University of Glasgow
Academic Standards Committee
Minute of Meeting held on Friday 19 February 2010 at 9:30 AM in the Carnegie Room
Dr Vince Bissell, Professor Graham Caie, Professor John Davies, Professor Thomas Guthrie, Mr Matthew Hastings, Professor Robert Hill, Professor Alice Jenkins, Dr Arthur Whittaker, Dr Paul Skett, Professor David Watt (Convener).
In Attendance:Ms Helen Butcher, Dr Frances Boyle.
Apologies:Dr Jack Aitken, Ms Morven Boyd, Dr Mike Carroll, Professor Frank Coton, Dr Quintin Cutts, Professor Neil Evans, Dr Sean Johnston, Ms Anna Phelan, Dr Philip Cotton.
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record.
It was noted that a meeting was scheduled for 22 February 2010 for dialogue between SLP, MIS and Senate Office on the removal of Schedule C grade points in 2011-12.
The Committee discussed the paper which proposed revision to the composition of ASC and its sub groups, and changes to the programme approval process.
The following revisions to compositions were agreed:
ASC - the 11 academic representatives (one from each Faculty plus the Dumfries campus and the Dental School) would be replaced with 12 academic representatives (3 from each College).
Academic Regulations Sub-Committee - the current composition would be replaced by 2 representatives from each College; current arrangements for the SRC representative and a temporary representative from the Student Lifecycle Project would continue.
Programme Approval Groups - The 4 PAGs would continue to be composed of 3 members each of the academic members of ASC. Each PAG would receive proposals from one College and no PAG member would serve on the Group covering their own College.
Revision to the Programme Approval Process
Members discussed the proposal that current levels of Faculty authority for programme and course approval should be transferred to Colleges. The proposal saw College Boards of Studies as having authority to approve proposals on behalf of the College. Scrutiny of proposals for new programmes and courses, and changes to programmes would be conducted by the Boards of Studies, while proposals for course changes could be considered and approved out of committee by the BoS Convener.
Beyond this it was proposed that ASC would continue to review the scrutiny process at College level and approve proposals on behalf of Senate. The Programme Approval Group structure would continue with PAGs considering College proposals and formally recommending proposals to ASC for approval.
There was some discussion over whether this proposal would in effect add another layer of scrutiny to the process. One member suggested that given the size and breadth of the Colleges, it would be necessary for Schools to look at the detail of proposals before forwarding them to the College Board of Studies. This was countered with the suggestion that the Boards of Studies would not be such remote bodies and they would have a close understanding of the programme areas they considered. Members anticipated that in most Colleges there would be different Boards of Studies covering different types of programmes, and therefore in such a structure an additional layer of informal School scrutiny would not be required. As an example it was suggested that in the College of Social Sciences there could be five Boards of Studies covering: MA (SocSci); BAcc; LLB; degrees in Education; degrees at Dumfries. In Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences it was also suggested that there could be separate Boards covering degrees in Medicine, Nursing, Dentistry, and Veterinary Medicine.
ASC therefore agreed to propose that College Boards of Studies would have responsibility for scrutinising programme proposals on behalf of the College. All proposals would require to be signed off by a senior member of the College (e.g. the Dean of Learning and Teaching. Following approval at College level proposals would be forwarded to ASC for final approval on behalf of Senate. In addition, College Boards of Studies would have full responsibility for the approval of courses.
Professor Guthrie introduced the report which detailed recommendations from the Sub-Committee to further take forward the harmonisation of the undergraduate regulations. As reported previously, the Sub-Committee had concluded that owing to the varying types of undergraduate degrees, some of which had specific requirements laid out by associated professional bodies, it was not practical for the University to operate under a single degree structure with a single generic regulation. Work had therefore been undertaken to review arrangements for different types of degree and to propose further harmonisation of practice within these.
ASC considered and approved a number of proposed regulations as follows:
Minimum requirements for entry to Honours (for programmes which select for Honours at the end of year 2): further harmonisation was agreed as follows:
(a) Students entering Honours must have 240 credits at levels 1 and 2.
(b) At least 140 of those credits were to come from the course list appropriate to the degree, defined as subjects which could be taken to Honours level within that degree.
