SENATE

SEN03-M1

Minutes of the 356th (Ordinary) Meeting of Senate held on Wednesday 29 January 2003.

Apologies for Absence were received from Ms Alexander, Mr Allen, Professor Davidson, Professor Kalawsky, Dr Kinna, Dr Rothberg, Professor Summers, Dr Wilcox and Professor Wilson.

03/1 Minutes

It was RESOLVED to confirm the Minutes of the 354th Meeting held on 27 November 2002 (SEN02-M7).

03/2 Matters Arising from the Minutes

Minute 02/134 – Loughborough Research and Innovation Centre (Advantica Site)

The Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported that the purchase of the Advantica site was still subject to contract. Acquisition was expected at the end of February 2003. The industrial partner wished the SEIC project to remain confidential at this point, so that it could be properly launched at the right time. Following detailed scrutiny space had now been allocated to a number of departments and centres. Re-location would have a knock-on effect on the Central and East Parks, and space for additional research students would be sought on these sites. Departments would be kept informed of any necessary changes to existing plans for the centre site. There would be a significant impact from the purchase on the current and next year’s budgets which would be carefully considered in the budgetary review process. Supervision of third year projects at LoRIC should be feasible and space charges would apply on the same basis as the main campus.

03/3 Matters for Report by the Vice-Chancellor

.1 The Vice-Chancellor reported on:

(i) his recent attendance at Markfield Institute of Higher Education for the opening of a new building by HRH Prince Charles. The University currently validated an MA at the Institute and also had a co-supervision arrangement for research students there. Links with the Institute were largely driven by Professor Presley. The Vice-Chancellor had been impressed by the Institute’s contacts throughout the world and alerted Senate to the opportunities this raised for the University, which should be embraced. It was suggested that information on the Institute should be provided to Departments to raise their awareness with a view to broadening the University’s academic contacts with the Institute.

ACTION: Director of Registry Services

(ii) the recent early retirement of Professor I C Morison, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching). The Vice-Chancellor thanked Professor Morison for the contribution he had made to the University. The Vice-Chancellor had notified members of Senate by email of the interim arrangements, pending the appointment of the next Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching), which had been made to cover operational matters relating to the PVC(T)’s areas of responsibility, largely involving the Deputy-Vice-Chancellor and the Director of Registry Services.

(iii) the recent visit by Lord Butler, Master of University College Oxford and a former Cabinet Secretary, to the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, the Sports Development Centre and Engineering departments. He had been most impressed and had coveted the University’s sporting facilities.

.2 White Paper on The Future of Higher Education

(i) The Vice-Chancellor reminded Senate of relevant documents available on the web to which members had recently been alerted. The government’s proposals fitted into two distinct phases. Over the next three years to 2006 there would be a significant uplift in funding, but much was earmarked particularly for capital initiatives. The proposals in the White Paper on variable tuition fees, should they be approved by Parliament, would take effect from 2006, but no information was available on other aspects of HE funding from that date. The purpose of Senate’s discussion was to comment on the response to be made to the DfES during the consultation period, to inform the vision for the University being prepared by the Deputy-Vice-Chancellor in response to the evolving external environment, and to identify any immediate actions. The Chief Executive of HEFCE was visiting Loughborough on 6 February and the University’s initial views on the White Paper would be passed on to him.

(ii) Research Excellence: The following comments were amongst those raised:

· The proposals for further research selectivity were of concern and the approach to the identification of 6* departments, with its likely concentration on metrics, could not compare with the detailed work undertaken by RAE assessors.

· The White Paper was very selective in its comments on the link between teaching and research and a separation of the two would be unwelcome. The University’s view should be that it delivered good teaching because of its research.

· The number of research students would be crucial to achieving research excellence and the University should invest in this. Schemes to pay off the undergraduate debts of research students should be explored and this approach identified in the response to the DfES.

· Development funding for researchers was couched in terms of Science and Technology: there were other subject areas where this was essential.

· Any move towards compressed degrees or foundation degrees would be a threat to the University’s research mission.

(iii) Teaching and Learning: The following comments were amongst those raised:

· The proposals would create a multi-layered University sector, contrary to developments in Europe. The Higher Education Minister had acknowledged that the Bologna Declaration had not been included in the government’s thinking.

· Significant funding came with Centres of Excellence. Whilst this development was retrograde in some respects it offered significant opportunities for Loughborough.

