Faculty of Science
Faculty Board
SCI05-M2
Minutes of
the Forty-second Meeting of the Faculty Board held on 19 May 2005.
Members: Professor K C Parsons (Chair), Dr K S F
Brooke-Wavell (ab), Dr S D Brown (ab), Professor P W H Chung, Dr A C Croft, R J
Dawson (ab), Professor J P Feather, Professor R H J Grimshaw (ab), J F Harper,
J Harrison (ab), Dr M C Harrison, Professor R A Haslam, Dr G Havenith (ab), Dr
S N B Hodgson (ab), Professor R S Kalawsky (ab), Dr A Kay (ab), Professor F V
Kusmartsev, Dr P A Lawson, Professor C M Linton, P Lund, Professor V McKee, I R
Murray, Dr L R Mustoe (ab), Dr K U Neumann, Professor P C B Page, Professor A C
Pugh (ab), Dr W G Salt, M Squelch (ab), Professor Sir David Wallace (ab),
Professor P Warwick, Dr D R Worrall
Apologies for Absence: Dr K S F Brooke-Wavell, R J
Dawson, Professor R H J Grimshaw, J Harrison, Dr G Havenith, Professor R S
Kalawsky, Dr A Kay, Dr L R Mustoe, Professor A C Pugh, Professor Sir David
Wallace
In Attendance: Miss M T Whyte (Secretary), Professor J Binner
05/16 Minutes
SCI05:M1
The Minutes of the Meeting of the Science Faculty Board, held on 3 February 2005, were confirmed and signed.
05/17 Dean’s
Report
The University budget for 2005/06
was projecting a surplus of £2.6M. The
University’s financial strategy (set by Council) required a surplus of
£4.8M. The Faculty was projecting a
deficit of £900K but had not been asked to make savings at this stage. It was not known whether the budget would be
acceptable to Resources and Planning Committee.
05/18 Associate
Dean’s (Research) Report
i.
RAE sub-panel membership had been announced. HEIs awaited publication of the assessment
criteria for each sub-panel after which detailed planning of submissions could
begin. Particular attention was needed
where joint submissions (e.g. with
ii.
Three SRIF3 bids from the Faculty had proceeded to
the next stage.
iii.
Directorate had approved awards from the Faculty
Small Grant and Travel Fund. The ADR
would contact individual members of staff to inform them of the outcome.
iv.
The value of new grants awarded in the Faculty for
2004/05 currently stood at £6,875M. A
number of departments had already exceeded the total amount awarded in the
previous year. Research grant and
contract applications from the Faculty currently stood at £14M.
v.
HEFCE had published QR funding per member of staff by
subject and RAE(2001) Grade on their website so it was now possible to see how
funding had changed since the previous year.
05/19 Associate Dean’s (Teaching) Report
SCI05-P7 (related to ii. student recruitment)
i.
The Mathematics Education Centre’s (MEC) bid (joint
with
ii.
The ADT reported the latest student recruitment
position. The Faculty’s international
applications (PGT) had increased but, as the market was unpredictable, it was
difficult to know whether or not this would lead to any increase in
intake. The coming months were crucial
in terms of conversion rates.
iii.
The University’s English Language proficiency
requirements for international students was sometimes viewed as a barrier to
recruitment. Whilst the University did
not intend to reduce its requirement it may, in the future, be possible for the
ADT to waive the requirement for some applicants. One member urged caution as reducing the
requirements could be detrimental for individual students both academically and
socially. All cases would be considered
on their individual merit. The English
Language Support Unit was exploring the possibility of introducing a longer
programme (than currently provided) which students could complete before
starting their undergraduate or postgraduate programme of study. Further information regarding the immigration
implications of the extended language study programme would be circulated
electronically by the Academic Registry.
ACTION: Academic Registrar and
Faculty Secretary
iv.
The results of the National Student Survey would be
disseminated to universities in July.
All departments should discuss the results at a departmental staffing
meeting.
v.
All members were asked to forward comments and ideas
regarding the E-Learning Strategy to the ADT.
Action: All
vi.
The ADT reminded members of the importance of student
supervision. Students needed to be
provided with information about the type of supervision they could expect to
receive. A number of recent cases
highlighted the need to monitor and keep accurate records of all student
supervision, particularly for placement students.
05/20 University Access Agreement
The Academic Registrar attended for this item.
The University’s Access Agreement had been approved by the Office of Fair Access. The main features of the agreement were outlined as follows:
· The tuition fee for all UK/EU undergraduate programmes would be £3K per year from 2006 entry.
· The new tuition fee would not apply to the sandwich year which would continue to be charged at current rate (adjusted for inflation).
· Students currently paid tuition fees at the start of each year. From 2006, students would be able to borrow the full amount for tuition fees from the Student Loans Company, effectively deferring payment until completion of studies. This arrangement applied to all students - current students had been informed of the changes via email.
· One of the conditions of being able to charge the maximum fee (£3K) was the introduction of a bursary scheme to support students from low income families and to increase outreach activities. The University’s bursary scheme was deliberately simple, starting at £1,300 for the poorest students and phased to £200 depending on family income.
