|
|
|
SENATE
SEN04-M1
Minutes of the 364th (Ordinary) Meeting of Senate held on Wednesday 28 January 2004.
|
|
Professor D J Wallace |
|
||||
|
|
Dr B S Acar Professor
D J Allen Professor J V Beaverstock Dr M C Best (ab) Professor S J H Biddle Professor W R Bowman Dr E D Brown Dr S E Dann Professor I C Davidson Dr D Gillingwater Dr R A Haslam Dr A Jashapara Professor R Kalawsky (ab) Dr R Kinna Professor F Kusmartsev (ab) |
Professor M W Lansdale Dr C M Linton Ms A J Maclaurin (ab) Dr G Mason Mr M A Minichiello Dr P Render Dr S J Rothberg Professor R H Thring Professor P Warwick (ab) Professor T G Weyman-Jones (ab) Dr G D Wilcox (ab) Professor N Wood Professor M A Woodhead (ab) Professor B Woodward |
|
|||
|
|
In attendance: |
Dr J E M Elliott Dr J C Nutkins Mr J M Town |
|
|||
Apologies for
Absence were received from Professor Anumba, Dr Best, Professor Halliwell,
Professor Kalawsky, Professor Kusmartsev, Mr Murdock, Professor Parsons,
Professor Rhodes, Professor Warwick, Professor Weyman-Jones, Dr Wilcox and
Professor Woodhead
04/01 Business of the Agenda
Item 9 on the agenda had been unstarred.
04/02 Minutes
It was RESOLVED to confirm the Minutes of the 362nd meeting
held on 26 November 2003 (SEN03-M7), subject to the following amendment:
Minute
03/128 – Motion for Senate: Pay Structures
To read as follows:
“…..There was some confusion amongst members as to what was meant by
‘negotiating pay structures at local level’.
It was commented that some aspects of pay structures were already
locally determined and that the UCEA proposals did not propose local bargaining. The movers of the motion responded that
their reading of the proposals did indicate a move to encouraging local
bargaining. It was suggested that such
a matter ….”.
04/03 Matters Arising from the Minutes
.1 Minute
03/123 – Holywell Park
Senate received a paper from the Director of Estates Services on the
progress of space refurbishments at Holywell Park. Senate was advised that the rental funding for SEIC should read
“as specified in operational agreement” rather than “COMA”, and a paper was
tabled explaining this.
It was noted that since paper SEN04-P1 had been written, the position
regarding the JCB Innovation Centre had progressed to further internal
discussions and the status of Informatics was now Stage D. In response to a query as to the length of
time the University would be required to subsidise Holywell Park, Senate was
informed that the budget had not yet been agreed for next year but the
intention was to remove as much of the 2003-04 subsidy of £800k as possible. Whether this would impact on departments not
occupying Holywell Park was as yet undetermined.
.2 Minute
03/124(i) – Sunday Times League Table
The Vice-Chancellor reported that the University’s position regarding
Student : Staff ratios continued to be explored. Raw data was being sought from HESA in an effort to understand
the problem. Appropriate action would
then be taken.
.3 Minute
03/126(iv) – HEFCE’s Consultation on the Teaching Funding Model
The Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported that HEFCE had agreed that the
current funding model would continue for the next three years. Most elements in HEFCE’s consultation paper
had been deferred pending the outcome of a TRAC-based study on the full
economic cost of teaching in different subjects. Changes that would affect 2004/05 funding were:
Psychology
Computer
Software Engineering moved
to Price Group C
Sandwich
students
A 20% increase in funding was expected for Price Group D but this
resulted from consolidation of HEFCE Human Resources funding rather than new money.
No change was expected in the HEFCE grant to the University for 2004/05
as the University would remain within the ± 5% tolerance band. In view of the major future changes in
funding likely as the result of the TRAC-based study, variable tuition fees and
changes in the funding of research students, the University’s Budgetary Review
Group wished to avoid perturbations in internal resource allocation for 2004-05
and had agreed the following:
Current weightings for Price Groups B, C and D would be retained.
