Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management. Faculty of Law Maastricht University

Transcription

1 Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management Faculty of Law Maastricht University

2 Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 PO Box RA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: +31 (0) Telefax: +31 (0) Internet: Project number: Q QANU Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopying or by any other means with the permission of QANU if the source is mentioned. 2 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

3 CONTENTS Report on the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. of Maastricht University...5 Administrative data regarding the programmes...5 Administrative data regarding the institution...5 Quantitative data regarding the programmes...5 Composition of the audit panel...6 Brief description of the procedures...6 Summary judgement...9 Description of the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments...12 Appendices Appendix 1: Curricula vitae of the members of the audit panel...31 Appendix 2: Domain-specific framework of reference...33 Appendix 3: Intended learning outcomes...35 Appendix 4: Overview of the curricula...37 Appendix 5: Quantitative data regarding the programmes...41 Appendix 6: Programme of the site visit...43 Appendix 7: Theses and documents studied by the audit panel...47 Appendix 8: Declarations of independence...49 This report was finalised on QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 3

4 4 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

5 Report on the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. of Maastricht University This report considers the NVAO s Assessment framework for limited programme assessments as its point of departure. Administrative data regarding the programmes Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. Name of the programme: Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. CROHO number: Level of the programme: master's Orientation of the programme: academic Number of credits: 60 EC Specialisations or tracks: - Location(s): Maastricht Mode(s) of study: full time, part time Expiration of accreditation: Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. Name of the programme: Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. CROHO number: Level of the programme: master's Orientation of the programme: academic Number of credits: 60 EC Specialisations or tracks: - Location(s): Maastricht Mode(s) of study: full time, part time Expiration of accreditation: The visit of the audit panel Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management to the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University took place on the 27 th and 28 th of February Administrative data regarding the institution Name of the institution: Status of the institution: Result institutional quality assurance assessment: Maastricht University publicly funded institution positive Quantitative data regarding the programmes The required quantitative data regarding the programmes are included in appendix 5. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 5

6 Composition of the audit panel The panel that assessed the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. consisted of: Prof. dr. P.L.C. (Paul) Torremans, chair, professor of Intellectual Property Law at the University of Nottingham, and advisor and consultant to the WIPO Academy; Dr. D. (Derk) Visser, partner EIP llp, contributor to Kluwer Patent Law website at Kluwer Law International, and lecturer European Patent Law at CEIPI; Dr. Ir. T. (Tony) Tangena, founder and partner at Tangena & Van kan and president of epi; Prof. dr. M. (Manuel) Desantes, professor of Private International Law at the University of Oviedo and Alicante, and member of the counsel of ELZABURU; R. (Rosa) Kindt, BSc., student member, Legal Research Master student at Utrecht University. The panel was supported by Mrs. J.J. (Jasne) Krooneman, MSc., who acted as secretary. Appendix 1 contains the curricula vitae of the members of the panel. Brief description of the procedures Preparation The management of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. provided a critical reflection as part of the preparation for the assessment. After the project manager checked the completeness of the information in the critical reflection, it was forwarded to the members of the audit panel, who formulated questions based on its content. Taking a variation in grading into account, twenty theses were carefully selected by the project manager, in consultation with the chair of the panel (see appendix 7 for a list of theses and documents studied by the audit panel). Each panel member had to review two LL.M. and two M.Sc. theses. Since the panel members found some theses to be of an unsatisfactory academic level, the number of selected theses had to be increased. Due to the limited number of extra theses available, the selection was extended by including student portfolios. All assignments, essays, et cetera produced by five LL.M. and five MS.c. students were made accessible to the entire audit panel. The project manager designed a visiting timetable, which was discussed with the director of the master s programmes and the chair of the panel. Preparations for the site visit continued only after an agreement on the visiting timetable was reached. Since the panel had some questions regarding the quality of the theses, an extra interview with two thesis supervisors was added to the timetable. Site visit During the preparatory meeting held at the start of the site visit, the panel received instructions regarding the NVAO s assessment frameworks for the higher education accreditation system. It discussed its working method, the findings from the evaluation of the critical reflection and theses, and its perception of the domain-specific framework of 6 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

