Approved
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
SENATE
Wednesday 14 June 2006
(2.15 pm – 4.45 pm)
MINUTES
(Unreserved)
Chair
Professor Ivor Crewe, Vice Chancellor
Present
Dr Abdel-Kader, Professor Alder, Professor Atkinson, Mr Bannerman, Mr Barrett,
Dr Bartle, Mr Brabner, Ms Brennan, Professor Busfield, Dr Burnett, Mr Butler,
Dr Canessa, Mr Chung, Dr Clarke, Mr Cornes, Dr Cox, Dr Dorussen,
Professor Downton, Professor Foweraker, Dr Fox, Professor Gillies,
Professor Green, Professor Henson, Professor Higgins, Mr Hoddy, Professor Höpfl,
Dr Hughes, Ms Hussein, Professor Iversen, Professor Jenkins, Mr Joondan,
Professor Lubbock, Mr Luther, Dr Mackenzie, Ms McFaull, Dr McGenity,
Dr Michalowski, Professor Millard, Mr Murray, Professor Oliver, Ms Patel,
Mr Pearson, Professor Pretty, Professor Puttfarken, Professor Radford,
Professor Richmond, Dr Robinson, Dr Rockett, Professor Russo, Professor Sacks,
Dr Schulze, Professor Sherer, Dr Smith, Professor South, Dr Stones,
Professor Sunkin, Professor Temple, Dr Vickers
Apologies
Dr Cardew, Professor Coakley, Mr Collins, Mr Cornford, Professor Manson,
Professor Massara, Professor Mugasha, Dr Salhi, Professor Sanders, Dr Swift
Secretary
Senior Assistant Registrar
In attendance
Registrar and Secretary, Academic Registrar, Director of Information Systems,
Deputy Director of Finance, Director of Strategic Planning, Public Relations Officer
WELCOME
Noted
The Vice-Chancellor welcomed new student representatives.
110/06
STARRING OF AGENDA ITEMS
Noted
In accordance with Standing Orders, para 7, the following items were
starred for discussion:
Agenda item 6
Forecast Outturn 2005/06
Agenda item 11 (a)
ASC report
- Undergraduate and Postgraduate Rules
of Assessment
- External Examiner Procedures
Agenda item 14
Report of the Mathematics Management
Committee
1
111/06
MINUTES
Approved
The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 March 2006.
112/06
BUSINESS TAKEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION
Approved
Without discussion, those items not already starred on the agenda or
indicated at the start of the meeting.
113/06
FORMAL BUSINESS (S/06/22)
Noted
Items of Formal Business reported in Paper S/06/22, copy attached to the
file copy of the Minutes.
114/06
MATTERS ARISING
None
115/06
VICE-CHANCELLOR’S STATEMENT
Noted
The Vice-Chancellor’s statement to the Senate (Appendix A attached)
covering:



116/06
End of the AUT action;
Applications and admissions; and
RAE and metrics.
The University was projected to lose £1.5-£2m per year if the current RAE
methodology was replaced by a system of metrics. Small institutions, such
as LSE, and universities without medical schools were most likely to lose
income if the RAE became metrics-based. However, there was likely to be
substantial adjustment to ensure that any research funding methodology
based on metrics did not disadvantage a large proportion of researchintensive universities.
117/06
The University was expected to break even in 2005/06 but a significant
deficit was forecast for 2006/07. Diminishing surpluses were anticipated in
the following three years in spite of the inclusion of additional income from
overheads on Research Council grants, tuition fees and validation fee
income from the partnerships with South East Essex College and Colchester
Institute. The anticipated income from University Campus Suffolk
validation fees would not come on stream until 2007/08 and was not yet
included. The University’s financial situation was being affected primarily
by increased costs resulting from the anticipated pay settlement and the
decline in student recruitment against estimates.
118/06
The forecast surpluses for 2007/08 to 2009/10 were inadequate to sustain
the necessary investment in the University’s infrastructure and capital,
building programme, as well as to support innovation. A radical reappraisal of the University’s financial position was under way, including an
analysis of its investment needs. The focus would be on strategies for
increasing income, although further savings, particularly in staff costs,
might be necessary. The most effective source of additional income was
119/06
2
from increased overseas student recruitment, but it was acknowledged that
the market was much more competitive than in the past. No further increase
in student rents was planned; this year’s increases, which had resulted from
substantial increases in energy costs, were regrettable.
The outcomes of the annual Unite/MORI student experience survey were
discussed. Students throughout the sector particularly valued high quality
Library and IT facilities as well as smaller teaching groups and sufficient
contact hours with teaching staff. With the introduction of higher tuition
fees it would be increasingly important for the University to provide a high
quality infrastructure to support the student experience. However, a shift in
institutional culture was also required to ensure that appropriate academic
support was provided for students.
120/06
HEFCE was currently reviewing its methodology for the funding of
teaching. HEFCE’s work on identifying the costs of teaching different
subjects was expected to lead to a re-calibration of the current price groups
applied to different subjects. However, this review was unlikely to lead to
an overall increase in the funding of teaching, rather a re-distribution of
existing funds within the overall financial envelope determined by the
Government.
121/06
FORECAST OUTTURN 2005/06, DRAFT BUDGET 2006/07 AND FINANCIAL
FORECASTS TO 2009/10 (S/06/23)
Noted
122/06
STRATEGIC PLAN (DRAFT) (S/06/24)
Noted
The following issues were noted and discussed:

The mission statement should be updated, in particular to make it
more relevant to potential students. It was noted, however, that the
mission statement was intended to be a broad statement of the
University’s overall profile and its principal audience was HEFCE.
Reference to the University’s role in the wider community related
to the provision of CPD and RBDO services to businesses and
public sector organisations in the region, as well as to cultural
activities that were open to members of the public.
123/06

The objectives in the Strategic Plan needed to be achievable and the
performance indicators (PIs) measurable. Further work was
required to make some objectives more specific and to sharpen a
number of PIs to ensure that the University’s success in meeting
objectives was readily measurable.
124/06

Planned growth in research grant and contract income (Strategic
Aim 1, objective 3) was benchmarked against other 1994 Group
universities. The University currently performed relatively poorly
against this benchmark and was generally dependent on a small
number of very large grants obtained by ISER, the Data Archive
and a number of individuals. Increasing research contract and grant
income would be very important if the RAE became more metricsbased.
125/06
3

It was agreed that greater reference should be made to the
relationship between the University’s research goals and the wider
community. Currently there was too much emphasis on the transfer
of technology and expertise to business, with no reference to the
transfer of research outcomes to the professions and the public
sector (Strategic Aim 1, objective 5). Support was also expressed
for more specific references to the different types of research
carried out, e.g. science and non-science.
126/06

There was support for developing and referring to a University
environmental strategy in the Strategic Plan.
127/06

Student members expressed concern about the potential polarisation
of student profiles between the Colchester campus and its satellite
and partner campuses, with the latter having an emphasis on
widening participation. Different social, demographic and
geographical factors applied at the University’s various sites and
these meant that University of Essex Southend and University
Campus Suffolk were more likely to recruit a substantial proportion
of local students from non-traditional backgrounds than the campus
in Colchester. However, it was noted that Essex had a longstanding reputation as a research-intensive University which
recruited a high proportion of students from non-traditional
backgrounds.
128/06

There was general agreement that the current draft of the Strategic
Plan placed too much emphasis on the Colchester campus and that
consideration should be given to developing specific objectives for
the University’s other campuses.
129/06
The Strategic Plan would be submitted to Council for final approval in
October. Further consultation would take place with key members of the
University in the meantime. Senators were invited to contribute further
comments direct to the Director of Strategic Planning.
130/06
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTING AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS (S/06/25)
Noted
131/06
VARIATIONS TO ASSESSMENT ARRANGEMENTS, SUMMER 2006 (S/06/26)
Noted
The item was withdrawn from the agenda.
132/06
REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SENATE
Final Report of the Working Party (S/06/27)
Noted
The Working Party to Review the Effectiveness of Senate had reviewed its
preliminary report and recommendations in the light of Senate’s comments
in March and comments received from the Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory
Group. A number of changes had been made and the Senate was asked to
endorse the Working Party’s final report.
133/06
Some concern was expressed about the recommendation (1(ii)) that
members should be permitted to star agenda items by no later than noon on
134/06
4
the day before Senate. It was noted, however, that all items in the first part
of the Senate agenda, concerning major items of academic policy and
strategy, would be starred automatically.
The proposed membership of Senate no longer included Directors of the
Area Centres. The Working Party believed that a substantive argument
could be made for any academic centre to be represented on Senate and the
recommendation to exclude Directors of Area Centres was consistent with
the overriding view that Senate membership should be reduced in order to
increase its effectiveness.
Resolved
135/06
(i)
The agenda for a Senate meeting shall be divided into two
parts: the first on matters of academic strategy and policy
(including the Vice-Chancellor’s report); the second on matters
of academic business (including the reports from Senate’s
committees);
136/06
(ii)
All items of the first part shall be taken for discussion. All
items of the second part shall be business taken without
discussion, except when starred for discussion either by the
Vice-Chancellor or by any other member of Senate, no later
than noon on the day before Senate.
137/06
(iii)
The Senate shall appoint a Senate Agenda Group to contribute
to shaping the Senate agenda;
138/06
(iv)
The members of Senate elected to Council shall constitute the
Senate Agenda Group.
139/06
(v)
Senate shall have the power to recommend to the Council the
establishment of academic partnerships with other educational
bodies, as appropriate.
140/06
(vi)
Senate’s committees be divided into three categories, namely:
committees which report to each ordinary meeting of Senate;
committees which report annually to Senate; and advisory
groups which make recommendations to Senate as and when
required;
141/06
(vii)
All committees and advisory groups may submit
recommendations to any ordinary meeting of Senate if required
for the good conduct of the academic business of the
University;
142/06
(viii)
Committees should be given clear guidelines, including a pro
forma, for their scheduled reports to Senate.
143/06
(ix)
The Research Advisory Group should be incorporated into the
Senate committee structure as an advisory group.
144/06
(x)
The Research Advisory Group should normally submit an
annual report to Senate.
145/06
(xi)
Senate Staffing Committee be re-named Academic Staffing
Committee and the Standing Committee on Professorships be
146/06
5
re-named the Professorships Committee.
(xii)
Senate shall delegate its powers of granting permanency,
awarding increments and making promotions to Academic
Staffing Committee and the Professorships Committee, but
shall retain all its powers pertaining to the rules, procedures and
criteria for the same;
147/06
(xiii)
Senate shall delegate the approval of persons to receive
honorary degrees to the Honorary Degrees Committee, but
shall retain all its powers pertaining to the rules, procedures and
criteria for the same.
148/06
(xiv)
The membership of Senate shall be reduced to sixty (60) as
follows:
149/06
Ex officio
Vice-Chancellor
Pro-Vice-Chancellors (4)
Dean of Graduate School
Faculty Deans (6, including Dean for UoES)
HoDs (21)
Appointed
Academic Registrar
Elected
Sixteen members of academic staff, including at least nine nonprofessorial (at the time of election).
Co-opted
Librarian
Director of Information Systems
Student members
President of Students’ Union (ex officio)
Vice-President (Welfare & Academic) of Students’ Union (ex
officio)
Faculty Convenors (5) (elected)
Postgraduate Officer (elected).
(xv)
Representatives of partner institutions may attend Senate as
observers at the discretion and invitation of the Chair.
150/06
(xvi)
The terms of office of Senate members shall be as follows:
151/06



ex officio members remain members only so long as they
hold the offices that qualify them as Senators
appointed members shall be appointed by the ViceChancellor’s Advisory Group
elected members shall hold office until the end of the
fourth year following their election or such earlier date as
may in each case be determined by the Senate to effect
rotation. They are eligible for re-election for consecutive
terms of office
6

(xvii)
student members shall hold office for one year. They are
eligible for consecutive terms of office.
There should be four ordinary meetings of Senate per annum,
one at the beginning of the academic year, one at the beginning
of the spring and summer terms, and one at the beginning of the
summer vacation.
152/06
(xviii) All ordinary meetings of Senate should normally being at
2.00pm and finish no later than 5.00pm.
153/06
(xix)
154/06
The tea break should follow the first part of the Senate agenda
and should normally last a full half-an-hour.
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:
(i)
A new Ordinance governing the appointment of the Senate
Agenda Group shall be approved, as follows:
155/06
Senate Agenda Group
The appointment and proceedings of the Senate Agenda Group
should be governed by the following rules and Standing Orders:
1. The members of Senate elected to the Council shall
constitute the Senate Agenda Group.
2. Senate shall co-opt the Students’ Union representative on
Council onto its Agenda Group.
3. The Senate Agenda Group shall elect a Chair from among
its academic staff members.
4. The Chair of the Senate Agenda Group shall normally meet
with the Vice-Chancellor and/or his or her deputy prior to
each ordinary meeting of Senate to discuss items for the
first part of the agenda. The Secretary to the Senate shall
normally be in attendance.
5. The Senate Agenda Group may request that an item be
placed on the agenda of an ordinary meeting of Senate, in
accordance with Ordinance 36.
6. The Senate Agenda Group may recommend to the
Vice-Chancellor or his/her deputy that an
extraordinary meeting of Senate be called to discuss
any urgent matter of academic strategy or policy.
Noted
(ii)
The wording of Ordinance 36 (Standing Orders of Senate) shall
be revised, as set out in Appendix B attached.
156/06
(iii)
The wording of Statute XX (Powers of the Senate) shall be
revised, as set out in Appendix C attached.
157/06
The Chair thanked Professor Foweraker and all members of the Working
Party to Review the Effectiveness of the Senate for their work.
7
158/06
Proposed Transitional Arrangements in 2006/07 (S/06/28)
Resolved
(i)
that the Senate’s resolutions in respect of the Working Party to
Review the Effectiveness of the Senate, as set out in MM.136154/06 above, be implemented in 2006/07;
159/06
(ii)
that, pending approval by the University’s Council and by the
Privy Council, the Senate should operate in the spirit of the
recommendations of the Working Party to Review the
Effectiveness of the Senate, as set out in MM.155-157/06
above;
160/06
(iii)
that Senate representation on Council in 2006/07 should be as
follows:
161/06
a. Vice-Chancellor
b. Pro-Vice-Chancellors (4)
c. Elected academic staff (10), as follows:
i. Professor Jules Pretty (term ends 31/7/07)
ii. 3 Heads of Department
iii. 4 Deans
iv. 2 non-professorial members of academic staff;
(iv)
that the Senate agenda group in 2006/07 should comprise
Professor Pretty, together with the three further Heads of
Department and the two non-professorial members of
academic staff to be elected by the Senate as representatives on
Council;
162/06
(v)
that elected members of the Senate whose terms continue in
2006/07 should remain as elected members on the Senate in
2006/07 (total 17), that their terms of office (three years)
should not be extended, but that they be eligible for re-election
to the Senate for a consecutive term of four years’ duration.
163/06
Membership and Terms of Reference of Senate Committees 2006/07 (paper S/06/29)
Resolved
that the membership and terms of reference of committees of the Senate in
2006/07 be approved as set out in agenda paper S/06/29, copy attached to
the file copy of the minutes.
164/06
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES WHICH REPORT TERMLY TO THE SENATE
(a)
Academic Standards Committee (S/06/30)
Rules of Assessment
Report from Rules of Assessment Working Party
Noted
With the introduction of compulsory resit opportunities for second year
students departments would be entitled to seek approval for alternative reassessment arrangements. However, it was essential that such alternative
re-assessment opportunities were as rigorous as unseen examinations, in
order to ensure the maintenance of academic standards.
8
165/06
Resolved
that the proposed new undergraduate rules of assessment, as set out in the
report of the Working Party attached as Appendix 1 to the report of
Academic Standards Committee (31.5.06), be approved for implementation
in 2007/08.
166/06
Noted
Further work would be undertaken during 2006/07 in order to develop rules
of assessment for four-year degree schemes, such as those with a year
abroad. Proposals would be submitted to the Senate for approval in due
course.
167/06
Graduate Rules of Assessment and Credit Framework
Received
The report of the Working Party on a Graduate School Credit Framework
for Postgraduate Schemes and the Implications for Rules of Assessment
was tabled (attached as Appendix D).
168/06
Noted
Concern was expressed about the extent to which the power to exercise
discretion in individual cases was being removed from Boards of
Examiners. It was noted that the exercise of discretion by different Boards
of Examiners could lead to potential inequities if different Boards of
Examiners interpreted the powers of discretion in different ways. However,
there was general agreement that a balance should be struck between the
mechanical implementation of rules of assessment and the unregulated
exercise of discretion by Boards of Examiners. Attention should also be
given to the impact of condoning failed components in individual cases in
the context of the European Credit Transfer System, which required passes
in 180 credits for a Masters degree to be recognised.
169/06
The Working Party would undertake further work during 2006/07, in
consultation with departments, to develop discretionary clauses for
inclusion in the Rules of Assessment for Taught Postgraduate Schemes.
170/06
Resolved
(i)
that the Graduate School Credit Framework, as set out in
Appendix 2 to the report of Academic Standards Committee
(31.5.06), be approved for implementation in 2007/08;
171/06
(ii)
that the Rules of Assessment for Taught Postgraduate
Schemes, as set out in Appendix 3 to the report of Academic
Standards Committee (31.5.06), be approved for
implementation in 2007/08, subject to any amendments agreed
by the Senate during 2006/07 in respect of the exercise of
discretion by Boards of Examiners.
172/06
Working Party on External Examiners
Resolved
(i)
that the revised policy for External Examiner Roles and
Responsibilities, as set out in Appendix 4 to the report of
Academic Standards Committee (31.5.06), be approved with
effect from 2006/07;
173/06
(ii)
that the Criteria for Nomination of External Examiners be
revised as set out in Appendix 5 to the report to Academic
Standards Committee (31.5.06), with immediate effect.
174/06
9
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL
that Ordinance 28 be revised as set out in Appendix E attached, with effect
from 2006/07.
175/06
Code of Practice on Professional Doctorates
Resolved
that the revised Rules of Assessment for Professional Doctorates and the
Code of Practice on Professional Doctorates, as set out in Appendix 6 to the
report of Academic Standards Committee (31.5.06), be approved for
implementation from 2006/07
176/06
Arrangements for Partner Institution Approval at University Campus Suffolk
Resolved
that the arrangements for partner institution approval at University Campus
Suffolk as set out in Appendix F attached be approved.
177/06
Administrative Note: the paper attached as Appendix E was omitted in
error from the Senate agenda papers. The detailed arrangements for
partner institution approval at University Campus Suffolk were approved
by the Chair on behalf of the Senate after Senate’s meeting on 14 June
2006.
Periodic Review Reports
Electronic Systems Engineering Undergraduate provision
Resolved
that the following schemes be continued until the next cycle of Periodic
Review:
178/06
BEng Audio Engineering
BEng Computer Engineering
BEng Computer Games & Internet Technology
BEng Computers & Networks
BEng Computers & Telecommunications;
BEng Electronic Engineering
BEng Internet Engineering
BEng Optoelectronics & Communication Systems
BEng Telecommunication Engineering
BSc Electronics & Computers
BSc Information management Systems
BSc Multimedia Production & Internet Technology
Human Rights Undergraduate provision
Resolved
that the following schemes be continued until the next cycle of Periodic
Review:
LLB
BA
BA
BA
BA
Law and Human Rights
Law and Human Rights
Politics with Human Rights
Philosophy with Human Rights
Sociology with Human Rights
10
179/06
BA
BA
BA
Latin American Studies with Human Rights (4 years)
History with Human Rights
Economics with Humans Rights
Psychology Taught Postgraduate provision
Resolved
that the following schemes be continued until the next cycle of Periodic
Review:
MSc
MSc
MSc
Diploma
180/06
Cognitive Neuropsychology
Developmental Neuropsychology
Psychological Research Methods
Psychology
Humanities Undergraduate provision
Resolved
that the following scheme be continued until the next cycle of Periodic
Review:
181/06
BA Humanities
(b)
Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships (S/06/31)
Validated Provision for Writtle College
Postgraduate Certificate in Management Studies with English (CMS)
Resolved
that the Postgraduate Certificate in Management Studies with English 182/06
(CMS) be approved for introduction in 2006/07.
Change to Scheme Title
Resolved
that the title of the BSc (Hons) Wildlife Management be changed to BSc
(Hons) Countryside and Wildlife Management from the academic year
2007/08.
183/06
Programme Validations
Resolved
that the following programmes be validated for delivery at Writtle College 184/06
for a period of five years commencing in September 2006:
Certificate of Continuing Education in Horticulture
Higher Certificate in Horticulture
Higher Certificate in Sports Turf Management
Certificate of Higher Education
Certificate of Continuing Education
MSc Animal Production and Nutrition
Postgraduate Certificate in Animal Production and Nutrition
Postgraduate Diploma in Animal Production and Nutrition
MA Landscape Architecture
11
with embedded awards:
Postgraduate Certificate in Landscape and Garden Design
Postgraduate Diploma in Landscape Design
Postgraduate Diploma in Landscape Architecture
with embedded award:
Postgraduate Certificate in Landscape and Garden Design
MA Garden Design
with embedded awards:
Postgraduate Certificate in Landscape and Garden Design
Postgraduate Diploma in Landscape and Garden Design
MSc Conservation Management
with embedded awards:
Postgraduate Certificate in Conservation Management
Postgraduate Diploma in Conservation Management
Validated Provision for South East Essex College
Periodic Reviews
Resolved
that the following programmes be re-validated for delivery at South East 185/06
Essex College for a period of five years commencing in September 2006,
subject to the conditions in the Periodic Review Report being fulfilled and
monitored in accordance with the arrangements agreed by the Board:
BA (Hons) Fine Art
BA (Hons) Fashion Design
BA (Hons) Graphic Design
BA (Hons) Interior Design
FdA Interior Design
Higher Diploma in Fashion Design
Higher Diploma in Interior Design
Higher Certificate in Fashion Design
Higher Certificate in Interior Design
BSc (Hons) Computing (Information Systems)
BSc (Hons) Computing (Internet Technology)
BSc (Hons) Computing (Software Engineering)
BSc(Hons) Social Studies
BSc(Hons) Sports Studies
12
Programme Validations
Resolved
that the following programmes be validated for delivery at South East Essex
College for a period of five years commencing in September 2006, subject
to the conditions in the Validation Report being fulfilled and monitored in
accordance with the arrangements agreed by the Board.
186/06
FdA Fashion Communication and Marketing
BA (Hons) Fashion Communication and Marketing
FdA Fashion Studies
FdA Television Production with Screen Performance
BA (Hons) Television Production with Screen Performance
FdA Television Production with Journalism
BA (Hons) Television Production with Journalism
FdA Television and Audio Production
BA (Hons) Television and Audio Production
FdA Television Production
BA (Hons) Television Production
FdA Music Performance and Practice
Validated Provision for the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust
Site Visit for Approval of Delivery in Leeds of the MA/Postgraduate Diploma The
Foundations of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy
Resolved
that the MA & Postgraduate Diploma Foundations of Psychoanalytic
Psychotherapy currently validated for delivery by the Tavistock and
Portman NHS Trust at its location in Belsize Lane, London be approved for
delivery by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust at Southfield House,
Leeds for a period of five years commencing in September 2006, subject to
the actions in the Report being fulfilled and monitored in accordance with
the arrangements agreed by the Board.
187/06
Validated Provision for Insearch Essex
Validation Report Certificate of Higher Education in Computing and Management
Resolved
that the Certificate of Higher Education in Computing and Management be
validated for delivery by Insearch Essex for a period of five years
commencing in September 2006, subject to the conditions in the Validation
Report being fulfilled and monitored in accordance with the arrangements
agreed by the Board.
13
188/06
Partnership with Colchester Institute
Programme Validations
Resolved
that the following programmes be validated for delivery at Colchester
Institute for a period of five years commencing in September 2006, subject
to the conditions in the Validation Report being fulfilled and monitored in
accordance with the arrangements agreed by the Board:
189/06
MA Music
BA (Hons) Music
BA (Hons) Musical Theatre
FdA Musical Theatre
FdA Popular Music
BSc (Hons) Computing Solutions (Internet)
FdSc Computing Solutions (Internet)
BSc (Hons) Computing Solutions (Networks)
FdSc Computing Solutions (Networks)
Postgraduate Diploma in Management
Postgraduate Certificate in Management
BA (Hons) Management
BA (Hons) Management of Sport
BA (Hons) Management of Tourism
BA (Hons) Management of Hospitality
FdA Management
FdA Management of Sport
FdA Management of Tourism
FdA Management of Hospitality
BA (Hons) Counselling Studies
Diploma of Higher Education in Person Centred Counselling
Certificate of Higher Education in Person Centred Skills
BA (Hons) Early Years
FdA Early Years
BA (Hons) Health and Social Care
FdA Health and Social Care
BSc (Hons) Construction Management (Site Management)
BSc (Hons) Construction Management (Commercial Management)
FdSc Construction Management
Rules of Assessment 2006/07
Resolved
that the interim arrangements for Rules of Assessment for students studying
University of Essex Awards at Colchester Institute in 2006/07 be approved.
Credit Approval Arrangements
Interim credit approval arrangements at Writtle College
14
190/06
Resolved
that interim arrangements relating to student progression from sub-Honours
programmes at Writtle and other colleges in the land-based sector to thirdyear Honours study at Writtle College be approved.
191/06
Interim credit approval arrangements at Colchester Institute
Resolved
that interim arrangements for 2006-07 relating to student progression from
sub-Honours programmes at colleges within the Anglia Ruskin University
Regional Partnership colleges network to third-year Honours study at
Colchester Institute be approved.
192/06
Working Party on Rules of Assessment
Noted
The Board of Studies for Learning Partnerships had recommended to the
Senate that the wording in section 1.5 of the report of the Working Party on
Rules of Assessment, relating to the division of the undergraduate year into
four 30 credit modules, be revised.
193/06
Administrative Note: this recommendation was incorporated into the final
report of the Working Party on Rules of Assessment to Senate (Appendix 1
to paper S/06/30) and therefore did not require Senate approval.
(c)
Equal Opportunities Steering Group (EOSG) (S/06/32)
EOSG Review
Resolved
(i)
that the name of the Equal Opportunities Steering Group be
changed to Equality and Diversity Committee.
