FACULTY OF LAWS
STAFF STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC)
Staff Student Consultative Committee
Meeting held on
Monday 19 November 2012 at 1:00pm
in the Keeton Room
MINUTES
1. Introductions and Apologies for Absence
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked the group to introduce themselves.
Present:
Ms Olga Thomas (Chair)
Mr Ardashir Ahmed (AA) – Postgraduate Taught StAR
Ms Gemma Burridge (GB) - LLB Programme Administrator
Professor Alison Diduck (AD) - Director of Research Studies
Mr Nick Grant (NG) – Student Law Society President
Mr Shantanu Kafle (SK) – LLM Society President
Ms Samantha Leung (SL)– Undergraduate First Year StAR
Ms Claire Lougarre (CL) – Research Student Representative
Mr Rishik Menon (RM) - Senior Student Representative
Mr Eugenio Velasco Ibarra Arguelles (EVIA)– Postgraduate Taught StAR
Mr Stephen Gurman (SG) - Laws Careers Consultant & Employer Relations Manager (by invitation)
In attendance:
Ms Anna Antipova (AA) (Secretary)
Apologies for absence were received from:
Myriam Hunter-Henin – Director, European Double Degrees
Andrea Ledwig – Graduate and International Programmes Administrator
2. Terms of Reference, Constitution and 2012-13 Membership
The SSCC’s terms of reference, constitution and 2012-13 membership were noted.
3. Minutes of the meeting of 25 May 2012
The minutes of the last meeting were confirmed.
S:\Faculty Committees\SSCC staff - student consultation committee\2011.12 SSCC
1 of 1
4. Matters arising from the Minutes [see also items 12 and 13 below]
4.1 Academic Support / Student hours:
OT raised Item 3.1 (Academic Support Feedback) and confirmed that the student hours list had been
compiled and posted outside the Undergraduate, Postgraduate and Academic Services offices, in the
student common room and on the student intranet. OT noted that whilst it has not been possible to
achieve complete harmonization due to the differences in academic responsibilities, attempts have
been made to standardise the process of meeting the tutors as far as possible. Most academic
members of staff made themselves available for two hours a week subject to an advance contact by
e-mail.
4.2 Higher Education Achievement Record (HEAR):
OT drew the attention of the committee to Item 3.3 of the previous SSCC minutes. OT explained that
the Faculty has received a report from the HEAR steering group following the submission of the list of
179 extra-curriculum activities undertaken within the Faculty. OT thanked the student body for
assisting her in compiling the list and explained that not all activities were accepted by the HEAR
Working Group. In particular, only winners of the competitions we run will have an entry on their
transcript. Also, only six members of the Student Law Society Committee (President, Treasurer,
Senior Moot Officer, Pro Bono Officer and Publications Officer) will be recorded. At the same time, OT
reassured students that achievements not recorded on transcripts will be placed on student files and
this information will then be used by the academic members of staff for writing references.
4.3 Laws Careers Consultant survey:
OT raised Item 4.1 of the previous SSCC minutes. SG reported that he had circulated a survey in
order to assess the student satisfaction with the provision of the one-to-one careers advice sessions
within the Faculty. The response had been exceptionally positive. OT explained that the Faculty is
committed to continue with this arrangement.
4.4 Annual Monitoring Report:
OT raised Item 6 of the previous SSCC Minutes. OT reported that comments had been
communicated to Professor Rob Chambers, the author of the report.
4.5 Jurisprudence Essay:
OT drew the attention of the Committee to Item 7.1 of the previous SSCC Minutes. OT explained that
she raised this issue with John Tasioulas, the course convenor. He explained that guidance on essay
feedback had been given.
5. Chairperson’s business
5.1 UCL Volunteering Unit Report:
OT reported that the data received from UCL Student Volunteering Unit (SVU) and circulated to the
members of the SSCC indicated that law students recorded the highest level of participation in
volunteering activities (13%) , an impressive achievement considering the demands of the law
degree. OT congratulated all students on this significant achievement.
ACTION POINT: OT to investigate which volunteering areas attracted most interest from law students
and identify potential sources of help/support with these activities.
5.2 Teaching Equipment Fund:
OT explained that the Faculty can apply for financial assistance with teaching equipment and other
support materials by January 2013. OT explained that she would like to hear students’ opinion on
what equipment can improve their learning experience and invited Student Representatives to email
her and Matthew Grigson, the Faculty Manager (m.grigson@ucl.ac.uk) with their suggestions.
6. StARs Scheme
OT checked whether all of those present were aware of the scheme. A positive response was
received and noted. OT explained that the Student Union will run a number of different sessions for
StARs throughout the year, that StARs will be invited to a special StARs graduation ceremony and
that they will receive a certificate from the Dean of Student (Welfare). OT encouraged the Student
Representatives to make the most of the scheme as it will help them develop various transferable
skills and improve their employability.
7. Departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer (DEOLO)
OT informed the Committee of the network of 82 Equal Opportunity Officers across UCL. Colm
O’Cinneide is the Equality Officer for the Faculty of Laws. He is responsible for advising the Faculty
on the equal opportunity issues and providing individual guidance to the Faculty staff and students on
what the university procedures are in relation to equality. OT explained that the Faculty’s Equal
Opportunities Data will become available later in the term.
ACTION POINT: For OT to present the Equal Opportunities Data to the SSCC when it becomes
available.
8. Laws Careers Consultant and Employment Relations Manager Update
OT invited SG to give an update on recent careers initiatives. SG identified the following key points:
-
-
Launch of the new LLM Careers Programme.
Excellent student feedback on one-to-one careers support within the Faculty. SG noted that
the fact that he was based in one office this academic year led to a significant improvement in
appointments procedure and uptake.
UCL Law Fair 2012 proved to be highly successful and the student attendance was up by
10%.
Niche Careers events, such as Paris Law firm presentation for students interested in a career
in France received very positive feedback. Events around UCL are now advertised via a
weekly Laws Careers Newsletter. This increased participation of the Laws students,
particularly LLM students, in the UCL-wide careers presentations. In particular, students
benefited from Friday’s one-to-one Interview and Application Coaching events given by
employers from the legal sector.
SG provided a general guidance on the state of the legal market. The number of training
contracts increased by 10 % since the last year. Also, several US law firm launched UK
training programmes this year and SG will advertise these opportunities to students. However,
the number of pupillages fell down to 450 this year.
ACTION POINT: SG to advertise US Law firms training contract opportunities among students
9. Personal and Professional Development (PPD) System
OT explained that UCL had launched a key skills system which enabled students to record their
achievements and skills development. However, there was a very low uptake from students and it had
been re-launched this year with significant improvements in its design. OT explained that personal
tutors can access the PPD system via PORTICO and get information about students’ extra-curricular
activities.
The committee was then invited to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the new system.
Student Representatives explained that not many students were using the PPD system and they
preferred using private notes to track their progress. At the same time, SL explained that the system
was useful since it was structured in a similar way to job application forms. Therefore, it could provide
good practice for answering competencies questions.
PS explained that when dealing with reference requests personal tutors would normally ask students
to provide their CV. Also, not many personal tutors were aware that that the PPD system was linked
to the PORTICO records. OT explained that the Faculty would not want to make this requirement
compulsory as it would defeat its purpose. The PPD system was designed to help students with selfassessment and personal reflection on their existing skills rather than a tick-box exercise. Therefore,
students should have an option as to either submitting their CV to personal tutors or completing the
PPD log.
ACTION POINT: OT to inform all personal tutors about the PPD system
10. Annual Reports of the Chairs and Boards of Examiners
OT summarised the Annual Report of the Chairs and Boards of Examiners to the committee. OT
explained that reports presented an overview of exam results and a summary of reports from the
Examiners. OT noted that overall the results were impressive and they did not reveal any major
concerns.
OT explained that the issues raised in the report will be discussed at the LLB Board of Examiners
Meeting later this year. In particular, the issue of permitted materials will be addressed. OT will report
to the SSCC committee on these matters.
ACTION POINT: OT to inform the SSCC Committee about the key discussion points at the Board of
Examiners Meeting.
11. SSCC Membership and Chair
OT explained that according to the SSCC regulations the number of students present should be
higher than the number of the members of staff present. OT noted that currently there are 7 staff
representatives and 8 student representatives, so this issue can arise in future meetings. OT invited
the Committee to express their suggestions as to whether the student membership could be
expanded. One solution would be to introduce a new student representative for “Laws with”
programmes or invite other members of the Student Law Society to participate in the Committee.
NG – explained that he would be very reluctant to introduce more Undergraduate Student
representatives. Their views are currently canvassed via anonymous survey, so all opinions can be
effectively captured without expanding the committee membership.
