AD(T)
International
UG recruitment had been healthy.
Postgraduate
Taught
The
number of full-time UK/EU applicants had risen this year, apparently because of
the economic recession, and the University had slightly reduced the
international intake. The
University’s acceptance letter seemed to have satisfied the Home
Office’s new points-based system, with 90% of international students
successfully obtaining student visas.
From October 2010 international student visas would name just one
university.
Exchange
students
The
University had recently been re-accredited by the
(b)
NSS
results
The
University had again achieved good results in the 2009 NSS, but the PVC(T)
wished to emphasise that competitor universities were making ever greater
efforts to improve their own relative positions in national ‘league
tables’. It was therefore
important that all staff continue to strive to ensure that Loughborough
continued to obtain positive feedback from its students and to maintain its own position. The Government continued to place more reliance
on ‘the student voice’, and the NSS results were likely to increase
in importance.
The
University’s quantitative and qualitative data had been subjected to
considerable analysis and AD(T)s were tasked with meeting each department to
discuss their own results. The AD(T)s would
report back to the Programme Quality Team on these discussions and would review
departmental actions at the next APR.
13.
Award of
research degrees (ENG09-P35)
APPROVED the following awards:
Doctor of Philosophy:
Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering:
S I de Silva
M Wood
Chemical Engineering:
B N Al-Azmi
A A Alhazza
Electronic and Electrical
Engineering:
K Cumanan
C J Hibberd
S K Kassim
D Liu
K Michail
P Shi
Wolfson
C J Dowding
J Lee
V Lara Prieto
V Shenoy
Doctor of Engineering:
Civil and Building Engineering:
J A Bishop
S T McAndrew
14.
Personal
titles
Congratulations
were offered to the following members of the Faculty, who had been awarded
Personal Titles:
Professor Memis Acar, Professor of Mechanics
(Wolfson
Professor Shahin Rahimifard, Professor of Sustainable Engineering
(Wolfson
15.
Actions
of the Associate Dean (Teaching) (ENG09-P36)
Approved.
16.
Membership
of the Board (ENG09-P37)
Noted.
17.
Representation
on other University committees (ENG09-P38)
Noted.
18.
Prizes
Committee
Noted.
19.
Curriculum
Sub-Committee
Noted.
20.
Staff
Noted.
21.
Any other
business
Mrs
Judith Burton and Dr
22.
Date of
the next meeting
1.30 pm on Wednesday 19 May
2010 in the engCETL Design Studio (first floor of the Keith Green building) (please note change of venue published in
the agenda for the November 2009 meeting).
A sandwich lunch will be served at
1.15 pm
Author – Marie Kennedy
Date – November 2008
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved