FACULTY OF LAWS
STAFF STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC)
Ms Olga Thomas (Chair)
Ms Anna Antipova (Secretary)
Staff Student Consultative Committee
Wednesday, 16 March 2011, 14:00-16:00
Keeton Room, Bentham House
MINUTES
Present:
Gemma Burridge (GB) - LLB Programme Administrator
Rob Chambers (RC) – Vice-Dean for Taught Programmes
Marlene Cox (MC) - LLM Programme Administrator
Alison Diduck (AD) - Director of Research Studies
Nick Grant (NG) - First Year Representative
Mark McMahon (MM) - LLM Society President
Viktoria Mitsukova (VM) - LLM Students Representative
Shiva Riahi (SR) – Student Law Society Careers Secretary
Prince Saprai (PS) - Faculty Careers Tutor
Florian Wagner-von Papp (FW) – Lecturer
Olga Thomas (OT) – Chair of the SSCC
Anna Antipova (AA) – Secretary to the Committee
1. Apologies for Absence
Iris H-Y Chiu (IC) - Lecturer
Jack Davies (JD) - Student Law Society President
Claire Higgins (CH) - LLM Students Representative
Laura Parrett (LP) – Administrative Manager for Graduate Programmes
Joan Small (JS) – Director of the LLM and Graduate Tutor
Jenny Young (JY) - Administrative Manager for Undergraduate Programmes
Michael Hough (MH) – Senior Students Representative
2. Welcome and Introductions
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked the group to introduce themselves.
3. Minutes of the previous meeting (held on 11 November 2010)
The minutes of the last meeting were approved by those present.
4. Matters arising from previous minutes:
4.1. First Year Tutorials: NG raised the issue of fewer tutorials for first year students. RC
explained that first year students undertake the Introduction to Law and Legal
Method course instead of tutorials. The idea is that students should, first of all,
develop necessary legal analysis skills before starting the formal academic tutorial
sessions in which those skills will be utilised. RC also reported that the introductory
course is currently under a process of development for the next academic year with
a view to improving on its content and structure.
5. Chair Person’s Business
5.1. OT asked AA to add “coursework feedback” to the agenda items. This has been
approved by those present.
6. Study Space for Revision
6.1. MC reported that more study rooms will be secured for the exam period in addition to
the rooms listed in the attachment e-mail which had been distributed among the
SSCC members before the meeting.
ACTION POINT: MC to circulate the final list of study rooms among students.
7. National Student Survey 2011
7.1. OT noted that the NSS results publication threshold, which we had very narrowly
missed the previous year, was 50%. Currently the response rate of law students was
at 23% and a further 44 students were needed to complete the questionnaire for the
Faculty to reach the publication threshold.
7.2. OT explained that the NSS forms a valuable and effective student feedback
mechanism and gave examples of changes introduced to the teaching and learning
experience in response to such feedback in previous years. OT urged the student
representatives to encourage final year students to participate in the NSS 2011.
ACTION POINT: Undergraduate Student Representatives to encourage final year
students to participate in the National Student Survey 2011
8. New Student Law Society Committee – Handover and Induction
8.1. OT asked SR and NG to provide a feedback on the last year’s Student Law Society
(SLS) Handover and Induction.
8.2. General Feedback on the last year’s handover: SR reported that the formal handover
by the outgoing committee followed by the induction and training of the incoming
committee was very useful. In particular, SR emphasised the value of the guidance
provided the law firms’ and barrister chambers’ representatives present. SR reported
nd
that the new committee will be made out of mostly 2 year students who have not
participated in the SLS Committee before, therefore a formal induction would be
particularly useful for them.
8.3. Suggestions for improvements: SR suggested further guidance should be given on
the issue of room bookings and room booking clashes.
8.4. Date of the handover meeting: OT asked SR and NG when the best date for the
induction is. SR and NG suggested arranging it after the exams. SR also noted that
last year not many people turned up for the induction. To avoid this problem SR
noted that the meeting should be organised shortly after the exams.
ACTION POINT: OT to set the handover date after the exams.
9. Coursework Feedback
9.1. OT explained that the Faculty of Laws had introduced new coursework submission
forms for the undergraduate students. This initiative formed part of the universitywide objective of improving coursework feedback provided to students and
addressing concerns previously raised by the student body as to delays in return of
feedback and the quality of the feedback. OT asked student representatives to give
their opinion on the new coursework submission forms.
9.2. Student feedback on the coursework submission forms: NG and SR reported that in
general the new forms have not encouraged tutors to provide more feedback as
such. At the same time, SR noted that some tutors set up more slots to provide
students with the individual feedback which was well received. NG also noted that
students prefer individual, more personal feedback to group feedback, which is
usually conducted in the form of general comments.
9.3. Student Self-Evaluation Comments: SR and NG noted that students rarely complete
the box field on the coursework submission forms where they are asked to explain
how they employed feedback from the previous assignment. AD expressed concern
with respect to the lack of response to these questions. AD explained that this is a
crucial learning tool, and there is a strong pedagogical reason behind asking
students to reflect on the previous feedback. Lecturers provide feedback as a
learning tool rather than a means of explaining the mark. NG clarified that students
do take on board the comments themselves; it is rather a case of not being keen on
completing the forms.
9.4. Better Legal Writing Course: SR noted that the course was extremely useful, in
particular during the session where the tutor went through parts of the dissertations
and gave an individual feedback to students.
9.5. UCLU coursework feedback project: OT reported that UCLU was undertaking a
review project on coursework feedback in which law students could feed in. SR
noted that it is unlikely that the SLS, operating outside the UCLU, would have input
in this.
ACTION POINT: OT to approach UCLU with a view to obtaining any feedback
provided by law students.
10. Student Issues
10.1. Undergraduate Tutorials: NG raised the issue of tutorials for undergraduate
students. RC and FW noted that a structured survey is needed, and various options
could be considered. For example, introducing more tutorials but with bigger class
st
sizes, or introducing more tutorials in the 1 year but fewer tutorials in the next years
as students will acquire more legal knowledge. Perhaps the mode of teaching could
be changed, with several hours of tutorials per week without the lectures. OT noted
small tutorials are one of the Faculty’s selling points as a lot of other competitor law
schools do not have them.
ACTION POINT: NG to seek the student opinion on the issue. RC, FW and other
members of academic staff to provide assistance with creating comprehensive survey
on the tutorial system.
10.2. Course Choices for Undergraduate Students: SR asked whether or not the Ethics
and the Law undergraduate course will be available next year as it is a very popular
course. RC reported that every undergraduate course is still subject to cancellation
and variation. However, students should still submit their choices within the deadline.
Students will be notified by e-mail in case of any course changes.
10.3. Research Students Profiles: CM reported concern with regards to a huge delay in
publishing research student profiles on the website. RC and PS reported that
currently UCL is trying to implement the IRIS system which would allow members of
staff to upload their profiles online. The system may potentially include research
students as well. However, it is not clear as to when the IRIS will be widely
implemented. AA explained that the IT manager was running into a particular busy
period and hopefully such delays will be avoided in the future.
10.4. Exam Timetable: OT reported that the deadline for publishing the timetable is 25
March 2011; however, it is likely that the examination office will be able to finish them
earlier. The students were advised to keep checking their PORTICO accounts for the
examination timetable.
11. Date of next meeting
OT noted that the date will be set at a later stage; the SSCC members will be notified by email.