(University logo)





SENATE

SEN97-M1

[Minutes]

Minutes of the 312th (Ordinary) Meeting of Senate held on Wednesday 5 March 1997

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

Apologies for absence were received from Dr Bowman and Professor Reid


97/1 Business of the Agenda

No items were unstarred.

97/2 Minutes

The Minutes of the 310th Meeting held on 27 November 1996 (SEN 96:M6) were confirmed and were signed by the Chairman.

97/3 Matters Arising from the Minutes

There were no matters arising.

97/4 Matters for Report by the Vice-Chancellor

The Vice-Chancellor reported to Senate that:
.1
The University's bid for the Academy of Sport was in the final shortlist of three proposals and it was hoped that the outcome would be known by the end of March. There were no outstanding difficulties regarding planning permission for the development.
.2
The University had made a joint bid for Lottery Arts Funding development and feasibility study for the Gallery of the Future. Assessors had that week visited the University.
.3
A revised schedule for the Strategic Planning timetable was made available to Senate and had already been circulated to departments.
.4
There was disappointment regarding the HEFCE funding settlement given the outcome of the RAE. The University's allocation had however been influenced by the volume of staff returned in the RAE and the shift in funding in favour of 5 and 5* departments at the expense of 4 rated departments. It was difficult to make direct comparisons with previous allocations because equipment monies were now included in the formula funding for teaching and research and the Funding Council for England had taken into account savings to the University with respect to the reduction in superannuation overheads.

The allocation represented a small cash increase for the year. In the context of the Strategic Planning Exercise a more radical approach might need to be adopted.

It was acknowledged that the University had been safety netted at a level of £250K, but it was not required to report to HEFCE regarding its plans to deal with this.
.5
Officers were to be congratulated on reducing the amount of paperwork circulated with the Senate Agenda. It was expected that this would lead to more focussed debates.

97/5 Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) and the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)

It was reported that:
.1
Resources and Planning Committee had set aside £1M over three years to support innovations in teaching and learning. £100K had been earmarked for the Peterborough initiative. A paper would be circulated in the near future outlining the bidding process with a deadline for returns by the end of April.
.2
The semesterisation review exercise was well underway with the major areas of difficulty having been clearly identified. A paper would be circulated to Faculty Boards next term with a view to proposals coming to Senate in June. It was anticipated that there would be room for flexibility within an agreed quality assurance framework. The consultation process would be via the Faculty Boards and was to be driven by academic considerations and concerns. This, however, was not an opportunity to overturn an existing workable system, in accordance with Senate's earlier views on the matter.
.3
Research Committee had previously allocated about £3M under the Research Development Fund and via the Research Committee the ADRs were currently conducting a cost benefit analysis on this expenditure. In future Research Committee would make available up to £2.5M. Whilst the RAE was an important barometer of the University's research activity and it was important to look ahead to future exercises, staff must not lose sight of the wider primary activities. New grants and contracts obtained by all Faculties over the last 6 months of 96/97 showed a decline of more than 30% compared with figures for the same period last year. Although there might be a number of factors in this apparent decline it was a cause for concern. It was suggested that fewer grant applications were being made because of pressure on staff time. It was acknowledged, however, that this pressure existed throughout the sector.

The University's apparent failure to promote itself as an international leader in certain areas of research needed to be addressed.

97/6 Loughborough College of Art and Design

(SEN97-P1)
.1
Senate was advised that the University and LCAD had commissioned independent external reports on their respective financial health and the outcome had been reassuring to both parties. It was confirmed that post-amalgamation LCAD would become Loughborough University School of Art and Design and would join the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities. On this basis the College's Acting Director had already been attending SSH Faculty Boards. There was no intention at present of further reviewing the Faculty structure. Although in terms of student numbers the amalgamation would make SSH the largest Faculty, in terms of budgetary turnover, for example, the differences were less.
.2
In terms of research performance the College had achieved a 2 and a 3a . Since this was based on a very recent approach to research this outcome was felt to be positive. The experience of Winchester College of Art and the University of Southampton had also been encouraging in this respect. Staff at the College were aware of what the commitment to research entailed and their output was of very high quality.

97/7 Peterborough

(SEN97-P2)

It was explained that this project was still at the feasibility stage and that an operational phase would depend on financial investment from Peterborough and support from HEFCE. There were concerns that 50% of the student numbers were expected to be provided by the University and that the regional funding initiative might not be available in future.

The £100K set aside for this initiative was to fund the development of the project and was particularly related to staff costs involved in curricula development. It was emphasised that any work done in this area could be used by the University in a broader context.

Concern was expressed that a proposed 1998/99 start was very soon and it was not yet apparent what the institution's commitments might be.

The Vice-Chancellor made it clear that the University could not proceed unless HEFCE provided substantial funded student numbers. Peterborough must also make a substantial financial commitment. Staff, including the AD(T)s were already involved in the development. The University must guard against undertaking an initiative which might lead to a loss of economies of scale.

The demand for this initiative came from Peterborough and it was expected to cover the disciplines of Business Studies, Engineering, Science and Technology and Education. Access to the Foundation Year was also a possibility. Many programmes would be distance learning based. A resource centre next to the city Library had already been made available at no cost to the University.

97/8 Degree Classification Scheme

(SEN97-P3)
.1
Teaching and Learning Committee had felt that Senate had not provided enough guidance previously on the implementation of the amendments to the GRUA/ARUA involving the introduction of the capping of resit marks at 40%. It was possible that Programme Boards would now be faced with students who had commenced in different cohorts but who were completing their programmes in the same cohort. The application of capping uniformly in these circumstances would lead to some students being subject to retrospective capping. It was felt that this might be unfair to students who were unaware that they would have been subject to this regulation and that it might be difficult to defend legally. It was estimated that up to 70 students would be affected by the new regulation. In general it was felt that it was important that no students should be disadvantaged, that retrospective action should be avoided and that students should carry forward the marks previously notified to them.