· Additional bureaucracy and time pressures would result from such proposals as the training of External Examiners and the measuring and recording of student achievement. The thrust of proposals was primarily about policing by customer response, resulting in increased bureaucracy without benefit to students or staff. This would require a cultural change. There were mixed views as to whether the University should readily embrace such external regulation, as it should have nothing to fear from it, or whether the University’s autonomy was at risk. The University should look to exploit the White Paper’s proposals to maximise the benefits for its staff and future students.

· The annual student survey undertaken by LSU should be highlighted in the University’s response.

· The University’s vision for flexible provision needed to be clarified.

(iv) Higher Education and Business. The following comments were amongst those raised:

· This was one of the weakest parts of the White Paper and did not relate well to Loughborough’s high quality activity in this area.

· The proposals represented a “dumbing down” of knowledge transfer.

(v) Freedom and Funding. The following comments were amongst those raised:

· If the University charged top-up fees it would lose applications even if bursaries were available. Applicants would seek courses they could afford. The ‘Loughborough Experience’ was threatened. LSU had received many comments from students on this and would distil these and forward them to the Registrar for discussion with the Vice-Chancellor.

ACTION: LSU, JMT

· Loughborough had been named and badged by The Times as a University that could charge the full £3K fee. The University would need to be in line with its competitors. It was crucial to gather intelligence on the intentions of other institutions.

· Imaginative packaging of courses should be explored: there were already successful sponsorship models on campus.

· The likelihood of students wishing to study at their home university would be a particular challenge for the University. The University would need to recruit more international students who were likely to be attracted to institutions charging the higher UK/EU fees as a mark of quality.

· There could be a market for the University in the top-up year from Foundation Degrees.

· There were subject-related issues to consider. Higher fees for Science and Engineering could prove a threat to recruitment in these subject areas.

· There were issues relating to the uncertain employment market, particularly for women, in the proposed repayment scheme.

(vi) It was AGREED that there would be a further discussion on the White Paper at the next meeting of Senate.

ACTION: Deputy Vice-Chancellor

03/4 Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)

SEN03-P1

The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) reported on:

(i) New Research Grants and Contracts, with which he was reasonably comfortable though some departments could improve their position.

(ii) Research Grants and Contracts applications, which had increased by 72% in quantity and 136% in value on last year’s figures, indicating that an application culture was developing.

(iii) HEFCE’s document on Improving Standards in Postgraduate Research Degree Programmes which was at the ‘informal’ stage of consultation and would be considered by Faculty Boards. It was suggested that the University’s response should advocate the lightest possible touch to any further regulation and the University should not necessarily seek to conform in all aspects if its current procedures were felt to be defensible.

(iv) A tabled article from Research Fortnight which showed Loughborough University as first in a league table of HEFCE Research Performance Indicators (2000-01) for both grant income and number of PhDs awarded relative to academic staff costs.

03/5 Matters for Report (Teaching)

SEN03-P2

(i) Mr Jones reported on student applications for 2003 entry as at 17 January 2003. It was early in the cycle for postgraduate recruitment and UK/EU figures should therefore be treated with caution. International recruitment continued to increase and be dominated by China. Efforts were being made to broaden the international recruitment base, for example to India and the USA. It was agreed that Professor Anumba would consult with the Student Recruitment and Admissions Team about the need for greater flexibility to meet the needs of the Malaysian market. UK/EU undergraduate applications had fallen by 11% but this was a shifting picture and there were complex factors operating. A further report would be received at Senate’s next meeting when the UCAS analysis of national applications would be available.

(ii) The Director of Registry Services reported on the Partnership for Progression Initiative, which under the White Paper would merge with the Excellence Challenge to become the Aim Higher programme. As part of the East Midlands Region Plan the University would receive about £30K for staffing and some funds for non-pay and would have to contribute to the Region’s goal of increasing HE participation from 28% to 38%.

(iii) The Director of Registry Services informed Senate that Saturday examinations would be a matter for consideration by Learning and Teaching Committee at its meeting on 13 February 2003.

03/6 Loughborough University at Peterborough

SEN03-P3

Further to Minute 02/140 of the 354^th meeting on 27 November 2002, Senate received a note of a meeting held on 21 January 2003 to discuss the University’s position in respect of the Peterborough Higher Education Project. The Vice-Chancellor reported that disengagement with the Peterborough Project was now the most likely outcome, with another HE institution better aligned with the aims of the project possibly taking on Loughborough’s responsibilities. Transitional arrangements were under discussion and the University would honour its commitments to existing students. The University’s Treasurer had commented that whilst the University’s effective withdrawal from the project might be the right way forward, there was a price to be paid in the University’s reputation in Peterborough.

03/7 Structure of the Academic Year

SEN03-P4

Further to Minute 02/139 of the 354^th meeting on 27 November 2002, Senate considered the proposed constitution and Terms of Reference for a panel to review the structure of the academic year. At the Vice-Chancellor’s suggestion, it was AGREED that the determination of the Committee’s membership and its establishment await the appointment of the new Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching). In regard to the Committee’s constitution, it was AGREED that one Associate Dean (Research) be added. It was proposed and seconded that the constitution be amended to include one elected member of Senate from each Faculty. The motion was defeated by the following votes:

In favour: 8

Against: 21

It was AGREED to add to the Terms of Reference that the conduct and recommendations of the Committee should address the alignment of the academic year with the University’s mission and strategic objectives.

ACTION: JCN

03/8 Code of Practice on Mental Health

SEN03-P5

.1 On the recommendation of Student Services Committee, Senate considered a Code of Practice on Mental Health, and wished to thank Professor Reid and other members of the Working Group for their efforts in developing the Code. In response to a query, it was noted that paragraph 3.2.3 regarding DANS contacting applicants with stated disabilities other than dyslexia as soon as their applications were received by the relevant Admissions Office was already current practice and applicants were not led to believe that a decision on their application had been made. DANS would, however, be

asked to revise one sentence of its current letter to applicants in light of the concerns raised. It was RESOLVED to recommend the Code of Practice to Council subject to confirmation that the definition of some mental health problems in Table 1 represented internationally recognised standards.

ACTION: JMT

.2 It was queried whether a parallel document was available in relation to staff. It was AGREED that the Human Resources Working Group be asked to consider whether such a document was appropriate or whether the issues were already covered elsewhere.

ACTION: JMT

03/9 Ethical Advisory Committee

It was RESOLVED to recommend to Council that the constitution of the Ethical Advisory Committee be amended to replace the postgraduate student representative with the newly created Ethical and Environmental Officer (ex-officio).

03/10 Analysis of Degree Results

Senate noted that an analysis of Loughborough University degrees awarded, covering the years 1998 to 2002, had been circulated to all departments for comment in the programme review process. Copies were available from the Secretary on request.

03/11 Date of Next Meeting

Wednesday 5 March 2003 at 09.15 am

Author – Jennie Elliott

Date – February 2003

Professor D J Wallace

Dr M Acar (ab)

Ms Y Alexander (ab)
Mr D J Allen (ab)

Professor J L Alty

Professor C J Anumba
Professor C J Backhouse

Dr J V Beaverstock
Professor M Bell
Professor S J H Biddle

Professor W R Bowman

Professor I C Davidson (ab)
Mr S Gibson
Professor P Golding
Professor T J Gordon (ab)

Professor J B Griffiths
Dr H Gross
Professor N A Halliwell
Mr J F Harper
Miss G Jackson
Professor R Kalawsky (ab)
Professor T Kavanagh

Dr D Kerr (ab)
Dr R Kinna (ab)
Dr J Leaman (ab)
Mr P G Lewis

Mr W P Maunder

Professor T C Mills
Mrs M D Morley
Mr G Murdock
Dr P N Murgatroyd
Dr A H Osbaldestin (ab)
Professor P C B Page (ab)
Professor K C Parsons
Professor J M Porter
Professor A C Pugh

Dr P Render
Dr C D Rhodes
Professor P H Roberts

Dr S J Rothberg (ab)
Dr J F Rowland
Professor P R Smith
Professor R Summers (ab)
Dr G M Swallowe
Dr E Theodoraki
Professor A Thorpe
Professor R J Wakeman
Dr G D Wilcox (ab)
Professor J M Wilson (ab)
Professor N Wood
Professor B Woodward

In attendance:

Dr J E M Elliott

Mr H E Jones (for Minute 03/5)

Dr J C Nutkins
Professor H Thomason (for Minute 03/3.1)

Mr J M Town