Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE
INTERNAL QUALITY REVIEW 2011-12
FACULTY OF SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL SCIENCES: DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMICS
22 March 2012
Review Team:
Professor Vince Emery – (Pro-Provost, Africa & the Middle East,
UCL)
Professor Christopher Danpure (Division of Biosciences, ViceHead of the Graduate School, Faculty of Life Sciences, UCL)
Dr Stephanie Bird (Faculty Graduate Tutor, Faculty of Arts and
Humanities, UCL)
Mr Mark Thomson (Head of Teaching Quality and Review Office,
London School of Economics - External Reviewer)
Administrative
Secretary:
Ms Sandra Hinton, Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Academic
Support, UCL.
Key to abbreviations used in this report:
DSSCC
Departmental Staff-Student Consultative Committee
DTC
Departmental Teaching Committee
FTC
Faculty Teaching Committee
IQR
Internal Quality Review
LTS
Learning and Teaching Strategy
PGR
Postgraduate Research (student)
PGTA
Postgraduate Teaching Assistant
SES
Self-evaluative Statement
SEQ
Student Evaluation Questionnaire
SSCC
Staff-Student Consultative Committee
StAR
Student Academic Representative
1
GENERAL
1.1
The IQR was conducted following QMEC’s Procedure for the Conduct of
Internal Quality Review (Academic Units and Programmes). In accordance
with IQR methodology, the Department of Economics produced a Selfevaluative Statement at APPENDIX 1.
1.2
The Review Team requested some further documentation In addition to the
SES in advance of the IQR visit. On 4 April 2012, after the Review visit, the
Team also received a separate submission from a Teaching Fellow in the
Department. All documentation supplied is listed at APPENDIX 3. The visit
comprised a series of meetings detailed at APPENDIX 2. A tour of the
Department and its premises in Drayton House took place as per the
timetable at APPENDIX 2.
1.3
It was noted that the IQR should be seen as a positive exercise, the purpose
of which was to review and where necessary, to assist in the refining and
development of current quality assurance and enhancement policies and
procedures within the Department of Economics and where appropriate, to
1
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
discern good practice, which could then be disseminated across UCL as a
whole.
1.4
A summary of the main findings of the Review Team can be found in Section
11 of this report.
2
PROFILE OF THE DEPARTMENT
2.1
The Department of Economics comprised, in academic year 2010-11, 903
students either studying on four principal degree programmes as follows:




the undergraduate BSc (Econ) in Economics
the taught postgraduate MSc in Economics
the taught postgraduate MSc in Economic Policy
the MRes/PhD programme in Economics
or present in the department as affiliate students, typically taking UCL
modules for credit towards undergraduate degree programmes at US
universities.
2.2
The Department has been not far from a 50:50 split by gender in
undergraduate intake in recent years, though with a slight underrepresentation of female students in the most recent year 2010-11. The
majority of the Department's undergraduate intake is from outside the UK,
though those from within the UK are drawn strongly from domiciles in Greater
London or the South East.
2.3
Since 2000, the Department has been located within premises at Drayton
House. All academic and administrative staff have offices within the building.
In addition to the office space in Drayton House, there are two centrallytimetabled medium-sized lecture theatres and four smaller teaching rooms in
the basement of Drayton House.
3
MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL FRAMEWORK
3.1
The SES notes that the Departmental Teaching Committee has overall
responsibility for monitoring, evaluating and implementing change in the
teaching programme. It delegates oversight of the graduate programmes to
the Graduate Committee. Both Committees report to the Departmental
Meeting, where major issues of policy are discussed. The Boards of
Examiners for each programme determine examining policy and make
examining decisions, with the active involvement of visiting examiners.
Selection of academic staff is handled by an Appointments Committee, and
their development by a Tenure and Promotions Committee. Selection, review
and development of Teaching Assistants is the responsibility of the DTC. [See
also section 4, staff support and development below].
3.2
Staff are encouraged at all times to discuss their teaching informally with
other staff and the Head of Department. Periodic staff reviews assess
problems and strengths with individuals' teaching, and scope for
improvements. This is supplemented through peer observation of teaching,
whereby each staff member's teaching is annually reviewed by another staff
member. Above the Department, the Faculty Teaching Committee and
2
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
Faculty Board review departmental programmes and procedures and
disseminate good practice information.
4
STAFF SUPPORT AND DEVELOPMENT
4.1
The Department has 59 academic and teaching staff and 17 administrative
and technical staff. The Department's lecturing also draws on associate and
part-time lecturers. A large part of tutorial teaching is carried out by
Postgraduate Teaching Assistants (PGTAs) drawn largely from the
department's body of postgraduate research students [see also section 7,
Learning, Teaching and Assessment below]. There has been a very substantial
recent move towards the use of Teaching Fellows rather than academic staff
as module leaders. The SES notes that the Department has recently
‘strengthened its teaching capacity by the appointment of new Teaching
Fellows whose career progression will not be dependent on research output’1.