7 reference. The panel also studied additional information on the content of several courses, such as reference books and other learning material, and read reports on consultations in relevant committees/bodies. It analysed important management information and documentation regarding teacher and student satisfaction. Immediately after the preparatory meeting, interviews were held with representatives of the management, students, lecturers, alumni, the Programme Committee, the Board of Examiners, thesis supervisors, and finally with the dean and the management team again. Nobody made use of the open office hour, when people involved in the programmes had the opportunity to speak freely to the panel. During the interview with the M.Sc. alumni, one confidential thesis was made available, only for a short period of time. The audit panel could not study this particular thesis in advance, since it includes some confidential information about the company where the alumna is currently employed. The panel members could read most of the thesis, although several parts were kept confidential. The site visit concluded with an oral presentation of the preliminary findings by the chair of the panel, consisting of a general assessment and several specific observations and impressions of the programmes. Report After the site visit, the secretary wrote a draft report based on the panel s findings. Subsequently, this draft was sent to the panel for feedback. After processing the feedback of the panel members, the draft report was delivered to the management of the programmes to check for factual irregularities. Any suggestions made by the management were discussed with the chair of the panel. The draft report was then sent to the panel members, who had the opportunity to review the changes. A few days later, the report was finalised. Decision rules In accordance with the NVAO s Assessment framework for limited programme assessments (as of 22 November 2011), the audit panel used the following definitions for the assessment of both the standards and the programme as a whole. Generic quality The quality that can reasonably be expected in an international perspective from a higher education bachelor s or master s programme. Unsatisfactory The programme does not meet the current generic quality standards and shows serious shortcomings in several areas. Satisfactory The programme meets the current generic quality standards and shows an acceptable level across its entire spectrum. Good The programme systematically surpasses the current generic quality standards across its entire spectrum. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 7

8 Excellent The programme systematically well surpasses the current generic quality standards across its entire spectrum and is regarded as an (inter)national example. 8 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

9 Summary judgement This report provides an overview of the audit panel s findings and considerations regarding the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. of Maastricht University. The panel based its judgement on information acquired from the critical reflection, a number of selected theses, student portfolios, the interviews held during the site visit, additional reading material which was available during the site visit, and the digital learning environment. The panel found positive aspects as well as points for improvement. After careful consideration, it concludes that the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. do not satisfy the requirements for accreditation. Standard 1 The audit panel argues that the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. clearly stand out in the domain-specific framework of reference. They share a profile in which lawyers and scientists come together, and issues are approached from a knowledge mangement angle as well as from an intellectual property law perspective. The panel considers the two programmes to be unique in Europe, and it is impressed that M.Sc. graduates receive a reduction of half a year in the mandatory professional activity of three years required for enrolment for the European Qualifying Examination (EQE). The panel states that the programmes are embedded in an excellent international network, which includes the epi network, the Office for Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) and the Institute of European Studies of Macau, which contributes to their international reputation. It believes that the programmes have successfully moved towards a professional orientation, and advises the management to reflect on this orientation more clearly. In the honours programme, a more academic orientation is applicable. The intended learning outcomes are straightforward, well formulated and clearly identify what each group of students requires whether LL.M. or M.Sc. students. In addition, the panel states that the intended learning outcomes target the correct professional and academic level. Standard 2 The two master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. have constructed a great teaching-learning environment according to the audit panel. It states that the programmes have very well structured and coherent curricula, which also perfectly match, despite the differences in interest between lawyers and scientists. The only suggestion the panel has regarding the curricula of the two programmes is to include scientific legal methodology and an elaboration on the structuring of texts in the beginning. It argues that this will help students in writing their thesis in period 6. The intended learning outcomes are clearly embedded in the courses, and the panel believes that Dublin descriptors 2, 3, and 4 are the three cornerstones of the development of both programmes: they seek complexity, they foster critical understanding of intellectual property, and cooperation is greatly valued. The panel is of the opinion that the profile of the programmes, the intended learning outcomes and the courses are systematically entwined. The Problem-Based Learning didactic concept further serves this symbiosis, by stimulating discussions in class, pushing students to drive the learning process, and forcing students to interact with each other. The panel asserts that the teaching formats adequately fit the teaching concept, and is satisfied with student s access to the Maastricht Internet Law Library. The course load and feasibility also fulfil the panel s QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 9

10 expectations, and it is pleased to see that the teaching staff is approachable and that students from both programmes actively help each other during group assignments. The international character of both programmes is perceived positively by the panel. The programmes are extremely internationally oriented, are embedded in excellent international intellectual property law networks, and have a great international reputation. Unsurprisingly, both programmes attract many international students, who are very motivated and dedicated to their studies. The panel could only detect one weaker element in this internationalisation process: it noted that although students need to fulfil basic language requirements, several of them have not mastered the English language sufficiently to express themselves fully on paper. The management already advises those students to subscribe for English language courses at the university. While the panel finds the intake numbers and the admission criteria adequate, it advises raising the language requirements in the near future. Regarding the staff members involved in the two master s programmes, the panel can only conclude that they are excellent teachers. Due to their participation in international networks and their good reputation, the programmes attract some of the most famous names in the field to assist as non-resident staff members in the courses. Attention is paid to the consistency in the courses, and students and alumni consider the resident as well as nonresident staff members very approachable. The audit panel considers the student-teacher ratio to be rather high, but holds that this does not have any negative consequences for the programmes. However, it advises recruiting one more full-time staff member soon, as the programmes currently depend heavily on one leading person. The panel states that the programme-specific quality control is well organised. Standard 3 The audit panel has some serious concerns regarding the assessment policy and the achieved learning outcomes of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. First, the current situation of the Board of Examiners is undesirable: its three members are at the same time first and second supervisors in many thesis projects. Since the composition of the Board of Examiners is forced upon the two master s programmes, the panel can only stimulate the faculty to implement the proposed changes (i.e. to integrate the two Boards of Examiners of the faculty) as soon as possible. Second, the panel raises some issues about the assessment policy. It states that there should be no more than one resit per exam, that full-time and part-time students should get the same amount of time for the same questions. The panel considers it advisable to monitor the risk of free-riding as part of a formal approach. It stresses the importance of having formal guidelines of how to assess group assignments while at the same taking the individual contributions into account. Third, the panel is not convinced by the thesis procedure as it functions at the moment. It advises the management to utilise the special circumstances procedure when needed, and to keep close track of the students progress to avoid them exceeding the terms. This also means that the teaching staff should provide prompt feedback on drafts. Finally, the panel concluded that more than 10% of the selected theses of both master s programmes was unsatisfactory. Although many students enrolled in the programmes already have a master s or even a PhD degree, the level of some theses was a bare pass even for an 10 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

11 undergraduate level. In addition, the panel graded nearly all selected theses points lower than the thesis supervisors. The extra student portfolios of five LL.M. and five M.Sc. students did not convince the panel that the students were sufficiently trained in academic writing through the courses, nor that all students showed an obvious learning curve. Furthermore, the panel finds it rather peculiar that there are no differences in the assessment standards of the LL.M. and M.Sc. theses. It could not make a clear distinction between theses of both programmes. Hence, the panel recommends that the management reviews the thesis assessment standards, paying extra attention to scientific legal methodology and structuring of texts in the curricula, and raise the language admission requirements. Fortunately, the panel is enthusiastic about the opportunities for graduate students in the labour market. From the interviews with alumni it became clear that both master s programmes were considered very useful, and that many students have strengthened their position in the international labour market. Notwithstanding the efforts to reunite alumni, the panel recommends the creation of formal alumni associations. The audit panel assesses the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments in the following way: Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M.: Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes General conclusion good good unsatisfactory unsatisfactory Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc.: Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment Standard 3: Assessment and achieved learning outcomes General conclusion good good unsatisfactory unsatisfactory The chair and the secretary of the audit panel hereby declare that all members of the panel have studied this report and that they agree with the judgements laid down in it. They confirm that the assessment has been conducted in accordance with the demands relating to independence. Date: Prof. P.L.C. (Paul) Torremans Mrs. J.J. (Jasne) Krooneman, MSc. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 11

