Learning and Teaching Committee

Curriculum Sub-Committee

Subject: Structure of the Academic Year

Origin: Unconfirmed Minutes of Senate on 23 June 2004

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

(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.

(ii) Senate was reminded that an asymmetric year had been proposed in the consultation process but had received limited support. There had been much support for retaining the two-semester system. The Review Group had given full and lengthy consideration to all the suggestions above and the issue of increasing discretion for undergraduate programme boards appeared elsewhere on the agenda. It had been impossible to combine everyone’s requirements, but the recommendations as presented represented the best compromise to satisfy the majority. It would be inappropriate for Senate to make alternative decisions based only on brief discussions at the meeting and Senate should show responsibility in its evaluation of the work that had been undertaken on its behalf. It was nevertheless commented that Senate should be given the opportunity to make its own decision.

(iii) Professor Bowman proposed and Dr Rowland seconded a motion to change Recommendation 1 to propose a 14/15 week semester system.

The votes were as follows:

For: 3

Against: 23

Abstentions: 5

The motion was therefore rejected.

Senate RESOLVED to accept the recommendations as presented in the report and to forward the report to Council.

Author – Jennie Elliott

Date – October 2004