The Students' Union requested that the situation be made clear to students.
.2
Under the revised regulations most students who undertook resit examinations would be debarred from obtaining an Honours degree. This was not considered to be just since the resit marks would already be subject to capping. It was agreed that in these circumstances students should be eligible for an honours degree if their overall performance merited such an award.

It was noted that the new General Regulations came into effect for all undergraduate students in the next academic session and that AMPS would cease to exist after the Programme Boards immediately following the 1997 Special Assessment Period. All re-assessments after June 1997 leading to awards after October 1997 would become subject to the new classification scheme.

97/9 Research Committee

(SEN97-P4)

Senate was asked to accept that the maximum duration of a research degree should be four years and to reflect this in the University regulations. Three years should be the expectation since many students only received funding for that period. The PhD should not be regarded as a life's work but as a training for research and evidence of research ability.

Some concern was expressed about the ability of overseas students, who might be experiencing language difficulties, to meet the four year deadline. In addition it was suggested that sponsors would prefer a student to be able to submit a thesis shortly after the four year deadline than not at all. It was also argued that the requirement to undergo research training might be adversely affecting completion rates. It was, however, reported that the four year submission rate for overseas students were generally very high. Those student who had already received training in general performed very well in terms of PhD submissions. External bodies expected submissions within four years and the University's performance was monitored in this respect.

There was some discussion about the incentives which could be introduced to encourage prompt submission. Some departments were offering prizes to students who met specified deadlines. Concern was expressed by the Students' Union about introducing a high writing up fee which might disadvantage candidates on low incomes. It was emphasised that departments must take the opportunity to identify problems at an early stage and where appropriate suspend a student's studies or make use of part-time registration.

It was RESOLVED to approve the introduction of the requirement that all full-time research students should submit their theses within four years of their initial registration date for students commencing in October 1997 and thereafter.

97/10 Programme Proposals

(SEN97-P5)

It was RESOLVED on the recommendation of the Teaching and Learning Committee and on the advice of the Curriculum Sub-Committee to recommend to Council the following:

i)
For introduction in the 1996/97 session:
ii)
For introduction in the 1997/98 session:
iii)
The discontinuation of the following programmes:
iv)
To approve the retitling of BSc Mathematics and Education to Mathematics with Education - September 1997 entry.

97/11 Teaching and Learning Committee

It was RESOLVED on the recommendation of the Teaching and Learning Committee and where appropriate on the advice of the Curriculum Sub-Committee:
.1
Bachelor of Library Studies
(SEN97-P6)
To approve revised arrangements for the award of BLS to students importing credit from French and African institutions previously approved by Senate.
.2
Personal Tutoring and Academic Guidance
(SEN97-P7)
To approve minimum standards on Personal Tutoring and Academic Guidance.
.3
Optional Module Availability
(SEN97-P8)
To approve a proposal concerning the availability of optional modules.

97/12 Ordinances and Regulations Committee

It was RESOLVED on the recommendation of Ordinances and Regulations Committee:
.1
To approve amendments to the General Regulations for Undergraduate Awards; the General Regulations for Higher Awards by Course; the General Regulations for Modular Postgraduate Awards in respect of;
i)
the clarification of the Attendance Requirement
(SEN97-P9)
ii)
the introduction of consistent procedures for handling requests for Leave of Absence
(SEN97-P10)
.2
To approve amendments to the General Regulations and Assessment Regulations for Undergraduate Awards to accommodate the new degree classification scheme and associated changes approved by Senate at its meeting on 27 November 1996.
(SEN97-P11)
.3
To recommend to Council that Ordinances and Regulations Committee be authorised to make as appropriate amendments to Ordinances and Regulations necessitated by the introduction of Faculty boards.

97/13 Degree Congregation in Winter 1997

It was noted that the date of the Winter Degree Congregation would be Tuesday 16 December 1997.

97/14 Reports from Committees

Reports from the following Committees were received:
  1. (SEN97-P12) Research Committee of 8 January 1997 and Research Committee of 6 February 1997
  2. (SEN97-P13) Ordinances and Regulations Committee of 7 February 1997
  3. (SEN97-P14) Resources and Planning Committee of 14 February 1997
  4. (SEN97-P15) Teaching and Learning Committee of 13 February 1997

97/15 Any Other Business

.1
A member of Senate reported that while reducing the amount of paper in circulation on the agenda was to be commended, the timescale within which notice had to be given to unstar an item was very tight. This was complicated by the need to look up the papers on the Information Gateway at an early stage. It was confirmed that papers were available at least 3 working days prior to the deadline for unstarring. It was not possible to circulate the papers any earlier nor to allow a later deadline for unstarring since time was required to investigate issues raised in this way and, if necessary, to notify members of any item unstarred. It might in future be possible to be more flexible regarding unstarring items for the purposes of clarification.
.2
It was noted that a member of Senate had sought clarification regarding agenda item 11.3 and having received reassurance had not unstarred this item. The point at which departments would not be allowed to withdraw optional modules on the grounds of module viability would be the point after which the module database was frozen, normally week 5 of semester 1. This would be reported to the next meeting of Teaching and Learning Committee.

97/16 Date of Next Meeting

Friday, 27 June 1997 (am). Please note the change to the usual day of the Senate meeting.


Author - Nick McHard

March 1997

Copyright (c) Loughborough University. All rights reserved.