· Increased tuition fees would bring significant additional income to the University of which 21% would be dedicated to student bursary schemes (including administration). Significant investment for outreach activities was also planned. Discussions continued at the highest level about how the remainder would be spent. Students and their families were likely to enquire about how additional income was being spent. A briefing document was available to help staff answer some of the questions they might receive at Open Days.
Although the investment in outreach activities would be primarily directed to the Widening Participation Office, the Academic Registrar was keen to work in partnership with departments. There was likely to be a re-orientation of the recruitment strategy as a result of the new arrangements.
A member commented that the cumulative debt for undergraduates could deter them from postgraduate study and that the University may need to re-think its postgraduate provision. The Academic Registrar responded that the University would be keeping a careful watch on developments although the real effects of increasing the tuition fee unknown at this stage.
05/21 Human Resources/Personnel Issues
The Faculty Personnel Adviser attended for this item
05/21.1 Equal Opportunities Action Plan
SCI05-P8
The Faculty Personnel Adviser presented the Faculty’s Equal Opportunities (EO) Action Plan. Directorate had identified two areas as requiring specific attention:
i. that the role of the EO Coordinator be developed - all Departmental EO Coordinators should be meeting regularly with the University EO Adviser and their Head of Department
ii. that attendance at EO related training sessions be improved within the Faculty – some progress had been made but a large number of staff had still not attended the mandatory Respecting Diversity training. A member suggested that Personnel consider approaching individual members of staff directly.
The University had implemented the Two Ticks Symbol – details were available on the Personnel Web-pages at: www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/personnel/twoticks/index.htm
05/21.2 Job Evaluation
The Faculty Personnel Adviser updated staff on the Job Evaluation project. Approximately 1100 jobs had been evaluated using the Hay method. From the analysis conducted so far, Personnel had written “job families” for secretarial, technical and operational staff. The job families written by the AUT would be used for academic and related staff. Up-to-date job descriptions would be produced for the remaining posts (not evaluated) and these would be used to match jobs to job families. The project was currently entering the job matching phase where individual jobs would be mapped onto appropriate levels within the relevant job families. It was hoped that most academic jobs would be matched to the appropriate level within the job family on a global basis so that academic staff would not have to complete individual job descriptions. Personnel were waiting for the AUT to confirm that this was an acceptable way forward. A draft grading structure was currently with the Unions for consultation. Some jobs would be “green-circled” which would mean an increase in salary, others would be “red-circled” and negotiations were ongoing with the Unions about how to address this. The University would look to redesign jobs rather than drop salaries wherever possible. However, it was anticipated that the majority of staff would move to the new grade structure with no change to their salary. Personnel were hopeful that the implementation date of 1 July 2005 could be met but if not, any changes to salary would be backdated. Further information about the project was available on the Personnel Web-pages at: www.lboro.ac.uk/admin/personnel/jobevaluation/homepage.htm
The Personnel Adviser offered to attend departmental staff meetings to brief staff on the project.
05/22 Strategic Review Group
The Deputy
Vice-Chancellor and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) attended for this item
05/22.1 Research Schools
SCI05-P9
The Dean
introduced proposals for a
·
Directorate had requested further information
regarding research areas and the individual members of staff that would be members
of the
· Senate would need to be assured that the Research Schools had potential to succeed, particularly in encouraging multidisciplinary research. All Research Schools would necessarily involve all three Faculties. A member commented that, whilst a “model” was a useful starting point, the nature of individual Research Schools may differ depending on the research areas, the membership and the opportunities available. It was agreed that it would be important to consider flexible structures rather than necessarily imposing the model proposed in the agenda paper. The proposed structure was, however, minimal and would accommodate any necessary situation-specific elaborations.
· The Faculty Board noted that the proposal did not include detailed financial arrangements. The DVC confirmed that other than an honorarium for the Director and compensation to the academic department to which he/she belonged, the financial arrangements were still to be finally determined.
· The Faculty Board commented that careful consideration regarding research output was required. Individual staff members would probably be returned in the RAE with their department and therefore any output produced through the Research School(s) to which they belonged needed to be consistent with departmental research strategy. This should be achievable as the HoD retained overall responsibility for agreeing Personal Research Plans with members of staff.
· Members felt that there could be better communication regarding the rationale behind proposals and asked that, in future, initiatives from the Strategic Review Group be prefaced with a clear justification of the need for change. The DVC would refer the comment back to the Strategic Review Group but noted that the original Senate paper had included such justifications. If anything, the need for change has become even more clear since then. The Deans were members of the Strategic Review Group and were presumed to be feeding back to their Directorates and Faculty Boards. From there it was assumed that there would be further cascading of information back to colleagues in departments.
SCI05-P10
Faculty Board considered a paper from the Loughborough
Materials Network proposing a Research School of Materials Science and
Engineering (working title). The
proposal was broadly in line with model developed by the Strategic Review Group
with a few subtle differences. Faculty
Board supported the proposal which the Strategic Review Group would take
forward to Senate.
