Apologies for absence were received from: Professor Kavanagh, Dr Mason, Professor Parsons, Professor Pugh and Mr Sharp.
Dr Gross was welcomed as a new member (vice Professor Bowman).

It was RESOLVED to confirm the Minutes of the 338th Meeting held on 29 November 2000.

It was noted that Council had approved the alternative amendment put forward by General Assembly and supported by Senate for a Council membership of 30.

SEN01-P1 (including tabled paper)

.1 The Vice-Chancellor reported the establishment by Council of an Independent Board of Enquiry to investigate an additional and unpredicted projected overspend of c£1.5M on the Engineering Building. Legal proceedings might result. Council had nevertheless moved to completion of the building. Asked whether additional funds over the £1.5M might yet be needed, the Vice-Chancellor reported that some £750K expenditure was still required which incorporated estimates and was therefore not final. Asked whether the swimming pool project currently underway might overspend, the Deputy-Vice-Chancellor advised Senate that this was unlikely as the project was less complex, the risks very different, and a different structure of fixed-price contracts was being used. The project would be carefully monitored.

.2 The Vice-Chancellor tabled an additional paper on HEFCE funding allocations for English universities for 2001/02, with notes on the University's position. Referring to the £256K supplement for Widening Participation, the Vice-Chancellor informed Senate that the Director of Registry Services would be putting in place a mechanism that would allow affirmative action in the selection of candidates from poor backgrounds. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) reminded Senate that the University would be held to account through audit on the application of its funds for Widening Participation.

.3 The Vice-Chancellor displayed the three Queen's Anniversary Prize medals which the University had so far received. It was AGREED that consideration be given to how and where the medals could best be displayed.

SEN00-P2

.1 The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) congratulated the team involved in submitting the successful bid for Additional Student Numbers. New College Nottingham had since declared that it would be unable to recruit to the ASN level proposed and some numbers would therefore be returned. However, this would make no difference to the University's allocation of ASN funding.

.2 The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) reported that the gap in this year's UK/EU undergraduate applications compared with last year was closing, raising confidence that quotas would be met. Reduced numbers of applications were to be seen in the context of very high applications in recent years in some subjects and the raising of entry grades for some programmes.

.3 Overseas postgraduate applications were up by about 77%, concentrated in four departments. The pattern of countries was changing, with over a quarter of applications now from China (including Hong Kong), followed by Nigeria, then Ghana, then Malaysia, with Singapore now in 25th position.

.4 The consultant undertaking a review of international recruitment had recommended that additional expenditure on recruitment activities would be essential if overseas numbers were to increase. Peer institutions were spending three to five times as much as Loughborough on overseas recruitment.

.5 A reassessment of UK/EU projections had permitted an uplift of 2001 quotas for the Science (+ 78) and SSH (+ 36) Faculties, to be seen as maxima in order to maintain intake quality. There would be some scope for inter/intra-Faculty virement during August.

.6 Following the review of demand for higher education in the Greater Peterborough sub-region, a strategy group had been formed, of which the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) was a member, to develop the business case for a bid to the HEFCE Restructuring and Collaboration Fund.

.7 Reporting on the recent 23/24 ESR achievement of PE, Sports Science and Recreation Management, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) alerted Senate that it was becoming common for the University to lose points in the aspect of Quality Management and Enhancement, with loops not being closed at departmental level.

.8 The review of pool rooms by the Director of AVS had been presented to the Executive Management Group and detailed proposals would now be produced by the Director and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching), likely to include the creation of a sub-pool of rooms suitable for premium and/or block release postgraduate teaching, an urgent refurbishment programme and the creation of an annual refurbishment budget, and the development of an information system for room allocation, AV support and central time-tabling. Heads of Departments were asked to inform their AD(T)s by the end of the week of their preferences for programmes for which the sub-pool of rooms might be appropriate. This request would be emailed to all Heads of Departments.

The Director of AVS reported that the review had identified a tension between the requirements of departments for rooms and maximising the use of facilities throughout the day. Booking systems did not reflect the way that departments now wished to teach. The Director informed Senate that the University was out of line with most other institutions in not having a central time-tabling system.

SEN01-P3

.1 The PVC(R) congratulated those who had contributed to the £15.3M in new research grants and contracts achieved for the first six months of 2000/01. Action to maximise overhead recovery remained a priority. The database for applications for research grants and contracts established by the Research Support Office was showing about 220 current applications representing a total of c£20M. These figures would not include all contracts under negotiation.

.2 The EPSRC Doctoral Training Account would be co-ordinated through Dr Vale. The University's completion rate remained low at 57% and work was needed to improve this.

01/6 Senate 'Academic Vision' Day: 22 November 2000

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) informed Senate that there was scope for efficiency gains in teaching, but some areas which might contribute such as Computer Assisted Assessment would require front-end investment. Recent developments in quality requirements, such as the QAA Code of Practice on the placement year and the introduction of subject benchmarking, would require additional effort.

.3 A member expressed concern at the assumption that projects with little or no overheads were a financial drain on the University, and at any proposed strategy to discourage those types of projects. Charitable Foundation projects for example were an asset to the University in other ways, such as the Research Assessment Exercise. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) informed Senate that such work was not discouraged, but some grant agencies could be persuaded to provide more overheads. It was likely that in future the QR factor would take into account charitable income.

.4 The Vice-Chancellor urged departments to check carefully the criteria for RAE 5 and 6, particularly strategy in regard to RAE 5.

.5 Senate was advised that proposals for the Science Research Investment Funds of £7.7M were to be submitted by the end of May. Suggestions had been sought from Deans. In selecting which proposals went forward the SRIF group would take into account the pattern of recent investment. Proposers would be asked how the required 25% matching funding would be secured.

.6 In considering the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)'s report, Senate was informed that a proposal for a Science/SSH appointment complementary to the AD(PGT) appointment in Engineering was under consideration. In regard to the points raised on the 'Academic Vision' day concerning the need for more flexibility and streamlining of operations in relation to postgraduate programmes (items 1, 4, 10 and 14), the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) requested explicit input on these matters in order that this could be taken forward.

.7 The Vice-Chancellor outlined the paper from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (External Relations). He informed Senate that he would be following up his questionnaire to departments on the utilisation of Rutland facilities in the summer, with the aim of encouraging greater use of the services.

.8 The Vice-Chancellor informed Senate that further progress on the issues raised at the 'Academic Vision' day would be reported to Senate early in the next academic session.

01/7 Service Teaching

SEN01-P6

.1 Senate had been requested to consider the University's policy on service teaching in the light of a paper from the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching). The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) outlined the extensive discussions which had been undertaken in the previous year concerning the teaching of mathematics to Chemical Engineering students, culminating in a vote at the then Teaching and Learning Committee against allowing Chemical Engineering to internalise its mathematics teaching at that time, on the understanding that a review of the generic issues of service teaching would be undertaken. Chemical Engineering had since given notice again that it intended to withdraw from existing service teaching arrangements with Mathematical Sciences from the next academic year. At its recent meeting Learning and Teaching Committee had considered service teaching generally, and the request from Chemical Engineering. The Committee had supported the principles on service teaching as proposed and had generally favoured the 'free market' model for service teaching, but wished to point out to Senate that Mathematical Sciences was more dependent on service teaching than any other department and should be viewed as a special case, perhaps warranting some degree of protection or safety-netting in the short term. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) informed Senate of proposals developed within the Faculty of Engineering for the transfer of three or four mathematics educationalists from Mathematical Sciences to form a new engineering mathematics unit in the Engineering Faculty. The proposals were under consideration by the Deans of Science and Engineering.

.2 The Vice-Chancellor requested that Senate consider the principles and policy options on service teaching separately from the specific Mathematical Sciences/Chemical Engineering issue, concentrating first on the general issues. Following Senate's input a further paper on service teaching would be brought back to Senate with a proposed option for approval.

.3 In discussion members raised the following points:-

(i) The students' best interest in terms of quality of provision and the learning experience should be the primary driver. It was AGREED that this be written into the principles.

(ii) Views of sponsors should also be considered.

(iii) The need for 'pedagogic fitness to requirements' should be added as a principle, covering the quality of teaching, the learning experience and programme content.

(iv) A free market was preferable but would need to incorporate due notice and/or compensation. The University's current market was artificial, with variations in charges in different Faculties. Financial considerations could not be secondary under present funding arrangements.

(v) The home department of a programme was the best judge as to whether 'specialisation' or 'contextualisation' was most appropriate in any one case. Heads of Departments' flexibility to balance departmental activities in accordance with the talents and strengths of its staff needed to be maintained.

(vi) Intellectual ownership of a programme lay with the home department. Such ownership was lost in the absence of a free market. A free market would enforce high standards in service departments.

(vii) The main providers in subjects such as Business Studies and Mathematical Sciences should be able to provide the teaching more cost-effectively.

(viii) A free market in service teaching would not coincide with the University's strategy to become a leading research institution. Large service-providing departments allowed the build up of research centres. There was a correlation between the absence of service teaching in statistics and the lack of coherent statistics research in the University.

(ix) Service providers should be able to plan for their future: a total free market would not permit this.

(x) The policies and options as presented were inward looking and did not reflect the broader market, particularly the European context. The Business School, for example, would not wish University policy to constrain its capability of being a quality provider.

.4 On the basis of Senate's comments, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) AGREED to present refined principles and a broad policy statement to a future meeting. The proposals would restate principle 7 at a higher level, restate principle 9 such that financial consideration would be secondary to pedagogical considerations, and would recognise those issues not directly within Learning and Teaching Committee's remit. These would include research, external focus and the role of Operations Sub-Committee in regulating a free-market system. The Resource Allocation Group would be requested to consider whether it was desirable to revise RASCAL to ensure that funding reflected more accurately the price bands into which a Department's modules notionally fell.

