MSc Aquatic Science – Feedback from PCASG
a) Rationale: The proposal seemed partly driven by UCL pulling out of the
existing MSc in Freshwater and Coastal Sciences – an intercollegiate
programme with QMUL. The old intercollegiate programme will remain, taken
over fully by QMUL.
The proposal originates from a review of all Physical Geography Masters level
teaching and represents a reconfiguration of delivery adjusted to teaching
resources within the department. This MSc will be one of four inter-related
Masters programmes in physical geography and its inception is not driven by
a withdrawal from FaCS but rather the reconfiguration is the driver of that
withdrawal.
If so, PCASG required a statement from the proposers that provides an
assurance that a clear agreement has been reached by QMUL on the future
the intercollegiate programme (which is ratified by their authorities) and UCL
will meet any requirements of the original memorandum of agreement. There
appears to be at least 5 UCL students enrolled flexibly on the intercollegiate
MSc whose end dates are in 2010 or 2011.
The intercollegiate programme will terminate with the final registration of
students. UCL will meet the requirements of the original Memorandum of
Agreement Of the students enrolled flexibly on the programme, two
registered primarily at UCL will have completed all course requirements by the
end of this session, two students registered primarily with UCL will complete
the programme in 2009/2010 when they take the dissertation [check this with
Lyn], two students who registered with QM first from 2007/08 have taken all
the UCL mandatory modules and will be able to take available optional
modules and the dissertation supervised at UCL if they choose.
The arrangements for these students need to be clarified. If they have been
lead to believe they will receive a joint QMUL/UCL MSc, that will need to be
considered. These students will need to formally opt into the new QMUL
version of the MSc. Will the UCL Department continue to provide teaching to
the intercollegiate programme to cater for these remaining students?
Those registered primarily at UCL will complete the programme through UCL;
those registered primarily at QM will complete the programme there. UCL
Geography will continue to provide teaching to remaining students.
PCASG explored the idea whether QMUL is strong enough in this area to
break away with the established programme, leaving UCL with a need to
establish itself. The External Scrutineer did mention in his report that UCL will
need to establish an identity for this programme early on. Your programme is
intended to have a slightly different academic direction to the QMUL
programme, however. The plan to develop a number of academic specialised
streams in the future under an ‘umbrella’ MSc is intended to be a feature that
distinguishes the UCL programme from its competitors.
Could you expand on this point? Has any market research been done into
demand for your programme (e.g. one without the narrow biological focus of
the QM version or the Management focus of the KCL one)?
Jan/Jon……????????????…………………………………
Will the QMUL programme inherit any established NERC funded studentships,
leaving the new UCL programme at a disadvantage initially, at least?
QMUL has held the NERC studentships assigned to the programme; from
2009-2010 the programme to which those studentships relate will not admit
new students and QMUL will have to advise NERC of that.
The demand for new programme described seems to be that of the existing
MSc in Freshwater & Coastal Sciences. Given the points above, is that a
persuasive comparison?
b) Mode of Study: Full-time only is specified. Is that disadvantageous for
recruitment i.e. the MSc in Freshwater & Coastal Sciences was available
flexibly?
The flexible registration available to MSc FaCS was probably not advisable on
a joint programme. The few students enrolling via this route are not a
sufficient reason to restrict the department’s flexibility in its annual delivery of
MSc teaching.
c) Exit awards: No PG Diploma exit is built in. If that is intentional, you should
acknowledge that there will be no exit award for MSc students who can
complete the programme.
Jan/Jon ??
d) Field Trips: Are these a compulsory component of the programme? If so,
what happens if a student cannot attend? In this area, the statement on
students with disabilities may need to be re-worded or expanded.
PCASG asked for more detail about the extra costs for students in relation to
field work, which appear to be quite significant. If no Additional Fee Element
(AFE) is built in, what happens if an individual student cannot fund field costs
in excess of that expected and cannot complete the programme? Would it it
be better to the have the field trip costs paid up front?
The department’s experience of charging an AFE with FaCS was not
successful. Fluctuating student numbers and fluctuating costs made
budgeting the AFE, which had been set 18 months prior to the teaching year,
very difficult eg one additional student can necessitate an extra minibus
booking on each trip. Costs are determined by student choice of modules and
setting an AFE would result in a higher flat rate to all students. This
programme is set up as for the MSc Conservation which bills students directly
for their participation and students are highly appreciative of the fact that they
pay only for what has been provided. Details of the costs of all fieldwork is
provided to students prior to admission. Make sure of this for AqSci
We have never had a case of a student not being able to fund the core
fieldwork costs. The course fee is favourable in relation to competing courses
which charge a science level fee and fieldwork costs. We have also made a
request of the Faculty that the Undergraduate Fieldwork funds might be used
to provide for some MSc costs in the new MSc programmes. The availabilty
of those funds is not yet confirmed in the current financial situation.
You may have to consult the Registry advisor on Points Based Immigration on
this in relation to overseas students. That is, part of PBI now is that the
overseas students must prove they have funding to cover the cost the
programme at the time they apply for the visa.
The fieldwork and dissertation requirement of the MSc is not dissimilar
although much shorter to the fieldwork undertaken during a PhD – it can vary
very substantially between students. Costs may not be known at the time of
application and students usually have to apply for supporting funds from a
number of bodies eg the RGS, the Central Research Fund, government
agencies and department funds.
e) Business Case: Additional funds would be necessary even though the
new programme replaces the intercollegiate one. An application to the
Teaching Equipment Executive Sub-Committee is mentioned (£6000) but not
confirmed. Beyond this, no other recurrent costs are mentioned. Is this
realistic?
The potential bid to the TEESC is to provide for field equipment previously
available at QMUL which requires renewal in any case. Recurrent laboratory
costs are already within the Department’s budget.
f) Scheme of Award: The pass mark for all modules (individually) should be
50%. Reference to the ‘arithmetic mean of 50%’ should be removed.
Agreed
Q. 1.1 The weightings given for each component are incorrect as they do not
match the credit weightings of the modules. On a modular Master’s
programme, the weighting is derived from the credit value of the module that
is being assessed e.g. a 15 credit module is 8.3% of the programme and
should therefore be 8.3% of the overall assessment.
We do not understand this point. All our other MScs have the dissertation
weighted at 40% of the assessment while being 60 learning credits out of a
180 credit programme..
Please explain how Term 2 modules can be weighted higher as all Master’s
modules are M level?
What does he mean? The weighting is within the Scheme of Award??
The rules for condoned failure are complicated and may be diverging too far
from the UCL norm. PCASG queried the whether it was wise to allow students
to choose between a condoned failure or a re-sit attempt? Whilst this is not
contrary to the regulations it is contrary to the norm. A risk here is that if the
student choses to re-sit but does even worse and drops below the condoned
failure band, that is the result that will count and they will fail the whole
programme (i.e. they cannot then revert back to the original condoned mark).
Students should be advised about this risk in advance.
Need to respond and decide how much of this should be reviewed/changed
now or later.