12 Description of the standards from the Assessment framework for limited programme assessments Standard 1: Intended learning outcomes The intended learning outcomes of the programme have been concretised with regard to content, level and orientation; they meet international requirements. Explanation: As for level and orientation (bachelor s or master s; professional or academic), the intended learning outcomes fit into the Dutch qualifications framework. In addition, they tie in with the international perspective of the requirements currently set by the professional field and the discipline with regard to the contents of the programme. Findings Standard 1 first provides an insight into the audit panel s findings regarding the domainspecific framework of reference (1.1). Subsequently, attention is paid to the profile and orientation (1.2) and the intended learning outcomes and their level (1.3). 1.1 Domain-specific framework of reference In the domain-specific framework of reference (see appendix 2), the management of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. stated that the programmes are distinct from other European university programmes or professional training offered by national patent organisations. It argued that a combination of factors ensures that graduates of both programmes are equipped to work not only as lawyers, but also as intermediaries with patent agents and managers in innovative companies and research institutes. Another special feature is the fact that the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. programme has been accredited by the European Patent Office (EPO) as granting admission to the European Qualifying Exam (EQE) since The audit panel studied the domain-specific framework of reference and found that the management applies a reference framework in which the two programmes clearly stand out. It believes that bringing lawyers and scientists together is an extremely complex challenge, and unique in Europe. In its opinion, there are no other programmes in Europe where issues are approached from a knowledge management perspective as well as an intellectual property law perspective. It praises the management for the innovative and challenging stand. In addition, the panel states that it is a major achievement that the M.Sc. programme offers graduate students a reduction of half a year in the mandatory professional activity of three years required for enrolment for the European Qualifying Examination (EQE). Only a few institutions in Europe are recognised by the European Patent Office to grant such a reduction. 1.2 Profile and orientation According to the critical reflection, the two master s programmes offer selective and smallscale programmes that aim to prepare their graduates for specialised positions at the crossroads of law, policy and knowledge management in technology-driven innovative and creative industries. The Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. programme focusses on comparative litigation and/or entrepreneurship, valorisation and intellectual property management, while the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge 12 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

13 Management M.Sc. programme is specifically designed for graduates of science and technology who aspire to become intellectual property specialists, knowledge managers, or patent attorneys. Both Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management programmes have collaborate with the Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation, a multidisciplinary research institute in international economic law based at the Faculty of Law at Maastricht University. Students of the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management honours programme, which includes ten of the most promising students, have access to seminars, expert lectures, and a research community through the Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation. Both programmes have an academic as well as a professional orientation. During the master s programmes, students are trained to conduct independent academic research and to solve multidisciplinary questions relevant in this field of law. At the same time, however, they acquire skills to successfully compete for job positions and participate in an international legal and/or international work environment. The audit panel studied the profile of the master s programmes and is of opinion that the concept of the profile, bringing lawyers and scientists together, is truly unique. It therefore argues that this aspect deserves more attention in the critical reflection and recruitment material than is currently the case. The interviews made clear that everybody contributing to the programme is fully aware of and actively participates in this concept. The panel appreciates the fact that M.Sc. students are encouraged to attend the LL.M. courses, and that LL.M. students are encouraged to attend the M.Sc. courses. It is also very enthusiastic about the cooperation between those two groups of students in group assignments. This interaction throughout the programmes confirms the strength of the profile. According to the panel, it is also of great value for the programmes to be embedded in the epi network, to have ties with the Office for Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) and to have close connections with the Institute of European Studies of Macau. Due to their participation in those international networks, the LL.M. as well as the M.Sc. programme have built an outstanding international reputation. When it comes to the orientation of the programmes, the panel argues that both programmes have successfully moved towards a professional orientation. Although the critical reflection states that there is an academic as well as professional orientation, the panel advises the management to reflect on their orientation more clearly. There is a more academic orientation for those who participate in the honours programme, but the regular programmes are more equipped towards a professional stance. 1.3 Intended learning outcomes and academic level As stated in the critical reflection, the aim of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. is to provide students with a thorough understanding of intellectual property law and knowledge management, which enables them to work in an international, multicultural environment as academics, lawyers, consultants or officials of governmental and non-governmental organisations. The M.Sc. graduates are granted a reduction of half a year in the mandatory professional activity of three years required for enrolment for the European Qualifying Examination. In order to achieve those aims, four intended learning outcomes have been formulated. The first outcome distinguishes between LL.M and M.Sc. students: QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 13

14 a. Graduates of the advanced master intellectual property and knowledge management LL.M. will hold an expertise on the legal and commercial aspects of IPR and knowledge management, acquiring skills to work at an academic level in a European and/or transnational legal and policy environment in close interaction with colleagues holding a degree in science and technology. In addition to their legal training, LLM students will be well versed with concepts such as entrepreneurship, valorization, and knowledge management, and the role of IP law in commerce, research and innovation policy. They will be well versed with concepts such as patent and trademark litigation, international and European IP law, international IP treaties, judicial proceedings and jurisprudence, etc.. b. Graduates of the advanced master intellectual property and knowledge management M.Sc. have the knowledge will hold an expertise on the scientific, economic and commercial aspects of knowledge creation, protection and commercialization. They will acquire the relevant skills to work at an academic level in international, multicultural environment as European patent agents, national patent agents, officials of the European patent office or at other European or international governmental and non-governmental organizations in the field of intellectual property and knowledge management in close interaction with colleagues holding a degree in law. They will be well versed with concepts such as entrepreneurship, valorization and knowledge management, patent drafting and procedure, and the role of patent drafting for the purpose of commercial strategies and international patent litigation. The full list of the intended learning outcomes is available in appendix 3. The intended learning outcomes can also be matched to the internationally accepted Dublin descriptors for master s programmes. The audit panel studied the intended learning outcomes and considers them to be straightforward and well formulated. In its opinion, the intended learning outcomes clearly identify the level each group of students must attain whether LL.M. or M.Sc. students. In addition, the learning outcomes target the correct professional and academic level. Considerations The audit panel studied the domain-specific framework of reference, the profile and orientation, and the intended learning outcomes of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. It believes that the programmes are unique in Europe, approaching issues from a knowledge management perspective as well as an intellectual property law perspective. Due to their participation in international networks, the LL.M. as well as the M.Sc. programme have built an outstanding international reputation. In addition, the panel is impressed by the fact that graduates of the M.Sc. programme are granted half a year discount in professional activity when enrolling for the very difficult European Qualifying Examination. The main characteristic of the profile of both programmes is the complex challenge of bringing lawyers and scientists together. The panel advises the management to stress this unique combination even more clearly. It also recommends that the management emphasise the professional orientation of both programmes. It appreciates this professional stance, and states that a more academic orientation is valid for the honours programme students. The intended learning outcomes are straightforward, well formulated 14 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

15 and target the correct professional and academic (master s) level. In addition, they specify the requirements for LL.M. and M.Sc. students. Conclusion Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M.: the audit panel assesses Standard 1 as good. Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc.: the audit panel assesses Standard 1 as good. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 15

16 Standard 2: Teaching-learning environment The curriculum, staff and programme-specific services and facilities enable the incoming students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. Explanation: The contents and structure of the curriculum enable the students admitted to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The quality of the staff and of the programme-specific services and facilities is essential to that end. Curriculum, staff, services and facilities constitute a coherent teaching-learning environment for the students. Findings Standard 2 provides an insight into the curricula (2.1) of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. Special attention is paid to the relation between the learning outcomes and the curricula in section 2.2. Then, the teaching concept, formats and programme-specific services (2.3) and the feasibility (2.4) are analysed. In section 2.5 the quality and quantity of the teaching staff are discussed. This standard concludes with an analysis of the programme-specific quality control (2.6). 2.1 Curricula The audit panel studied the curricula (see appendix 4) of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. Both of them consist of six periods covering one academic year. In general, three types of courses are offered: common courses, LL.M. courses and M.Sc. courses. These three types are again split into mandatory and optional courses. Hence, there are mandatory and optional common courses, mandatory and optional LL.M. courses, and mandatory and optional M.Sc. courses. From the optional common courses, students have to select a minimum of three. From the optional LL.M. and optional M.Sc. courses, students have to choose a minimum of three and a maximum of four. The audit panel studied both curricula and noted that they are coherent and very well structured. It found a nice balance between mandatory and optional courses in both programmes. In addition, it is impressed by the great match between the two curricula since it is not easy to combine the interests of scientists and lawyers. For example, in the first period of the academic year, LL.M. as well as M.Sc. students attend two mandatory common courses: Principles of Intellectual and Industrial Property Law (5 EC) and Copyright and related rights (5 EC). The first course focuses on the principles of intellectual and industrial property law as a means to provide incentives to creativity and innovation and to regulate the market. It also traces the development of intellectual property law from an instrument of national innovation policy to a global trade issue. In the second course, students cover copyright and related rights in a comparative context, focussing not only on the European Union and its member states, but also on the United States. These courses brings the LL.M. and M.Sc. students together, right from the start of the programmes. The panel finds the course outlines very clear and straightforward. Students know what the content of the course is, what teaching methods will be applied, what kind of assessment they can expect, and what the targets are. The only suggestion the panel has regarding the curricula of the two programmes is to pay attention to scientific legal methodology and the structuring of texts. The panel fully understands the management s original decision to exclude such courses: the management assumes that students who apply for one of the master s programmes have already conducted academic research. However, now that this assumption 16 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

