QSSC13-P06
Quality and Standards Sub-Committee
Subject:
ADT Approvals
Origin:
Academic Registry
1. Executive Summary
This paper sets out some suggestions for stream-lining certain student administration related
processes by removing the requirement for ADTs to approve them. Total estimated time savings
for ADTs equates to about 53 hours per year. These proposals have arisen following discussions
within the School of Science and consultation with the Senior Assistant Registrar, Student Office.
Changes are only being suggested where the ADT approval seems to be an administrative step
only (ie no value judgement appears to be being made by the ADTs). Where appropriate, the
associated Regulation amendments are included in Appendix 1. The processes covered are:
 Student Withdrawals
 Route Changes (ie the addition/removal of a sandwich/placement year)
 Programme Transfers
 Project Extensions (PGT students).
We are not seeking to change the processes for Leave of Absence, late Claims for Impaired
Performance or Regulation Waivers as ADTs play an important role in assessing cases and
making recommendations that are consistent within the School for which they work.
QSSC is asked to consider and approve the proposals under each section for recommendation to
LTC and Senate.
The same paper was presented to DALG on 2 May and a summary of comments from that group
follows:
 Practice regarding the approval of Leave of Absence currently varied with approximately
half the Schools seeking ADT approval and the others not. QSSC are asked to express an
opinion on whether or not ADTs should approve all Leave of Absence requests for the
reasons highlighted above.
 Members thought it was important to have academic input to decisions regarding
programme transfers and project extensions (this is reflected in the recommendations
below).
2. Student Withdrawals
Current practice is varied. The Regulations do not require ADTs to approve student withdrawals
but some Schools are still seeking this. It is thought that the confusion may arise from the fact that
the same form is used for withdrawals and leave of absences (the latter definitely requiring ADT
approval).
Proposal: Student Office to create separate forms for withdrawal and leave of absence.
3. Programme Transfers
Regulation IX requires academic approval for programme transfers.
“7. Students seeking to transfer programme must first obtain permission, in writing using the
appropriate form, from the Dean of School responsible for the intended new programme.”
For the purpose of this Regulation, “Dean of School” can be any nominee of the Dean of School
agreed with the Academic Registry. Currently, ADTs are routinely understood to be the Dean’s
nominee. However, feedback from the School of Science is that the ADT (Acting) is not taking an
value judgement on Programme Transfers and signs any that are presented to her. This suggests
that the academic decision is being taken elsewhere in the School and is potentially an area where
ADT time could be freed up.
For context, there are around 900-1000 programme transfers processed each academic year.
Assuming the ADT time commitment on each transfer is approximately 2 minutes, this could
represent a time saving of about 2000 minutes (just over 33 hours) of ADT time per year.
Proposal: QSSC to discuss and agree who the appropriate academic authority for approving
Programme Transfers should be within the School. A process for ensuring that the relevant people
are notified to Student Office would need to be agreed.
4. Route Changes
Route changes are currently viewed as Programme Transfers and therefore require ADT approval
(see Section 3). However, there is not usually an academic decision required as the student either
wants to do/is able to secure a placement (if one is available) or not. The only exception to this is
where the placement year is compulsory (e.g some programmes in the School of Business and
Economics) and in these cases academic approval for the transfer would still be required (see
section 3).
For context, there are around 1000-1100 route changes processed each academic year. Assuming
the ADT time commitment on each transfer is approximately 1 minute, this could represent a time
saving of about 1000 minutes (just over 16.5 hours) of ADT time per year.
Proposal: Student Office to create a separate form for route changes. Schools will be asked to
indicate where the placement is compulsory and only in these cases will “academic approval” be
required.
5. Project Extensions (PGT)
Regulation XVII requires academic approval for PGT Project Extensions.
“10. On receipt of an extension request in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 9 hereof the
relevant Dean of School shall, in consultation with the Responsible Examiner for the module,
determine whether an extension should be permitted and if so what period such an extension should
cover, and shall inform the student of the outcome of the extension request no more than ten
working days after the receipt of the request for an extension.”
For the purpose of this Regulation, “Dean of School” can be any nominee of the Dean of School
agreed with the Academic Registry. Currently, ADTs are routinely understood to be the Dean’s
nominee. However, feedback from the School of Science is that the ADT (Acting) is not taking an
value judgement on Project Extensions and signs any that are presented to her. This suggests that
the academic decision is being taken elsewhere in the School and is potentially an area where
ADT time could be freed up.
For context, there are around 120 project extensions processed each academic year. Assuming
the ADT time commitment on each extension is approximately 2 minutes, this could represent a
time saving of about 240 minutes (4 hours) of ADT time per year.
Author: Miranda Routledge/Sandie Dann
Proposal: QSSC to discuss and agree who the appropriate academic authority for approving
Project Extensions should be within the School. A process for ensuring that the relevant people are
notified to Student Office would need to be agreed.
Author: Miranda Routledge/Sandie Dann