QUINNENNIAL REVIEW OF POSTGRADUATE PROVISION SCHOOL OF GEOSCIENCES

Transcription

1 College of Science and Engineering QUINNENNIAL REVIEW OF POSTGRADUATE PROVISION SCHOOL OF GEOSCIENCES

2 Contents Review Structure and process 3 Composition of the Review Panel Review arrangements Review documentation General comments on the review process Overview of the School s postgraduate provision Provision of Taught Masters Programmes 6 Review arrangements General Administration of Programmes Programme Review Students Comments Provision of Research Degrees 12 Review arrangements General comments Recruitment and admissions Student progression and Supervision Completion Rates Student Comments Management and operation of Graduate School 18 Operation of Graduate School Structure Communication Administrative structure Research and Generic Skills Training Head of School Head of Graduate School and Quality Assurance Officer Summary and recommendations 25 2

3 Review Structure and Process Composition of the Review Panel The Review Panel comprised Professor Peter Tasker (School of Chemistry and Chair of Panel) Professor Gordon Walkden (University of Aberdeen and External Assessor) Professor Richard Ribchester (School of Biomedical Sciences, College of MVM) Dr Simon Parsons (School of Chemistry and member of CSE CPGSC) Professor Alastair Gillespie (School of Mathematics) Dr Jon Oberlander (School of Informatics) Professor John Peacock (School of Physics) Dr Bruce Ward (School of Biological Sciences) Secretariat: Lynda Henderson (CSE Postgraduate Officer) Review Arrangements The review, which was held over two days on 2 nd and 3 rd May, took the form of a series of meetings with relevant individuals and groups, looking at matters concerning postgraduate research students, the provision of taught masters and finally the administration and management structures and strategic issues of the Graduate School. Review documentation The Review Panel considered the following documents A. Review Schedule B. Quinquennial Review of Postgraduate Provision: Report C. (Graduate) School Quinquennial Reviews of Postgraduate Provision D. Postgraduate Common Marking Scheme E. Intention to Submit A Thesis Documentation F. Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees G. A Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students H. Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Taught Degrees I. A Code of Practice for Taught Postgraduate Programmes J. Code of Good Practice in Research K. GO Structure and Statistics 3

4 TAUGHT MASTES PROGRAMMES L. MSc Taught Programme Folder M. MSc Student Feedback Sample N. MSc Handbooks Sample RESEARCH PROGRAMMES O. PhD Programme Folder Programme Handbooks for each master Programmes and examples of MSc Dissertations and PhD thesis submissions were available to Panel Members during the review. General comments on the review process The review was carried out under the rubric and practice recommendations approved by SPGSC in The review system is designed to look at the total postgraduate provision of a School, including all taught programmes and research degrees and the supporting managerial and administrative structures. The Review covered the period October 2000 September Part of the University s strategic plan is to increase the number of postgraduate students. In view of this development, one of the aims of the review process is to help Schools take a longer-term view of development of their postgraduate strategy, as well as providing reflection on previous and current practice. Overview of the School s postgraduate provision The School of GeoSciences comprises 3 Institutes, Atmospheric & Environmental Science, Geography and the Grant Institute of Earth Science. The Head of School, Professor David Sugden, has overall responsibility for the provision of both undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in the School and the Head of Graduate School, Dr Wyn Williams has delegated day-to-day management responsibility for the provision of postgraduate degrees and programmes. The Head of Graduate School is assisted by 4 Deputy Heads one for MSc programmes, Science Recruitment, Training and Progress and Social Science programme. The Head of School is supported by one senior administrator and 4 secretarial staff. The average number of students registering for PhD over the years intake was 37. The majority of students are home/eu with overseas students representing 4

5 approximately 20% of the intake between It was noted that intake of overseas students trebled in 2005 which was seen as an important development. The School currently offers a suite of taught Masters programmes MSc Ecological Economics (in collaboration with SAC*) MSc Environment & Development MSc Environmental Protection & Management (in collaboration with SAC) MSc Environmental Sustainability MSc Forest Ecology and Management MSc Geographical Information Science MSc Geoscience for Subsurface Exploration, Appraisal and Development (in collaboration with the Universities of Heriot-Watt and Newcastle) MSc Remote Sensing & Image Processing MSc Management of Natural Resources (withdrawn w.e.f September 2006) MSc Geoscience and Remote Sensing (new w.e.f September 2006) In addition the School currently offers a suite of Masters by Research programmes MSc by Research in Global Environmental Change MSc by Research in Geographical Information Science MSc by Research in Geographical Information Science and Society MSc by Research in GeoSciences (areas of specialism) new w.e.f from September 2006 MSc by Research in Human Geography * Scottish Agricultural College 5

