SENATE
SEN06-M3
Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of
Senate on Wednesday 1 March 2006.
Shirley
Pearce
Memis Acar Clive
Edwards Mario
Minichiello (ab)
Serpil Acar John
Feather Mary
Morley
David Allen Maurice
Fitzgerald (ab) Ken
Parsons
Chris
Backhouse David
Gillingwater (ab) Ian
Reid
Morag
David Berry
(ab) Keith
Gregory (ab) Steve Rothberg
Matt Best
(ab) Neil
Halliwell Fytton
Rowland
Stuart
Biddle Roger
Haslam Gab
Stone
Jon Binner Tony
Hodgson Tony
Thorpe (ab)
Russell
Bowman Sarah Holloway Rob Thring
Ed Brown Terry
Kavanagh Yiannis
Vardaxoglou
Paul Chung Steven
Kenny Richard
Wakeman (ab)
Sandra Dann Feo
Kusmartsev Peter
Warwick (ab)
Ian
Davidson Mark
Lansdale (ab) Tony
Westaway (ab)
Lesley
Davis (ab) Jeremy
Leaman (ab) Tom
Weyman-Jones
Becky Dicks Chris
Linton Nigel
Wood (ab)
Helen Drake
(ab) Geoff
Mason Bryan
Woodward
Marha Wőrshing (ab)
In
attendance: Chris
Dunbobbin
Jennifer
Nutkins
Apologies
for absence were received from: Matt Best, Lesley Davis, Helen Drake, Maurice
FitzGerald, David Gillingwater, Keith Gregory, Mark Lansdale, Tony Thorpe, John
Town, Richard Wakeman, Tony Westaway, Nigel Wood, and Martha Wőrsching.
06/18 In Memoriam
A minute of silence was observed
in memory of Professor Peter Smith.
06/19 Minutes
It was RESOLVED to confirm and sign the Minutes of the
Ordinary Meeting held on 25 January 2006 (SEN06-M1).
06/20 Matters Arising from the Minutes
Work was ongoing to present staff cost data by staff type. The
Vice-Chancellor would report to the next meeting.
ACTION:
Vice-Chancellor
06/21 Key Strategic
Planning Issues
SEN06-P7
21.1 Senate received a Draft Strategic Planning
Timetable, and a Draft Agenda of Questions relating to the Future of the
University, from the Deputy Vice-Chancellor. The timetable included a joint
Senate/Council Away Day in June 2006, and input from Support Services and General
Assembly. The Draft Agenda of Questions was intended to encourage debate, and ultimately
translate into a discussion agenda that would be considered at the Away Day. The
Deputy Vice-Chancellor invited feedback on the Questions before the end of
March 2006. It was intended to be a broad consultation, and individual
comments, as well as departmental responses were welcome.
21.2 In discussion
of the paper, the following comments were made:
(a)
In relation to question 7(i) while it was important
to assess existing structures, and make changes where they were ineffective or
inflexible, care also needed to be taken to preserve those structures that worked
well.
(b)
Environmental sustainability was identified as a
particularly important issue in relation to question 6, as the University was
likely to face significant opportunity costs associated with factors such as
rising energy costs. It would be vital to consider exactly what sustainability
meant to the institution, and how it could be delivered.
(c)
As well as understanding how the relationship between
teaching and research would develop, it was important to consider how the
increasingly important ‘
(d)
The Vice-Chancellor reassured members that although significant
change was likely in the senior management team at the start of the next
academic year, transitional arrangements would be put into place, and the
development of the Strategic Plan would not be delayed.
(e)
The Vice-Chancellor confirmed that benchmark data
would be available for the Away Day, and noted that the day would begin with an
analysis of the University’s position in the HE market. Members would
have the opportunity to debate issues through a series of workshops.
06/22 Information Strategy and Implementation Plan
SEN06-P8
On the recommendation of
Information Services Committee, Senate considered the Information Strategy, developed
by the DISS Directors, in consultation with strategic managers, and other
stakeholders. The strategy identified a number of perceived gaps in the
existing provision of information services, and included 5 high level strategic
aims for the future. The Implementation Plan was a working document, which had
already been amended, and was expected to continue to change, as the Strategy
was taken forward.
It was RESOLVED to recommend the
Information Strategy to Council.
06/23
SEN06-P31
23.1 The Vice-Chancellor apologised for adding a
late paper to the agenda but there had been a number of recent developments
concerning Loughborough’s role in the future of the British University in
Egypt (BUE) that needed to be addressed urgently. BUE wanted to enter into a
formal partnership, in which Loughborough would accredit its undergraduate programmes,
and Senate was asked to approve proposals to establish a project group to
determine what would be required to effect a successful arrangement of this
nature.
The Vice-Chancellor noted that the
proposed link with BUE represented an opportunity that many other institutions
would welcome, particularly as the number of international students coming to
the
23.2 Several members considered it important
that the University did not miss a potentially significant opportunity.
