University of Glasgow

Academic Standards Committee

Minute of Meeting held on Friday 9 October 2009 at 9:30 am in the Melville Room

Present:

Dr Jack Aitken, Ms Morven Boyd, Dr Quintin Cutts, Dr Philip Cotton, Professor John Davies, Professor Bob Hill, Professor Thomas Guthrie, Professor Alice Jenkins, Ms Helen Macpherson (vice Dr Arthur Whittaker), Ms Anna Phelan, Professor David Watt (Convener)

In Attendance:

Ms Helen Butcher, Dr Frances Boyle, Ms Emma McLennan

Apologies:

Dr Vince Bissell, Dr Mike Carroll, Professor Graham Caie, Professor Neil Evans, Mr Matthew Hastings, Dr Sean Johnston, Professor Andrea Nolan, Dr Paul Skett

The Convener opened the meeting by welcoming new members: Dr Mike Caroll (Education), Professor John Davies (Engineering), Anna Phelan (MIS), Morven Boyd (SRC rep), and also welcoming back Professor Alice Jenkins who was rejoining the committee.

ASC/2009/1 Minutes of the Meeting held on Friday 29 May 2009 

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 May were approved.

ASC/2009/2 Matters Arising 

 

ASC/2009/2.1 Report from Code of Assessment Working Group (ASC/2008/61.2) 

ASC noted that the proposed penalties for the late submission of coursework had been approved by Senate in June 2009. Members were also advised that the policy for exemption from these penalties had been further developed by the Code of Assessment Working Group and agreed by the Clerk of Senate under Summer Powers. Both the penalties and provision for exemption were published in the Code of Assessment in the Fees and General Section of the current Calendar (§16.25 - §16.28).

It was reported that these new regulations would not have the force of regulation until 2010-11 at which point they would be applied to all students in all years of study. The reason for this delay was that in some cases (i.e. when the standard penalties were more severe than those currently used by departments) the application of the new regulation would contradict General Regulation 1.9 which protected students from changes to their degree regulations where such changes adversely affect them. Phasing in the regulations from 2009-10 had not been considered to be practical given that both first and second year students take many level 1 courses together.

Members noted that the new regulation introduced greater fairness and transparency, and in general would not affect students adversely. It was therefore recommended to EdPSC that a revision to the current regulation should be approved for 2010-11 which added a clause to offset regulation 1.9.

The proposed amendment to the current regulation was:

Insertion of the following clause immediately above 16.25:

The regulations set out in §16.25 - §16.28 below will apply, notwithstanding the normal provision of §1.9, to all taught students.

Action: Clerk

ASC/2009/2.2 Report on External Examiners' Reports for Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate Programmes/Courses - 2007-08 (ASC/2008/65) 

It was noted that improvements in information for External Examiners on the number of courses they covered would be taken forward as part of the current Fee Review. 

ASC/2009/3 Convener's Business 

 

ASC/2009/3.1 Outstanding Business from the Code of Assessment Working Group 

The Convener reported that following the closure of the Code of Assessment Working Group there remained two items of outstanding business. Firstly, there was to be reconsideration of the issues surrounding the offering of second coursework opportunities to students including further consultation with Faculties on the practicalities of this in terms of staff workloads. Secondly, work had begun on a review of Schedule B where following consultation with the relevant faculties a revised version had been drafted but required finalising.

It was agreed that both items should be remitted to the Academic Regulations Sub-Committee to take forward.

Action: Clerk of ARSC 

ASC/2009/3.2 Student Lifecycle Project - Terminology 

The Convener reported that following ASC's recommendation, which had been endorsed by EdPSC, that certain key terms used by Glasgow should be retained in SLP system, there were early indications that this would not be achieved due to the prohibitive costs of changing hard coded system data. Ms Macpherson reported that the issue of terminology had been considered recently by the SLP Project Board and that following this a further recommendation would be submitted to EdPSC in due course. She explained that although the original request from ASC and EdPSC would not be fully met, some modification would be possible as Glasgow terminology would be included as descriptors within fields and that management reports could be customised. She also reported that the Project Team had considered the use of terminology in HE across the UK and had not found consistent usage of key terms such as 'programme'.

Members expressed disappointment that American-based terminology, and spelling, would be used in Glasgow's own in-house system and pointed out that significant work had been done to improve the use of standard terminology throughout the University. 