The Team welcomes this development although it notes that on the face of
things this might be seen to contradict its assertion of a clear strategy for
research-driven undergraduate teaching [see also section 7, Learning, Teaching
and Assessment, para.7.6 below].
4.2
One Teaching Fellow interviewed by the Team provided a short written
statement and, after the IQR visit, a very extensive written critique on the
departmental SES in which a number of points were raised which related to
the Department’s operation of its internal recruitment and promotions process
and its curriculum [see also section 8 ‘Curriculum Planning and Design’ below].
Some of the particular concerns described regarding the functionality of the
Department’s appointment and promotions policies were considered by the
Team to be related to internal departmental functionality and not matters on
which it would be appropriate for the Review Team to take a view. It therefore
advised that these be raised within the usual departmental structures or with
the Dean if the Department was felt to be unresponsive. However, issues
raised which were considered to have a broader impact on the student
experience and which were consonant with the Review Team’s own findings
are discussed in various sections throughout this document. The Team
understands that the Departmental Tutor is now the Line Manager for
Teaching Fellows and is formally responsible for their career development
and it welcomes this change.
4.3
Seventeen administrative and technical staff (five part-time) are employed in
the academic administration of the Department, with roles as listed on the
Department's website. The Department has pursued a deliberate strategy
over the last decade of employing administrative staff to relieve the burden of
routine administration on academic staff, and to provide a well-resourced
service to students. The major administrative posts (admissions,
Departmental Tutor, examinations, etc) are supported by specialised
administrators. Having interviewed both staff and students it was evident to
the Review Team that key members of the Department’s administrative staff,
and in particular the MSc Programmes Administrator, play a key role in
pastoral support to students and are in fact often the first stop for students
with personal problems. The Review Team wishes to commend:
 the key role in pastoral support played by the departmental
administrative staff.
1
See SES, section 1.2.1, page 10.
3
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
however, it wishes to note that the Personal Tutoring system should comprise
both academic and pastoral care. The SES notes that Personal Tutors for
undergraduate students provide ‘individual academic guidance’, careers
support and write references but no mention is made of pastoral support. The
SES then notes that ‘non-academic administrative staff are often students'
first port of call with problems of a non-academic nature’. The Team, on
exploring this further with students found that they were largely content with
this arrangement, as the administrative staff are better versed at directing
students to institutional level support services and often know the latest
developments in support services that are in various states of flux. However,
although the current administrative staff are happy to play this role, the
Department should ensure that academic staff who act as Personal Tutors do
not offload this aspect of their responsibility as a matter of course.
5
STUDENT RECRUITMENT ADMISSION AND RECEPTION
5.1
The SES notes that the Department recruits high calibre students to each of
its programmes with the intention to admit the best candidates regardless of
background. For the undergraduate programmes, applications heavily
outnumber places with around 13 applications received for each place
available in the current application round. The admissions criteria applied
require an A*AA and a further pass at AS-level with the A* grade in
Mathematics. Typically all 2700+ applicants satisfy these criteria and the
majority of them have 8 to 9 A*/A at GCSE, including in mathematics.
5.2
The undergraduate Economics programme, already popular, is expected to
expand strongly. Notwithstanding the new tuition fee regime, applications for
2012 have been strong and increased growth is expected. Expansion in
student numbers has hitherto however, predominantly been in the overseas
sector, although there is an excess of demand from UK/EU students which
places the department in an excellent position if an expansion in UK/EU
undergraduate students was required. Scholarships will partly ensure that
quality applications from state school students are not discouraged.
5.3
The students interviewed testified to the Department’s thorough admissions
and induction process for undergraduate and taught postgraduate students
which includes social as well as academic orientation. The Department is
actively involved in the process of assisting students in overcoming the
transition from school to university by promoting the UCL Transitions
programme, screening the Student Mentoring applications (from 2nd/3rd year
Economics students), by engaging regularly with the Departments' societies
and StARs and by updating the undergraduate areas of the Departmental
website and Moodle sites to provide relevant information. The departmental
Economist's Society from 2012 operated a mentoring programme for first-year
students, which assigns senior undergraduates to groups of about 10 firstyear students. The Review Team was impressed with the information it was
given regarding the student–driven mentoring system and the students
interviewed testified to its helpfulness. The Review Team therefore wishes to
commend the Department for:
 its proactive, student-driven mentoring and student societies
such as the departmental Economist's Society.
4
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
6
STUDENT SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE
6.1
The undergraduates interviewed by the Team noted that the biggest topics of
contention amongst students were the library opening hours (the Library was
open from 11am to 9pm at weekends) and the lack of social and study space
within the Department. The review team therefore recommended that:
 The Faculty/UCL be invited to review its library opening hours
and to consider the Department’s access to more social and
learning spaces for students.
There were no complaints from the students interviewed about workload in
the first year. However, MSc students interviewed described the programme
as being ‘like a bootcamp’, i.e. in relation to the volume of enabling material
students were required to assimilate before being able to move on to more
challenging learning.