(c) At least 200 Credits at grade D or higher.
(d) Entry to a particular subject would require a minimum of 40 credits at level 2 at a GPA of 12.
The above requirements should normally be achieved at the first attempt.
With regard to c) above, it was noted that the Faculties of Science had expressed concern at raising this threshold from 180 to 200 credits, and therefore the proposal was put forward with the clear understanding that in appropriate cases Heads of Department would be able to exercise discretion and permit entry below this threshold. The Committee also noted that figures had been sought on the number of graduates who had had fewer than 200 credits at grade D at the point of qualifying for Honours, and these numbers had been small.
With regard to d) above, the Sub-Committee had proposed that while 40 level 2 credits would normally be required, the absolute minimum should be set at 30 credits in order to accommodate the requirements of Astronomy, where due to the programme structure only 30 credits were available at level 2. ASC had been disinclined to set the minimum at 30 on the basis of the structure of courses in one subject and had therefore suggested that it should be set at 40, and the Department of Physics & Astronomy be invited to review the Astronomy curriculum in order to eliminate this anomaly.
Action: Clerk
Progress from Junior Honours to Senior Honours: the following requirement was agreed:
To progress from third year to fourth year within Honours, students must achieve an average of D3 in courses taken in third year as part of the Honours programme (with the possibility of adding variants to accommodate professional accreditation requirements).
It was noted that there had been no specific reference to Joint Honours degrees in the report from ARSC, however members agreed that the above requirement would also be applicable to Joint Honours and therefore performance across the board would be reviewed, rather than any particular requirements for each half of the degree.
Progress on Integrated Masters programmes (years 3 to 4 and years 4 to 5): the following was agreed:
An average of C3 would be required for these progression points, but where there were accreditation requirements, variants would again be required.
Weighting in the Calculation of Honours Classification: it was reported that there was wide variation in practice across the University and that many different arguments had been put forward to support of the different weightings used. ASC agreed with the following recommendation:
Weighting for the calculation of Honours classification should normally follow the credit rating of courses taken in the Honours programme (this would usually represent a 50 : 50 weighting between years 3 and 4). However, where an appropriate rationale was put forward, there could be some variance from this. For new programmes, a case for varying the Honours weighting from the courses taken in the Honours programme would need to laid out in the programme approval documentation; and for existing programmes, variations should be scrutinised at DPTLA with departments highlighting such programmes in their SER.
Action: Senate Office
The Committee agreed that there would be circumstances when it was appropriate to weight the final year more heavily, noting the example given in the report where the third year was taught at level 3 and the fourth at level H. Members agreed that in such cases a weighting of 30:70 or 40:60 would be appropriate.
ASC also considered the request from the Faculty of Biomedical & Life Sciences that all programmes in the Faculty harmonise to a model where the calculation of the Honours classification was based entirely on the grades achieved in final year. Members considered the rationale which had been provided by the Faculty in appendix 1 of paper ASC 09/43. There was concern that this proposal would put practice in FBLS out of line with other faculties, and members were not convinced that the argument that employers required specialist knowledge applied particularly to Biology. Furthermore, it was agreed that the normal expectation that an Honours graduate of the University would have a deep understanding of selected specialist topics alongside a broader understanding of the wider subject, plus non-specialised transferable skills, applied as much to Biology as to other subjects. It was agreed that the Committee's concerns over the FBLS proposal should be discussed with the Dean and the Head of the Undergraduate School, and therefore a meeting would be arranged with the Convener of ASC, Clerk of Senate, Clerk of ASC and Dr Skett.
Action: Clerk
At the previous meeting of ASC it had been agreed that Faculties should be asked to identify all programmes where there was a variance between assessment weighting and course credits in order that i) this information could be passed to the SLP, and ii) ASC could review the cases presented for the variance, given the agreed principle that the weighting of assessments should normally follow the credit weighting of courses.