SK – explained that the LLM cohort is very diverse and it encompasses students from various legal
backgrounds and interests. SK emphasised that the LLM StARs should express the views of different
LLM Groups – those interested in Commercial Law and Human Rights/Public Law. This year’s LLM
StARs can represent these diverse interests. However, a mechanism should be introduced to ensure
that diverse representatives are elected next year.
ACTION POINT: OT to speak to MB about electing the LLM StARs with different legal interests and/or
backgrounds.
OT put forward the possibility of altering the chairing of the SSCC committee between staff and
students. The Student representatives were not in favour of this.
12. Laws National Student Survey (NSS 2012) Results
OT presented the Laws 2012 NSS results digest and the Faculty Tutor’s NSS Results Overview. The
Faculty’s strong performance in most of the student satisfaction categories, which exceeded both the
UCL and the legal sector average, was noted. Reference was made to the Faculty’s significant
improvement in the learning resources provisions. OT explained that continuous representations by
the SSCC and the Faculty Teaching Committee and student feedback placed the Faculty in a better
position to bid for extra funding and support in this area which led to the high satisfaction rate.
Some concern was raised by the Faculty’s performance in relation to Assessment and Feedback. The
Faculty usually demonstrated strong performance in the area, ahead of the UCL and the legal sector
average. A slight drop in our scores was noted, despite continuous improvement in the previous years
and a number of initiatives, such as the development of service standards and the cover sheet. In
addition, the Faculty scored significantly below the UCL and the legal sector average in relation to the
Academic Support
OT invited the committee to discuss the reasons for the drop in student satisfaction in the above
areas and asked what the Faculty can do to address these issues.
It was noted that students could have interpreted Question 10 (I have received sufficient advice and
support with my studies) in terms of providing careers advice. Since the provision of careers advice is
now a responsibility of SG rather than academic tutors, it could potentially explain the drop in results.
NG explained that he would normally receive a detailed feedback, however, the essay coversheet
was not always used. It was also noted that the style of feedback greatly varies between different
tutors. It was therefore agreed that other feedback forms could be explored.
RM reported that he had conducted a survey across different LLB years. Most students were in favour
of small feedback tutorials. Also, students emphasised that such feedback tutorials should not be
organised over and above the other lectures and teaching tutorials.
Student representatives noted that the Personal Tutor involvement still varies between different
members of academic staff despite the Faculty’s attempts to address this issue via introducing the
Personal Tutors’ Protocol and a system of e-mail reminders prompting tutors to meet students.
NG – expressed concerns that not all of the personal tutors were willing to provide feedback on
exams, particularly in relation to exam papers on the subjects they did not teach. OT clarified that it is
possible to request exam feedback from the individual course convenors. OT explained that
according to the Faculty Policy the tutors are required to provide exam feedback when student failed
a subject and expected to do so when the student had significantly underperformed in an exam. In
other circumstances it is left to the individual tutor’s discretion. NG explained that students would
welcome an introduction of the feedback policy whereby all students would be able to receive
feedback on their exam performance. PS raised concerns about providing feedback on exams since
would create a significant burden on the members of academic staff. Also, students already have an
opportunity for the exam feedback via the mid-sessional exams.
The Committee discussed the possibility of introducing a peer-to-peer review of the essays. However,
NG expressed concerns that some students would not be willing to submit their work to other
students.
NG also reported that publishing sample essays on the Moodle webpages for each individual subjects
had proved very helpful. SK suggested publishing student essays along with academic commentaries
in the Student Magazine.
CL raised the question whether the Teaching Fellows can allocate an hour for student feedback. OT
clarified that this issue was raised last year and it was decided that the employment contracts for parttime teaching fellows would not be extended to cover feedback hours. Teaching Fellows should direct
students to the course convenors for feedback.
It was also discussed whether a maximum requirement for student contact hours should be
introduced considering a great variety in terms of the quality and quantity of feedback provided by the
individual tutors. A concern was raised that students found it unfair that some students could receive
more feedback than others. However, it was also noted that maximum benchmark could be counterintuitive since it could effectively discourage members of staff to go beyond expectations when
providing student support. Further, students should have an opportunity to learn from different
teaching styles and feedback techniques to improve on their learning development.
ACTION POINT: OT to raise the issue of student feedback and academic support at the Faculty
Teaching Committee and report back to the SSCC.
