SENATE

SEN04-M5

Minutes of the 368th (Ordinary) Meeting of Senate on Wednesday 23 June 2004.

Apologies for Absence were received from Professor Anumba, Professor Beaverstock,
Dr Brown, Dr Gillingwater, Dr Jashapara, Professor Kalawsky, Professor Kusmartsev, Professor Parsons, Professor Porter, Professor Rhodes, Dr Rothberg, Professor Smith, Professor Thorpe, Professor Wakeman, Dr Wilcox, Professor Wood and Professor Woodhead

The Vice-Chancellor thanked retiring members for their contribution to Senate and congratulated the retiring student members on the achievements of LSU during the year.

04/53  Business of the Agenda

Items 14.3(i), 28.5 and 30 had been unstarred.

04/54  Vice-Chancellor

Senate congratulated the Vice-Chancellor on the award of his Knighthood. The Vice-Chancellor thanked Senate and expressed his disappointment that his position as Vice-Chancellor of Loughborough University had not been recognised in the lists in newspapers.

04/55  Minutes

It was RESOLVED to confirm the Minutes of the 366^th meeting held on 3 March 2004 (SEN04-M3).

04/56  Matters Arising from the Minutes

.1         Minute 04/24.1 – Holywell Park

            SEN04-P28

            Senate received a report from the Deputy Vice Chancellor.

.2         Minute 04/24.2 – Update on SSR Analysis

            SEN04-P29

The Vice-Chancellor reported that his agenda paper demonstrated a correlation between SSRs and QR funding. The University’s position was close to the trend line but that did not mean that the University should not invest further in staff to improve its SSR.  A member commented that more staff would help to ensure an increase in QR income.

.3         Minute 04/24.1 – Salaries and AUT Ballot on Industrial Action

The Vice-Chancellor reported that productive discussions have take place with Loughborough AUT concerning a no-detriment agreement and implementation was in progress.

.4         Minute 04/27.2 – HEIST Survey

The Vice-Chancellor reported that that the Director of Estates Services had approached Leicester County Council concerning signage to the University on the M1.  The University did not fulfil the criteria for a ‘brown’ sign as it would not be classified as a tourist destination.  The Highways Agency was responsible for blue signs, but it was believed this would be equally unacceptable.  A precedent would need to be sought and members were asked to report knowledge of any other universities’ signage on motorways to the Director of Estates Services and the Vice-Chancellor.

ACTION: Members of Senate

.5         Minute 04/29 – Accessibility at Loughborough University

The Vice-Chancellor reported that progress was being made following a meeting with the new Equal Opportunities Officer.

04/57  Matters for Report by the Vice-Chancellor

(i)    Times Good University Guide and Guardian Guide

        The Vice-Chancellor reported on the University’s success in achieving 10^th position (from 12^th) in the Sunday Times League Table 2004.  The associated copy had provided exceptionally good coverage for the University and would be exploited. 

        In The Guardian’s 2004 league table the University was now 24^th (from 27^th=), though it was proving very difficult to recreate The Guardian’s analysis. Though there was no room for complacency, staff were to be congratulated on these achievements.

(ii)     Careers Service Study of International Student Employment

        The Vice-Chancellor reported that the study, supported by the LU Development Trust, had identified ignorance amongst employers concerning international student and graduate employment.  There should be a push to exploit the University’s placement year as a tool to attract international students and, together with the work of the Careers Service, to educate employers.

04/58  Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research)

SEN04-P30

(i)      New Research Grants and Contracts

          The PVC(R) reported that new research grants and contracts were in line with last year’s total.  The award of large contracts totalling £10M were on the horizon and might yet appear in this year’s total.

          SEN04-P31

          (ii)      Research Grants and Contracts applications

The PVC(R) reported that applications were approaching last year’s, which had been 50% up on the previous year.  Asked about the availability of data on application success rates, the PVC(R) informed Senate that such data were now available at department level.  Forward prediction of overhead recovery from grants and applications, and individuals’ success rates were to be made available to HoDs in the autumn.  HoDs were urged to develop a support system within departments whereby exemplar models of applications were made available and staff advised each other on their applications.

ACTION:  HoDS

                   SEN04-P32

(iii)     Costing and Pricing Strategy

The PVC(R) informed Senate of the introduction of a full economic costing policy by the Funding Council.  Implementation was required for research activities initially: teaching and other activities would follow.  The University would need to demonstrate its awareness of costs, though prices charged would be the University’s concern only as long as accounts balanced overall.  Senate confirmed its support for the statement in paper SEN04-P32 that ‘any pricing strategy must not be purely driven by the financial considerations but must equally reflect the academic value of the activity in the context of the overall mission of the University’, noting that the full impact of the changes was not yet clear.  Senate COMMENDED the implementation proposals to Council.