6 Review of Taught Masters Provision Review arrangements The Panel conducted group interviews with academic staff, students and the programme directors. General administration of programmes The Programme Directors were responsible for the academic management of the programmes and for the admissions and selection of students. A Deputy Head for MSc programmes had been appointed to have a strategic overview of the operation of the programmes, to develop new programmes and to provide support to the Programme Directors. The School offered six taught masters programmes, three collaborative taught masters programmes and a suite of MSc by Research programmes. One taught masters programme had been withdrawn for the 2006 intake due to the early retirement of the Programme Director. Administrative support was provided by the GO Manager and four Postgraduate Secretaries. The School s Teaching Organisation was not utilised for the administration of the examinations and timetabling of classes. Programme Review The Programme Directors felt that there was some conflict between the objective to increase student numbers and the resources and infrastructure that existed to support expansion. The main limitation at the moment was the availability of academic staff to supervise the dissertations. All programme directors experienced difficulties in finding staff to take on supervision. The Panel asked if different models such as group projects could be employed. The possibility of group projects was being investigated along with developing some form of incentive scheme to widen participation. The Panel asked if there was any scope for marketing the award of Diploma in its own right as a means to increase numbers without increasing supervision loads. This had not been investigated by the School and it was clear that many of the Programme Directors only considered the Diploma to be a compensation qualification and not a qualification in its own right. The other limitation reported was access to computer facilities. It was noted that the computer facilities for the GIS and Remote Sensing programmes were good however the provision for the other programmes was not at such a high standard. Computers in the refurbished Crewe Building Teaching Annexe were slow and that there was no on-line or radio hotpoint access for students. Each Programme Director was responsible for the selection of students to their programme. It was common practice that the Programme Secretary carried out the initial 6

7 review of applications, prior to consideration by the Programme Director. The rate of application to programmes and the conversion rate from offer to take up of place varied considerably between the programmes. Only GIS, had adopted a deposit system to assist in predicating numbers. This had only come into practice last year so it was too early to tell if this would improve the management of the take up rate. It was noted that the intake to the Masters was predominantly home students. All Programme Directors agreed that they would like to increase the numbers of overseas students. The Panel enquired as to the strategic plan for increasing intake numbers and in particular what plans were being considered to address the demographic changes in the UK population which were showing a steady decline in the numbers of years old in the UK. There is a plan to develop more MSc taught masters and to introduce more MSc by Research degrees and considerable work had been put in to update the web pages, which the Programme Directors viewed as their main recruitment tool. As recruitment from the UK market was still good at the moment they did not consider that the risk to their future recruitment was high. It was clear from the programme quinquennial review forms submitted that operational difficulties had been experienced during the initial stages of forming the Graduate School and the Curriculum Project. It was difficult to gain a sense of how the programmes interacted as a grouping from the documentation submitted. The impression gained was that of a series of distinct, inwardly focussed, individually run programmes that were to a greater or lesser extent reliant on the Programme Directors expertise or commitment for its continuation. The MSc Director explained that operationally the geosciences programmes were divided into two families. Firstly Geographical Information Science plus Remote Sensing and Image Processing, which share many courses, and secondly the environmental grouping which includes Ecological Economics, Environment and Development, Environmental Sustainability, Forest Ecology and Management and Resource Management. Two programmes are delivered by the Scottish Agriculture College. The MSc by Research in Geography was delivered by the Institute of Geography. The School s strategic aim is to offer volume and breadth across the School and all programmes were now expected to reflect the School s research interests. The suite was being reviewed, and over the next three years systems would be devised to rationalise delivery and ensure that the programmes took advantage of new research areas and linkages that were currently being established. The Panel enquired whether there were further opportunities to unify the administration and management of the programmes in such areas as selection, timetabling and examination. This could be achieved by using the Teaching Organisations for timetabling, thus introducing more shared teaching of UG and PG students and some common board of examiners. This could help to improve the balance of work loads of the Programme Directors, improve cover at secretarial level and help to reduce the duplication of tasks in the selection and recruitment of students. Although acting as Programme Directors did have an impact on an individual s ability to carry out their own research, all the Programme Directors felt that they benefited intellectually from 7