ASC/2009/3.3 ASC/2009/3.3 University Re-Structuring 

Members' attention was drawn to the recent communication to all staff from the Secretary of Court which reported that the Court had approved in principle proposals on organisational structure set out in a paper from the Principal. The Convener confirmed that the re-structuring of faculties and departments would have an impact on the business of ASC, for example with regard to procedures for the approval of programmes and courses. Members were invited to reflect further on the impact of these changes, which were planned to be introduced in 2010-11, on the business and operation of the Committee. 

ASC/2009/4 Items from Academic Regulations Sub-Committee 

 

ASC/2009/4.1 Revised Remit and Membership 

ASC approved the remit and membership of its main sub-committee. 

ASC/2009/4.2 Report from Meeting of 12 June 2009 

Professor Guthrie introduced this report which covered two items of regulatory business. Firstly, following a request for confirmation of policy from a Programme Approval Group, the Sub-Committee proposed that there should be no limit on the extent to which the distribution of assessment weightings could vary from the distribution of credits across courses in a programme.

ASC agreed that while normally the weighting of assessment mirrored the distribution of credit across courses, in cases where proposals sought a variation between these, approval should be sought by making a case to the relevant PAG to consider such proposals on a case-by-case basis.

Secondly, the Sub-Committee had been asked to consider the implications of removal of Schedule C from the Code of Assessment, which was due to happen with the implementation of the new system from the SLP in 2011. At this time the current grade points would be replaced with the 22-point aggregation score in Schedule A. The Sub-Committee had therefore considered how current grade point values and GPAs could be replaced with references to weighted average aggregation scores. These would be used for generic undergraduate provisions on awards, merit and distinction and also progress/admission rules in supplementary regulations.

ASC agreed with the proposal to substitute the current references to GPA with a weighted average aggregation score (WAAS) corresponding to the minimum achievement for the grade equivalent to the Grade Points currently used:

 

Current Grade Points Weighted Average Aggregation Score

16

18

14

15

12

12

10

9

8

6

6

3

2

1

0

0

ASC also agreed that in cases where current GPA requirements fell between the Grade Points specified in Schedule C e.g. GPA 9 (required for progress) and no direct match could be made without using half scores, the WAAS should be rounded up. So, although the direct equivalent of GPA 9 could be translated as a WAAS of 7.5, it was agreed that it should be set at WAAS 8. Similarly, it was agreed that any current requirements of GPA 8.5 should be set at WAAS 7.

ASC noted that all documentation which referred to Grade Points and GPA requirements in terms of the current values of Schedule C would require updating for 2011, e.g. programme specifications, generic regulations, supplementary regulations. The Convener also proposed that Senate should be invited to approve the introduction of these changes to apply to all students from 2011 onwards.

Clerk's Note

Subsequent discussion at SLP CRP1 meetings indicated that retaining usage of the terms Grade Points and GPA should be considered. Further discussion is therefore required to consider transferring the GP and GPA reference to the 22 point aggregation scores in Schedule A as part of the process of removing the current grade point values of Schedule C and transferring these to Schedule A.

Action: Senate Office 

ASC/2009/4.3 Report from Meeting of 1 October 2009 

Professor Guthrie introduced the report on the Sub-Committee's work and progress towards harmonisation of degree regulations for undergraduate degrees and integrated taught Masters programmes. Following two rounds of consultation with faculties, the Sub Committee had concluded that good progress could be made towards further harmonisation of regulations in the following areas:

  • progression regulations
  • requirements for Honours entry and entry to a specific Honours degree programme
  • progress within Honours and integrated Masters programmes
  • weighting of assessment for final award

although this would be on the basis of offering different models for different types of programme. Members noted that a final re-formulation of proposals was currently being prepared for circulation to faculties with the aim of bringing firm proposals to ASC in November and EdPSC in December.

Action: Clerk of ARSC

In the meantime, ASC was invited to advise on the definition of 'first attempt' in the context of progression for selection for Honours at the end of second year. ASC agreed that in terms of the minimum criteria which would permit automatic entry to Honours, first attempt should be defined as only the first attempt the student made at an assessment (in the absence of any accepted 'good cause' for absence or poor performance), and therefore performance in an assessment in a repeated year would not count as a first attempt (unless 'good cause' had been established for the first year in terms of the regulations specified in the Code of Assessment). Members noted that although this was a strict definition, Departments would retain their right to exercise discretion and permit students entry to Honours even if they had not met all criteria which would grant them automatic entry. 