194/06
(ii)
that the Membership and Terms of Reference be revised as
follows (additions underlined, deletions scored through):
195/06
Membership
Ex Officio Members
Vice-Chancellor
Director of Personnel Services
Academic Registrar
Director of Student Support
Assistant Director of Student Support (Disability)
Equal Opportunities Development Officer
Equal Opportunities Officer, Students' Union
Nominated/Representative/Elected Members
One representative of the Joint Trade Union Committee
One member of Manual Staff
One student member elected by the Students' Union Council
Appointed Members
One Lay Member of Council (Chair)
One Dean of School
One Head of Department
One member
15
Terms of Reference
a.
To report to Senate and Council;
b.
To advise on policy in relation to equal opportunities
across the University.
a.
To agree policy in relation to equality and diversity
issues, consulting students, staff and external interest
groups as appropriate, and to make recommendations
to Senate and to Council as appropriate;
b.
To monitor key performance indicators in accordance
with an agreed schedule;
c.
To monitor the implementation of requirements and
recommendations that arise from the introduction of
new policies and procedures or the review of existing
polices and procedures;
d.
To review existing policies, procedures and service
provision in relation to equality and diversity;
e.
To receive and advise on action arising from external
consultation exercises;
f.
To submit an annual report to Senate and Council.
(iii)
that there should not be observers at the meetings of the
Equality and Diversity Committee on a routine basis.
Individuals whose role was relevant to business being
discussed should be invited for those items as appropriate
196/06
(iv)
that minutes from the meetings of the Equality and Diversity
Committee should be sent to a named member of partnership
institutions, and that the EO Development Officer should
develop a network of representatives from partner institutions
for occasional meetings to share good practice.
197/06
Update to Harassment Guidelines
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL
that the revised harassment guidelines be approved, as set out in Appendix
A to the report of the Equal Opportunities Steering Group (23.5.06).
198/06
APPROVAL OF STUDENT WELFARE POLICIES
(a)
Policy for Protection of Under 18s and Vulnerable Adults (S/06/33)
RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL
that the Policy for the Protection of Under-18s and Vulnerable Adults be
approved, as set out in paper S/06/33 (copy attached to the file copy of the
minutes).
(b)
199/06
Mental Health Crisis Intervention Policy (S/06/34)
Resolved
that the Mental Health Crisis Intervention Policy be approved, as set out in
paper S/06/34 (copy attached to the file copy of the minutes).
16
200/06
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO UNIVERSITY CHARTER (S/06/35)
Resolved
that the proposal that Privy Council approval should be sought to amend
clause 3(b) of the University Charter as follows be approved (new wording
underlined):
201/06
3(b)
Under conditions prescribed in the Statutes, Ordinances or
Regulations to confer and grant Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other
academic distinctions including degrees, diplomas and other academic
distinctions conferred in conjunction with another institution on and to
persons who shall have pursued a scheme of study or research approved by
the University and shall have passed the examinations or other tests
prescribed by the University.
REPORT OF MATHEMATICS MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (S/06/36)
Noted
The notional budget deficit of the Department of Mathematical Sciences
had reduced from £202k in 2003/04 to £32k in 2005/06 as a consequence of
increased student numbers, the retirement of a number of staff, and an
increase in the department’s service teaching activity. The arrangement
whereby academic staff costs for specific individuals were charged to the
Department but their research was submitted to RAE units of assessment
other than Mathematics had proved successful. There was particular growth
in the area of mathematical biology.
202/06
Resolved
that the Department of Mathematical Sciences should return to the status of
all other departments, with the exception of the new arrangements linking
staff to other named departments for research purposes, and that the
Mathematics Management Committee should be wound up and replaced by
a monitoring committee internal to the Department.
203/06
Noted
The Head of Department of Mathematical Sciences thanked the Pro-ViceChancellor (Resources) for her particular contribution to the work of the
Mathematics Management Committee in the past year.
204/06
REPORTS OF SCHOOL BOARDS
(a)
Graduate School (S/06/37)
New Degree Schemes
Resolved
(i)
that the following new PhD titles be approved for introduction
in October 2006:
205/06
PhD in Entrepreneurship
PhD in Business Administration
(ii)
that the following new degree schemes be approved for
introduction in October 2006:
MA Applied Linguistic Research
Postgraduate Certificate/MA in Psychoanalysis of Social
Observation
Postgraduate Certificate/ Postgraduate Diploma/MA in
Psychoanalytic Studies in Psychotherapeutic Practice
17
206/06
LLM EU Law and Comparative Legal Studies
Postgraduate Diploma in Advanced Clinical Practice
Postgraduate Certificate in Nursing Practice
Doctoral Programme (Integrated PhD) in Philosophy
MSc Contemporary European Management
MSc Corporate Governance
MA/Diploma/Certificate in Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages
MSc Research Methods in Psychology
MSc Embedded Systems
MSc Advanced Mobile Robotics
(iii)
that the following revised degree scheme be approved for
introduction in October 2006:
207/06
MA in Sociological Research
Change to Scheme Titles
Resolved
that the following changes to degree scheme titles be approved with
immediate effect:
208/06
from: MA in European Art from Renaissance to Impressionism
to:
MA in European Art from Renaissance to the Nineteenth Century
from: MSc Computational Agent Networks And E-Markets
to:
MSc Agent-Based Computational Economics and E-Markets
from: MSc in Operational Research with Computer Science
to:
MSc in Operational Research and Computer Science
from
to:
MSc in Statistics with Data Analysis
MSc in Statistics and Data Analysis
from: MA in Contemporary Art, Criticism and Philosophy
to:
MA in Contemporary Art, Theory and Criticism
from: LLM in European Community Law
to:
LLM in European Union Law
from: MSc in Creative Leadership
to:
MSc in Entrepreneurship and Leadership in the Creative Industries
Discontinuation of Degree Schemes
Resolved
(i)
that the following degree schemes be discontinued with
immediate effect:
MA Sociology and Health Studies (12 months)
MA Sociology and Health Studies (9 months) (Diploma)
MA Study of Contemporary Japan (12 months)
MA Study of Contemporary Japan (9 months) (Diploma)
MA Human Rights (36 months)
CER Linguistic Studies (9 months)
MSc Physics of Laser Communications
18
209/06
MA Applied Linguistics (36 months)
MA Computational Linguistics (36 months)
MA Descriptive and Applied Linguistics (36 months)
MA Descriptive Linguistics (36 months)
MA English Language and Linguistics (36 months)
MA English Language Teaching (36 months)
MA Language Acquisition (36 months)
MA Language Testing and Programme Evaluation (36
months)
MA Linguistics (36 months)
MA Phonology (36 months)
MA Psycholinguistics and Neurolinguistics (36 months)
MA Sociolinguistics (36 months)
MA Syntax (36 months)
MSc Advanced Clinical Practice in Elderly Care
MSc Primary Health Care Management and Commissioning
MSc Primary Health Care
MA Descriptive and Applied Linguistics
MA Descriptive Linguistics
MSc in Educational Psychology (Professional Training)
PhP Doctoral Programme in Continental Philosophy
PhP Doctoral Programme in Philosophy & Psychoanalysis
PhP Doctoral Programme in Ethics, Politics and Public Policy
MA in Continental Philosophy
MA Comparative History
MA History of Race, Class and Gender
MA History of Nationalism, Race and Ethnicity
(ii)
that the following degree scheme be discontinued with effect
from October 2007:
210/06
MSc E-Commerce Technology
(iii)
that the following degree scheme be suspended with effect
from October 2006:
211/06
MA in British Government and Politics
School of Humanities and Comparative Studies
No items were reported for Senate.
212/06
School of Law
No items were reported for Senate.
213/06
School of Social Sciences (S/06/38)
Discontinuation of Degree Scheme
Resolved
that the following scheme be discontinued with effect from October 2006:
BA European Studies: Society and Culture
19
214/06
School of Science and Engineering (S/06/39)
New Degree Schemes
Resolved
That the following new schemes be approved for introduction in October
2007:
215/06
BEng Networked and Embedded Systems
BSc Online Games
BSc Genetics (4 year)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES WHICH REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE SENATE
Centres Review Committee (S/06/40)
Establishment of New Centres
Resolved
that the Centre for the Interdisciplinary Study of the Humanities be
established, under the directorship of Dr John Haynes.
216/06
Ethics Committee (S/06/41)
Noted
217/06
Library Committee (S/06/42)
Inter-Library Loans Charges
Resolved
that a charge of £3 per request be levied on inter-library loan requests made
by academic, research and academic-related staff, to be charged on a
departmental basis, from 1 August 2006.
218/06
Fines for Overdue Books
Resolved
that Regulation 11.34 be amended as follows with effect from 2006/07
(new text underlined, deleted text struck through):
219/06
11.34
If the amount of a fine is in question the Librarian’s decision shall be final.
NOTE: The Senate has determined that the rate of fines at present shall be
30p per day (Sundays excluded) for books borrowed under Regulation
11.10, 11.11. 11.12, 11.13 and 11.21 and 60p £1 per day (Sundays
excluded) for books which have been recalled under Regulation 11.23. For
Short Loan Collection books which are borrowed under Regulation 11.8 the
rate of fine shall be 60p £1 per overdue hour or part thereof.
Partnership with Colchester Institute
Resolved
that the terms of agreement for the reciprocal use of library resources at the
Albert Sloman Library and the Colchester Institute Library be approved as
set out in Appendix A to the report of the Library Committee (30.5.06).
20
220/06
VOTE OF THANKS
Noted
The Chair thanked all retiring members of the Senate, including student
representatives, for their contribution to the work of Senate during their
terms of office. Particular thanks were extended to Professor John Oliver,
who would be stepping down as Director of Overseas Relations later in the
year, to Professor Michael Sherer, for his long continuous service as a
senator, and to Professor Joe Foweraker, who would be leaving the
University for a new position shortly.
Joanne Tallentire
Senior Assistant Registrar
24 July 2006
21
221/06
Senate
14 June 2006
Appendix A
(M.116/06)
Vice-Chancellor’s Oral Report, Senate 14 June 2006
End of the AUT action
I am sure that everyone will have welcomed the settlement of the pay dispute last week and the
suspension of the assessment boycott. I know that teachers and administrators will work very hard to
ensure that marks are assessed in time for all final year undergraduates to graduate in the normal way
in July. I very much regret that the dispute caused anxiety among students and their parents and that in
some cases feedback on written assignments, which is particularly important in the run-up to
examinations, was delayed.
Relieved though we all are that the dispute is settled and that we can look forward to three years of
stability, we need to recognise that all of the parties involved, whether players or bystanders, have lost.
The settlement of 13.1% over three years is the equivalent of 4.2% p.a. compound. This university
budgeted for 3.25% p.a. the sector would have quickly settled for 3.5% to 3.75%. So the assessment
boycott probably won between half and three quarters of one per cent a year extra for university staff.
This is a gain of sorts, but not the salary catch-up that was sought, and it comes at a heavy price. As
the paper for the budget and financial forecasts shows, the additional unbudgeted cost of the settlement
is £2.1m per year by 2008/09 and £2.4m by 2009/10, when the full impact of the 3-year offer will have
worked through. As the paper explains, the scope for generating extra income to cover these costs is
very limited and most of the extra cost will have to be absorbed by a further cutting of staff costs
beyond the current staff cost reduction exercise. £2.4m is the equivalent of 52 Lectureships or grade 3
administrative posts so the scale of the challenge is considerable.
Although students have been spared the prospect of non-graduation I am afraid that they or their
successors are indirect losers too. Cuts in staff numbers will inevitably have an impact on staff student
ratios and the quality of service to students. Moreover, the additional tuition fee income cannot be
spent twice over. The additional pay bill next year, including pensions, comes to 133% of the
additional tuition fee income and to between 115% and 120% in the following three years. Excluding
what is normally in the budget for additional pay, increments and promotions, the additional pay bill –
the one-off increases arising from the national framework agreement and the unbudgeted increases
arising from the pay settlement - comes to 67% of additional tuition feel income next year and about
50% in the following three years. However one does the calculation nothing or very little is left from
the additional tuition fee income for facilities and services to students. Inevitably many more
universities than before will be pressing the Government in 2008/09 to raise the current £3k ceiling on
tuition fees.
The University, staff and students are losers from the settlement but so, unfortunately, is the university
sector as a whole. The dispute will have damaged the sector in the eyes of at least two of our main
paymasters – students overseas and the Government.
Although final year students will graduate, the serious prospect of their not doing so was extensively
reported abroad, including in our most important overseas markets. There are many causes of the
decline in the UK sector’s recruitment of students from overseas, of course, but the assessment boycott
will inevitably have worsened the difficulties. It is perhaps worth noting that the additional fee income
for the University from top up fees is £1350 per student per year (after the 25% slice for bursaries)
whereas the loss of fee income from a fall off in overseas recruitment is £9000 per student per year.
Finally, the Government regards the settlement as excessively inflationary. This will undoubtedly
colour its response to bids from the university sector for increased public spending on higher
22
education under the comprehensive spending review. It is very alert to the way in which increased
investment in the NHS translated itself into higher staff costs which in turn has led to large deficits in
many hospital trusts and will be determined to avoid a repeat in the university sector.
It is necessary for Senate and the entire University community to be aware of the consequences of the
pay settlement. But it is equally important to repair industrial relations after this unfortunate dispute
both at national level and locally, here in the University. I think it is fair to say that relations with the
local AUT executive have been constructive throughout the dispute, even when there was
disagreement, and I intend to maintain such relations in the future. At the heart of this dispute has been
a gulf of perception about what the sector could afford to pay in salary increases, and that in turn has
been based on very different understandings about the contribution of top up fee income to the overall
income of a typical university. In order to reduce these differences of perception I have already offered
the local AUT executive the opportunity, on a regular basis, to examine the same analysis reports on
the University’s financial situation as are seen by the University’s senior management and governors,
an offer they have accepted. I hope this is the beginning of a closer and shared understanding of the
University’s financial situation, the impact of staff costs, and the trade-offs between these costs and
other investment.
Applications and admissions
UK and EU undergraduate applications are down by 4.7% and firm acceptances are down by 5.3%.
This decline is not too disturbing. It is in line with, although fractionally more than the national
decline, which is due to the introduction of the deferred £3000 fee in October. It is important to
remember that it is a drop against the surge of last year when many applicants forwent a gap year in
order to beat the £3000 fee. UK and EU applications to Essex are in fact a little higher than two years
ago.
Essex’s market share has slipped very slightly, for the first time in eleven years. It is obviously
impossible to know whether this is a one-off or the beginning of a long-term reversal in the trend. The
1994 Group campus universities generally saw applications fall by more than the national average,
probably because more students are staying at home and commuting to a local university. It was
noticeable that most London universities have had an increase in applications. So have Scotland’s
universities from English applicants because the fee differential has widened.
We should be able to meet our UK/EU undergraduate targets although departments will have to rely
on Clearing a little more than last year.
There is a drop in overseas applications of 6%, which is exactly in line with the national decline.
Earlier in the year overseas applications were down by between 10% and 15% so it is pleasing that the
position has improved significantly since then. Firm acceptances are up by 5%, mainly as a result of
the growth in the cohort of Insearch students. This gives us cautious optimism that the University has
at least staunched haemorrhaging of overseas UGs. Nonetheless, there is little prospect of a return of
overseas UG numbers to the levels of two or three years ago.
Moreover, the postgraduate recruitment looks set for a very difficult year. PGT offers are down by
about 9% among UK and EU students and by 15% among overseas students. This is slightly
compensated for by small increases in the number of offers made to PGR applicants – 3% in the case
of UK/EU applicants and 7% in the case of overseas applicants.
Although there are elements of encouraging news in the applications figures and it is too early for the
new measures to improve overseas recruitment to have had an impact, the situation overall does give
cause for concern. It does not provide grounds for believing that the additional costs of the 3-year pay
settlement can be found from a growth in student numbers and thus tuition fee income.
23
RAE and metrics
Gordon Brown’s April pre-budget statement included the quite unexpected proposal that on grounds
of efficiency and cost savings future RAEs should be based on statistical indicators (or ‘metrics’) in
place of the established system of subject-based panels, engaged in peer review of publications and
other aspects of research quality, and awarding grades or stars to departments. It also proposed that the
2008 RAE could be based on metrics if the university sector agreed. The favoured statistical indicator
is research council grant income although it is recognised that other research income and bibliometric
measures might be used as well and that the humanities and social sciences do not lend themselves as
easily to these indicators of research quality. There has been a great deal of discussion between
individual VCs, the sector, the DfES, HEFCE and the Treasury ever since.
Yesterday HEFCE issued a consultation paper on the future of the RAE. This made it clear that the
2008 RAE will, after all, proceed as planned on the established basis. It will be accompanied by a
shadow metrics exercise, in order to compare the outcome of the RAE with the notional outcome of a
purely metrics-based exercise. Some of the science panels will be encouraged to give metrics, in
particular research income, a heavier weight in their assessments, but it remains to be seen which one
will do so and by how much.
However, 2008 RAE will almost certainly be the last to take the familiar form. Thereafter metrics will
probably form the sole basis for the distribution of QR – the block grant for research – in the
laboratory sciences and a more significant although not exclusive basis for the allocation of QR
income in the arts & humanities and social sciences. Limited peer review may be retained in the nonlaboratory subjects or for the purposes of assessing the validity of the metrics. In place of the big-bang
RAE with census dates and publication deadlines will be annual adjustments of QR income in line
with the annual changes in the metrics. The 2008 RAE would therefore determine the allocation of QR
in 2009-10 but almost certainly not for a further seven years; within two or three years it would be
supplemented or eroded by a University’s performance on the statistical indicators, particularly
research income.