04/59  Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)

SEN04-P33

(i)        Student Recruitment

The PVC(T) reported that UG targets were likely to be met or exceeded.  UK/EU PGT recruitment was likely to be slightly below planning targets, but this was still relatively early in the PGT recruitment cycle.  The forecast for international PGT recruitment was slightly above planning targets at this time.  The Vice-Chancellor offered his congratulations to those involved.

SEN04-P34

(ii)           QAA Institutional Audit

Senate received the summary from the draft Audit Report.  The PVC(T) commented on what was a good report following a huge exercise, and thanked all those staff and students who had been involved in the Audit.  The draft report had identified ten features of good practice, and the comments on the Departments involved in the Audit and on the Support Services were very positive.  The final report would be made publicly available on the QAA website from 19 August 2004.  Before that the University would be responding to the QAA on errors of fact or misconceptions of fact in the draft report.  In particular the first two draft “recommendations for action” would be challenged.

(iii)     HEFCE Centres of Excellence in Teaching and Learning

          The PVC(T) reported that two bids had been submitted: Industry and Employer Linked Engineering (single-institution bid) and Provision of University-wide Mathematics and Statistics Support (collaborative bid with Coventry University, Loughborough as lead).  Both had passed successfully through the first round.  A member stressed the importance of demonstrating strong University commitment to the bids to ensure success at the next stage.

ACTION PVC(T)

(iv)     Teaching Quality Information website

          The PVC(T) reported that the TQI website was being established as part of the Higher Education Research Opportunities (HERO) website and would contain a range of institutional information including External Examiners’ summary reports, a summary of the University’s Learning and Teaching Strategy, a statement on links with employers and results of the National Student Survey.  In regard to the latter, which would commence in early 2005 and be conducted probably every three years, it was important that students were encouraged to complete the survey and advice would be sought from departments and LSU on how to maximise the response rate.

04/60  Matters for Report by the Director of Business Partnerships, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer

            SEN04-P35

          Senate received a report from the Director of Business Partnerships, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer.  The Director reported that the outcome of the HEIF bids was now known, and a total of about £1.9M had been awarded.  The pattern of awards in the East Midlands appeared to be out of line with those made nationally.

04/61  Establishing a Sustained Development Programme

          SEN04-P36

.1       The Director of External Relations presented proposals for establishing a sustained Development Programme, advising Senate of the need to invest more systematically in fundraising, which was likely to become as important a measure of prestige as research.  Success in the University’s fundraising over recent years had been exceptional and was unlikely to be repeated in the immediate future.  There was likely to be increased external scrutiny on efforts made by universities to raise their own funds, which might be reflected in external funds to support this.  The proposals were intended to lay the foundations for a long-term approach and the figures presented did not reflect those of a major campaign.  There would be a cost base associated with building the new income stream, which, in view of the general desire of donors that their donations be used for the purpose specified, could not readily be top-sliced from income but would have to be drawn from other University resources.  For that reason, the closer that projects were to University and academic priorities the better, though they needed to be attractive to potential donors.  However, depending on the project, external fundraising might release other income (eg from tuition fees) for other general University purposes.  Senate was informed that Resources and Planning Committee had notionally reserved some cash for this purpose with the support of the Chair of Council, and Operations Sub-Committee would undertake a running review of progress and cost implications.

.2       Members supported the need for up-front investment for fund-raising and for expertise at various levels to work as a team with academic staff, as appropriate to a project.  There was general support for the proposals with the comment that expansion of the alumni activities should be considered for possible inclusion in the plan.
It was RESOLVED to recommend the proposals to Council.

04/62  New Regulation XIX: Hall Committees

          SEN04-P37

.1         Senate considered initial proposals from the Registrar.  The Registrar outlined the reasons for the need to regulate Hall Committees, to ensure that the responsibility of Hall Committee members was documented in view of a number of troublesome incidents during 2003/04.  It was the intention that further consultation would be undertaken on the draft, with Ordinances and Regulations Committee being given the opportunity to comment before Chair’s approval was sought prior to Freshers’ Week in 2004, when the Regulation was intended to take effect.

.2         The student representatives commented that though the need for some regulation was acknowledged, Freshers’ Week had already been organised and Hall Committees would not be aware of the new Regulation until their return at the start of the 2004/05 session. In addition, LSU would wish to have a stronger role in training and guidance of Hall Committees which should be reflected in the Regulation.  The problems experienced in 2004/05 were not directly related to Hall Committees and regulations would not have prevented them from happening.  Education of Hall Committees was required at the start of the academic year.  Enforced rules were likely to result in a detrimental effect on Hall spirit and therefore the Loughborough experience.