17 has been proven to be incorrect (see standard 3), it advises adding some methodology and structuring of texts in the beginning of both curricula, as this will help students with their thesis writing in period 6. Currently, such teaching is only available for honours students. 2.2 Relation between learning outcomes and the curriculum The audit panel analysed the relation between the learning outcomes and the curricula. It also focussed on the cohesion and composition within the curricula. The panel is of the opinion that all intended learning outcomes are clearly embedded in the curricula. In the common Entrepreneurship, IP Management and Valorisation course, for example, students learn how to cooperate at a professional and academic level and gain experience in playing different parts in teams comprised of lawyers and scientists. In the LL.M. Global Policy and Economics of Intellectual Property Law course, students have to bring together various elements, such as the economic underpinnings of intellectual property law and policies of the WIPO, WTO and its main members. In order to identify which aspect they are dealing with and what the economic impact will be, the students have to apply their knowledge and skills. Another example where students have to apply their knowledge and skills and have to cooperate in a team comprised of different players is the M.Sc. IP and Life Sciences course. At the end of this course, the student is conversant with issues concerning pharmaceuticals or biotechnical inventions, as well as ethical and practical considerations in respect of clinical trials and inventive activity in research institutions. In those types of morality related issues, different people bring in different expertise, the panel argues. The panel also identified a clear relation between the Dublin descriptors and the two curricula. In its opinion, descriptors 2, 3, and 4 are the three cornerstones of the development of both programmes: they seek complexity, they foster critical understanding of intellectual property, and they value cooperation greatly. The cooperation refers not only to the collaboration with partner universities, but also to the teamwork of law and science students. 2.3 Teaching concept, formats and programme-specific services The audit panel examined which teaching concept and formats form the basis of the education offered, and which programme-specific services enable this. Just like other educational programmes offered by Maastricht University, the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management master s programmes follow the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) approach. This approach is student-centred and includes active learning from approachable tutors. Students are personally responsible for their academic education and actively address issues in order to apply insights to various questions, and gain skills such as presenting, debating, writing and working together in small tutorial groups. The idea is that tutors participate in those tutorial groups, guiding the group process, asking critical, substantive questions, sharing their knowledge and supporting students when needed. According to the course descriptions in the critical reflection, the teaching formats applied in the programmes include lectures, tutorials and mock trials. Students of both master s programmes have access to the Maastricht University Library and the Maastricht Internet Law Library (MILL). In addition, they have access to the electronic learning environment, ELEUM. The panel studied the teaching concept and is very enthusiastic about PBL and the way it is put into practice. Interviews with teachers and students confirmed that students hand in QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 17