It was noted that the issue did not apply to the BVMS, BDS and MBChB degrees as the courses on these degrees were not credit rated. It was also pointed out that there was no aggregation process for these degrees as each course needed to be passed to achieve the award and there was no Honours classification. It was suggested that the comment from the School of Nursing and Healthcare which stated that they had no weighting of assessment as their students had to pass each course could have been based on the same principle; however members noted that given that the BN degree was an Honours degree there would still need to be an aggregation process in order to calculate the Honours classification. It was agreed that this point should be clarified with the School of Nursing and Healthcare.
Action: Clerk
Reports of variance between course credits and assessment weightings were received from the Faculty of Arts (for two programmes) and from FBLS. The two reports from Arts related to the weighting between years 3 and 4 for Honours classification with a rationale being presented for a 40:60 split rather than the standard 50:50. In light of the discussion in minute ASC/2009/40 above, these ratios were accepted.
For FBLS the matter of the proposed 0:100 weighting between junior and senior Honours would be taken forward out of committee as discussed in minute ASC/2009/40 above. The other reported variances were accepted by ASC. These related to: a marginally higher weighting to a course comprising project work; a lower weighting for the Work Placement Year on the MSci degree; a higher weighting for the Scientific Skills core course for medical, dental or veterinary students on the one year intercalating Honours programme.
This information would be passed to SLP as agreed.
Action: Clerk
Data on degree classifications derived from HESA was made available to members for consideration. This data had been obtained for the SMG Learning and Teaching Segment Group during 2008-09 and subsequently it had been agreed that ASC should review degree classification data. The data provided covered results for four sessions from 2002-03 to 2006-07 and provided comparative data on the percentage of First class and 2:1 degrees awarded by Glasgow and other Scottish universities, and also other Russell Group institutions. The data was broken down by HESA categories of Subject Group and Principal Subject Group. It was also noted that the Planning Office had been requested to obtain further data to cover the last two sessions.
Members reported some difficulties with accessing the spreadsheets online due to the large file sizes. It was agreed that individual pdf documents drawn from the data would be circulated to each Faculty representative giving the data for each Principal Subject Group within their Faculty. It was also agreed that data showing overall institutional classification rates would be drawn up from the data provided and circulated with the next agenda.
Action: Clerk
ASC received an update on the three actions which had been agreed after the Summary of Recommendations from DPTLA events in 2008-09 had been reviewed.
The Committee considered the response from the Vice Principal (Strategy & Resources) who had been asked to consider a review of University policy on workload models to determine what was required of Faculties and Departments. Professor Juster had sought confirmation from ASC on their preferred approach, suggesting two alternatives.
ASC agreed that there was a need for all Colleges and Schools to ensure that workload models were in place at School (departmental) level as the DPTLA recommendations had shown that in a number of departments workload models either weren't in place, or weren't in operation. It was suggested that Colleges and Schools should be reminded of the requirement to operate workload models and that, in the longer term, work should be undertaken with Human Resources to develop a workload model which was suitably flexible to be applied across the University.
Action: Clerk
ASC noted that the Learning and Teaching Centre's review of the Guidelines for Writing Aims and ILOs would be deferred until the work of the Graduate Attributes Working Group had been completed. It was also noted that the action to remind Heads of Department of the need to ensure that probationary staff workloads took into account training events had been completed.
ASC/2009/43.2.1 Aerospace Engineering
Members received an update on progress with two recommendations (1 and 8) from the Aerospace Engineering Review which had taken place in May 2008.
The Committee agreed that satisfactory progress had been made both in relation to the review of first year, and the development and roll-out of Moodle.
ASC/2009/43.2.2 Veterinary Medicine
ASC received a further update on the implementation of recommendation 1 arising from the review of Veterinary Medicine in November 2006. Members noted that this recommendation had sought urgent attention from the Curriculum Working Group in implementing the proposed curriculum reform. Members noted that there had been further review activity led by the Associate Dean, however there was serious concern that there had not yet been any significant revision to the BVMS curriculum. It was agreed that the Clerk of Senate would write to the Faculty to highlight the Committee's concerns over the slow rate of progress with this key recommendation.
Action: GC
It was reported that the draft report on the Enhancement-Led Institutional Review of the Faculty had been issued to the University. The report had been circulated to members and comment sought to inform the University's formal response on the report to QAA. Members agreed that overall, the report was very positive and had highlighted a good number of areas of positive practice.