6.2
The Review Team noted a good, clear, user-friendly departmental website,
extensive access to software and well supported, established IT
infrastructure. All courses have a Moodle presence and material offered via
Moodle is imaginative and fairly extensive, (problem sets, hints for solutions,
old and mock exams and online quizzes). Increasing numbers of lecturers use
the lecturecast system to record lectures where facilities allow.
6.3
Students meet their Personal Tutors once a term, a meeting which is
arranged by email. Personal Tutors are assigned to students rather than
chosen. Discussion usually centres around grades and module selection. A
student might see their Personal Tutor more often if this was required. With
the exception of one student interviewed who said that they would rather see
their Course Tutor than a Personal Tutor as the relationship was better,
everyone interviewed felt that the system worked well and that their Personal
Tutors were approachable and helpful. The Review Team wishes to
commend the Department for:
 the effective functioning of its Personal Tutoring System;
however, the Department is also asked to note the comments at para. 4.3
above.
6.4
The majority of students interviewed by the team expressed a strong
departmental affiliation and felt, in the main, affection for and loyalty to the
Department. The Review Team wishes to commend the Department for:
 its openness, friendliness and collegiality;
6.5
Nevertheless, some students commented that as a consequence of their
departmental affiliation, they felt ‘less connected’ to UCL (this view was
expressed by some administrative staff also) and the Team would encourage
the Department to be on guard that this loyalty does not militate against
increased inter-disciplinarity and fresh approaches to learning or ultimately
limit the full breadth of the students’ learning experience [see also section 7,
Learning, Teaching and Assessment, para. 7.4 below].
6.7
Overall, the undergraduates and MSc students interviewed were positive
about the quality of the taught programmes, despite the often heavy workload
5
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
and enthusiastic about their lecturers. The Review Team would therefore like
to commend the Department on:
 the evident quality of its taught programmes and lecturers;
although it would like the Department to consider whether its policy of using
Teaching Fellows and particularly PGTAs in teaching delivery might leave the
Department vulnerable in future if such individuals were not available [see
also section 7, Learning, Teaching and Assessment, paras. 7.6 & 7.13
below].
7
LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT
7.1
The Team interviewed a number of undergraduate students who were broadly
happy with the level of support provided by the PGTAs appointed to teach
them and mark their coursework. However, undergraduates from overseas,
whose first language was not English, sometimes struggled with the cultural
and linguistic challenges of the programmes and there seemed to be little
oversight of the level of support provided. PGTAs themselves could pick up
individual undergraduates who struggled with the language requirements but
there seemed to be no systematic way in which this could be identified and
addressed by senior staff. Conversely, the team heard several complaints
from students regarding the standard of spoken English of some PGTAs.
Many times over the course of the Review Team’s visit, it was told that senior
staff relied on PGTAs informing them of individual problems and that there
2
was no departmental system for picking these up .
7.2
The Department does not use coursework grades in formal assessment. It
gives a number of reasons for not ‘counting’ coursework, from plagiarism to
the fact that on the one-year Masters degrees, coursework assessment would
give undue credit for the arrival skills of students rather than what they learn
during the programme. Undergraduates were asked about formative
assessment on their coursework and responded that they had all initially felt
that marks should ‘count’ towards the degree. However, some acknowledged
that the fact that it did not ‘count’ allowed for more adventurous thinking in
problem solving where they might have been tempted to ‘play safe’. Affiliate
students however, wished that marks for coursework did ‘count’ because this
would represent a ‘buffer’ or ‘safety net’ which might militate against
examination anxiety3.
7.3
The Review Team felt that whether or not formative assessment marking
contributed to the degree, it was nevertheless invaluable for students’
formative feedback. Undergraduates interviewed also expressed confusion
about how and by whom their examinations were marked and noted that this
had not been made clear to them. The Review Team therefore
recommended that the Department should ensure:
 that there is transparency regarding the derivation of marks for
formative assessments and should ensure that students are
2
Subsequently the team was informed that a robust database system operates providing an
instant overview of all real-time student performance and attendance and allowing weaker
student performance to be identified and appropriate support given.
3
In fact, coursework marks are used for affiliate students as detailed in the regulations for
affiliate students.
6
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
aware of how summative assessment is performed in order to
avoid confusion.
 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.
7.4
The Review Team also considered that the Department was missing a
valuable opportunity to use formative assessments as an indicator of a
student’s future performance and a way of identifying any problems. Some
students who struggled in examinations might have been identified and
supported earlier if such data had been available. The Department did not
appear to compile or consider any overarching data on student performance
in formative assessment (however, see footnote 2 above).
7.5
Students are permitted to take a wide range of modules outside the
department, including language modules, which can constitute up to about
25% of total units taken. However, the Review Team gained the impression
from undergraduates that excessive caution in module choices was
sometimes exercised by academic staff. The Team feels that it is vital to
address this and to increase the appetite for taking academic risks, as this will
also encourage each student to take ownership of his or her own intellectual
journey.