18 assignments prior to the lectures. These assignments are then assessed by the teachers. In this way, students are well prepared, and the lectures are not a single-sided transfer of knowledge, but actively foster discussions. According to the panel, it is essential that students drive the process in a master s programme. It is also convinced that the teaching concept contributes to the cooperation between the two different groups of students. PBL forces students to interact with each other. Especially from the interview with the M.Sc. students, it became clear that they really appreciate the knowledge of LL.M. students in group assignments. The LL.M. alumni confirmed that in their case, PBL is a very useful concept for lawyers. The panel agrees with the alumni: if you deal with intellectual property, patents, trademarks, et cetera, you have to find solutions to a problem. PBL not only fits well in the profile of the programme, it also suits the teaching formats applied: lectures, tutorials and mock trials. In addition, from the interviews with students, it became clear that they prepare their assignments in the library, using the Maastricht Internet Law Library. 2.4 Feasibility The quantitative data regarding intake numbers, transfers and graduates, the teacher-student ratio and the average amount of face-to-face instruction per stage of the study programmes can be found in appendix 5. Intake numbers In terms of intake numbers, the LL.M. programme attracts more students than the M.Sc. programme. There are similar selection criteria for both master s programmes, such as demonstrated proficiency in the English language and a recognised bachelor s or master s degree. The intake numbers for the M.Sc. programme have been rather stable over the past few years. Those of the LL.M. programme increased significantly between the cohort and the cohort. The interview with the management clarified that the applicants need either a background in law or a great affiliation with law and must be highly motivated. The letter of motivation therefore plays an important part in the selection of students. Certain aspects of the letter are checked such as: does it include an indication that the student wants to change his/her career path, and/or does the employer accept the application? There is a maximum intake of around 30 students for both master s programmes together, higher numbers would be logistically unrealistic. The numbers of applicants varies between 40 to 70, and the admission fluctuates around people. The audit panel is satisfied with the selection process. It argues that the rejection of students shows that there is a proper selection in place. Although it realises that the admission requirement of an IELTS score of 6.5 or a TOEFL score of 233 computer-based, 575 paperbased, 90 internet-based is university policy, it would strongly recommend increasing the English language requirements further. Since more and more comparable international programmes now operate an IELTS score of 7.0, including a 7.0 minimum in writing, it suggests to increase the language requirements to this level. However, in case these requirements are not possible, the panel also appreciates an overal IELTS score of 6.5, with a minimum of 6.5 in writing. It believes that this would be a step forward and would solve the majority of the language issues in assignments and theses (see standard 3). 18 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

19 Course load and feasibility During the site visit, Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. students confirmed that they spend hours per week on their studies. The part-time Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. students stated that they spend hours per week on the programme. According to the LL.M. students, there are no obstacles in the curriculum. The M.Sc. students argue that for slightly more complex law issues, they need to ask for help from LL.M. students. Since they work together on group assignments, the LL.M. students can explain some basic knowledge about law in the beginning of the programme. Both groups of students stated that in case of pressing questions, they can contact the staff members, who are always willing to help. The audit panel finds the course load and feasibility for both programmes adequate. Internationalisation Apart from the fact that both programmes are taught in English, they include some international study trips as well. Both programmes are part of the European Intellectual Property Institutes Network (EIPIN), and as a result, students can go on study trips to partner universities and research institutes situated in Spain (Magister Lvcentinus, Alicante), France (CEIPI, Strasbourg), Germany (MIPLC, Munich) and the United Kingdom (Queen Mary IP Research Institute, London). Attendance on these trips is semi-compulsory and active participation is required. The audit panel confirms that both programmes are indeed very internationally oriented. It believes that apart from the study trips, they also profit from their embeddedness in an international network in the search for non-resident teaching staff. In addition, they have a good international reputation and attract a lot of international students. The panel was impressed by the number of alumni who had come to the Netherlands especially for the interviews during the site visit. The only downside of this international outlook is the use of language. The panel noted that although students need to fulfil basic language requirements, many of them do not master the English language sufficiently to express themselves clearly in assignments or theses. This worried the panel, and it recommends increasing the language requirements in the near future. 2.5 Teaching staff The audit panel focussed on the quality and quantity of the teaching staff of the master s programmes Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M. and Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc. Quality From the critical reflection it became clear that 36 staff members are currently involved in the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management master s programmes. Those staff members can be divided into resident and non-resident staff. Since non-resident staff members often work in law firms or abroad at other universities, their availability is limited. Therefore, all staff members directly employed by Maastricht University (5 in total) have a duty to maintain the integrity of the programmes. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 19