In the short term we must concentrate on maximising the quality of our submission to the 2008 RAE.
But in the medium term external research grant income is likely to play a much larger role in
determining the QR block grant. This inevitably means that by the next decade competition for
external research funding will become even fiercer and that academic staff will be expected to obtain
external funding in order to receive University support for their research work.
24
Senate
14 June 2006
Appendix B
(M.156/06)
Ordinance 36
Standing Orders for Senate
The proceedings of the Senate shall be governed by the following Standing Orders and rules of
procedure.
Setting the Agenda
1. The elected Senate Agenda Group may request that an item shall be placed on the Agenda of
an ordinary meeting of Senate. Such a request together with papers and notice of motion shall
be sent to the Registrar & Secretary at least fourteen days before the meeting.
2. The Vice-Chancellor’s Advisory Group shall cause the Agenda and accompanying papers for
Senate to be prepared in consultation with the Senate Agenda Group. Together they shall see
that the Agenda and papers provide, as far as possible, notice of matters to be raised, essential
information and, where appropriate, motions for the consideration of Senate.
3. The Agenda and Papers for a Senate meeting shall normally be available to all members of
Senate not less than seven days before the meeting.
4. The Vice-Chancellor, or his or her deputy, may waive any of the preceding rules but only in
order to call an extraordinary meeting of Senate to address urgent business.
5. The Agenda for a Senate meeting shall be divided into two parts: the first on matters of
academic strategy and policy (including the Vice-Chancellor’s report); the second on matters
of academic business (including the reports from Senate’s committees). All items of the first
part shall be taken for discussion. All items of the second part shall be business taken without
discussion, except when starred for discussion either by the Vice-Chancellor, or his or her
deputy, or by any member of Senate, no later than noon on the day before Senate. All items
remaining unstarred shall be deemed to have been approved, or recommended to Council,
without discussion.
Addressing the Agenda
6. At any meeting the business shall be confined to the particulars in the Agenda and
accompanying papers, and no member shall be entitled to propose a motion other than one
directly arising out of the discussion of a subject before the Senate.
7. The first item of business at an ordinary meeting shall be the Minutes of the last ordinary
meeting and any subsequent extraordinary meetings. Discussion on the Minutes shall normally
be confined to errors and omissions.
8. After the Minutes of previous meetings have been approved the meeting will address the items
on the first part of the Agenda, normally beginning with the Vice-Chancellor’s report, before
moving to discuss the starred items of academic business.
9. No resolution or recommendation of the Senate shall normally be rescinded within six
calendar months.
The Conduct of the Meeting
10. All motions and any questions where the sense of the meeting may be in doubt shall be
decided by show of hands.
11. All members shall be allowed to put motions and amendments to motions, and all variations
upon a motion shall be deemed amendments and treated as such.
25
12. No discussion shall be allowed on a motion or amendment which has not been seconded. All
motions except procedural motions (see Standing Order 18) and all amendments shall, if the
Chair so decides, be handed to the Registrar & Secretary in writing and signed by the mover.
13. The mover of a motion shall normally have the right of reply.
14. At any time in the course of a discussion a member may speak to a point of order, and the
discussion shall be suspended until the point of order has been decided by the Chair.
15. A member may dissent from any resolution or recommendation come to by the Senate and
shall be entitled to have his or her dissent recorded in the Minutes of the meeting, provided
that he or she shall have proposed a motion or spoken on the matter under discussion.
16. No member shall normally speak more than once on the same item of business, subject to the
mover’s right of reply (Standing Order 13).
17. Any of the foregoing orders may be suspended at any meeting after a motion to that effect has
been passed by a majority of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Such suspension
shall be for a specified item of business only and shall lapse when that item is concluded.
18. The following procedural motions may be put and debated in the following order of
precedence, provided they have a proposer and a seconder:
a.
the motion be not put
b.
the motion be now put (closure of debate)
c.
the meeting be adjourned to a specific time
d.
the matter be deferred to the next meeting
e.
the matter be referred to the appropriate committee
f.
the order of business be changed
g.
the voting figures be recorded in the Minutes
h.
a part or parts of a motion be voted on separately
i.
the meeting be closed.
A motion for the closure of debate (b.) shall be put to the vote without discussion, subject to
the mover’s right of reply (Standing Order 13).
19. The Chair shall determine all questions of procedure not expressly provided for in these
Standing Orders subject to the consent of the meeting, absence of consent being determined
by a two-thirds majority in support of a challenge to the ruling of the Chair.
26
Senate
14 June 2006
Appendix C
(M.157/06)
Section XX Powers of the Senate
The Senate shall be the supreme academic authority of the University and shall, subject to the powers
reserved to the Council by these Statutes, take such measures and act in such a manner as shall appear
to it best calculated to promote the academic work of the University both in teaching and research and
for the regulation and superintendence of the education and, subject to the powers of the ViceChancellor, the discipline of the students of the University. The Senate shall, subject to the Charter
and these Statutes, in addition to all other powers vested in it, have the following powers:
Powers of appointment
1. Jointly with the Council to nominate a person for appointment as Chancellor and a person for
appointment as Vice-Chancellor.
2. To recommend to the Council the appointment of the Deans and the Heads of Departments, and to
nominate to the Council persons for appointment as Pro-Vice-Chancellors.
3. To review from time to time the conditions of service of all members of the Academic Staff and to
make recommendations thereon to the Council.
4. To define the functions of Deans of Schools and Faculties, the Heads of Departments, the
Librarian and members of the Academic Staff.
5. To stipulate which posts shall qualify a person to be a member of the Academic Staff.
6. In accordance with the provisions of the Ordinances, to confer the title of Emeritus Professor
7. To stipulate which honorary titles may be assigned to visitors to the University.
8. To make recommendations to the Council for the appointment of the Librarian and members of
the Academic Staff.
9. To establish the rules, procedures and criteria for the decisions of the Senate committees
responsible for staffing matters.
10. To make recommendations to the Council for promotions to Professorships.
11. To determine the conditions of appointment and service of examiners, and to appoint internal and
external examiners.
12. To elect members of the Senate to be members of the Council as provided for under Section XVII
of these Statutes.
13. To appoint a Senate Agenda Group in accordance with the Ordinances.
14. To co-opt members of the Senate as provided for under Section XIX of these Statutes.
15. Except as otherwise provided, to appoint representatives of the University on other bodies.
Degree regulation and awarding powers
16. Subject to the Ordinances, to direct, regulate and control all the schemes of study of the University
and the conditions qualifying for the conferment or granting of the various titles, Degrees and
other distinctions awarded by the University.
17. To prescribe by Regulations the requirements of the University for Matriculation, and to
determine the conditions under which persons shall be admitted to the University and to any
particular scheme of study or research therein; and to determine by Regulations or otherwise, the
conditions under which students shall be permitted to continue their studies in the University.
18. To determine the conditions under which and the extent, if any, to which periods and courses of
study and examinations passed at other universities, places of learning and other institutions may
be regarded as equivalent to periods and courses of study and examinations in the University.
19. To institute new Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic distinctions, and to make,
add to, amend and withdraw Regulations for schemes of study and examinations leading to such
qualifications.
27
20. To confer and grant Degrees, Diplomas, Certificates and other academic distinctions on and to
persons who shall have pursued a scheme of study or research approved by the Senate in a manner
satisfactory to the Senate and shall have passed the examinations of the University or otherwise
satisfied the examiners under the conditions prescribed by the Ordinances or Regulations.
21. To confer degrees upon members of the academic and other staff of the University under the
conditions prescribed by the Ordinances.
22. To confer Honorary Degrees.
23. To determine what formalities and conditions shall attach to the conferment of Degrees and other
distinctions.
24. On what the Senate deems to be good cause, to deprive persons of any Degrees or other
distinctions or titles conferred on them, and to revoke any Diplomas or Certificates granted to
them, by the University, and to withdraw all privileges connected therewith.
Academic Regulation
25. Subject to the Ordinances to direct, regulate and control all the teaching and examinations of the
University.
26. To enquire into the research, teaching, staffing and general work of any School, Department or
other academic unit of the University, and, if the Senate so wishes, to report and make
recommendations thereon to the Council.
27. To formulate, modify or revise schemes for the organisation of Schools, Faculties, Departments,
Institutes, Centres or other academic units of the University, and to review from time to time the
working of such schemes.
28. To make recommendations to the Council to institute or discontinue Schools, Faculties,
Departments, Institutes, Centres or other academic units of the University.
29. To recommend to the Council the establishment of academic partnerships with other educational
bodies, as appropriate.
30. To receive records and reports of the proceedings of Senate’s committees, and to give directions to
and to consider recommendations from the same.