ASC/2009/5 Update on ELIR Preparations 

The Director of the Senate Office provided members with an update on the University's preparations for the forthcoming Enhancement-Led Institutional Review which would be conducted by the QAA (Scotland) on behalf of the Scottish Funding Council. Members were advised that ELIR was a crucial exercise for the University. It was one of the five main components of the Scottish national Quality Enhancement Framework and could be considered as the equivalent of the RAE for learning and teaching. The review would cover all credit-bearing academic awards of the University, including research degrees and awards made in collaboration with external institutions where Glasgow was the lead institution.

The University's documentation for the exercise, the Reflective Analysis (RA), had been prepared and submitted to the QAA for consideration by the ELIR panel. Dr Aitken expressed his appreciation to all members of the University who had contributed to the drafting of the RA which was an extensive document providing detail on the University's management of the student learning experience, its monitoring and review of quality and standards, and its strategic approach to quality enhancement. The RA also contained an evidence based evaluation of the University's performance in these areas.

Members noted the composition of the Review Panel and the dates of the two visits that would be made to the University (Part 1 on 20 and 21 October; Part 2 from 23 - 27 November). During both visits meetings would be scheduled with various staff groups and briefings would be provided for those involved.

ASC/2009/6 Actions Arising from Annual Course Monitoring for Session 2007-08 

The Committee received a report on progress which had been made with the actions identified in the FQAEOs Report on Annual Course Monitoring which had been considered at the previous meeting.

Responses had been received from the Director of IT Services, the Deputy Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, the Vice Principal (Learning, Teaching & Internationalisation) and the Vice Principal (Strategy & Resources).

Members noted progress with the following issues:

  • review of scholarship arrangements (to include consideration of the position of international students from developing countries);
  • improvements for mentoring of staff undertaking the New Lecturer and Teaching Programme;
  • instructions for IT equipment in central teaching venues;
  • some introduction and upgrade of 'plug and play technology in teaching accommodation;
  • the IT support framework including the centralised help desk.

The Committee noted that the Faculty of Medicine had considered the issue of maternity cover in areas involving heavy teaching loads and had confirmed that where possible teaching gaps left by maternity leave were covered. However it was pointed out that resource constraints could be considerable in small sections if several staff members were on maternity leave at the same time. ASC agreed that resource constraints in this area would continue to be an issue since faculties were now required to cover maternity leave from within their own resources. It was agreed that this matter should be drawn to the attention of the Gender Equality Group.

Action: Clerk

The Vice Principal (Strategy & Resources) had responded to the issues raised regarding physical accommodation and had confirmed that all of the items were included on the University's forward projections for Capital Expenditure with the exception of the Dental School refurbishment which would be added. Confirmation was sought from ASC as to whether there was any data which demonstrated that students were being lost disproportionately from courses because of poor provision of learning and teaching space. ASC's view was also sought on how the items which had been identified by the FQAEOs should be prioritised and also on the position of the Dental School refurbishment in relation to other activity on the NHS estate.

ASC agreed that prioritisation of Estates projects fell outwith its remit. Members considered that the annual course monitoring process should be accepted as a reliable mechanism for highlighting issues about inadequate or unsatisfactory teaching accommodation and that any items identified through this process should be taken forward and acted upon at senior levels within the University. Members also reported a perception among some staff that certain accommodation issues were raised repeatedly through monitoring procedures without any response or improvement being made by the University, and there was therefore concern that this could undermine the annual course monitoring process overall.

ASC/2009/7 Internal Audit Report: Programme Approval Procedures 

ASC received a copy of the final report from Deloitte detailing the internal audit of programme approval procedures which had taken place during 2008-09.

It was noted that the report's main finding was of 'a clear process and satisfactory controls over the review and scrutiny of new programmes by the Faculties and centrally by the Academic Standards Committee'.

