Minutes of the Meeting of the Faculty Board held on 11
November 2010
Members: Professor
Chris Linton (Chair), Professor Paul Chung, Dr Louise Cooke, Dr Sandie Dann (ab),
Professor Ray Dawson, Dr Eran Edirisnghe
(ab), Professor Barbara Jaworski (ab), Dr Karima Khusnutdinova (ab), Professor Feo Kusmartsev, Peter Lund (ab), Professor Graham Matthews, Dr Sally Maynard, Dr Ian Murray (ab), Professor Shirley Pearce (ab),
Dr Iain Phillips, Dr Daniel
Reidenbach, Dr Carol Robinson, Dr John Samson, Dr Sergey Savel’ev
(ab), Dr Martin Smith, Dr Alexander Strohmaier, Professor Paul Thomas (ab), Dr George Weaver, Professor Huaizhong Zhao.
Observers: Jo Corlett, Shirley Horner, Professor Rachel Thomson (ab).
Apologies for Absence: Dr
Sandie Dann. Professor
Barbara Jaworski, Dr Karima
Khusnutdinova, Peter Lund, Dr Sergey Savel’ev, Professor Rachel Thomson.
In attendance: Martine Ashby (Secretary), Martin
Hamilton and Dr Phil Richards (for 10/23).
10/20 Welcome
Members
were welcomed to the meeting.
10/21
Minutes
The
minutes of the Science Faculty Board (SCI10: M1) held on 20 May 2010 were
confirmed.
10/22
Matters arising from the Minutes
10/6(d) Associate Dean
(Research) Report: EPSRC Demand Management: It was noted that EPSRC had
been using Turnitin software for a number of years to
identify resubmitted applications. In future EPSRC intended to automatically
reject resubmissions unless made in response to a specific invitation to
resubmit.
10/23
IT Services Consultation
SCI10-P9
Dr Phil Richards,
Director of IT Services, and Martin Hamilton, Head of Internet Services
attended for this item.
The Director of IT Services presented the IT Services
consultation on strategic priorities for the 2011/12 academic year. He
explained the importance to members of the IT infrastructure and the need for
it to support a growing number of services within the University. A new
project, ‘i2012 IT Infrastructure’, had recently been approved by
Operations Committee. Stage one of the project would involve feasibility work
for the three areas of ‘data centre’, ‘network’ and ‘voice’.
The University was being asked to approve a consolidated five-year programme of
work, rather than piecemeal upgrades. Dr Richards explained the different benefits
which could be gained given three levels of spending, particularly if the same approach
to spending was agreed for all three areas. A project management board had been
set up to consider the options and would include representation from each
faculty. Three members of the Faculty, Shirley Horner, Dr Steven Kenny and Dr Iain Phillips,
had been invited to serve on the board.
In response to members’ questions, Dr Richards
explained that if no changes were made, the existing system would become
increasingly slow and less reliable. The potential benefits and disadvantages
of cloud computing were being weighed up carefully and IT Services would not pursue
further use unless it was seen to be both secure and cost effective.
The Head of Internet Services gave a demonstration of the
new Student Portal, which was being piloted in the Library that term. It was
anticipated that the portal would incorporate email and calendar feeds from
Google, module information from the student information system, library loan
information and information from the cashless card system plus targeted alerts
and notifications. Discreet advertisements may also be included on it. However,
a decision had yet to be reached as to whether or not this was an appropriate
use for the portal.
Eventually IT Services intended to provide students with the
same level of access to the portal via their mobile phones as would be obtainable
via a desktop setting to give them access to timely information wherever they
went. Members were encouraged to forward any feedback on the portal to Martin
Hamilton. ACTION: All
10/24 Constitution and Terms of Reference of the
Faculty Board
SCI10-P10,
SCI10-P11
The
Board received the constitution and powers of the Faculty Board and a briefing
note for new members and agreed that they remained fit for purpose.