7.6
Students interviewed also informed the Review Team that they had been
actively discouraged from taking half-course units from other programmes of
study where these contained more than 50% in-course assessment owing to
a departmental perception that coursework was less academically rigorous
and less important. Students interviewed were under the impression that it
was departmental policy that half-course units from other programmes where
there was more than 50% coursework were not allowed. At least one student
interviewed considered that this had impacted negatively on the breadth of
his/her learning experience. The Review Team subsequently checked with
the Departmental Tutor regarding rules on the coursework component of
courses taken outside the department and was assured that there were no
hard-and-fast rules prohibiting students from taking courses with more than
50 per cent of the mark dependent on coursework. The Departmental Tutor
confirmed that the nature of the assessment would be a consideration in
deciding whether to allow an unfamiliar course from outside the Department
to be taken. The lack of a substantial examined component might, among
other things, be used to deter a student from taking a course especially if it
was judged that no good case existed in terms of relevance to the coherence
of the student's degree and their future plans. However, the team was
reassured that the unseen examination component would never be the sole
determining factor in not allowing such a course to be taken. The Department
maintains that there is no intention to disparage the perceived value and
rigour of summative coursework assessment. However, given that this is
clearly the students’ perception, the Department is advised to:
 address the perception on 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% incourse assessment. At least one student considered that this had
impacted negatively on the breadth of their learning experience
7
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
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 interdisciplinarity and the liberal arts.
7.7
The SES notes that the Department has a strong research focus and most
academic staff are research-active. The Department has been consistently
graded internationally excellent in Research Assessment Exercises. Major
research areas in the department include applied microeconomics,
econometrics, labour economics, including the application of economics to
study of migration, and applications of game theory to economics. The
Department is currently addressing hiring needs in macroeconomics and
envisages that there will be significant hiring in this area in the near future.
The SES notes that the Department has ‘a clear strategy for ensuring that
research feeds into the undergraduate programme’ and the Team wishes to
encourage and commend the Department’s:
 commitment to the principle of research-driven teaching
however, the SES also notes ‘the outstanding young academics whom we
have been able to recruit to lectureships in the department can quickly receive
attractive offers from other institutions, at substantially higher status and
salary, and the department needs to be able to counter these offers. Our
continuing success in recruiting and retaining staff of the highest calibre staff
will also depend on us being able to compete successfully, through proactive
and imaginative recruitment and selection, by offering an attractive research
environment, and by avoiding excessive workloads for teaching and academic
administration (our italics). The Team would therefore wish to note that the
concomitant tendency of the Department to transfer the responsibilities of
teaching and marking to its Teaching Fellows ‘whose career progression is
not dependent on research’4 and to PGTAs who, as we note below [see
section, Learning, Teaching and Assessment, paras. 7.12 & 7.13] are often
weighed down with teaching and marking responsibilities to fully research
active, needs to be monitored as the two aspirations seem to come into direct
contradiction.. Too much teaching may affect PhD completion rates and levels
of student contact time with permanent staff have a bearing on the ‘student
experience’. The Department is perhaps jeopardising its UG growth
aspirations by creating a labour shortage, i.e. if new should ensure that there
is sufficient capacity within its PGTAs to support the taught programmes
offered and should be cognisant of the recommendations made from the
working group on PGTAs advised by the Team [see para 7.13 below]
7.8
Students of the MRes praised the quality of the teaching and assessment
offered. Assessment was worth 40% and feedback was given on performance
in a mock examination5. A student was expected to achieve an average of
60% in three core courses and more than 60 in the optional course. Although
some students left with an MRes, the overall expectation was that a student
would progress from the MRes to a PhD. When students were asked about
the upgrade procedure (called ‘transfer’ in one of a series of examples of
confusing nomenclature in the Department [see also paras. 7.10 and 7.11
below]) they informed the Team that upgrade was via ‘Transfer Seminar’
4
See SES, section 1.2.1, page 10.
the IQR team were subsequently informed that 40% of the taught course mark for these
students comes from an examination in the winter.
5
8
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
where the student talked about his/her research project for about forty
minutes. No guidelines seemed to be provided about the format of this but a
‘Mock Transfer’ was offered, on which a student ‘might’ receive feedback on
his/her performance6. The ‘Transfer Seminar’ was attended by the first and
second supervisor and three other Faculty members including the PhD
programme director with a required quorum of 5 faculty members. A letter
informing the student of whether they had passed or failed was then sent. No
written report or other documentation was required to be provided by the
student to the ‘Transfer Panel’ in advance of the ‘Transfer Seminar’. Students
interviewed seemed confused about the criteria for progression from MRes to
PhD. The Review Team was concerned at the lack of detail available in the
PGR Handbook (a copy of which was provided to the Review Team in
advance of the IQR) regarding documentation for the event and criteria for
progression.
