SENATE

SEN 96 M5

Minutes of the 309th (Extraordinary) Meeting of Senate held on Friday 20 September 1996

                               Professor D J Wallace      
                                                                                 
         Dr M Acar (ab)                     Mrs W Llewellyn (ab)                 
         Professor J L Alty                 Mr P G Lewis                         
         Mr J A Arfield                     Professor R McCaffer                 
         Dr C Backhouse                     Professor J J McGuirk                
         Dr J V Black                       Dr M P McIver                        
         Dr W R Bowman (ab)                 Professor J N Miller                 
         Dr P L Byrne                       Professor I C Morison (ab)           
         Professor S Cox (ab)               Dr P N Murgatroyd (ab)               
         Dr R K Dart (ab)                   Professor K C Parsons (ab)           
         Professor J V Dawkins              Dr A Price                           
         Dr D W Edwards                     Dr A C Pugh                          
         Professor M Evans (ab)             Professor I Reid                     
         Professor J P Feather              Professor P H Roberts (ab)           
         Ms G A Fish (ab)                   Professor J A Saunders               
         Dr M Gilbert (ab)                  Professor M Shaw                     
         Professor P Golding                Professor M Streat                   
         Dr H Gross                         Dr G M Swallowe                      
         Professor N A Halliwell            Professor T G Weyman-Jones           
         Professor V I Hanby (ab)           Dr P Wild (ab)                       
         Professor A G Hargreaves           Professor F Wilkinson                
         Professor D J Hourston             Professor C Williams                 
         Mr T P Jones                       Dr B Woodward                        
         Ms A Kanwar (ab)                   Professor K R A Ziebeck (ab)         
                                                                                 
         In attendance:        Mr R A Bowyer                        
                               Dr D E Fletcher                      
                               Ms L Howarth                         
                               Mr N A McHard                        
                               Dr B P Vale                          
                               Mr D L Wolfe                         
                                                                    
         By invitation:        Dr J Costello                        
                               Professor B Marples                  
                               Dr R Wilcockson                      
                               Professor H Schröder                 
                               Ms K Myers                           
                               Mr C Bethel                          
                               Mr M Jackson

Apologies for Absence were received from Dr Bowman, Professor Cox, Professor M Evans, Ms Fish, Dr Gilbert, Ms Kanwar, Professor Morison, Professor Parsons and Professor Roberts

__________________________________________________________________

96/64 Review of the Average Modular Points Score System

(SEN96-P40)

.1: Members were reminded that Senate had asked the Semesterisation Review Group to review as a matter of urgency the operation of AMPS as a mechanism for translating marks into degree classifications. Following widespread consultation within the University concerning three possible options, no single alternative scheme had emerged which commanded overall support. Nevertheless the most favoured alternative scheme was a system whereby credit accumulation was retained, but the overall degree classification would be based on average percentage marks. A survey by the AUT also confirmed that opinion amongst staff supported a move to a system which incorporated average percentage marks.
: The views of the Faculties were reported to Senate by the Associate Deans (Teaching). All were broadly in favour of introducing a scheme incorporating average percentage marks, but the Science and Social Science and Humanities faculties advised against the hasty introduction of any new system. The Students' Union supported the view that any change should be introduced in a timely fashion and not with undue speed. Some members expressed the concern that since certain deficiencies of AMPS had already been demonstrated, an amended system should be brought into effect for 1996/97. Senate accepted, however, that in view of widespread concern about further rapid change and the need for decisions on a number of technical issues, this was not possible. Concern was expressed about the implications of the delay in changing the arrangements for the TQA visits scheduled for next session. It was felt that departments should not be adversely affected since the University would be able to demonstrate that it had responded to criticisms of AMPS and was in the process of amending the scheme. It was noted that the Notes for Guidance for the conduct of Module and Programme Boards and for External Examiners and Programme Assessors would be revised.
: Senate resolved that AMPS should be retained for 1996/97. Thereafter, the adoption of the alternative scheme outlined in the agenda paper was agreed in principle and the Semesterisation Review Group was asked to bring detailed proposals to the November meeting of Senate.
.2: Senate considered the detailed issues raised in the agenda paper concerning marks which attracted an AMPS score but no modular credit; those which did not attract an AMPS score and the mark to be given to students following a successful re-sit examination. It was argued that in a genuine modular and credit accumulation system if a student failed to gain credit in a module then any mark should not be included in an averaging scheme and that where credit was obtained a student should have the full benefit of the mark, even if obtained following a re-sit examination. If, however, marks were not included in the averaging process where credit was not obtained this would reduce the student's average and could have a direct impact on the degree classification awarded. This issue might be addressed by setting a minimum level of attainment. With respect to the re-sit marks to be carried forward, it was felt that there should be some disincentive towards strategic examination failure. A number of members raised the proposal that the mark should be capped in some way, perhaps at 40%. The student's actual performance could nevertheless be recorded on their transcript.
: It was felt that these issues required some further consideration. There needed to be further analysis of programme regulations and some further modelling. Professor Feather undertook to refer these issues back to Faculties via the Associate Deans (Teaching) for further discussion.
.3: In considering the transitional arrangements Senate affirmed that the new scheme should be introduced in its totality and there should be no phased implementation. Marks previously awarded under the existing scheme would remain unchanged.

96/65 Any Other Business

The Students' Union had drawn to the Vice-Chancellor's attention an article which had appeared in the Guardian on 17 September 1996. Based on figures derived from the CVCP the article had claimed that there would be a funding deficit of Ł2bn in the University sector by 1999/2000 and that students could be expected to pay Ł20K towards their education by 2003. The Vice-Chancellor reported that the CVCP data were not reliable in the context of Loughborough and included a proposed pay rise for staff of 8% delayed until 2000. Although it seemed inevitable that students would have to contribute more to the cost of their education via a loans scheme, there had been no formal discussion in the University on the introduction of top up fees. The financial position might be clearer following the November budget. The concern of the students was fully recognised and the Vice-Chancellor reassured student representatives that they could raise issues with him at any time.

96/66 Date of Next Meeting

Wednesday 23 October 1996 am (if required).

Wednesday 27 November 1996 am.

Author - Nick McHard

September 1996