It was noted that there were two specific areas of development identified in the report which were at the heart of ASC business. These were a review of guidance on the use of external views in programme approval, and the development of guidance on how Boards of Examiners should exercise discretion when classifying Honours awards. It was suggested that future consideration might be given to including external panel members on Boards of Studies or Programme Approval Groups, and that guidance on the exercise of discretion could be added to the Guide to the Code of Assessment. No formal action would be taken forward until after the publication of the finalised ELIR report.
It had been agreed at the previous meeting that ASC should receive the annual monitoring reports from all joint programmes, including those administered by the Partner institution. Nominated ASC reviews would be asked to consider in detail annual reports for joint degrees administered by Glasgow. Reports from two such degrees were considered by the Committee.
EngD System Level Integration
The report appeared positive and no concerns were raised; however it was noted that the report was difficult for the outsider given the specialist nature of the degree and its delivery. It was therefore agreed that an introductory page providing general background on the programme, the institution/partnership involved in delivery, and a link to the programme website should be provided with future reports.
Action: Senate Office
MSc Social History
The low numbers on this programme were noted with concern although it was also noted that numbers had increased in the current session. It was suggested that new options would not be viable unless these were also being delivered to other student cohorts.
A question was raised over the scrutiny route of the Glasgow-administered reports and it was suggested that if they were considered by Faculty Quality Assurance and Enhancement Officers alongside other annual monitoring reports, they would not require such close scrutiny on an individual level by ASC members. The Clerk agreed to investigate this matter out of committee.
Action: Clerk
The following annual reports from joint programmes administered by the Partner institution were also received and noted:
MLitt Hermeneutics
BA Social Work
Master of Social Work
Master of Community Care
Master of Chinese Studies
ASC received the above report of the meeting held on 18 January 2010. The remit and membership of the Board for 2009-10 were approved. Approval was also given to the proposal for two new members of academic staff at Christie's to be recognised as teachers of the University.
ASC received the above report of the meeting held on 19 January 2010. The remit and membership of the Board for 2009-10 were approved. Approval was also given to the proposal for the three new members of staff at the College to be recognised as teachers of the University.
The Committee considered the Statement of Intent for a new Taught Master of Theology in Scottish Church History and Scottish Theology which the Joint Board had put forward for approval. Some concern was expressed at the proposed structure of the degree which comprised three courses which would be delivered on a 'guided study' basis whereby students would have four meetings with their supervisor. Members agreed that this was not the standard structure for taught courses and suggested that consideration should be given to either changing the delivery of the courses to move away from the mini project/self study arrangement, or rebranding the degree as PGR. It was suggested that it might be offered as a MRes degree similar to those currently under development in the Faculty of Arts.
Members also noted that the Statement of Intent had included reference to the provisions of the generic taught Masters regulation but unfortunately an old version had been used. It was reported that the FCC was keen to follow the University's generic regulations where possible, and members therefore agreed that if the proposed programme was to remain as a taught degree, the 2009-10 generic Masters regulation should be referred to, as certain aspects of this were different from previous versions (e.g. criteria for progress, and for Merit and Distinction).
ASC agreed that the FCC should be encouraged to consider their comments on the proposed Taught Master of Theology in Scottish Church History and Scottish Theology prior to finalising the proposal for scrutiny at the formal Validation event.
Action: Clerk
ASC received the above report of the meeting held on 30 November 2009. The remit and membership of the Liaison Committee for 2009-10 were approved. Approval was also given to the Statement of Intent for the PgCert/PgDip/MSc in Countryside Management to proceed to formal Validation in Spring 2010 for introduction in 2010-11.
ASC received the schedule of validations for GSA which showed forthcoming events to be held between 2009-10 and 2013-14. It was noted that two validations were scheduled for the current session:
BA (Hons) Design: Ceramics (Part-time)
BEng/MEng Product Design Engineering
The Committee received the timetable of subject reviews for SAC up to 2013-14, noting that the programme revalidation process was aligned to subject review. It was noted that no events were scheduled for the current session.
The next meeting was scheduled for Friday 23 April 2010 at 9.30am in the Senate Room.
Created by: Ms Helen Butcher