ASC 14/116

University of Glasgow

Academic Standards Committee - Thursday 21 May 2015

The Glasgow School of Art: Update on Programme Approval and Major Programme Amendment Recommendations from 2013/14 for the MLitt Curatorial Practice (Contemporary Art) and the MLitt Fine Art Practice

Cover Sheet

Robbie Mulholland, Clerk, Joint Liaison Committee of the University of Glasgow and The Glasgow School of Art

 
Brief description of the paper 

The attached paper is an update on Programme Approval and Major Programme Amendment Recommendations from 2013/14 for the MLitt Curatorial Practice (Contemporary Art) and the MLitt Fine Art Practice. The following conditions/recommendations were made at Stage 2 of the Glasgow School of Art Programme Approval process in April 2014 and considered by Academic Standards Committee in May 2014:

MLitt Curatorial Practice (Contemporary Art)

Conditions:

1. The programme documentation should be updated as appropriate to reflect that the IELTS score for entry to the programme is 6.5 (5.5 in each component);

2. An appropriate statement or policy should be provided to, and in consultation with, the Head of Student Support and Development regarding an Equality Impact Assessment; and

3. The sections relating to subject Benchmark Statements for Art and Design should be amended as appropriate to reflect the Masters reference point for SCQF.

Recommendation:

1. The Programme Team should undertake an Equality Impact Assessment on the programme in session 2014/15.

MLitt Fine Art Practice

Conditions:

1. The programme documentation should be updated as appropriate to reflect that the IELTS score for entry to the programme is 6.0 with 5.5 or above in each component;

2. An appropriate statement or policy should be provided to, and in consultation with, the Head of Student Support and Development regards an Equality Impact Assessment.

Recommendation:

1. In line with 2 above, the Programme Team should undertake an Equality Impact Assessment on the programme in session 2014/15.

Action Requested 

Academic Standards Committee is asked to note the actions taken in relation to the recommendations/conditions for each programme.

Recommended Person/s responsible for taking action(s) forward 

Not applicable.

Resource implications 

None.

Timescale for Implementation 

Not applicable.

Equality implications 

There are no equality implications in the Report.

 

Prepared by: Karen Robertson