However, other members urged caution, and concerns were expressed in relation
to the following:
(a)
The reputational damage suffered by some other UK
Universities as a consequence of problems encountered when attempting to expand
internationally. It was noted that a number of international projects had run
into difficulty when staff in partner institutions changed. It was important,
therefore, to consider what would happen in the future when the management team
at BUE were not the known and trusted individuals currently in position.
(b)
The degree of control that Loughborough would have
over BUE’s operations.
(c)
The tight timescales involved. It was understood that
BUE would have a high profile opening towards the end of March 2006, and
Loughborough would need to make progress in determining the extent of its
involvement by that stage.
(d)
The University’s previous record in entering
into accreditation agreements. The Vice-Chancellor noted, however, that
Loughborough’s experience of accreditation had not all been unhappy, and
that the proposed partnership with BUE was different to
(e)
The membership of the project group – it was
suggested that the Chair of the Curriculum Sub-Committee should be included.
(f)
The broader politics associated with the proposal.
One member noted that
(g)
The expected duration of the partnership. One member
suggested that partnerships of this nature were often short-lived as the
validated University became established and no longer needed the validating
partner. It was their view, therefore, that the University should focus on the
short term benefits of the arrangement.
23.3.
In discussion, clarification was also provided on the
following points:
(a)
It was proposed that joint BUE/Loughborough degrees
would be awarded to all BUE graduates, and that Loughborough would buy in
subject expertise from other UK Universities where necessary. The intention was
that any consortium would be revised and developed as BUE expanded but that
Loughborough would remain as the lead partner. Loughborough had not previously
been involved in a consortium of this nature, although other
(b)
BUE was a private institution.
(c)
The University would need to decide on how to proceed
with BUE before the next Strategic Plan was finalised and questions about how
the proposed partnership fitted into the University’s wider international
strategy would therefore need to be addressed in parallel with the development
of the Plan.
23.4 Having taken into account the issues raised
in discussion, Senate agreed that the project group should proceed as proposed,
and report back to the next meeting. Heads of Department who were interested in
assisting the group were asked to approach the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching).
06/24 Matters
for Report by the Director of Business Partnerships, Innovation and Knowledge
Transfer
SEN06-P9
Senate received a report from the
Director of Business Partnerships, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer. Further
to the report, the Vice-Chancellor noted that Prince Andrew was due to visit
the Innovation Centre during the following week. Senate was also asked to note
the following minor amendments:
(a)
The ‘Intellectual Property (IP) Advisory
Board’ no longer existed, and section 3 of the report should have
referred to the ‘IP Board.’
(b)
In section 4 of the report, Dtekt had in fact not yet
been approved as a new spin out company but approval was expected at the next
meeting of the IP Board.
(c)
Section 1.1 should have referred to ‘a Business
Plan for the
(d)
Information on licensing arrangements and income
would be requested for inclusion in future reports.
ACTION: Director of BPIKT
06/25 Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Teaching)
SEN06-P10
25.1 Student
Recruitment 2006/07
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching)
reported on the current situation, noting that despite recent fluctuations in
undergraduate applications, application levels had remained stable over the
previous 5 years. Nonetheless, it would be important to monitor the situation
closely. It was still early to draw conclusions in relation to conversion
rates, but it was noted that many programmes had raised their entry
qualification levels, and that this might affect the way in which applicants
responded to offers.
Postgraduate applications were
also down, but offers were up by 25.3%, because of the speedy responses of
departments. Making well-managed and timely contact with applicants had been
identified as a significant factor in the conversion process and arrangements
were underway to introduce a professional and co-ordinated international
applicant telephone campaign, beginning in April/May 2006.
The number of applications for
part-time study were relatively low, but following the introduction of top-up
fees at undergraduate level, it was anticipated that the demand for part-time
study at postgraduate level, particularly among UK/EU students, would increase
in the future.
SEN06-P11
25.2 Condonement
Senate received an update on the
operation of condonement in 2004-05 from Learning and Teaching Committee. The
Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching) explained that condonement was intended to be
applied to the small number of students who achieved good overall average
marks, but who failed marginally in modules worth up to 20 credits, and who
would otherwise be prevented from graduating, or progressing to the next part
of their programme.
Although there was a split between
the Science/Engineering and Social Sciences and Humanities Faculties, a
consultation exercise had found that the majority of departments wished to
retain condonement. However, there was also support for refining the
procedures, to ensure that Programme Boards exercised their discretion in a
manner that was consistent across the University. It had been proposed,
therefore, that each department be required to produce its own guidelines (to
be approved by a sub-group of Learning and Teaching Committee, comprising the
three Associate Deans for Teaching) on how condonement was normally be used.
One member suggested that the
creation of separate guidelines for each department would lead to confusion,
without necessarily resolving the problems of inconsistency. However, there was
otherwise general support for the proposal. It was noted, in particular, that
any action taken under the condonement procedures had to be approved by the
appropriate External Examiner, having regard to national standards in the
discipline, and it was felt, therefore, that while there should be some
commonality in the guidelines produced (relating to the principle of assisting
students with a generally good profile, who had failed marginally), it was
reasonable to expect that there would also be differences, depending on the nature
of the national standards for the discipline in question.
It was RESOLVED to approve the
proposals of Learning and Teaching Committee.
06/26 Matters for Report by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Research)
SEN06-P12
26.1 New Research
Grants and Contracts
The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) reported that income from
new research grants and contracts stood at £17.2M after 6 months of 2005-06.
This was on target for a final outcome not far short of the University’s
record performance in 2004-05. The composition of this total was lumpy,
however, and the figures for the Engineering Faculty in particular were
dominated by an £8M grant awarded to Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering by
the EPSRC.
SEN06-P13
26.2 Research
Grants and Contracts Applications
The value of research grants and
contracts applications was increasing at around the same rate as in previous
years, up to a total of £44.2M after 6 months of 2005-06.
26.3 RAE 2008
Update
Agreement had been reached with
the Associate Deans for Research on the timetable for preparing for the RAE
2008. Departments would be asked to
provide initial lists of staff to be entered by 31 May 2006 and the
publications database would need to be updated by 31 July 2006. The deadline
for draft RA5s would be 1 October 2006. The intention was that by the end of
2006, most of the data for the RAE would be stored electronically and the first
part of 2007 could then be spent undertaking fine-tuning, prior to the official
census dates in July and October 2007.
It was noted that the RAE criteria
made allowances for early career researchers, such that those who fell into
this category could submit two outputs, rather than four. However, where an
early career researcher had produced four outputs, there did not appear to be
any strategic case for attempting to select the best two. Members were reminded
that no credit was awarded for having more than four outputs and that evidence
for the impact of output was critical.
06/27 Matters for
Report by the Vice-Chancellor
HEFCE
Grant letter
The Vice-Chancellor reported an increase of 3.55% in the overall
HEFCE grant for 2006/07, including increases of 2.54% in the University’s
teaching allocation and 6.07% in research funding. However, funding for
Widening Participation was down 10.96%. The figures were being analysed by the
Bursar and comparisons would be possible when figures for other institutions
were released on 2 March 2006.
06/28 Programme Proposals
SEN06-P14
On the recommendation of Learning
and Teaching Committee, on the advice of Curriculum Sub-Committee, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to Council as appropriate:
28.1 New programmes for introduction
in the 2005-06 session
MSc Psychology of Sport
and Exercise
MSc Construction Project
Management (Work-based DL)
28.2 New programmes for introduction
in the 2006/07 session
MRes Human Biology/MRes
Ergonomics/MRes Psychology
BSc Business Studies
with Human Resource Management (
BA Fine Art
MSc Advanced Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering
MSc Healthcare Governance
28.3 Award, Title, or Major
Programme Changes from the 2006/07 session
MSc
Environmental Dynamics: Monitoring, Evaluation and Management to MSc Environmental Monitoring for
Management (from October 2007 entry)
BA European
and International Studies to BA
European Studies (from October 2006 entry)
BSc Mathematics and Sports Science
to BSc/BSc, DPS Mathematics and Sports Science (from October 2007 entry)
MSc Manufacturing Management to
MSc Advanced Manufacturing Engineering and Management (from October 2006 entry)
MSc Business and Management
Research to MRes Business and Management (from
October 2006 entry)
28.4 Discontinuation
of the following programmes (last intake shown in brackets)
BA/BSc
Industrial Design and Technology with Education (October 2005)
BSc
Industrial Design and Packaging Technology (October 2005)
MEng
Computer Network and Internet Engineering (October 2005)
06/29 Postgraduate Certificate and Diploma Awards
on MRes Progammes
SEN06-P15
On the recommendation of Learning
and Teaching Committee, it was RESOLVED to recommend to Council that
Postgraduate Certificate and Diploma awards were made available to students on
MRes programmes.
06/30 Review of the Effectiveness of Senate
SEN06-P16
Senate noted and approved the
proposed membership of the Working Group to review the effectiveness of Senate.
06/31 Prizes Committee
SEN06-P17
On the recommendation of Prizes
Committee, it was RESOLVED to approve the establishment of new prizes, and
amendments to existing prizes.
06/32 Reports from
Committees
Senate
received reports from the following Committees:
32.1 SEN06-P18 Learning and
Teaching Committee of 9 February 2006.
32.2 SEN06-P19 Prizes
Committee of 31 January 2006.
06/33 QAA
Consultations
Senate
noted a recent consultation paper from the Quality Assurance Agency:
Operational
description for the revised institutional audit process, CL14/05
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters/CL1405.asp
06/34 Date of Next
Meeting
9.15am,
Wednesday 28 June 2006.
Author:
Chris Dunbobbin
Date: March
2006
Copyright ©
Loughborough University. All rights reserved.