20 Having read the critical reflection, the audit panel initially had some doubts about the participation of non-resident staff members. However, these worries were all resolved during the site visit. The non-residential staff is clearly fully aware of what they need to cover in the lectures, and they are easily approachable via . As the M.Sc. alumni explained, their teaching is a continuation of what is taught, and the non-resident staff members always respond to s. The LL.M. alumni confirmed that it is a great benefit to have foreign teachers participating in the curricula. The management clarified that the non-residential staff only teaches 2 EC courses, without being joined on the course by a residential staff member. It prefers to work with staff members from an organisation or a firm, so that in case one of the non-resident teachers is not available, the organisation or firm can send someone else. Among the Maastricht University teaching staff, two out of the five teachers involved in these programmes hold a University Teaching Qualification (UTQ). The audit panel states that the master s programmes house excellent resident and nonresident teaching staff. The management has been able to attract some of the famous names in the field to assist in the programmes. Quantity According to their own calculations, the master s programmes had a student-teacher ratio of 23:1 in , excluding the study trips. The audit panel considers the student-teacher ratio to be rather high, but argues that it does not seem to have any negative consequences for the programmes. It states that the current staff is capable of providing the required quality of education. However, if the programmes want to develop successfully and attract more students, more staff members will be needed. The panel was pleased to find that the dean is willing to attract more staff members, if the programmes wish to grow in the near future. The panel also suggests recruiting one more full-time staff member soon. Currently, the programmes depend heavily on one leading person. Although the master s programmes function very well at the moment, the panel warns that if that one person leaves, both programmes will suffer. 2.6 Programme-specific quality control From the interview with the Programme Committee it became clear that the programmespecific quality control is organised by a faculty-wide committee which takes care of all English-taught programmes. Despite the fact that the committee has many student members, no students from the Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management programmes are involved. Nevertheless, the audit panel is convinced that the committee functions adequately. The Programme Committee deals with changes in the curricula and the quality of programmes and analyses the teacher and student evaluations. In addition, it reads the critical reflections and provides comments, and gives advice to programme management. Its members assert that since the Programme Committee is part of the faculty, their voice is heard. Considerations The audit panel believes that the two programmes have constructed a good teaching-learning environment. The curricula are coherent and very well structured. The panel is impressed by the great match between the curricula, despite the difficulties of combining the interests of 20 QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University

21 scientists and lawyers. The only suggestion the panel has regarding the curricula of the two programmes is to include scientific legal methodology and an elaboration on the structuring of texts in the beginning of the curricula. It argues that this will help students with writing their thesis in period 6. All intended learning outcomes are clearly embedded in the curricula, according to the panel. It also states that Dublin descriptors 2, 3, and 4 are the three cornerstones of the development of both programmes: they seek complexity, they foster critical understanding of intellectual property, and value cooperation greatly. The panel is very enthusiastic about the Problem-Based Learning didactic concept, as it suits the profile of the programmes very well. It stimulates discussions in class, pushes students to drive the learning process, and forces students to interact with each other. The panel finds the teaching formats adequate for the teaching concept, and is satisfied with students access to the Maastricht Internet Law Library. The panel finds the intake numbers and admission criteria to be adequate, although it would recommend raising the language requirements. The course load and feasibility also fulfil the panel s expectations, and it is pleased to see that the teaching staff is approachable and that students from both programmes help each other. The international character of both programmes is a very positive aspect. They are extremely internationally oriented, embedded in excellent international intellectual property law networks, and have a great international reputation. They attract many international students, who are very motivated and dedicated to their studies. The panel could only detect one weak element in this internationalisation process: it noted that although students need to fulfil basic language requirements, many of them have not mastered the English language sufficiently to express themselves successfully. It advises raising the language requirements in the near future. Regarding the staff members involved in the two master s programmes, the panel can only conclude that they are excellent teachers. The programmes attract some of the famous names in the field to assist as non-resident staff members in the courses. The consistency is ensured, and resident as well as non-resident staff members are easily approachable. The audit panel considers the student-teacher ratio to be rather high, but argues that it does not seem to have any negative consequences for the programmes. However, it advises recruiting one more fulltime staff member soon, as the programmes currently depend heavily on one leading person. It confirms that the programme-specific quality control is well organised. Conclusion Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management LL.M.: the audit panel assesses Standard 2 as good. Master s programme Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management M.Sc.: the audit panel assesses Standard 2 as good. QANU /Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management, Maastricht University 21