Issues for the coming year 2008-2009

This is a list of issues which are high on the ARD's agenda, in no particular order.

1. In the coming year we will be continuing to provide support for the School in its growth to 9,000 students. So far we have provided help to departments by supplying data and market analysis, by helping to get proposals for new programmes through committees, and by advising on marketing activity. In the coming year we expect to be active in the last two areas in particular. Please contact Louisa Green for guidance about the work of the Undergraduate/Graduate Studies Sub-Committee and Cath Baldwin for input on marketing
   
    
2. Rather than providing degrees which are formally awarded by the University of London, the School is now exercising its own degree-awarding powers. This change took formal effect from 1 October 2007. It has little direct impact upon departments – the main effects are to do with certificates and gowns. But occasional queries do crop up, for example on recognition of our degrees by professional bodies overseas. If you come across these problems, please get in touch with me.
   
    
3. Also, on 1 January 2007 the School patriated research degree assessment and appeals. We are keeping departmental doctoral programme directors in the loop as things develop; and the PhD Unit is developing its role in advising departments on matters to do with PhD students, especially in difficult cases. Areas where problems can occur include decisions on whether or not to upgrade marginal students and problems within the examination process itself. If you can help by encouraging colleagues to liaise with us, that would be much appreciated. The earlier you involve us, the better. Often the answer is good paperwork: we know that paperwork is a chore, but it does serve a purpose, for example if a case turns difficult or nasty later on.
   
    
4. While still in the research degree area, your help in encouraging colleagues to be quick in handling their parts of the PhD examination process, especially in appointing examiners and arranging vivas, would be much appreciated.
   
    
5. Moving to examinations at undergraduate and postgraduate level, we find that we sometimes need to contact Heads of Departments within the exams season because of problems caused by errors in examination papers. It is very difficult to eliminate errors altogether. But where they occur they cause disproportionate stress to students and also considerable administrative fall-out. Most of the fall-out falls on Sub-Board Chairs: but Heads of Departments can help by encouraging colleagues to check and re-check the papers they set.
   
    
6. An organisation which is looming increasingly large in our lives is the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. This is a sector-wide 'ombudsman' function for students who have exhausted internal complaints/appeals procedures but still feel dissatisfied at the outcome. From the point of view of local practice. It is worth noting that the OIA is as interested in whether we have followed our own procedures properly as in whether the decision we have reached is reasonable – again, we in ARD are very willing to offer advice and guidance if you are in doubt on what the internal procedures require of you. The cases which have come to us from the OIA have been very demanding in terms of time and trees. In virtually every one, the School's procedures and actions have been exonerated, subject only to caveats in a couple of cases about procedural delay. I am the nominated contact point, though in practice cases are handled by Mark Thomson, Kevin Haynes or Derek Cook as appropriate.
   
    
7. In all these areas, what you put in your departmental handbooks matters. It forms part of the 'contract' we have with our students, and can be binding. If, for example, there is different information in departmental literature and School literature on eg on the School's classification scheme, we have to follow whichever is more favourable to the student, rather than saying that one or the other takes formal precedence. We are therefore sending advice to departments on what to say in their handbooks on areas such as plagiarism. While I understand the wish to customise handbooks to suit local culture and language, I would ask that you don't stray too far from the scripts we provide.
   
    
8. Although the role of the QAA in academic life has diminished over the past five years, especially for departments, there are still several areas where its influence is still felt:
    
   1. The School is continuing to develop its response to the recommendations in the report of the QAA Institutional Audit carried out in 2004-2005. We will undergo something called a 'mid-cycle review' in the summer of 2008: but this won't entail department-level inspections. The next full Audit isn't until Spring 2011.
      
       
   2. The QAA is also showing an increasing interest in what it terms "collaborative provision", ie programmes based in partnerships with overseas institutions. So far this hasn't touched us: but we have put in place a formal framework for programmes of this kind so as to reduce the risks if we do find ourselves subject to QAA inspection later on.
      
       
   3. In 2006-2007 we implemented the new system for departmental course/programme review which was developed by the Conveners' Consultative Forum. This has been reviewed and revised in 2007-2008. Louisa Green will be writing round shortly with guidance on the new arrangements.
      
       
   4. In 2008-2009 we will be making major changes to the School survey of course teaching, in part in response to recommendations in the report of the Teaching Task Force. No one is happy with current arrangements, including us: but over the years there has been 'planning blight' in this area. In the coming year we intend to separate out the surveys on individual teachers from the surveys on courses/programmes; and we will be working on new ways of delivering the latter. Louisa Green will be writing round to departments once our plans are further advanced.
      
       
9. In the coming year we will be co-ordinating work to implement the School's strategy of "the student experience". This is an unsatisfactory term for an extremely important area. The Student Affairs Committee has spent some time in the past year working on a range of issues, including how the School ensures that the tutorial system is effective; how pastoral support services are co-ordinated between the various outlets which provide them; and how we all ensure that the right information gets to the right student. In the coming year(s) we will look at the 'social experience', and in particular at ways of countering the tendency of some student nationality groups to 'self-segregate'. Another item on our agenda is ways of improving communication with the student body. We also want to find out more about the individual local initiatives you undertake in departments to support your students, as a basis for sharing good practice and bright ideas across the School.
   
    
10. APRC has agreed a range of changes to the financial support system, with a view to making it more effective – and simpler. A new PhD scholarship scheme was introduced in 2007-2008. In the coming year we will be working on new systems at the taught postgraduate level. This is being led jointly by Cath Baldwin and Sue Plater of the Financial Support Office. Further details will follow shortly.
    
     
11. Finally, and perhaps most importantly for this purpose, we in ARD have been in discussion with DMs about ways of strengthening our relationship with departments. Any input you may have on this – for example, topics we should be tackling, formats we should be using – would be gratefully received.

Simeon Underwood
June 2008

^