The audit process had identified some issues concerning the application of the process within Faculties and some small process improvements had been suggested. Six recommendations had been made and these had been accepted by the University. Members noted the recommendations as follows:

  • Faculty Boards of Studies would be asked to ensure that only programmes with adequate consultations and only proposals with all the required documentation were approved and submitted to the ASC PAGs. Spot checks on samples of Faculty documentation would be introduced to ensure that this was complied with (and these would to be undertaken by PAG clerks). [Recommendations 1 and 2].
  • Budget information would be prepared for each proposal and reviewed either by the Vice Principal (Strategy & Resources) or the Faculty prior to submission to the Board of Studies. A budget template would be introduced. [Recommendation 3].
  • There should be a review of the timing of the programme approval cycle with consideration of the usefulness of the new Semester 1 option to ensure that there is sufficient time for new programmes to be marketed and good numbers recruited in the first year. [Recommendation 4].
  • The Senate Office should review current processes at Faculty level and report to ASC which should decide whether these should be standardised. [Recommendation 5].
  • Faculties should be actively informed of the need to formally withdraw programmes and courses which are no longer running and they should assign responsibility for this task to appropriate staff. [Recommendation 6].

Members were advised that recommendation 3 would be taken forward by the Vice Principal (Strategy & Resources) and that the Senate Office would co-ordinate the implementation of the rest.

Consideration was given to the timing of the programme approval cycle as referred to in Recommendation 4. Members were advised that the background to this was that the auditors had found that very small numbers of students had been recruited to four out of the five new programmes which they had looked at, initiating concern at the lack of marketing opportunities in the current timescales. The auditors had been advised of the introduction of Semester 1 PAGs which would allow more time for marketing of fully approved programmes and it had also been noted that proposed programmes could be (and were) marketed prior to approval with the 'subject to approval' caveat included.

Members acknowledged that it was relatively common for new programmes to have small numbers in their first year of operation and it was agreed that advertising programmes prior to full approval was likely to deter some applicants who did not wish to risk applying for a programme which might not run. Allowing more time for marketing would inevitably mean bringing the approval process forward with earlier drafting and submission of proposals, and members were concerned that even the Semester 1 PAG schedule had been considered difficult in terms of its timing for many staff. It was agreed that if the current Semester 2 timing was brought forward there was likely to be an increase in requests for fast-track approval (which could be scheduled after the Semester 2 PAGs in special circumstances), and although this was an efficient and speedy approval process it did not allow any time for marketing. In conclusion, it was suggested that the current model which allowed approval to take place in Semester 1 or Semester 2, or exceptionally very late under fast-track procedures, permitted a reasonable degree of flexibility for Faculties to decide on the balance between early development and increased marketing opportunities against a faster response time to external or internal changes. The Committee agreed that imposing stricter timescales in order to allow more marketing (for example removing Semester 2 PAGs) would not be desirable as this would result in less flexibility in the programme development process.

ASC/2009/8 Internal Subject Review (DPTLA Review) 

 

ASC/2009/8.1 Summary of Actions Arising from ASC Scrutiny of DPTLA Reports on 29 May 2009  

The Committee noted that all recommendations of the following reports had been forwarded to those identified for action: English Language; English Literature; Mechanical Engineering; Scottish Literature.

Members also received further updates on a number of reports of events which had been held in 2007-08. In relation to both the reports for Economics and History it was reported that a new policy relating to GTA rates of pay had been agreed by SMG and was now being implemented by the Human Resources Department. For History it was also reported that work had been carried out on the refurbishment of DISH Laboratory A.

Attention was drawn to the review of Classics where the department had been asked to provide information on the effect on teaching and administrative roles of staff, given a new appointment of a research active Lecturer to replace a University Teacher. Professor Jenkins reported that due to various circumstances two members of staff were re-entering the department who would be able to provide additional resources for teaching and administration. 

ASC/2009/8.2 Full Reports  

ASC/2009/8.2.1 Chemistry

Two members had reviewed this report which it was agreed was thorough and detailed, providing evidence of the robustness of the review process. A large number of recommendations had been made including a return visit by the Panel in two years in order to review progress with the issues identified. It was noted that the recommendation from paragraph 4.6.1 did not appear in the summary list at the end of the report, and this required to be added. No further suggestions were made in relation to the recommendations, although it was noted that they could have been ordered in groups of related issues, for example 13, 18 and 21, and 3 and 10.

It was noted that a demanding set of 22 recommendations had been made and members agreed that it was important that effective support was provided to the department from central services, particularly the Learning & Teaching Centre, HR and the Senate Office, to assist the Department in taking these forward.