The activity of Computer Science staff would be reviewed to determine B
or C Grouping.
Psychology in Human Sciences and
Social Sciences would be reviewed at module level in light of the revised cost
centre guidance.
Sandwich students would move to Price Group C in line with HEFCE’s model
in light of the revised Cost Centre guidance.
The effect of these changes would be modelled but the aim was to
maintain stability. A member expressed
disappointment that the Physical Sciences would not benefit from extra funding
and that departments in surplus were in effect being subsidised by departments
in deficit. The Vice-Chancellor
responded that had the HEFCE model been adopted the financial position of
Science departments would suffer overall, whereas this would not be the case
whilst maintaining the University’s current ratios. Senate was informed that in its deliberations Budgetary Review
Group had compared in detail funding distributions for 2003-04 using HEFCE and
University bandings. In response to a
request, it was agreed that these data be provided to members who wished to
receive them, and it was noted that some data had already been received by
Directorates. HEFCE would be visiting
the University shortly to improve its understanding of internal resource
allocation mechanisms and to inform the TRAC work on teaching.
ACTION: RAF
04/04 Matters for Report by the
Vice-Chancellor
.1 Salaries
and AUT Ballot on Industrial Action
The Vice-Chancellor commented that, whilst not wishing to open up a debate, he felt Senate should note the breakdown of national negotiations on pay and the proposed Framework Agreement, and the AUT ballot on industrial action.
A member commented that UCEA had excluded AUT from the national negotiations and that AUT had expressed the desire to re-open those negotiations. Dr Berry proposed and Dr Render seconded a motion that:
“Senate asks the Vice-Chancellor to write to Jocelyn Prudence, Chief Executive of UCEA, urging her to re-open negotiations with the AUT and do everything possible to avert strike action.”
Senate noted that the sequence of events leading to the breakdown of negotiations was not entirely clear and that it would not wish to be seen to take sides in the dispute. After some discussion, it was AGREED that the motion be withdrawn and that the Vice-Chancellor write to both UCEA and AUT expressing Senate’s concern that strike action should be averted and urging all parties to pursue discussions towards a resolution. The Vice-Chancellor AGREED to copy the letter to Senate members.
ACTION: VC
.2 The Vice-Chancellor informed Senate of a thought-provoking book he had recently read by the former President of Harvard University on Universities in the Market Place. He had produced an essay on his own thoughts in relation to Loughborough University and would make this available on the web. Thinking through the issues involved had reinforced for the Vice-Chancellor the relevance of the University’s ethos statement and the importance of appropriate ethical values in all the University’s activities.
04/05 Matters for Report by the
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)
.1 New
Research Grants and Contracts
In
the PVC(R)’s absence, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported that though the total
of new research grants and contracts at 31 December 2003 might not be as high
as would be expected in relation to last year’s total, there were large grants
and contracts under negotiation which should ensure that last year’s
performance would be met. It was
requested that the PVC(R) consider providing comparable figures for the
relevant part of the preceding year in future tables to enable easier
comparison.
ACTION: PVC(R)
.2 Research
Grants and Contracts applications
On
the PVC(R)’s behalf, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor reported on a pleasing performance to date. It was requested that the PVC(R) consider
providing a 12-month running total in future tables.
ACTION: PVC(R)
.3 HEFCE
Performance Indicators
An
extract from Research Fortnight on performance indicators was
tabled. On the PVC(R)’s behalf, the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor commented that though the University had moved in the
table from first to second place in the share of research output per share of
research input (2001-02), this was still an excellent outcome for
Loughborough. Senate was informed that
the next RAE was likely to be in 2008 with a census date of December 2007.
04/06 Matters for Report by the
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)
.1 Student
Recruitment
The
PVC(T) reported that applications as at 16 January 2004 were generally very
encouraging, with growth in most categories.