.5 Senate then considered the specific issue of mathematics teaching to Chemical Engineering students. In discussion members raised the following points.

(i) Should a decision be taken for Chemical Engineering to internalise its mathematics teaching, the Department of Mathematical Sciences should be compensated in the short term in relation to the implications for its business model.

(ii) In the case of Chemical Engineering, mathematics would be better taught in context. It was recognised, however, that circumstances might be different in other cases depending upon the available skills within a department. Chemical Engineering Staff had the necessary skills and were already supplementing mathematics modules.

(iii) Contextualisation of mathematics was not necessarily advantageous. Experience showed that Advanced GNVQ holders had no deep understanding of mathematics away from its context. The mathematics ability of the A-level mathematics intake was deteriorating, with no signs of improvement. A crisis had now been reached in the mathematics ability of engineers. This was a much larger issue which the University needed to address.

(iv) The Department of Mathematical Sciences wished to provide a good service and was working with engineering departments in awareness of declining standards in mathematics ability of the student intake, though there were constraints from accreditation requirements. Dialogue with Chemical Engineering had initially been fruitful but had broken down.

.6 It was AGREED that a vote on this matter would be inappropriate. In view of the significant resource issues involved in this case it was AGREED that the final decision be taken by Operations Sub-Committee at its meeting on 26 March. Dependent on the outcome, final approval of the proposed new Chemical Engineering modules would be sought from Curriculum Sub-Committee.

.7 In response to a question the Vice-Chancellor advised Senate that a decision in this case prior to the principles and policies of service teaching being determined would not be considered as setting a precedent. A service teaching policy could not be highly definitive and it was likely that there would continue to be difficult cases requiring specific decisions. The precedent was being set, however, for the pedagogic aspects of such cases being considered by Curriculum Sub-Committee. In cases where there were significant resource issues which went beyond the remit of Curriculum Sub-Committee, it would refer the matter, with advice on the academic case, to Operations Sub-Committee, which would have responsibility for deciding on any associated resource and planning issues.

.8 The need to address the wider issue of the deteriorating mathematics ability of engineering students was restated. It was commented that with the increase in student numbers had come a change in the ability range, not only for mathematics. A change in teaching methods to suit the changing ability range might prove necessary.

SEN01-P7

On the recommendation of Learning and Teaching Committee, on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee, it was RESOLVED to recommend to Council as appropriate:

SEN01-P8

SEN01-P9

.3 Student Appeals Procedure

SEN01-P10

To approve a proposal that the new student appeals procedure (Regulation XIV) be used instead of the existing procedures for appeals against termination of studies.

SEN01-P11

SEN01-P12

.6 Validation Procedures

SEN01-P13

To approve revised Validation Procedures.

SEN01-P14

SEN01-P15

SEN01-P16

On the recommendation of Ordinances and Regulations Committee it was RESOLVED:

.2 Student Appeals: Amendments to GRUA (1999 and 2000), ARUA (1999 and 2000), GRMPA, ARMPA and Regulation XIV

SEN01-P17

Following Senate's approval of item 10.3, to approve revisions to GRUA, ARUA, GRMPA, ARMPA and Regulation XIV in relation to Student Appeals, with immediate effect.

.3 Student Residential Accommodation Regulations

SEN01-P18

To approve amendments with effect from 22 June 2001.

SEN01-P19

On the recommendation of Prizes Committee, it was RESOLVED to recommend to Council the establishment of prizes, altered conditions to existing prizes, and the discontinuation of prizes.

01/13 Matriculation Requirements: English Language

SEN01-P20

It was RESOLVED to approve a proposal from the Student Recruitment and Admissions Team, with the support of the Science and Social Sciences and Humanities Faculty Boards, for a revised equivalence between TOEFL and IELTS scores.

SEN01-P21

Senate received data for the four-year period to 2000, with the comments of Learning and Teaching Committee.

Senate noted the dates of degree congregations in 2001:-

It was noted that a bid had been submitted to HEFCE for development funding for two new Graduate Apprenticeships frameworks, one linked to a work-based Postgraduate Certificate award, the other involving the closer integration of sandwich placements into the Honours degree structure.

It was noted that a final position statement had been published in January 2001, accessible on the QAA website:-

http://www.qaa.ac.uk

Senate received reports from the following Committees:

.1 SEN01-P22 Research Committee of 15 December 2000 and 8 February 2001
.2 SEN01-P23 Ordinances and Regulations Committee of 2 February 2001
.3 SEN01-P24 Learning and Teaching Committee of 15 February 2001
.4 SEN01-P25 Resources and Planning Committee of 19 January and 16 February 2001
.5 SEN01-P26 Prizes Committee of 14 February 2001

Wednesday 27 June 2001

Author - Jennie Elliott
Date - March 2001
Copyright (c) Loughborough University. All rights reserved.