Issues surrounding annual monitoring reports had been highlighted demonstrating staff difficulties and unpopularity with the process of providing statistical data for annual monitoring. Members observed that this was a widespread problem which had been raised previously. Steps were being taken centrally to improve matters, although in the short-term the software constraints in Planning Office systems could not be fully addressed. It was also reported that this issue had been referred to the Student Lifecycle Project.

In relation to the student feedback on poor teaching performance (para 4.8.4) it was suggested that the Head of Department should be supported in using the P&DR process as effectively as possibly in managing staff performance in teaching.

It was suggested that recommendation 4 could be rolled out to other sectors of the University as it was felt that staff generally would benefit from information on financial incentives and disincentives for Faculties and departments regarding teaching matters including retention and recruitment.

The Committee approved the report and its 22 recommendations.

ASC 2009/8.2.2 Mathematics

The Committee received and noted the report of the Review of the Department of Mathematics which had taken place in February 2009. This report had been reviewed and approved out of committee during the summer.

ASC/2009/8.3 Summary Reports 

 

ASC/2009/8.3.1 Summary of Recommendations

ASC received a report from the Senate Office which provided a summary of recommendations from the reviews which had been held during 2008-09. The review of recommendations had identified two main themes: Assessment, Feedback and Achievement; and Staff-related Resources for Learning and Teaching.

ASC agreed that University-wide action should be taken as follows:

  • A review of the Guidelines for Writing Aims and Intended Learning Outcomes at the Programme and Course Level. (Head of Academic Development Unit, Learning and Teaching Centre).
  • A review of University policy in relation to workload models to determine what is required of Faculties and Departments. (Vice Principal, Strategy & Resources). Ms Macpherson also reported that the SLP system would have capacity to support workload models, and therefore suggested that there should be dialogue with the Vice Principal on the role SLP could take in supporting any University policy.
  • Issuing a reminder to Heads of Departments, to ensure that probationary staff members' allocated workloads were cognisant of the demands of the required training. (Director of Human Resources)
  • The Committee was also invited to consider how to bridge the apparent gap at the departmental level in terms of awareness of, and engagement with, the University's Learning and Teaching Strategic priorities. In response, members suggested that the Learning & Teaching Centre could work on raising awareness of strategic priorities at departmental level.

     

ASC/2009/8.3.2 Summary of Good Practice/Key Strengths

The Committee received a report which identified themes of good practice arising from 2008-09 DPTLA review reports. Members were pleased to note the extent of good practice identified. It was agreed that further information should be gathered on the items highlighted in section 6 of the report and published on the Senate Office website and also drawn to the attention of the Learning and Teaching Centre further use in other developments.

Action: Senate Office

ASC/2009/8.4 Good Practice in Internal Subject Review  

It was noted that a good practice report on internal subject review had been commissioned by Universities Scotland Teaching Quality Forum, and published in June 2009 on the QAA website. This was now available online on the QAA website.

Members also noted that in light of the report some enhancements had been made to the internal subject review process at Glasgow, these were:

  • There would be more emphasis on student engagement and participation in the development of TLA practice in Guidance notes.
  • A student focused summary report would be introduced for each review (summary reports for the 07-08 reviews have been published on the Senate Office website and are currently being completed for the 08-09 reviews).
  • Departments were now to include in one-year progress reports information on how students have been advised of review outcomes and actions.
ASC/2009/9 Report of the Meeting of the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Christie's Education 

The Committee received the above report of the meeting which was held on 24 June 2009. Members approved a proposal from the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Christie's Education, that Christie's be permitted to admit PhD candidates who would be subject to the Faculty of Arts PhD regulations.

ASC/2009/10 QAA - Draft Master's Degree Characteristics Reference Point 

Members received the above consultation paper which had been issued by QAA. The Committee was invited to comment on the document in order to contribute to the University's overall response to the consultation.

It was reported that the Masters reference point had been developed for those with an interest in, or responsibility for Masters degrees in the UK and was intended to be of practical help. In addition, QAA had stated that the reference point would be for advice and guidance only, and would not be a formal part of the Academic Infrastructure. In issuing the consultation document, QAA also noted that arrangements for taught postgraduate degrees were complex and varied across the UK and the proposed reference point sought to accommodate this diversity.