7.9
The PhD Programme Director chooses a first Supervisor for each student
based on a combination of prior experience and the student’s research
proposal. Students told the Review Team that they invariably accepted the
Supervisor assigned to them in this way. Students noted that they were
‘encouraged to look for a Second Supervisor’ with a view to assigning him/her
by the time their ‘Transfer Seminar’ was due. However, UCL regulations state
that this must happen at the beginning of the PhD process when the student
registers for an MPhil/PhD. It is UCL policy that research students have two
supervisors from the commencement of their programme. The timing of the
‘Transfer Seminar’ was estimated as being late June/early July and after this,
the research project proper could begin. The 10,000 word MRes dissertation
could, and usually did, form the beginning chapter of the PhD thesis but this
was not compulsory. Registration for MPhil/PhD was in late September/early
October. Worryingly, none of the students interviewed had actually read the
PGR Handbook recently but did acknowledge that it was useful to prospective
students and at the beginning of the course. Finally, according to figures
obtained from the Graduate School, only 62% of Economics PGR students
are using the Research Student Log. This electronic Log, the use of which is
compulsory, was familiar to the students and they were aware that it was a
requirement for upgrade but maintained that it was not a useful process and
that its use was ‘not strictly enforced’.
7.10
Based on the interviews with students and its reading of the Department’s
own PGR Handbook, the Review Team considered that the Department
urgently needs to address a number of key issues which seem to have arisen
partly as a result of its move to a 1 + 3 with the consequence that its
structures do not align with UCL policy. In particular, 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.

review the fit of all its procedures for MPhil/PhD with the Code
of Practice published by the UCL Graduate School. This will
include:
6
Subsequently the IQR team were informed that a course called “Research Publication and
Presentation Skills” provides extensive guidance on the procedure of the upgrade seminar
and to prepare students for it.
9
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
7.11
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;
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 e-log comply
with the Graduate School Code of practice.
The Review Team found that a large amount of the departmental literature
with which it was supplied (as part of the core documentation which forms
part of the evidence base for IQR) used departmental terminology which was
inconsistent with UCL terminology. Prime examples of this were to be found
in the PGR handbook, such as ‘transfer’ instead of ‘upgrade’, however, there
was evidence of this inconsistency in much of the departmental literature
supplied and the Team therefore advises the Department to:
 review all departmental literature to ensure that the terminology
used is consistent with UCL terminology.
7.12
The SES notes that ‘a large part of tutorial teaching and assistance in the
marking of examinations is carried out by PGTAs drawn largely from the
Department's body of postgraduate research students. Besides helping with
undergraduate teaching, the PGTA programme plays an important role in the
Department's doctoral programme, providing a significant source of funding
for doctoral students, and allowing doctoral students to develop teaching skills
in a structured and supportive environment’. However, the team found that on
interviewing students who acted as PGTAs, a number of issues arose.
7.13
Firstly, in its most recent IQR in 2006, the Department was advised to take
action to improve its completion rates. The SES notes that these rates were
affected negatively by the taught first year in the old MPhil/PhD degree. The
movement of the taught component into a separate MRes degree (for the
cohort starting 2010) means that there is now three full years of research
possible after the taught component (‘1+3’). The Department anticipated that
this would considerably improve its completion rates. However, the Review
Team, on interviewing the PGTAs was concerned to discover an impediment
to this; namely: the extent of the PGTA workload. The Department has
estimated the maximum number of teaching hours in a year for an individual
PGTA to be 72. Spread across twenty teaching weeks this would result in
between 3 and 4 hours a week. Marking of associated coursework would
then be in addition to this time commitment. However, the Department
(although not the PGTAs interviewed) considered this to be an ‘untypically
high’ estimate, with the average annual hours for a PGTA coming in at
approximately 40 or 2 hours a week across the year. However, assistance
with examination marking would be additional to the workload described
above. A PGTA on the maximum load would be reviewing 220 hours’ worth of
10
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
examination scripts (ie. 110 two hour scripts or 73 three hour scripts or
equivalent). This would typically be concentrated on a single course and
would involve checking against a detailed marking scheme provided to the
PGTA. Again this was described by the Department as a fairly untypical
maximum. On average the load would be more likely to be 60 two hour
scripts. This work is highly concentrated and occurs in a condensed period at
the beginning of the examination season.
7.14
The PGTAs interviewed told the Review Team that there were weeks when
their teaching responsibilities took up the whole week and no research was
possible. They also estimated the total amount of weeks where no research
was possible to be 8. Support from academic staff in the Department came in
the form of model answers from lecturers. However, minimal guidance was
given, although lecturers were approachable and PGTAs felt free to ask
questions. All PGTAs questioned said that they took the PGTA post because
of funding issues and wished that there were alternative funding schemes and
more scholarships available to help support them while they completed their
studies.
7.15
Undergraduate students also reported that there seemed to be little
transparency or consistency in the way in which coursework marking was
done by PGTAs. While having no specific grievances to report (all
undergraduates interviewed seemed to feel that PGTAs worked hard and did
a good job overall) there was a sense that because coursework marks did not
contribute towards the eventual degree (a great deal of emphasis is on the
final end of year examination) that the coursework itself was less important.
This was exacerbated by the lack of transparency over the derivation of
coursework marking and the, sometimes quite large, discrepancies between
one PGTA’s method of marking and another’s.
7.16
The Team wished to commend the obvious enthusiasm and hard work of the
Department’s PGTAs but it considered that the Department was 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:



7.17
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.
The Review Team noted that lecture facilities within the Department cannot
accommodate the student numbers on typical courses and most lecturing and
much class teaching therefore occurs outside the department in facilities
which can be distant from the department and from each other. Such facilities
are not always of the standard that might be hoped, for example with regard
to availability of lecture recording facilities, though it is appreciated that
installation of such facilities takes time and will eventually cover all feasible
large teaching spaces. Students mentioned that lecture facilities were
11
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
inadequate but no particular grievances were brought to the attention of the
Review Team.
8
CURRICULUM PLANNING AND DESIGN
8.1
The SES notes that the Economics undergraduate curriculum is heavily
structured, progressing from a first year assuming no prior knowledge,
through a second year dominated by a strong core element to a third year
with extensive scope for exploring optional study in subfields of the discipline.
The core curriculum covers both microeconomic and macroeconomic theory
as well as a thorough introduction to relevant mathematical and statistical
methods as applied in Economics. The core dominates the curriculum in the
first two years and opens the way in the third year for undergraduate students
to have access to fairly advanced theoretical, empirical and policy material in
a range of optional courses.
8.2
It was suggested to the Review Team by one interviewee that the dominance
of ‘globalised’ economics on the US model has led to the entrenchment in
much of the academic economics professions of a particular view of what
economic analysis consists of, to the exclusion of alternative approaches.
However, this view did not seem necessarily to be shared by all the Teaching
Fellows and members of academic staff interviewed by the Team and while
the Review Team would like to be able to investigate all issues with which it is
confronted, limitations of time and resource mean that it is obliged in such
instances to accept the views of the majority of its interviewees. However, the
Team would like to emphasise its belief that open, constructive and civilised
debate on academic issues is the sign of a healthy academic institution and
would like to encourage the Department in its establishment of a Curriculum
Review Committee to ‘review the entirety of the Economics curriculum and
report to the DTC before the end of 2012’. It is suggested that this should be a
useful vehicle for members of staff wishing to discuss more radical long-term
ideas for the curriculum; particularly as IQR is explicitly concerned with
reviewing not the academic content of programmes but rather a Department’s
management of its programmes and their constituent modules, of its learning
resources, of its staff development arrangements, and of its students’
educational experience. However, as no further information has been offered
to the Review Team regarding the remit, membership and proposed meeting
dates of this Curriculum Review Committee, the Department is asked to
ensure that these are made explicit to all students, academic staff and
Teaching Fellows etc. in order to ensure the fullest possible participation and
to allow for the articulation and discussion of under-represented ideas.
9
ACADEMIC QUALITY REVIEW, MONITORING AND FEEDBACK
FRAMEWORK
9.1
There are regular meetings of the Departmental Staff-Student Consultative
Committee and the Departmental Teaching Committee has adequate student
representation. The Department is perceived by the students interviewed as
being receptive/responsive to some issues but less so to others. The main
issue under discussion for undergraduates was that the length of the tutorials
taken by PGTAs were not adequate to get through all the problem sets. The
Department seemed to be open to discussion about this but nothing had
actually been done. Students also mentioned the quality and quantity of
12
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
feedback on assessed work which were both problematic and which came up
at every DSSCC (this is dealt with more fully in section 7 above). Students
also wanted lecture notes prior to lectures which were not offered in all cases.
This was thought to help with revision. However, overall students felt that the
DSSCC was effective and inclusive in its treatment of student issues,
although postgraduate students felt that the masters-level SSCC might meet
more frequently. With this caveat in place therefore, the Review Team wished
to commend the Department for:
 its effective and inclusive staff-student consultative committees
(although its masters-level SSCC could meet more frequently);
9.2
For every course, student participants complete Course Evaluation Forms.
Students grade course content and delivery (both classes and lectures), and
have scope for free comment. Summary statistics are reviewed formally by
the DTC and the FTC, circulated to staff, and posted on the departmental
website. Results of the National Student Survey are discussed at the DTC.
10
CONCLUSION
10.1
The Review Team was impressed by the openness, enthusiasm and evident
commitment of the students it met and wishes to thank the Department for the
opportunity to meet and interview its students and staff.
10.2
The Review Team found the SES helpful but, in that it did not appear to have
fully considered the fit of the Department within broader Faculty and
institutional structures, insufficiently self-evaluative. The supporting
documents supplied to the Team were likewise helpful but contained a
number of inaccuracies which are dealt with more fully at section 7 above.
The team was pleased to find that all the interviewees were open, frank and
willing to engage in constructive dialogue, which allowed some of the
developmental aims of the IQR process to be realised.
10.3
Overall, the Review Team found that the Department of Economics offers its
students a supportive environment for their studies. Students interviewed by
the Review Team indicated that they enjoyed their exposure to the
Department’s research culture and praised the high quality of the
Department’s taught courses. However, the Team did have a number of
concerns and these, listed fully at section 11 below, can be summarised by
noting that the Department may wish to to strengthen even further its links
with the rest of UCL, to comply fully with those aspects of UCL policy which
relate to postgraduate research students, to give greater support to (and
break its heavy dependency on the use of) its PGTAs, both for the sake of the
students’ own research careers and completion rates, to deliver more fully on
its promise of research-driven teaching and to welcome more diversity of
academic experience by encouraging its students to broaden their learning
and supplementing their courses with a greater variety of modules from other
departments. The Review Team felt that the Department, while clearly worldclass in some respects, could do even more to encourage a broader
undergraduate student experience. The Team therefore welcomes the
proposed review of the Economics curriculum and looks forward to noting
progress in this respect at the next IQR.