Preliminary intake targets would be revisited in February and
departments would need to make clear their capacity constraints for increased
numbers of international students. In
response to a request for reassurance that the impact on accommodation in the
town of increased international student numbers would be taken into account,
Senate was assured of the University’s sensitivity to the student accommodation
issue which was predominantly related to the behaviour of UK/EU
undergraduates. The University’s
international student population was currently 14%, lower than many other
universities. Adequate facilities and
support would need to be ensured for further growth in those numbers. The possibility of a “one-stop shop” for
international students was being
explored. It was suggested that
provision needed improving for international students, such as additional
induction sessions for those not able to attend sessions at the beginning of
the academic year, and greater effort in highlighting religious days of other
faiths.
It
was suggested that separate information on student registrations on Distance
Learning programmes would be useful in the future. Senate was informed that Professional Development would be
producing a report on the University’s DL and e-learning activities which would
be received by Senate in due course.
ACTION:
PVC(T)
.2 Institutional
Audit
The
PVC(T) informed Senate that the departments subject to Discipline Audit Trails
in the impending QAA Audit would be:
Civil and Building Engineering; English and Drama; School of Sport and
Exercise Sciences; Economics; and Social Sciences. The QAA Briefing Visit would take place on 18/19 February 2004
after which the thematic trails to be followed should be known. A member requested reassurance that the QAA
Audit Team would be made fully aware of the deficiency in the student survey
submitted by LSU, which had only a 4.5% response rate. Senate was assured that QAA had already been
made aware of the survey’s limitations and the LSU Vice-President assured
Senate that the basic figures relating to percentages in the survey report
would be made clear to the Audit Team at the briefing meeting with LSU. Senate acknowledged the importance of the
student voice, accurately reflected, within the Audit process.
.3 Committee
to Review the Structure of the Academic Year
The
PVC(T) reported that the consultation process was continuing and the
Committee’s final report would be submitted to Senate in June 2004. A preliminary report might be submitted to
Senate’s meeting on 3 March 2004.
.4 HEFCE
Performance Indicators
The
PCV(T) reported that the performance indicators for 2001-02 showed the
University to be:
at the benchmark for
Admission of FT UGs from state schools
FT UG non-continuations following year of entry
below the benchmark for
Admission of FT UGs from social classes III M, IV, V
Admission of FT UGs from low participation neighbourhoods
Admission of disabled FT UGs
Significantly above the benchmark for
Employment/further study after first degree
The University was not on track with its Widening Participation Strategy
and this would need to be revisited.
04/07 Higher Education Bill and Variable
Tuition Fees
.1 Senate
noted that Parliament had passed the second reading of the Higher Education
Bill by a narrow majority and noted therefore the likelihood, but not
certainty, that variable tuition fees would be introduced in 2006-07. A report from the Working Group was
received. The PVC(T) advised Senate
that though the fine detail was not yet known, the University needed to face
now the need for a policy on fees, bursaries and scholarships, the likelihood
that competition for students in some subjects would increase, and the
practicalities of a new system, such as the implications for recruitment and
admission activities, marketing and student support.
.2 Senate’s
views on a policy for the University were sought. The following views were amongst those aired:
(i) The
income to the University from increased tuition fees would only be a fraction
of that needed. If institutions
competed on price the students would gain and the University would lose.
(ii) With
the passing of the Higher Education Bill a huge principle had been sacrificed
for minimum gain, representing about one or two years’ grace in funding. The availability of student grants would be
the only benefit.
(iii) More
information was needed at subject level to enable departments to position
themselves in the market. Such data
were available for the 2002 application round but were not available for
subsequent years as UCAS forms no longer showed other institutions to which an
applicant was applying.
(iv) Students
would want to know what they would receive for their tuition fee. Departments needed to ensure that their
websites reflected the value of programmes to prospective students and work on
this could begin now.
(v) Business
tools such as the BCG matrix were available to assist the Working Group.
(vi) Bursaries
have proved important in the recruitment of international students and should
be pursued for all categories of UGs and PGs.
(vii) Eligibility
for bursaries should not be determined using the Government’s means-testing methods
or boundaries as these were flawed.
Scholarships based on achievement should also be considered.
(viii) The
financial steps in state support might be particularly detrimental to a
significant number of the University’s students; the bursary scheme should aim
to help those who just miss out on government funding.
(ix) Some
departments had already secured industrial sponsorships for many of their
students. Opportunities for sponsorship
could be explored in other departments.
(x) The
University was elite, as demonstrated by its position in league tables. It should therefore be considering charging
the maximum fee for all programmes and concentrate on developing a good bursary
scheme. A standard fee, accompanied by
a variety of bursaries, would provide a simple message.
(xi) The
sandwich year, in addition to being a valuable experience, allowed many
students to earn and offset some of their costs. It should be available as an option across all UG programmes.
(xii) The
University’s record on employability should be more strongly promoted.
(xiii) Living
and study costs were important factors to students. The University should ensure and promote good value
accommodation.
.3 The
Vice-Chancellor indicated that the University’s general position would need to
be decided by October 2004 in time for promotional activities. It was noted that appropriate information
would be needed for 2005 applicants deferring entry until 2006.
04/08 Degree of Doctor of the University
Senate considered the introduction of the degree of Doctor of the
University for award as an honorary degree of the University only to candidates
for whom other higher doctorate titles would not be appropriate, noting that
amendment of Ordinances III and IV was required. The proposal that the award of Honorary Master’s degrees be
discontinued was also considered. It
was RESOLVED to recommend the proposals to Council and also the accompanying
revisions to Ordinances III and IV, subject to comment on these from Ordinance
& Regulations Committee.
04/09 Revision of Ordinance XVII: Conduct and
Discipline of Students
.1 Further to Minute 03/129 of
Senate’s 362nd meeting on 26 November 2003, Senate noted that
Council had approved proposals for changes to Ordinance XVII at its meeting on
16 December 2003. Senate received
further revisions in response
to concerns expressed by student representatives. A member suggested minor changes in wording to allow flexibility
for the discipline process to be mindful of significant time periods for
students such as exam periods. Senate
was advised that the disciplinary organs were already stretched and such an
addition to the Ordinance could add to the difficulty of the process, cause
delay and inconvenience all involved.
In cases of student suspension the disciplinary process was already
mindful of examination periods. The
member also commented that the University’s disciplinary procedure and that of
LSU did not appear to mesh together.
Senate was advised that there was good co-operation between the
University and LSU and serious offences on LSU property were referred to the
University for disciplinary action. The
member proposed further amendments to the Ordinance but Senate was advised that
those sections of the Ordinance were not being proposed for revision and had
already been approved by Council on Senate’s recommendation having been viewed
by the University’s lawyers. It was
AGREED, however, that “unambiguous” be removed from the final sentence of para
1 (xi).
.2 The
member suggested that the Ordinance required more consideration before its
submission to Council. It was noted
that the Ordinance would be considered by Ordinances & Regulations
Committee at its meeting on 6 February, and a vote was taken as to whether the
proposals should be recommended now to Council, subject to any revisions made
by Ordinance and Regulations Committee, or deferred for further consideration,
with the following result:
For recommendation to Council : 23
For deferral & reconsideration : 1
Abstentions : 6
04/10 Prizes Committee
Senate noted the action of the Director of Registry Services on behalf of Senate in recommending to Council the establishment of the following new prizes:
Loughborough University Postgraduate Prize
Loughborough University Postgraduate Progression Prize
04/11 Graduation Ceremonies in July 2004
Senate noted the distribution of departments for Graduation Ceremonies
in July 2004.
04/12 Date of Next Meeting
Wednesday 3 March 2004 at 9.15am.
Author – Jennie Elliott
Date – February 2004
Copyright ãLoughborough University. All rights reserved.