10/25 Dean’s Report
i Strategic Issues: It was
noted that the Browne Report on Higher Education Funding and Student Finance and
the Government’s recent comprehensive spending review heralded
significant change for the Sector. Further details would be released in coming
months after legislation proposing changes to the student finance system had
been approved by Parliament. It was not yet clear how the University would
respond to the changes.
ii University
Restructuring: Proposals for the new structure of the University had been
approved by Senate and would come into effect in August 2011. Deans for the new
schools would be appointed in December 2010 and Associate Deans would be
appointed in the New Year. The support function of the new schools would be
overseen by school managers who would also be recruited in the New Year. When
in post, the school managers would be charged with devising the administrative
structure for their schools. It was the intention that administrative staff within
academic departments would become members of the administrative team within their
new school, rather than being associated with individual departments. This
would allow schools greater flexibility in covering administrative responsibilities.
The new Science School was to consist of six units, the five
existing academic departments and the MEC. It had yet to be given a name.
Members were invited to make the Dean aware of their preferences for a name for
the School. ACTION:
All
A steering
group had been formed to oversee changes within the new School. The group,
which would consist of the Dean, Associate Deans, heads of departments and the
Faculty Administrative Liaison Officer, would meet on a monthly basis. The
Faculty Administrative Liaison Officer had been asked to carry out a review of
current administrative processes to inform the School’s new senior
management team when it came into being.
iii Citations:
It was noted that the University had been ranked in 354th place in the Times
Higher Education’s list of the world’s top universities for
2010-11. Using a number of different metrics the University had achieved a score
of six, which was significantly lower than some of its main competitors. This
suggested that its research may not be being cited as much as that of other
comparable universities. Therefore, academic departments were encouraged to
ensure that their publications were made as visible as possible. ACTION: All
It was noted that the University was investigating more
effective ways of collecting citation information. The Department of
Information Science employed a number of experts in the field of research
evaluation who would be able to advise on suitable
methods.
10/26 Associate Dean’s (Research) Report
i Research Excellence Framework (REF)
TABLED PAPER
Members
noted the timetable for the REF. They noted in particular that subject areas
would need to prepare one impact case description for every ten staff returned.
In anticipation of this, HODs had been asked to consider, in coming months,
which research areas they wished to include in their impact case studies.
The
University had recently purchased a publications management system and software
to analyse and provide citation information for staff publications. The new publications
management system would be integrated with the University’s publications
database so that publication information did not have to be re-entered.
The
Research Office had developed an online PRP system to simplify the PRP process.
The system would be rolled out to academic departments through the current
academic year to fit in with their PRP cycle.
ii Research Studentships: In 2009/10, the
Faculty had been successful in the Development Fund Studentships Competition,
with all departments in the Faculty receiving some except the Department of
Physics. In the current academic year the University would make 50 to 60
Development Fund studentships available. All academic departments and research
schools would be allocated one studentship each, subject to their candidates
meeting the threshold requirements. The remaining studentships would be
allocated via a similar competitive process to last year. They would be
advertised in THE and via jobs.ac.uk with applications being sought
by the end of February. Departments would be informed of the outcome of the
process at the end of March.
It was
noted that many finalists would not receive their semester one results until
the end of February. Therefore, members considered that the proposed deadline
for applications was too early and believed it should be moved to a later date.
The AD(R) would make the Research Team aware of their views. ACTION:
AD(R)
10/27 Associate Dean’s (Teaching) Report
i Recruitment 2010
SCI10-P12, SCI10-P13
Members
received an overview of undergraduate and postgraduate taught recruitment and
intake figures for 2010/11.
In
2010 the Faculty had exceeded its overall undergraduate home/EU target.
However, as the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities had not met its
target, the University as a whole had not gone over target.
The
Faculty’s undergraduate international recruitment had largely been to
target with the exception of recruitment in the Department of Computer Science
which had been slightly lower than anticipated.
The
Science and Engineering Foundation Programme had recruited well over target
with departments in the Faculty of Science recruiting relatively large numbers
of students. Postgraduate taught recruitment had been broadly to target.
Chemistry had recruited well above its home target and Information Science had
recruited over twice the number of international students that it had aimed to
recruit.
The
Department of Computer Science believed that its PGT recruitment had been
affected by delays in the processing of applications which had been caused by
the loss of three members of staff in the PGT Admissions Office. The AD(T) would seek an update on PGT admissions in the current
academic year for Directorate. ACTION: AD(T)
ii Recruitment 2011: All departments in
the Faculty had raised their grades for 2011 entry for undergraduates with the
exception of the School of Mathematics which was to raise its grades for 2012
entry. Consideration may be given in 2011/12 to specifying an A* grade at A
level for some subjects offered by the Faculty.