10.4
The review team is grateful to the Department of Economics for the hospitality
and co-operation shown by both staff and students during its visit.
13
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
11
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
GOOD PRACTICE
The Review Team commends the Department of Economics for:
(1) the evident quality of its taught programmes and lecturers; [see para. 6.5]
(2) its commitment to the principle of research-driven teaching; [see para. 7.7]
(3) its openness, friendliness and collegiality; [see para. 6.3]
(4) its proactive, student-driven mentoring and student societies such as the
departmental Economist's Society; [see para. 5.3]
(5) its effective and inclusive staff-student consultative committees (although its
masters-level SSCC could meet more frequently); [see para. 9.1]
(6) the effective functioning of its Personal Tutoring System; [see para. 6.2]
(7) the key role in pastoral support played by the departmental administrative staff.
[see para. 4.3]
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Review Team recommends the following:
Necessary Action
As follows:
(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
thePGR 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
14
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
regarding the e-log comply with the Graduate School Code of
practice (see also (2) below. [see para. 7.10]
(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) [see para. 7.10]
(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. [see para. 7.3]
(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. [see para. 7.3]
Advisable action
As follows:
(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 (see also
(8) below). Among the issues it will wish to explore include the following:



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. [see para. 7.16]
(6)
The Department is advised to review all departmental literature to ensure that
the terminology used is consistent with UCL terminology. [see para. 7.11]
(7)
The Department is advised to address the perception on 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. [see para. 7.6]
Matters for attention outside the Department
(8)
The Faculty is invited to discuss, via the working group suggested at (5)
above, the Department’s use of PGTAs. [see para. 7.16]
15
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
(9)
The Faculty/UCL is invited to review its library opening hours and to consider
the Department’s access to more social and learning spaces for students.
[see para. 6.1]
APPENDIX 1
Self Evaluative Statement of the Department of Economics
16
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
APPENDIX 2
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS: TIMETABLE FOR IQR VISIT
THURSDAY 22 MARCH 2012
Location:
G20 (Drayton House, Ground Floor)
8.45am
MEETING OF REVIEW TEAM (with tea/coffee/water)
Professor Vince Emery (Pro-Provost, Africa & the Middle East, UCL)
Professor Christopher Danpure (Division of Biosciences, Vice-Head of the
Graduate School, Faculty of Life Sciences, UCL)
Dr Stephanie Bird (Faculty Graduate Tutor, Faculty of Arts & Humanities,
UCL)
Mr Mark Thomson (Head of Teaching Quality & Review Office, London
School of Economics - External Reviewer)
Ms Sandra Hinton (Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Academic Support,
UCL – IQR Administrative Secretary)
9.00am
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT – Professor Morten Ravn
DEPUTY HOD - Professor Ian Preston
9.20am
DEAN OF FACULTY – Professor Stephen Smith
9.30am
TOUR OF DEPARTMENT AND FACILITIES
10.00am
CHAIR OF UG DTC/ BSc DIRECTOR - Dr Valerie Lechene
UNDERGRADUATE DEPARTMENTAL TUTOR – Dr Frank Witte
YEAR ABROAD TUTOR - Dr Adam Rosen (Unavailable)
10.30am
MEETING OF REVIEW TEAM (with tea/coffee/water)
10.45am
SELECTION OF TEACHING AND ACADEMIC STAFF
At least ten to include:
TEACHING FELLOW REPRESENTATIVE – Dr Parama Chaudhury
2 x Personal Tutors
1x member of teaching staff at the beginning of 6 year contract - Dr Christian
Spielmann
1x member of teaching staff towards the end of a 6 year contract - Dr Donald
Verry
Dr Syngjoo Choi
Dr Vincent Sterk
17
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
Dr Liam Graham
Dr Martin Weidner
PGTA ADMINISTRATOR – Mr Italo Lopez-Garcia
11.15 am
STUDENT GROUP: POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENTS
At least eight to include:
2 x Postgraduate Teaching Assistants (PGTAs) - Valerio Dotti
2 x PhD students Laura Jaitman
Judith Delaney
2 x MRes Students Cathy Redmond
Christian Krestel
2 x MPhil students Neele Balke
Toby Watt
11.45pm
STUDENT GROUP: POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT STUDENTS