13. Student Barometer and International Student Barometer (SBISB 2012)
OT presented the Faculty Tutor’s Overview of SBISB Summer 2012 results. OT explained that the
survey received 56% response rate and therefore passed the threshold for publication. However, the
survey received a very low response from the Research Students, which fell below the publication
threshold.
OT drew the attention of the committee to the following SBISB items:
- Item 3 (Academic Course Content) showed a slight drop in satisfaction. At the same time,
finalists would have been the last people on the old curriculum, which had previously attracted
criticism but has since been reviewed. The results should therefore be better this year
following the introduction of the new curriculum.
- Item 10 (Learning Support/Getting Feedback) demonstrated the same pattern as the NSS
survey with the results falling below the UCL and other Russell Group universities average.
OT explained that she would communicate students’ comments to the Faculty Teaching
Committee.
- Item 13 (Explanation of Marking and Assessment Criteria) – the result has gone up probably
due to publication of the marking criteria on the Student Intranet.
- Item 15 (Learning Spaces) showed a slight drop than in the last year.
- Item 19 (Virtual Learning Environment) – UCL scored very high in comparison with other
Russell Group universities and the rest of UCL. This was probably due to the introduction of
minimum requirement for the Moodle webpages. Item 19 (Learning Technology) caused
concerns since it dropped by 4 %. However, OT explained that the issue of e-learning will be
explored at the Faculty Away Day.
ACTION POINT: OT to report the issues of e-learning at the Faculty Teaching Committee and the
Faculty Away Day.
14. Student issues
14.1 Use of Lecturecast
RM – reported that according to the student survey he conducted most of the students were in favour
of lecturecast as a very useful revision tool. Concerns were raised that students would not be
attending the lectures. One option would be to do a trial for a particular subject and see whether
attendance drops with the lecture casts available. Another solution could be to release the lecture
casts before the exams. Also, it was noted that there were significant technical difficulties with lecture
recordings.
ACTION: OT to explore the possibility of piloting lecture casts for a few courses and seeking feedback
from students and staff.
14.2 UCL Laws Print Allowance
RM reported that currently the Faculty offers £12 printing credit for all students. At the same time, his
student survey revealed that a lot of students would like a more reasonable amount to suit the large
amount of readings for law students. NG also pointed out that a lot of printing was required for
students taking part in competitions, particularly when compiling mooting bundles. The committee
therefore discussed the possibility of introducing a special printing fund for competitions.
ACTION POINT: OT to have a discussion with the Faculty Manager in respect of the printing
allowance.
14.3
Module Selection Open Day
RM explained that students would like the Faculty to provide more information about subject options
to help students make informed choices. RM suggested that the Faculty introduced an Options Open
Day. It was agreed that this event should be organised by students informally without members of
staff present.
15. Degree programme and Course Evaluation Questionnaires
OT presented the annual report of the Taught Programmes Quality Assurance Co-ordinator on the
degree programme and course evaluation questionnaires. OT explained that this report normally
attracted a low response rate, particularly from the first year students. However, this year the rate has
increased significantly due to a Facebook campaign by last year’s First Year Representative. OT
encouraged all Student Representatives to prompt their peers to take part in this survey. OT
suggested that the survey should be published during the Easter break before the exams to attract
more responses.
16. AOB
16.1 Student-led conference funding for research students: CL reported that PhD students would
like to organise the Latin American Law Conference. AD explained that she can put forward the
proposal for student-led conferences and she asked research students to contact her directly
about it.
16.2 LLM Jurusprudence and Legal Theory teaching space: LLM StARs reported that
Jurisprudence and Legal Theory is currently taking place in Seminar Room 7 but there is not
enough space, so some students have been sitting on the floor.
ACTION POINT: OT to raise the issue of teaching space with MB
16.3 Water Coolers in the Faculty: RM suggested that water coolers should be placed in the
Faculty. This idea received a very positive response from the SSCC Committee. OT explained
that this could potentially come from the teaching and learning equipment fund.
ACTION POINT: OT to raise the possibility of obtaining water coolers with the Faculty Manager.
16.4 LLB Commercial Law Teaching Space: NG explained that students were very crammed in the
Lecture Theatre booked for the Commercial Law lectures. GB explained that this issue has been
addressed already and students will be moved to the Main Lecture Theatre in Term 2.
16.5 Storage for the LLM Society: SK asked about storage for the Graduate Law Society. OT
explained that the Graduate law society can share the Student Law Society room.
17. Date of Next Meeting
th
Preliminary date is Monday 18 February, but this will be confirmed by e-mail.