31. To review, amend, refer back or disallow any act of any committee or advisory group of Senate.
32. To approve the institution, subject to any conditions acceptable to the Senate that might be made
by the founders, of Fellowships, Studentships, Scholarships, Bursaries, Prizes and other such
grants for the encouragement of study and research, to determine the times, modes and conditions
of competition therefore and to award the same.
33. To be responsible for the general policy concerning the University’s Library and Information
Systems.
34. To supervise the continuing professional development work of the University.
35. To prescribe the academic dress to be worn by various officers and members of the University,
and the occasions on which it shall be worn.
Student regulation
36. To regulate and superintend the discipline of the students of the University, and, after a report
from the Vice-Chancellor, to suspend any student from any class or classes, to exclude any student
from any part of the University or its precincts, to expel any student from the University, or to
extend a period of suspension or exclusion of a student suspended or excluded under paragraph 7
or paragraph 8 of Section V of these Statutes, or to take such other action as the Senate thinks
proper, and to determine in what manner disciplinary powers shall be exercised.
37. To take such steps as it thinks proper for controlling organisations of the students.
General
38. To conduct the business of the Senate in accordance with the Ordinances.
39. To report and make recommendations to the Council from time to time on Statutes and
Ordinances.
28
40. To report to the Council on any matter referred to the Senate by the Council.
41. To discuss, declare an opinion and make recommendations to the Council on any matter of
academic policy and strategy concerning the University.
42. Generally to exercise all such powers as are or may be conferred on the Senate by the Charter and
these Statutes, including the power to make Regulations in the exercise of the powers hereinbefore
expressly set out in this Section of these Statutes and of all the other powers of the Senate, and to
carry such Regulations into effect.
29
Senate
14 June 2006
Appendix D
(M.168/06)
Report of the Working Party on a Graduate School Credit Framework for Taught Postgraduate
Schemes and the Implications for Rules of Assessment
The need for reform
It is now clear that it is necessary to allocate credit to our taught postgraduate schemes. Externally,
with moves towards a European credit framework as part of the Bologna Process, we need to be able
to apply credits in a satisfactory manner to our courses and schemes, which involves not only
assigning credit weightings but having a sense of the amount of work that is involved. Internally, the
percentage model is unsatisfactory and the current variation in course and dissertation weightings is
too extensive, causes considerable problems and could not easily be defended (eg having the same
course with a different weight according to which scheme the student takes is highly problematic).
The Working Party1 on Credit was therefore established by the Graduate School Board last Autumn to
develop a Credit Framework for Taught Postgraduate Schemes. A draft of the new framework was
discussed with Graduate Directors in the Spring term who agreed that the Working Party should
continue to develop the framework and consider the implications for Rules of Assessment.
The new credit framework
The Framework has been developed so that it is consistent with the national approach to credit (as set
out in the recent consultation paper from the Burgess Group) and can easily be translated into
European credits. Where appropriate, there is also consistency with the approach being taken by the
Working Party on Rules of Assessment that is looking at Undergraduate Schemes. The PGT
Framework, however, is more flexible so that necessary changes to scheme structures are kept to a
minimum, though we recognise some departments will need to make changes to scheme structures
(mostly not very extensive).
The Proposed Credit Framework has the following elements:





A Masters degree is 180 credits
The credit weighting for taught courses is either 40/20 or 30/15, which takes as its model the
current full year and half-year course structure, and permits some flexibility2 (the different
scheme structures that this enables are set out in Appendix 2)
There must be a demonstrable difference between a 40 and a 30 credit course (and 20 and 15)
in terms of teaching hours, private study and/or assessment
To facilitate interdisciplinary course development, the preferred model will be 30/15, since
this is the most common pattern
All Masters degrees must include a dissertation, which must be passed for the degree to be
awarded. The credit weighting for a dissertation will normally be between 603 and 90 credits.
The credit allocated to the dissertation must relate to the workload associated with the
dissertation. Preliminary work on an 80/90 credit dissertation would need to start in the
Autumn Term or in the Spring Term for a 60 credit dissertation.
1
Joan Busfield (Chair), Robert Borsley (Lang & Ling), Wendy Clifton-Sprigg (Graduate School), Peter Dews
(Philosophy) Nicola East (Academic Section), Paul Scott (Comp Sci), Anthony Vickers (ESE) and Rob Wight
(Law)
2
Departments should use only ONE of the two models for all their schemes
3
It has been agreed that Masters degree schemes in the Department of Economics will have 40-credit
dissertations, in keeping with its competitors.
30
Where a scheme involves optional courses from another department, the administering department
must ensure that students are able to achieve at least 180 credits. This is relevant for schemes with
40/20 credit courses where an outside option is taken from a 30/15 credit scheme. In such cases the
administering department would need either to negotiate with the supplying department to adapt the
course to enable the higher credit to be awarded (this is more likely for interdisciplinary schemes), or
create a 5 or 10 credit independent study course. For 30/15 credit schemes, where a student takes an
outside option from a 40/20 credit scheme the student achieves additional credit. However, there will
be an upper limit to the total number of credits that can be obtained of 190.
The Framework is expressed in terms of Masters courses but it is envisaged that it would be developed
to encompass any postgraduate award with taught course components, so that these can be given a
credit weighting.
Where a scheme is subject to external accreditation it may be necessary to depart from one of the two
models.
The implications for rules of assessment
With a Credit Framework in place, it is possible, and essential, to express rules of assessment in credit
terms both for progression and award of the degree.
The rules for award of the degree take as their starting point the need to achieve 180 credits to obtain a
Masters. They include a statement that up to 40 failed credits can be condoned provided that the
course(s) mark is 40 or above and the overall average is 50 per cent. Since the dissertation must be
passed for the award of a masters degree this means that failure will only be condoned on the taught
element.
We propose that students who fail to achieve a Masters degree may use credits obtained for the
dissertation towards a Postgraduate Diploma provided that they satisfy the learning outcomes for the
diploma. Given this proposal and the proposal below that some resit/resubmission opportunities
should be provided for courses up to a maximum of 40 credits, we further proposed that rules of
assessment should no longer have requirements that have to be met before a student can progress to
the dissertation (some departments do not have such requirements and those that do often encourage
students to start dissertation preparation before the interim Exam Board meets). Students do not,
however, have the right to supervision for a dissertation where their performance is such that they will
not be able to achieve a Postgraduate Diploma.
We are, however, recommending that there should be interim Examination Boards for all schemes,
whose main purpose is to approve the marks for taught courses and to confirm any resit or
resubmission opportunities.
Resits and resubmissions
Following a survey of departmental practice and practice at other 1994 Group universities, a standard
policy on resits and resubmission is proposed. This is designed to offer parity of treatment to students.
In developing the policy a balance has been sought between offering students the opportunity to
redeem marginal failure on the one hand, and the need to both avoid too great a burden on departments
and the dilution of standards. The Working Party recommends that students have the automatic right to
resit exams or resubmit work for up to 40 credits. Resits/resubmission opportunities will not require
the recommendation of a Board of Examiners, however marks must be confirmed by an Exam Board
before the resit/resubmission opportunity is provided. Resits would be at the next available
opportunity: there is no requirement for departments to introduce additional resit examinations.
Students would have only one resit opportunity and marks would be capped at 50. The Working
Group confirmed Essex's approach to setting standards for achievement of a Masters: that the majority
of credits should be achieved in one sitting.
31
Early assessment
To increase the chance of student success, and thereby reduce the need for resits and resubmission, the
Working Party recommends that each Masters scheme include a piece of assessed work (formative
and/or summative) that is set and marked in time for feedback to be provided to the student before the
Christmas vacation. (NB If the assessment is summative it will be subject to the resit/resubmission
rules outlined above.) This is consistent with the principle underlying recent policy approved by
Senate in March that from 2007-08 ‘every full year or Autumn term course should include an early
assessment opportunity to provide feedback before the end of term on individual student performance
to allow any additional support to be targeted at an early stage’. However instead of applying this to
each course/module it is proposed that at the graduate level this should apply to the scheme.
Implementation
The proposed Credit Framework and Rules of Assessment would be for implementation in 2007-08. In
consulting on the proposed Rules of Assessment there has been discussion about whether Boards of
Examiners should be allowed a modest element of discretion in applying the rules. This needs further
discussion and a proposal will be brought to the next meeting of the Board, following consultation
with Graduate Directors in the Autumn term.
Agreed to recommend:
i)
ii)
That the Graduate School Credit Framework, as set out in Appendix 1, be
introduced with effect from 2007-08
That the Rules of Assessment for Taught Postgraduate Schemes, as set out in
Appendix 3, be introduced with effect from 2007-08
NJB
WCS
June 2006
32
Senate
14 June 2006
Appendix E
(M.175/06)
Proposed Revisions to Ordinance 28 (new text in bold and deleted text struck through)
External Examiners
1. For every examination for a degree of the University there shall be at least one examiner,
known as an 'Scheme Award External Examiner'. External Examiners may also be appointed
to courses, or to both courses and degree schemes. No External Examiner shall be a member
of staff of the University of Essex or of a partner institution delivering programmes of study
leading to a degree of the University. Senate may designate awards of the University other
than degrees, for which External Examiners should be appointed.