05/22.2
SCI05-P11
The Deputy
Vice-Chancellor outlined the major drivers behind the proposal to introduce a
·
developing
and promoting the postgraduate ethos of the University to increase the
attractiveness and esteem of postgraduate provision (the majority of current
structures/functions being based on undergraduate provision)
·
co-ordinating
the provision of skills training (particularly for research students)
The Faculty Board was supportive of the creation of a
All members of the Faculty Board were invited
to forward further comments to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
05/23 Financial Modelling Working Group
SCI05-P12
Faculty
Board received a paper which considered the University’s current finance
model. The following issues were
highlighted and discussed:
·
The
University received a block grant from HEFCE which was income streamed to
departments via the University’s finance model, which was itself based on HEFCE
formulae. HEFCE often made changes to
its funding formulae (e.g. teaching band changes for Computer Science, recent
changes to QR funding) which could have drastic effects on departmental
business plans but were totally out of the departments’ control.
·
The
University’s finance model was primarily driven by teaching, but the
University’s strategy was to become a research-led institution.
·
The
University had stated its intention to continue teaching laboratory based
subjects (e.g. Chemistry, Physics, Chemical Engineering) but the finance model had
not been adjusted to adequately cover the costs of teaching those
subjects. There needed to be a mechanism
to support laboratory-based subjects whilst continuing to monitor and address
inefficiencies.
·
Research
funding was allocated according to past performance rather than being aligned
to strategic objectives. It was
important that departments with high QR funding continued to receive funds in
order to sustain excellence but should be expected to demonstrate value
added. At the same time, investment was
needed in departments where individuals conducted internationally excellent
research but received minimal funding because of past RAE ratings.
·
The
University levied heavy COMA charges on departments regardless of their
financial position. Departments could
not choose to opt out of the COMA charges and had to pay regardless of the extent to which they made
use of Support Services.
·
The
current finance model required departments to work towards a break-even
position despite the fact that some subjects (e.g. laboratory based subjects) were
significantly under-funded. A more
flexible approach would be to introduce Faculty (or other group) level
budgeting (retaining departmental business plans) but this would only succeed
if departments were grouped in such a way as to make it possible for the “Faculty”
to breakeven, meaning that existing academic structures would have to
change.
Faculty Board members agreed that the Dean should continue
to pursue the issues wherever possible and the topic would be raised again at
Directorate at a later date.
05/24
SCI05-P13
Faculty Board considered a paper proposing the formation
of a
05/25 IPTME
SCI05-P14
Faculty Board considered a paper proposing that the
05/26 Award of Degrees
SCI05-P15
Faculty Board approved the award of Research Degrees to candidates listed in the agenda paper.
05/27 Careers Service: Destinations Survey
SCI05-P16
Faculty Board received the latest
Careers Destinations data.
05/28 OLDO (On-Line Development Officer) Report
SCI05-P17
Faculty Board received a report from the ADT.
05/29 Annual Programme Review Report
SCI05-P18
Faculty Board received a report from the ADT.
05/30 Faculty
Board Membership
Faculty Board noted that there were 9 vacancies for elected members and up to 8 vacancies for co-opted members in the 2005/06 session.
05/31 Award of Degrees
SCI05-P19
Faculty Board noted degrees awarded by Senate at its
(Special) meeting on 2 March 2005.
05/32 Programme
Proposals
Faculty Board noted that proposals for the following new and revised programmes had been circulated to members for approval. Comments had been received regarding vii only:
i
(new) BSc/MComp Computer Science and Artificial
Intelligence
ii
(new) BSc/BSc,DIS/DPS Chemistry and Information
Technology
iii
(new) BSc Information Technology and Mathematics
iv
(new) BSc Information Technology and Physics
v
(new) MSc Internet Computing and Network Security
vi
(new) BSc/BSc,DPS Financial Mathematics
vii
BSc Quantum Information and Computation: Change of
Title to Information Networks and Physics
05/33 Staff-Student
Committees
Faculty Board noted that reports
of Staff-Student Committee meetings had been deposited with the Secretary as
follows:
|
|
Chemistry Computer Science Human Sciences Information Science IPTME Mathematical Sciences |
8 December 2004, 23 February 2005 16 February 2005, 11 May 2005 3 March 2005 4 March 2005 27 October 2004, 22 February 2005 4 March 2005 |
05/34 ADT
Business
Faculty Board noted that the AD(T)
had taken action to approve:
-
appointment of programme boards
-
appointment of module boards
05/35 Any
Other Business
Prizes
Assessors
Faculty
Board approved the appointment of Prizes Assessors for the Sir Robert Martin
Faculty of Science Prize.
05/36 Valediction
Faculty
Board thanked retiring members for whom this would be the last meeting as
follows: R J Dawson, Professor R H J Grimshaw, J F Harper, J Harrison, Dr S N B
Hodgson, Dr A Kay, Dr P A Lawson, Professor V McKee, Dr K U Neumann, Dr D R
Worrall.
05/37 Provisional
Calendar of Meetings for 2005/06
Thursday 10 November 2005
Thursday 25 May 2006
Miranda Whyte
May 2005
Copyright (c) Loughborough University.
All rights reserved.