8 interacting with the masters students. It was agreed, however, that an administrator could do many of the administrative tasks currently undertaken by academic staff. All programmes operated a feedback questionnaire system for students and all received External Examiners reports. The Panel noted the robust approach taken by the Quality Assurance Director to addressing concerns raised in the External Examiners reports. It was, however, unclear how the feedback from the questionnaires and end of course staff/student meetings were used to inform and improve programme provision. It may be useful for the School to require programme directors to take notes of staff/student meetings indicating action to be taken. The provision of pastoral care was within the remit of the Programme Directors. No programme had the equivalent of a Director of Studies position. This had occasionally led to difficulties in terms of conflicts of interest between the combined roles of director and advisor. In these instances the Head of Graduate School had been approached to help resolve the issues. Students appeared to be aware of who they could approach if they needed assistance and all reported that their programme director and postgraduate secretary were very helpful. Student comments The students reported that they had chosen to come to Edinburgh on the basis of the School s strong reputation in geosciences in the UK, personal recommendation from either tutor or friends and also because the city itself was a nice place to live. They were all enjoying their programmes. They were particularly complementary about their programme directors and admin support staff. They did however raise some very important and interesting points that the School would be well advised to take forward. Balance between education and training The students commented that they had been surprised by the amount of theory relative to practical work in the programmes. They had presumed that there would have been more practical skills training to prepare them for taking up jobs in nonacademic sectors. Although they appreciated that the programmes were broad based and a lot of material had to be covered, they felt that more practically based work would help to consolidate the knowledge gained. The Panel enquired whether more problem-based learning would be useful as a means to readdress the balance. The students agreed that this combined with the field visits could improve the experience. They also suggested that it would be helpful if the School could compile a list of organisations which the students could approach to arrange work experience to help them build up their skills and CVs. 8

9 Course selection One of the students reported that there had been problems with the selection of option courses. The students had been advised of the option courses available to them at induction but it had emerged later that in fact they could have taken other options had they been made aware of the full portfolio. Some students had been very disappointed and a formal complaint had been made. It would be useful if the School could provide all students with a full list of what is available at induction and they could then discuss choices with the Programme Director to develop a programme matching their needs and interest. It was accepted that timetable clashes would preclude certain combinations but these cases would be exceptional. It was noted by the Panel that the School uses the concept of flexibility and being able to tailor programmes to individual needs is a strong selling point in its web material. Dissertation proposal One of the core courses in GIS is a research design and management course which introduces the concepts of research design planning using the student s dissertation proposal. This proposal is marked as part of the assessment. This exercise had proved to be very useful and informative to students but was not the practice in other programmes and the students reported that they had received little guidance on how to prepare the proposal and what was expected in terms of dissertation scope, depth and content. One student reported that his Programme Director had not read the proposal in draft form before it had to be submitted. He was also unclear whether the proposals were actually marked as part of the overall assessment and had been surprised to have been asked in for a chat with the external examiner about his proposal. This had happened to other students on his programme as well. The Panel noted that these comments regarding lack of guidance echoed a comment in one of the External Examiners Reports suggesting the provision of clearer guidance on dissertation work for both students and markers. Quality of Feedback and Programme Material The students reported that, whilst the quality and timing of feedback on assignments and course work on the whole was acceptable they were very dependant on the course organiser and some were better than others. The majority of courses required two pieces of submitted work and it was sometimes the case that the students had to hand in the second piece of work before they had received comments on the first. This often led to the repetition of errors in styling, presentation and expression. The students all felt that the amount of coursework and the balance of coursework to examination were about right and the work load 9

10 was manageable. They had all received plenty of warning and instruction about the dangers of plagiarism and they were not aware of any instances in their cohort. They all reported that the programme material was of good quality, informative and they made extensive use of it. If they could not find the answer to any question in the printed documentation they were usually able to find it either on the web pages or by asking the PG secretary. Examinations The students reported that some of them had had only a weekend between the last hand in date for coursework and the start of the examinations to complete their revision. These comments related to both end of semester examination periods. This was considered to be too short a period to be able to prepare for these important examinations. The Panel noted that this conflicted with comments about the semester two examinations made by programme directors in their written submission. Many of the programme directors were concerned about the May examination period and wanted the examinations as near to the end of semester two as possible in order to expand the time available for dissertation work. One programme had received special dispensation for early examination. The School should be aware of the competing priorities of both students and academic staff. It is understandable that students will put priority on gaining a good mark in the examinations to gain progression to the dissertation and this should be taken into consideration. The Panel commends: the existence of a suite of masters taught programmes, which is a major asset for future development and sustainability the commitment of the individual Programme Directors to their programmes the high quality of students the high standard of the programmes handbooks The Panel noted that there did not appear to be a sense of collective operation of the masters programmes. The Panel recommends that the School conducts a strategic review of the range of the Masters programmes and the roles of the Directors and the principal administrators. This would help to build a more coherent portfolio and enhance the sense of value of the contribution of the taught masters programme to the School s academic environment. 10

11 The Panel was concerned about the apparent level of duplication of tasks at programme administration level. The Panel strongly recommends that the School attempts to integrate and unify the administration and management of the programmes in such areas as selection, timetabling and examination. The Panel noted that there did not appear to be a School recruitment strategy which takes into account viability in terms of student numbers taking particular modules and in particular noted that there was no recognition of the potential risk to the School s future position in the UK market. The Panel is concerned that this lack of overall strategy is potentially putting the School in a vulnerable position in the mid to long term. The Panel therefore recommends that a recruitment strategy is devised with emphasis on rebalancing the student intake between home and EU/Overseas to counter the drop in numbers of potential home students that will start to affect the market in the next 7 to 10 years and to make use of taught masters programmes to provide high quality intake to PhD. The main limitation cited by the programme directors to increasing student numbers was the lack of supervisors for the dissertation component. This was a concern for both the taught and the masters research programmes. In light of the School s stated intention to increase the numbers of students and the range of masters by research programmes this must be addressed urgently. The Panel recommends that the School gives high priority to greater use of group projects and to the development of incentive schemes in which supervisors of research projects are given relief from other duties in the School. One way to increase student numbers within existing resources would be to develop the Diploma award as a qualification in its own right. The award of Diploma is particularity attractive to students wishing to study part time through work sponsorship. The Panel recommends that the role of Diploma in the portfolio of programmes is included in its strategic review, with a particular view to developing more flexible delivery of programmes to meet changing future demands. The Panel noted the students comments regarding the balance of theory and practical work in the programmes and recommends that the School looks for opportunities to introduce more problem based learning to develop students analytical and practical skills and experience. This is particularly important for the programmes that have a more vocational orientation. The Panel recommends that the School compiles a list of all courses available to students as options as part of the School s induction material. This list could be annotated to suggest recommend combinations for each programme but the School should permit students to have a wide ranging choice. The Panel recommends that the School reviews the timing of second semester examinations. There appeared to be conflicts between submission dates for coursework, revision work and project time on some programmes. It may be helpful for the School to seek counsel from other Schools who operate multidisciplinary MSc programmes. 11

12 The Panel recommends that the School improves the level of guidance to students on proposal writing and the aims of the dissertation. This could be achieved by the introduction of a common generic skills training course either through existing resource in GIS and geography or through Transkills. 12

13 Review of Provision of Research Degrees Review arrangements The Panel conducted interviews with a group of postgraduate supervisors and a group of postgraduate research students. The findings of the Panel have been incorporated under the following broad headings: general, recruitment and admissions, student progression and supervision and completion rates. General comments The provision of PhD training is the remit of the Graduate Organisation Postgraduate Committee. The Postgraduate Committee comprised the Head of the Graduate School, the Deputy Head of Training and Progress, the Graduate School Manager and representatives from the three Institutes and the Postgraduate Student Committees. Three Deputy Heads of the Graduate School had been appointed to oversee the areas of Recruitment, Training and Progress and the Social Sciences programmes. The Panel had been provided with a very comprehensive overview of the documentation and procedures for PhD provision. The Panel commented on the good standard and coverage of the material available to students (and staff), particularly the PhD Handbook and the Health and Safety Handbook. Recruitment and admissions Recruitment was predominately from the home market with the intake of overseas students remaining relatively static, averaging at around 20% over the five year period. There had been a gradual increase in numbers since 2003 as a result of various initiatives including an increase in research active staff and increased recruitment from their own MSc population. The majority of the supervisors felt that the School should continue to increase student numbers but saw the lack of funding to be the major block to expansion. Although the School had a number of NERC scholarships available either directly to the School or via the Associated Institutions, it was felt that the number of scholarships available (around 19) was low in relation to the size of the School. This reliance on UK research councils funding also impacted on the School s ability to recruit overseas students. Funding is also available through charitable bodies such as the Leverhulme Trust and individual grants and the School had introduced a new part- scholarship scheme whereby it matches any funding secured by supervisors themselves. This had been an excellent innovation. 13

14 It was the School s practice to advertise projects and studentships and then interview the best applicants. The School s web site was seen to be the most useful and successful recruitment tool. The School had recently altered the timing of the advertisement of projects to much earlier in the recruitment cycle to encourage applications from the top students and had adopted the policy of ensuring a quick response after interviews and giving a limited take up time for acceptance, currently one week. It was reported that this year they had had a 100% take up of offers. The three institutes were responsible for determining the range and scope of the projects and these were then scrutinised and short listed by the Graduate School. The supervisor from the British Geological Survey indicated that they received good quality applications for the limited number of scholarships available. The majority of their intake came from the EU and overseas markets. Student Progression and supervision The Graduate School had introduced a formal monitoring, training and milestone system. The students were required to produce a report and participate in a confirmation seminar or interview after 6 to 9 months. A progress report was completed at 12 months. A poster session was held at 15 months and a further progress report was completed at month 24. The students were required to submit a Thesis Plan at 29 months and either complete at 36 months or provide a further progress report indicating completion time. All students were required to submit by the maximum period of 48 months. All students were required to attend induction courses and the Thesis Workshop Session and to complete 10 days of generic and research training per year. This was recorded on the annual progress report. The supervisors indicated that there were differences in practice across the three institutes and that the implementation of the new monitoring procedures had caused difficulties. These has often arisen because funding bodies for the different subject areas have different monitoring, reporting and completion requirements These were now being addressed and agreed alternative monitoring procedures were being developed - eg. it was more appropriate for students in Human Geography to be required to give a presentation at month 15 rather than a submit a poster. These difficulties aside, supervisors were supportive of the aims of the new system. In particular the introduction of a thesis committee for each student had helped to focus on the student and his/her needs and was seen as an effective means of flushing out problems that could then be resolved quickly. This was particularly appreciated at the 12 month stage. There was less enthusiasm for the 24 month report with many seeing this as a paper exercise only. The Panel enquired whether it would be more effective to require the student to produce the Thesis Plan at 24 months rather than 29 months. This would focus attention on completion and indicate any potential problems at a stage when issues could be resolved. The majority of the supervisors thought that this would be a sensible approach. All of the supervisors were required to attend the TLA teaching course. No formal mentoring scheme for new supervisors was in place but all new staff were required to act 14

15 as second supervisor to gain experience prior to becoming a principal. Staff from the Associated Institutes were permitted to act as Second Supervisors but all principal supervisors had to be an academic member of the School s academic staff. The Panel asked if the role of the second supervisor was clearly defined and understood. The supervisors reported that there was no clear definition and that involvement could range from being an advisor with little day to day input to acting as a full co-supervisor. There was no formal limitation at School level on the numbers of students that any one staff member could supervise. Completion Rates The statistics indicated that on average less than 10% of full time students submitted at 36 months, with just over 80% submitting by the end of the maximum period. A very small percentage submitted after the maximum period. There has however been a gradual improvement in the percentage submitting at 36 months in 2002 (15%). The numbers of students withdrawn prior to completion had risen sharply in 2002 (15% from 6%). This could be a result of the implementation of the new monitoring and reporting system which has led to early identification of problems. The statistics for part time students suggested that the withdrawal rate was even higher over the period under review (40% of these students had withdrawn before submission). The Panel asked what measures the supervisors took to ensure that their students submitted in 36 months. Most of the supervisors indicated that they did not expect their students to submit by month 36 and considered between 39 and 42 months to be the norm. They felt that there was conflict between the need to ensure that required research training was completed in the first year, the push to produce published papers and the need to produce a good quality thesis. It was clear that there were differences in attitudes across the three institutes. The Panel asked if the expectation for submission in the maximum period extended to students who already had an MSc qualification. The social science programme has been running on the model for sometime and they had found this to be very successful. The representative from BGS indicated that although all of their students had a masters qualification it was rare for a student to finish before the end of the maximum period. This was due for the need for further training and the length of time it could take to establish a project. They were now making a concerted effort to reduce the time of submission at the express request of the Graduate School. The Panel asked what funding was available for students who did not complete within 36 months. There was no School funding available although recently NERC had indicated that funding could be extended to 42 months maximum per student. The School had set the policy that all NERC students were still required to complete in 36 months however the supervisor could apply for additional funding to allow for paper preparation. If a student produced one paper then they could apply for 3 months extra funding; 2 papers gave 6 months additional funding. 15

16 Student Comments The students were very appreciative of the learning environment that the School generated. All had elected to come to Edinburgh to study because of the School s reputation and supportive approach the School had taken during the application stage. They were particularly impressed by the quick notification of offer after the interview and were supportive of the short acceptance period. They did not feel that this was putting them under unfair pressure as they understood that the School was in direct competition with other top institutions and would wish to offer the project to another candidate quickly. The majority expected to complete by 36 months with many stating the need to enter employment quickly as a major incentive. All of the students were NERC funded but none of them had any additional funding or means to support themselves beyond the 36 months. They were aware that they could now apply for additional funding but this was not guaranteed. On the whole their supervisors did not encourage them to finish in 36 months and a few felt that some supervisors encouraged students to do too much. One student reported that his friend had been told by the examiners that he had completed enough work for two PhDs. They did feel however that the introduction of the thesis committee had started to raise the emphasis on the need for timely submission which helped to focus their thinking. They felt that the monitoring system was clear and they did not find it to be overly onerous. They indicated that the emphasis was on the 6 month report and that the other reports did not appear to be regarded by the supervisors as being as important. There were still some variations between the institutes in terms of timing and amount of feedback but they understood that new system took time to bed down. Particular difficulties had arisen in human geography with the nature of some of the assessments but these had been resolved to include an oral presentation rather than a poster session. All agreed that an earlier thesis plan could be helpful to focus them on completion. The Panel noted that none of the students were aware that the School was required to file an annual progress report with the College Office and none had seen any report before it had been submitted. There were no problems with the working environment and none of the students had experienced any problems with their supervision. They all knew their second supervisor and felt that they took on an appropriate advisory role. Additional specialised technical advice could be sought from their research groups if needed. The facilities were good with the only comment being the variable level of IT support. It would be useful if the School s Computing Officer could attend the induction week to outline what support would be available, alternative avenues of support, what software would be available and what would need to be purchased and how to procure required software. The students were all located in different buildings and research groups and there were limited opportunities to mix with other students. It was felt that more could be done during their first year to encourage them to get to know each other better. This could be 16

17 achieved through a seminar series. The students in the Earth grouping were responsible for organising an annual conference which had traditionally been for the geologists and earth scientists. Recently they had tried to include more general topics to encourage other groups of students, particularly students from the physical science areas, to attend but as the conference was sponsored by oil companies they felt that the scope for further expansion was limited by sponsors expectations. The student from human geography had attended a specialised Scottish national conference and the UK Grad School but had not attended the earth conference as it had little relevance to his particular area of study. He had found the UK Grad School very useful and enjoyable and would recommend it to other students. All had undertaken some form of tutoring and demonstrating as was required by the School however some expressed concern over the amount of undergraduate marking that was now being carried out by postgraduates. In human geography all Pre-Honours year tutoring and marking was done by postgraduate students and in other areas the majority of the marking was done by postgraduates. They were concerned about the potential overall effect this could have on the time available for research and on the volume and quality of new work they were able to produce for their thesis. The Panel commends the School for fostering a constructive and supportive environment for students its innovative approach to the recruitment of students the standard and quality of postgraduate students introducing creative funding mechanisms introducing of a clear milestone monitoring system the clear and informative handbooks As with the masters programme the Panel noted the high reliance on home students and recommends that the School develops a recruitment strategy to increase the proportion of overseas and EU students. The School may wish to look at ways to expand partfunding as a means of attracting more self funding students and investigate whether links with international organisations and institutions could be fostered to develop jointly funded projects. The Panel also recommends that the School investigates the possibility of exploiting the opportunities offered by the Bologna process to increase associations with EU universities which could lead to studentships and research opportunities for students. The School should also consider exploiting existing European joint degree arrangements eg the French Courtelle arrangement to generate new student opportunities. The Panel noted the clear monitoring procedure but were aware that the 24 month report may not have the significance in the process that was originally intended. The Panel recommends that the School consider moving the Thesis Plan from month 29 to month 17

18 24 to add weight to the 24 month review and allow the supervisor and student a longer period to resolve problems. It would be appropriate to require the students to formally confirm their intention to complete at 29 months as an additional check on progress. Attendance on the Thesis Writing Workshop could also be linked to both or either of these milestones. It is very important for the maintenance of the University s reputation, recruitment market position and funding arrangements that students complete timeousily. The Panel recommends that more emphasis is placed on timely completion by the supervisors and that project plans and expectations are more appropriately managed. The School must be more mindful of the potential consequences of later submissions on the students careers, financial position and immigration position. The statistics indicated that there was an increase in the proportion of students who do not complete their studies. The Panel recommends that the School further investigates these figures to establish the reasons for the withdrawals and what steps could be taken to assist resolve issues that appear to be hindering progress. This is particularly relevant to part time students were there appears to be a high non-completion rate. 18

19 Management and operation of Graduate School Operation of Graduate School Structure Good progress had been made in establishing the Graduate School however, as there were inherent differences in approach and academic culture, there had been difficulties bringing together the science and social science elements of geosciences. This had contributed to the development of a sense of minority amongst the social scientists. The appointment of a Deputy Head for Social Sciences had improved the integration and steps were now being taken to define and refine new processes and procedures so that they were applicable to both groupings. The School had established a committee structure to support the PG provision. However the responsibilities of different components and operation of this structure were unclear from the documentation submitted. There does not appear to be an overarching strategic document outlining the coherence, structure and operational framework of the School s postgraduate activity. There was a feeling that there were three types of research students the NERC funded PhD students, the rest of PhD students and MSc by Research students who were not viewed as making a valuable contribution to the Schools overall research community by many of the supervisors. Student Involvement Although the School had put feedback mechanisms in place and had a liaison committee structure it was not clear that this was operating as well as intended. For example the two student representatives from the MSc Liaison Committee reported that they had not received any minutes from the meetings or any feedback on any action taken or planned as a result of student suggestions. The Panel saw no evidence that there was any mechanism to feed back changes to students from the master programme and course questionnaires. There appeared to be a reasonably good feeling of belonging and integration amongst the masters students. The research students, however, indicted that they did not feel part of a cohort. This may be as a result of the multi-site location of the School. There was no mention of multidisciplinary seminar series or cross School social activities that could engender collegiate spirit. Administrative Structure The Graduate School is supported by a team of postgraduate secretaries reporting to the Graduate School Manager. The secretaries were members of the MSc Liaison committees and the MSc committee. The manager was a member of the MSc committee, the PG committee and the Graduate Organisation Policy Committee. None of the secretaries had any duties other than PG work and were able to offer cover for each other and could 19