.3         The Registrar responded that some Hall Committee members had been involved in serious offences during 2003/04 and in one case disciplinary proceedings had been hampered by the lack of regulation.  If problems arose with arrangements for Freshers’ Week the Regulation could be waived on this occasion with certain assurances.  A member informed Senate that not all Wardens had been given the opportunity to discuss the proposed Regulation and whilst he supported it in principle there were issues requiring discussion, particularly that of the responsibilities being placed on Hall Committees.  It was AGREED as a matter of urgency that the Registrar hold a meeting with the Wardens and LSU representatives to discuss issues of concern.  The Vice-Chancellor was delegated to approve the draft Regulation recommended to him by the Registrar following the further consultation.

  ACTION: Registrar

04/63  Top-Up Fees

SEN04-P38

On the recommendation of Resources & Planning Committee, Senate considered proposals from the Strategy Group for the introduction of top-up fees for UK/EU undergraduate programmes from the October 2006 intake, subject to legislation and Office for Fair Access (OFFA) agreement.  The PVC(T) outlined the proposal for a proposed fee of £3K for all undergraduate programmes, together with an illustrative financial model of three income-based bursaries for very low-income families, for ‘squeezed middle’ families and for mature students, and scholarships based on merit.  There was little information on competitors’ intentions at present, but this might be forthcoming from an impending UUK report.  The University would not be making its detailed thoughts public for the time being.  It was questioned whether there might be Government/HEFCE disapproval of across-the-board top-up fees, following the Prime Minister’s emphasis on variable fees.  The Vice-Chancellor responded that the market was most likely to be in bursaries rather than fees.  Bursaries would parallel LEA assessments in such matters as the number of children at University within a family and would operate on a sliding scale linked to income.  Support was expressed for the proposal that there be no top-up fee for the sandwich year, which it was felt should prove to be a competitive advantage.  Whilst acknowledging the reservations members might have on the principle of top-up fees, Senate RESOLVED to recommend the proposals to Council.

04/64  Departmental Student Representatives

SEN04-P39

The LSU Vice-President outlined proposals from Loughborough Students’ Union for Departmental Student Representatives.  Members were supportive of the proposals, noting the difficulties of seeking first-year UG programme representatives in particular, and the role the Department Representative would have in encouraging training.  It was suggested that the method of e-voting proposed might not be successful, but noted that this was intended as a trial.  It was commented that one-year PGT students would be ineligible to stand as Department Representatives, and that further thought should be given to this and to the need to ensure that International students were not marginalised.  It was RESOLVED to approve the proposals.
 

            ACTION: LSU, PVC(T)

04/65  Ordinance XXXVIII: Student Grievance Procedures

SEN04-P40

Senate considered amendments to Ordinance XXXVIII with effect from 4 October 2004.

In response to a query, the Director of Registry Services informed Senate that the new requirements for all complaints to be made initially to the Director of Registry Services resulted from the QAA’s expectation of a central record of complaints.  The appropriateness of ‘in good faith’ in paragraph 3 was questioned, but it was agreed that this should remain to enable the University to take action against students in cases of malicious complaints.  It was RESOLVED to recommend the proposals to Council.

04/66  Structure of the Academic Year

.1         Report of the Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year

SEN04-P41

(i)         Senate considered the final report and recommendations from the Committee to Review the Structure of the Academic Year and the comments of Learning and Teaching Committee thereon.  The PVC(T) thanked members of the Review Committee for all the work they had undertaken and highlighted the Committee’s recommendations. Members were invited to comment on the proposals. The following views were amongst those aired:

Recommendation 1: No changes to the overall structure of the academic year other than the inclusion of four week vacations at both Christmas and Easter

• The year would end one week later than at present and degree ceremonies would be put back accordingly.  An External Examiner for the Business School had requested an extra week before graduation, which would push the degree ceremonies back by two weeks if followed through.

• The Residential Organisation was concerned about loss of peak income with a later finish to the academic year.

• The proposed four-week break in the middle of a teaching block would be detrimental to student learning.  Reducing the Easter break would obviate the need for a later finish to the academic year. 

• No statement had been given on the advantages of semesters.  The recommendations for little alteration were to be expected with the views received and the reluctance for change due to the likely volume of work involved, but this would not necessarily be the best decision for the University.

• A 14/16 or 14/15 semester system should be considered.

• The three-week period at the end of semester 1 was valuable and should be retained.  The Business School could not function with a 14-week Semester 1.
  
  

Recommendation 3: Joint Degree Programmes

• There would need to be a requirement on departments to consult about the planning and development of joint programmes.
  
  

Recommendation 5: Departmental Reviews

• It was critical that assessment load was reduced in the interests of both staff and students.  Less marking would release time for research activities.

Recommendation 7: Resit fees and the structure of assessment and credit accumulation

• The credit system created an unnecessary bureaucratic burden and was the primary generator of resits.  The Special Assessment Period was a considerable imposition on staff time and any relaxations that reduced the need for SAP had to be of general benefit.