2011/12
would be the last academic year before tuition fees were increased in response
to changes to government funding mechanisms. Therefore, there would be pressure
on school pupils currently sitting A levels to gain a
place at University in 2011. As a result it was anticipated that demand on
Clearing would be significant that year.
It
was noted that in 2011 departmental targets would still be in place. However,
when A results were published in August, the new
University structure would have been introduced. Therefore, if departments
exceeded their targets, other departments within their School may need to
compensate by recruiting fewer students.
The AD(T) intended to ensure that in 2011 the Science and
Engineering Foundation programme recruited only students from the groups which
the programme was originally set up to cater for, eg
students who had taken non-science A levels who wished to do a science
programme, and those targeted through widening participation activities.
In the
2010/11 round of APRs the AD(T) would focus in
particular on postgraduate taught programmes that were recruiting small numbers
of students. All departments would need to review their postgraduate taught provision
and pay particular attention to programmes which were regularly recruiting less
than ten students to ensure that they were teaching efficiently.
iii National Student Survey
SCI10-P14
Members
received a summary of the University’s NSS results with specific reference
to departments in the Faculty. All departments in the Faculty had received very
favourable results, with the Department of Chemistry achieving top scores in
most categories. The AD(T) was to seek feedback from
HODs on the action which they intended to take in response to the
Survey’s findings.
iv Other Learning & Teaching Issues: The AD(T) noted that proposals for
module and programme changes would be needed much earlier in 2011 because of
changes to the timetabling process. Departments had been informed of the change
and of key dates in the approval cycle.
10/28 Periodic Programme Reviews
SCI10-P15
The Board received the report from the Periodic Programme
Review for the Department of Information Science and the Department’s response
to the report.
Members
noted that the review had highlighted the need for staff/student committees to
have an audit trail for agreed actions. The AD(T)
would be focussing upon this aspect of staff/student committee business in the
next round of APRs.
10/29 Advancement and Fundraising
SCI10-P16,
TABLED PAPER
Members
received a paper from the Development and Alumni Office (DARO) detailing ways
in which academic departments were working with DARO to develop their
advancement and fundraising activities and noting other initiatives which they
could engage in to improve their range of activities further. Members were
encouraged to note activities being undertaken in other departments and, in
particular, to note the establishment of the Loughborough Sciences Fund. ACTION:
All
10/30 Award of Research Degrees
SCI10-P17
The
Board APPROVED the award Higher Degrees to named candidates whose examinations
had been conducted since the June meeting of Senate
10/31 Membership 2009/10
SCI10-P18
NOTED
New Awards
MSci
Computing and Management
MSci IT
Management for Business
MSci Computer
Science and Mathematics (from 2010 entry)
Changes to Programme
Titles/Awards
From: MComp Computer Science / Computer Science & Artificial
Intelligence
To: MSci Computer Science / Computer Science & Artificial
Intelligence (Oct 2011 entry)
From: BSc Web Development and Design
To: Information
Management and Web Development (2012 entry)
Discontinuation
of Programmes
MSc Analytical Chemistry and IT (last intake Oct
2010)
It was
NOTED that the Associate Dean (Teaching) had taken action between meetings as
detailed in the agenda.
It was NOTED that reports of Staff-Student Committee
meetings had been deposited with the Secretary as follows:
Chemistry Computer Science Mathematical Sciences |
12 May 2010 28 April 2010 2 March 2010 & 20 May 2010 |
10/35 Mathematics Education Centre Report
SCI10-P19 (Available at http://mec.lboro.ac.uk/documents/8th_mec_annual_report.pdf)
NOTED.
SCI10-P20
NOTED.
SCI10-P21
NOTED.
It was NOTED that
the following would serve as Faculty representatives on University committees
during 2010/11:
Dr
Derek Stephens Learning
and Teaching Committee
Professor
Paul Thomas University Health,
Safety and Environment Committee
SCI10-P22
Members
NOTED University prizes awarded to students within the Faculty in 2009/10.
10/40 Date of Next Meeting
2.15pm
on Thursday 19 May 2011
M Ashby
January 2011
Copyright (c) Loughborough University.
All rights reserved.