ASC welcomed this approach with the emphasis on diversity in the reference point. Members also welcomed the distinctions which had been made between practice in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland along with the references to the European Framework. It was noted that the standard structure of Scottish taught Masters degrees fitted comfortably within the Bologna requirements for second cycle degrees.

Action: Clerk

ASC/2009/11 Remit, Composition and Membership 2009-10 

 

ASC/2009/11.1 Remit and Composition 

ASC recommended to EdPSC approval of the proposed remit and composition for 2009-10 (see appendix 1). 

ASC/2009/11.2 Membership 

The proposed membership for 2009-10 was approved for recommending to EdPSC (see appendix 2). 

ASC/2009/12 Report of the Meeting of the Joint Board of the University of Glasgow and Free Church of Scotland College 

The Committee received and noted the above report of the meeting held on 2 June 2009. The membership of the Joint Board for 2009-10 was approved. It was also noted that a proposal for a new PGT programme (Master of Theology in Scottish Church History and Theology) was under development and that a formal Statement of Intent would be submitted to ASC in due course.

ASC/2009/13 Report on Items Approved under Summer Powers 

ASC noted the new programmes and major changes to programmes which had been approved by the Convener and Clerk of Senate out of committee under summer powers. These were as follows:

Faculty of Arts

Change of Programme Title

MLitt Art in the 19th Century: Revolution, Revival and Reform (formerly MLitt 19th-century Art, Architecture and Design)

Faculty of Education

New Programmes

MSc Organisational Leadership

Pg Cert Developing Leadership and Learning

Pg Cert Leadership of Drug and Alcohol Services

Pg Dip Childhood Practice

Faculty of Engineering

New Programme

MSc Computer Systems Engineering

Faculty of Medicine

New Programmes

MSc (Dent Sci) Fixed & Removable Prosthodontics with Dental Education

MSc (Dent Sci) Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery with Dental Education

MSc (Med Sci) Behavioural Sleep Medicine

MSc (Med Sci) Sport & Exercise Medicine (Distance Learning)

Postgraduate Certificate in Healthcare Chaplaincy

Major Changes to Existing Programmes

MSc (Dent Sci) Fixed & Removable Prosthodontics

MSc (Dent Sci) Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery

The following proposals considered under Fast-Track Approval procedures were approved in principle:

Faculty of Medicine

New Programme

MSc (Med Sci) Basic Medical Sciences with Medical Education

Major Change to Existing Programme

Doctorate Clinical Psychology

ASC/2009/14 Programme and Course Approval 

 

ASC/2009/14.1 Report on New Courses and Course Amendments Approved by Faculties 

The Committee received and noted the annual report on the number of courses approved by Faculties during 2008-09 with comparative data for 2007-08. Although the data on course changes were not directly comparable between the two sessions, the numbers for new courses and courses withdrawn were both lower for 2008-09. 

ASC/2009/14.2 Programme Approval Groups - Composition and Dates for 2009-10 

ASC approved the composition of its four Programme Approval Groups for 2009-10 as follows:

PAG 1 - Faculty of Arts

Professor R Hill (Convener)

Professor J Davies

Dr P Skett

PAG 2 - Faculty of Law, Business & Social Sciences

Dr P Cotton (Convener)

Dr Q Cutts

Professor A Jenkins

PAG 3 - Faculties of Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and Education

Professor T Guthrie (Convener)

Dr S Johnston

Dr P Skett

PAG 4 - Faculties of Science and Engineering

Professor N Evans (Convener)

Dr V Bissell

Dr M Carroll

ASC/2009/15 Report from the Glasgow International College for Session 2008-09 

The Committee received and noted a report providing a summary of the activity of the Collegiate Board of Studies and Joint Academic Management Board of Glasgow International College during 2008-09.

ASC/2009/16 Scottish Agricultural College: Report in Response to the Validation Report of PgCert/PgDip/MSc Applied Poultry Science 

ASC received the above report which detailed SAC's responses to the conditions and recommendations of the Validation of the PgC/PgD/MSc Applied Poultry Science and noted that these had been appropriately met.

ASC/2009/17 Any Other Business 

 

ASC/2009/17.1 Reserved Business 

There were no items of reserved business. 

ASC/2009/18 Date of Next Meeting 

The next meeting of the Academic Standards Committee will be held on Friday 20 November 2009 at 9.30am in Room 321, Boyd Orr Building

 
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher