DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERNAL QUALITY REVIEW (IQR)
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
DATE OF IQR VISIT: 22 March 2012
DATE OF DEPARTMENT'S FIRST RESPONSE:14 September 2012
Recommendation (as it appears in the IQR report)
Necessary Action:
(1)
The Department needs to address a number of key
issues which have arisen since the move to its current 1
+ 3 structure where it does not align with UCL policy.
The Department should review the fit of all its
procedures for MPhil/PhD with the Code of Practice
published by the UCL Graduate School. This will include:





a review of the upgrade process as a whole
(e.g. when the upgrade occurs, the
assessment criteria, who is involved in the
upgrade decision etc);
a review of the documentation provided for
the upgrade which must be provided by the
candidate prior to the ‘transfer seminar’;
ensuring that the criteria for progression from
MRes to MPhil/PhD are explicit and fully
transparent and summarised accurately in the
PGR handbook (see also (2) below);
a review of the timing of the appointment of
the second Supervisor;
ensuring that all students engage fully with
the electronic Research Student Log and that
the departmental procedures regarding the elog comply with the Graduate School Code of
practice (see also (2) below.
Action taken or planned in response to the recommendation.
The Department has reviewed its procedures and made
amendments to address differences in terminology and
procedures with recommended college practice.
 The information available on the web to students
relating to Postgraduate Studies in Economics have
been reviewed and updated in response to the IQR.
 The upgrade process has been reviewed, details
about when the upgrade occurs, the assessment
criteria and who is involved in the upgrade decision
can be found in the
 Graduate Research degree code of practice
handbook and under the curriculum and FAQ
section of the post graduate website. Upgrade
seminars have now been moved to take place in
September/October, one year after students are
first admitted from the MRes to the MPhil
programme.
 The MRes Scheme of Award explains the criteria to
progress to the MPhil PhD Programme. The
scheme of award can be found on the postgraduate
web page.
 The timing of the appointment of the second
supervisor has been reviewed and will be appointed
by default at the start of the MPhil year. An
explanation of this can be found under the FAQ
section (that has been updated on many areas).
 Students and faculty will be sent a reminder at the
(2) The Department should undertake a comprehensive review
of its PGR handbook to ensure consistency of
terminology/nomenclature within the document and to ensure
that its regulations fit with the Code of Practice published by the
UCL Graduate School (see (1) above)
(3)
The Department should ensure that there is
transparency regarding the derivation of marks for formative
assessments and should ensure that students are aware of how
summative assessment is performed in order to avoid confusion
(4)
The Department should ensure that they are cognisant
of the desire of UCL’s Institutional Teaching and Learning and
Assessment Strategy to broaden the range of assessment
methodologies used.
Advisable Action:
(5)
The Team wishes to commend the obvious enthusiasm
and hard work of the Department’s PGTAs but it
considers that the Department is too heavily reliant on
them. The impact of the heavy PGTA workload on their
research work may well be connected to the
Department’s very low PhD completion rates. The
Department is therefore advised to set up a working
group to review its PGTA system. This should also have
Faculty involvement. Among the issues it will wish to
explore include the following:
start of the academic year with regards to using the
Research Student Log.
The information in the PGR Handbook has been reviewed and is now
subsumed with information elsewhere on the postgraduate web page and is
consistent with the code of practice handbook.
The Department welcomes transparency in assessment. The wording of the
undergraduate handbook has been modified to clarify the roles of markers,
moderators and PGTAs in summative assessment. Procedures for delivery
formative assessment will be considered as part of the remit of the working
group established to consider the PGTA system.
The Department is aware of the college’s commitment to breadth of
assessment methodologies and is considering plans for new modules with
alternative approaches to assessment, particularly in the field of applied
economics, as part of the ongoing process of curriculum review welcomed in
the IQR report.
The Department is setting up a working group as requested, with Faculty
involvement so as to ensure cognisance of best practice across the Faculty.
The agenda for the working group will include the induction and training of
PGTAs and support, monitoring and harmonisation of formative assessment
and student feedback by PGTAs.

whether the feedback given to students by
PGTAs as part of their formative assessment,
can be harmonised, as it seems to be timely
but very variable in quality;
 the level of support which PGTAs can expect;
 the training which PGTAs can expect.
(6)
The Department is advised to review all departmental
literature to ensure that the terminology used is consistent with
UCL terminology.
(7)
The Department is advised to address the perception on
All references to 'transfer' seminars have been replaced to 'upgrade'
seminars.
The Department is committed to a broad, open learning experience for its
the part of students that it discourages students who wish to
take half-course units from other programmes of study where
these contain more than 50% in-course assessment. At least
one student considered that this had impacted negatively on the
breadth of their learning experience and the Team is concerned
that the negative perception that this gives of non-100%
examination-based programmes is incompatible with UCL’s
overall strategic shift towards the liberal arts.
students which allows them to be benefit from cross-disciplinary perspectives
provided by study outside the Department and will seek to ensure that its
students are aware of its attitude and not discouraged by misunderstandings.
Any comments you wish to make on the IQR process.
We thank the panel for their effort. The report clearly incorporates a large amount of work and this is very much appreciated. PGTA
issues are a dominating theme of the report. We believe that the negativity of the report about PGTA issues is unfortunate and
partially derive from a lack of understanding of the subject area and of a department that operates a large undergraduate programme
and a PhD programme geared towards educating students that are competitive on a truly global job market. Indeed, we have in other
fora been praised for our use of PGTAs. We had hoped for some constructive comments that would help us address the challenges
ahead that follow from the new funding environment but understand the committee’s choice to concentrate on other matters. We wish
to encourage the college to consider the future role of IQR exercises.
Name: Morten O. Ravn and Ian Preston
Position: Head of Department and Deputy Head of Department
Date:
14/9/2012