At least six to include:
Trevor Bakker (MSc Economics)
Elisa Haining (MSc Economics)
Nobuhiro Tamiya (MSc Economics)
Tim Phillips (MSc Economic Policy)
Olivia Bolt (MSc Economic Policy)
Pamela Gongora (MSc Economic Policy)
12.15
SANDWICH LUNCH (arranged by Department)
1.00
STUDENT GROUP: UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
At least ten with a representative mix of genders/ethnicities and to include:
2 x Year 1 BSc (1x rep on SSCC): Olya Vasilenko, Stephanie Xu
2 x Year 2 BSc (1 x rep on SSCC): Fabian Paul Eckert, Rachel Er
2 x Year 3 BSc (1 x rep on SSCC): Yasir Khan, Deepti Chadalavada
2 x Year Abroad students (if possible): Gianmarco Ianello, Jack Blundel
2 x Affiliate Students: Elaine Kao, Sana Jaffer
1.45pm
DEPARTMENTAL GRADUATE TUTOR – Professor Imran Rasul
MRes/MPhil/ PhD PROGRAMME DIRECTOR – Professor Martin Cripps
MSc DIRECTOR – Professor Wendy Carlin
MSc ECONOMIC POLICY DIRECTOR - Dr Raffaella Giacomini
2.30pm
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR – Mr Richard Smith
MRes/MPhil/PhD PROGRAMMES ADMIN – Ms Daniella Fauvrelle
MSc PROGRAMMES ADMIN - Ms Tina Fowler
DEOLO – Ms Nirusha Vigi
DEPARTMENTAL LIBRARIAN - Kieron Jones
CAREERS TUTOR - Dr Frank Witte
UNDERGRADUATE ADMINISTRATOR - Ms Viv Crockford
2.55pm
TEACHING FELLOW - Dr Hugh Goodacre
3.00pm
FACULTY TUTOR – Dr Arne Hofmann and Ms Helen Mathews (Joint
Faculty Academic Administration Manager)
3.30pm
MEETING OF REVIEW TEAM (with tea/coffee/water)
4.15pm
FINAL SESSION WITH DEPARTMENT TO TALK THROUGH
RECOMMENDATIONS/GOOD PRACTICE
With Head of Department and Deputy Head of Department
5.00pm
FINISH
18
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
APPENDIX 3
Documentation Supplied to the Review Team:
Date: 22 February 2012:
Self-Evaluative Statement of the Department of
Economics
Access granted to departmental site for IQR:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/economics/iqr containing the
following links:
Departmental Teaching Committee (Undergraduate)
Graduate Teaching Committee
Academic Staff & Teaching Staff
Teaching Assistants
Administrative Staff (including IT & Technical)
CReAM
Library
RAE
Ethnic breakdown
AHA-SHS data response form 2009-10
Increased marking loads
SES2012
Economics Organisation chart
BSc Module list
BSc Handbook
MSc Programmes Module list
19
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
MRes/MPhil/PhD Module list
MRes/PHil/PhD Handbook
Moodle
Exam papers
DLTS 2009 - currently under review
Undergraduate Prospective Students
BSc Handbook
Economist's society
Drayton Weekly
UCL Transitions Programme
Graduate Admissions
MSc Economics Moodle page
ECONG105: Macroeconomics
ECONG106: Microeconomics
ECONG107: Econometrics
MRes/MPhil/PhD Funding
MSc Funding
UG Funding
Counseling service
Student Health Centre
Advisors to Women Students
Rights and Advice Centre in the Student's Union
Faculty tutor
Dean of Students
Access to Learning Fund
UCL Timetable
Careers guidance
Research Student Supervision
Research Student Log Book
Job Opening in Economics
TA Job description
20
Department of Economics IQR Report – 22 March 2012
Departmental Teaching Committee (Undergraduate)
Graduate Teaching Committee
Departmental Meeting
AMRs
Course Evaluations 2010-2011 (Undergraduate) Term 1
Course Evaluations 2010-2011 (Undergraduate) Term 2
Results of the NSS discussed at the DTC
Undergraduate Staff Student Consultative Committee Minutes
Graduate Staff Student Consultative Committee Minutes
Round Table meeting reports
Faculty Teaching Committee
Faculty Board
Date: 1 March 2012:
After its Planning Meeting on 1 March 2012, the Team requested the following
additional information:




the name of the author of the SES.
the name of the author of the departmental PGR handbook.
The date of the most recent update of the PGR handbook.
In the SES at page 28, Table 15, that this be expanded to include 2007 and
2008 data.
 Regarding 'transfer' (ie upgrade) rates - the figures for students in 2010 who
left with an MRes.
 In the SES at page 33, Table 18, clarification of:
(i) the 2008-09 intake, which stated that the number of acceptances was
'25' but the actual intake was '32'. Where did the extra seven students come
from?
(ii) the 2010-11 intake which states that no applications were received but
the intake was '26'.
 A copy of the most recent DLTS. (this has still not been supplied)
Date: 2 March 2012:
Statement to UCL Academic Board, 29 February 2012,
in discussion of the oral report by Professor Michael
Worton, Vice-Provost (International) on UCL’s
International strategy. Author: Dr Hugh Goodacre.
Date: 4 April 2012:
The Department’s Self-Evaluative Statement:
a critical review. Author: Dr Hugh Goodacre.
21