2. External examiners shall be appointed for a period of three four years by the relevant Dean,
under powers delegated by the Council, receiving nominations from the departments or
partner institutions concerned, and may be re-appointed once for a further one year.
Appointments may be terminated with six months' notice by either party. External examiners
for taught degree schemes may not normally be re-appointed with the University for three
four years.
3. Decisions as to the classification of a degree and the conferment or not of a Bachelor’s
degree shall normally require the consent of the appropriate Award External Examiner.
Failing this, the consent of a two-thirds majority, including the Chair, of the internal and
External Examiners present and voting at the meeting shall be required, except when
Regulation 6.18 is invoked.
No recommendation for the conferment or not of a Bachelor's degree to a candidate and for
the classification of a degree shall be valid without the consent of all the External Examiners
for the scheme present and voting at the meeting of the Board of Examiners for that
candidate or, failing this, the consent of a majority of all the Examiners (internal and
external) present and voting at this meeting, except when Regulation 6.18 is invoked. ]
4. No recommendation for the conferment or not of a Master's degree and for the classification
of the degree shall be valid without the consent of the external examiner(s) for the candidate’s
scheme in accordance with the Procedures for Taught Postgraduate Schemes except when
regulation 6.18 is invoked.
33
Senate
14 June 2006
Appendix F
(M.177/06)
UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX
ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTNER INSTITUTION APPROVAL
AT UNIVERSITY CAMPUS SUFFOLK
1
INTRODUCTION
The universities of Essex and East Anglia (UEA) are working collaboratively to establish effective
arrangements for the approval at institutional and programme level of the partner institutions
joining University Campus Suffolk (UCS) on 1 August 2007. The two validating universities
recognise the need to individually assure themselves of the quality and standards of their joint
academic awards delivered at UCS partners, following the guidance set out in the QAA's Code of
Practice. UEA and Essex will implement a shared approach to institutional and programme
validation wherever possible, except where this might compromise an individual University's
responsibility for the academic standards of its awards.
This paper sets out the proposed arrangements for the institutional approval of UCS partner
institutions and interim arrangements for the approval of UCS partners' academic provision.
2
UCS PARTNER INSTITUTIONS
The institutions identified as partners in the UCS network are:
Partner Institution
Current main
validating HEI
Current institutional
agreement(s) with
Institutional approval
for UCS required by
UCS Ipswich
(formerly HE
branch of Suffolk
College)
UEA
UEA: accreditation
agreement
(undergraduate) and
validation agreement
(postgraduate
provision)
Essex:;
UEA review of
accreditation
agreement
Great Yarmouth
College
ARU
ARU
Essex;
UEA
Lowestoft College
ARU
ARU
UEA*
Essex;
re-approval by UEA
Otley College
UEA
UEA
Essex
West Suffolk
College
ARU
ARU
UEA*
Essex;
re-approval by UEA
*for small amount of HE provision only
Note re UCS Ipswich (HE branch of Suffolk College)
Suffolk College is currently an accredited partner institution of UEA, offering undergraduate
provision under an accreditation agreement and postgraduate provision under a validation
34
agreement. UCS Ipswich will be regarded by HEFCE as a 'connected institution' of UEA and
Essex and as a non-degree awarding body, UCS Ipswich will require institutional and programmelevel approval by UEA and by Essex.
3
INSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL
a
Institutional approval process
Institutional approval (or validation) is the process used by a degree-awarding institution to judge
whether a partner institution has a suitable infrastructure to conduct higher education programmes
leading to its awards. The institutional approval process normally commences with 'due diligence'
procedures and an audit of the partner institution's regulations, policies and procedures; its student
support systems; its resources, including library and ICT provision; staffing and staff
development; quality assurance and enhancement systems; student admissions data and other
relevant information. The approval process normally includes meetings with students and may
include observation of teaching.
Essex and UEA each has well-established procedures for the approval of collaborative provision at
partner institutions and the two universities are adopting a joint approach to the institutional
approval of UCS partner institutions, in order to rationalise procedures and minimise duplication
of demands on partners.
The UCS institutional approval process at Essex will be overseen by the Pro-Vice Chancellor
(Learning and Teaching) and chaired by the Dean of Learning Partnerships on behalf of the
Faculty Board for Learning Partnerships, a committee of Senate. The Faculty Board for Learning
Partnerships will make its recommendations to the University’s Undergraduate and/or Graduate
School Board, as appropriate, and thence to Senate.
b
Key stages in joint UEA/Essex institutional approval process
Action
Responsible institution(s)
Joint institutional approval procedures agreed
↓
Initial information requested from partners
↓
Due diligence and audit procedures carried out
↓
Further information requested, including mapping
exercise across QAA Code of Practice
↓
Liaison visits to partner institutions
↓
Submission of institutional approval documentation
↓
Commentary on documentation
↓
One-day joint institutional approval event at each
partner institution, including external panel member(s)
UEA & Essex
35
UEA & Essex
UEA & Essex / partners
Partner institutions
UEA & Essex / partners
Partner institutions
UEA & Essex specialist staff
Organised by UEA & Essex /
hosted by partners
c
Timescale for institutional approval
It is proposed that institutional approval by UEA and Essex of UCS partner institutions take place
during 2006-07 as set out below, with the process being completed and approval granted by the
two Senates by Easter 2007.
Partner institution
Institutional approval
UCS Ipswich
(formerly HE branch of Suffolk College)
UEA: Summer 2006
Essex: Autumn 2006
Otley College
Autumn term 2006
West Suffolk College
Autumn term 2006
Lowestoft College
Spring term 2007
Great Yarmouth College
Spring term 2007
c
UCS Ipswich (formerly HE branch of Suffolk College)
The arrangements for institutional approval of UCS Ipswich (formerly the HE branch of Suffolk
College) differ slightly from the joint arrangements for other UCS partners, as UEA is to carry out
a review of its current accreditation arrangement with Suffolk College during June 2006. Essex
will engage with UEA's approval procedure as part of a familiarisation process with Suffolk
College's HE infrastructure, policies and procedures. Essex will then evaluate the information
provided by UEA and Suffolk College, together with any additional data or procedures requested
by the Dean, against its own criteria for institutional approval.
d
Timescale for institutional review
It is proposed that UEA and Essex will undertake a joint institutional review of UCS Ipswich in
2008-09, ie once the new structure has had time to settle and any issues have emerged. It is
envisaged that joint institutional reviews of UCS partner colleges will take place on a rolling
programme from 2008-09 onwards, unless earlier review is indicated.
4
PROGRAMME APPROVAL
a
Programme approval arrangements at UCS partner colleges for 2006-07
Programme approval arrangements at UCS partner colleges for this transitional year are the
responsibility of UEA, which has organised a series of subject validation events in 2005-06 to
ensure that HE provision at the partner colleges is validated for 2006-07 and that current HE
students are not adversely affected by the change of validating university. Essex is supporting
UEA in this process through attendance at and academic membership of subject validation panels,
which has enabled Essex to begin a familiarisation process with UCS partner college
infrastructures and current academic provision.
HE awards at Suffolk College will continue to be validated solely by UEA in 2006-07.
b
Programme approval arrangements at UCS for 2007-08
During 2006-07, the University of Essex needs to assure itself of the quality and standards of those
HE academic awards delivered at/by the partner institutions, including UCS Ipswich, which will
become joint Essex/UEA awards from 2007-08. In order to reach its decisions on programme
approval, the University will adopt the following process, which takes into account evidence
provided by partner institutions to UEA and prior approval procedures undertaken by UEA:
36
A scrutiny of programme validation documentation and other relevant evidence
including External Examiner reports
A review of discussions and conclusions of validation panels and any conditions and
recommendations of validation
A review of the actions taken subsequently by the college course teams in meeting
validation conditions
Following consideration of the above, the Dean of Learning Partnerships will decide
whether further evidence is required
A final programme approval meeting to discuss any outstanding issues may be called at
the discretion of the Dean of Learning Partnerships
UEA and Essex are establishing governance and structure arrangements for UCS which will
encompass the approval process for the joint awards from 2007-08 and it is proposed that the UCS
Joint Academic Committee (JAC) become operational in 2006-07.
c
Programme approval arrangements at UCS from 2007-08
From 1 August 2007, all academic provision at UCS will be jointly validated by UEA and Essex,
who will together and in consultation with UCS partner institutions agree a schedule for the
validation and periodic review of all new and existing academic provision, following joint
procedures agreed by the universities and the JAC.
5
INSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS
It is recommended that each University signs a Memorandum of Intent with each prospective UCS
partner institution at an early opportunity, prior to full Memoranda of Agreement with each
partner institution being approved by the Essex and UEA Councils before June 2007 for
implementation from 1 August 2007.
Gill Statham
Deputy Director, Learning Partnerships
May 2006
37