20 approach Institute secretaries and the Teaching Organisation as well for assistance if necessary. These arrangements were reciprocal and worked well. The secretaries reported that their work load was now even all year round with the increasing student numbers and programmes offered. Each masters programme had a secretary assigned to it who was responsible for the administration of recruitment, timetabling, material production and the examination process. All served as Secretary to one of the individual programme s Board of Examiners. Two secretaries were assigned to PG research, one being was responsible for all enquires and recruitment procedures such as arranging interview schedules and the other looking after the students on programme, providing support for funding, annual monitoring and examination. The Graduate School s manager was responsible for overseeing the administration provision, managing the PG budget and ensuring that the appropriate policy and legal requirements were met. They all had good working relationships with the academic staff. The amount of support given to each programme director was variable with some programme directors expecting more support than others. Similarly some academics were better than others at keeping to deadlines and responding to s. If any of the secretaries experienced serious problems in getting a return they passed the issue to the GO Manager who would then follow this up. This had proved to be very successful in the past. The Panel enquired if they saw any scope in being able to rationalise some of the common administrative tasks through the Teaching Organisation and a common Board of Examiners. This had been discussed but the decision had been taken not to utilise the Teaching Organisation initially. However as further commonality with honours year UG teaching develops it would be appropriate to review this decision. They were also looking at creating a new clerical post to assist with general office duties and material production. The Panel noted the introduction of a formal monitoring scheme and asked if this was now working well administratively. There were still some problems over late submission of annual reports. There were no formal sanctions against supervisors who consistently did not submit reports on time but a new system of linking lack of timely submission to allocation of funding had been introduced. All the secretaries saw pastoral support for students as being an integral part of their jobs and they did their best to help students. They were all aware of the University s student support mechanisms and referred students to these when appropriate. The Panel noted that both the students and the academic staff had commented on the efficiency and approachability of the administrative staff. 20

21 Research and Generic Skills Training All students are required to complete 10 hours of generic skills training a year and this was recorded on the annual progress report. Attendance at courses, seminars and conferences, tutoring and demonstrating and activities such as attendance at recruitment events, science festival participation and School outreach activates could all be counted to the 10 days. There was mixed support amongst the supervisors for the requirement of a set points system although most did appreciate that this was an essential part of the PhD. It was the responsibility of the principal supervisor to ensure the balance of the training and it was compulsory to meet with the student in Induction Week to assess the required skills at an early stage. This could include an evaluation of language requirements, mathematical or computing ability, paper preparation etc. They were not aware however of any School quality assurance procedure to enforce the new policy so that all students were given the same opportunities. The concept of requiring attendance and evaluation of the course at the annul progress review was new and it was felt that it would take some time yet to become accepted School ethos. The students also expressed mixed opinions on the value of some of the training courses provided by Transkills. They felt that some of the programmes had been too generic to be useful to them. They would have preferred to attend more courses targeted at their research areas. The students thought that activities such as conference and seminar series organisation should be added to the list of activities that could count towards their annual requirement. They all felt that they had gained valuable skills from the experience. Although they were required to attend courses some did not receive any real encouragement from their supervisors to do so. Most of the courses that were suggested were to support research training rather than to develop skills that would be useful in employment. Courses on budgeting and management were mentioned as being potentially useful. The Panel asked if they had or were planning to attend any courses to prepare them for job hunting such as CV writing or Interview Skills. None of the students saw any value in these courses. Some had already taken course on CV writing at undergraduate level and felt that this was sufficient. They did not appear to place any emphasis on the requirement for interviewing skills. 21

22 Head of School The Head of School had overall responsibility for the strategic development and management of all School s teaching and training provision and research provision. The day to day operation and budgeting had been fully devolved to the Head of Graduate School. The Head of School felt that a lot of progress had been made in establishing the new Graduate School but there had been considerable problems. The main issues centred on the differences in culture and approaches between the three institutes and the natural science scientists and the social scientists. On reflection they may have tried to streamline processes too quickly. They were now concentrating on developing parallel models that better matched the different approaches but conformed to the rigorous standards required by the School. The strategic emphasis had been put onto developing the PhD provision (linked with the development of teaching scholarships) and increasing the linkage between the MSc programmes and the School s research base. The aim of the School was to increase the numbers of research active members of staff and to increase recruitment of mid career staff to counterbalance the numbers of long serving staff who would be reaching retirement age within the next few years. The School was part of the new Edinburgh Research Partnership and it was envisaged that this would lead to the creation of several new positions in research areas such as global change. This partnership also gave the School great opportunities to develop more interdisciplinary research areas for staff and students. As indicated above the School has set PhD recruitment as a priority and the numbers of student taken on had increased recently as a result of new funding initiatives and a drive to improve the research staff: student ratio which was still below that of comparator universities. School funding was allocated to research groupings. The allocation of funding was based on the size and performance of the group. Completion/submission rates for PhD students in the group are now linked to the allocation of funding and further incentives to encourage timely submissions were being considered. Issues that still needed to be addressed were the decreasing proportion of research council funding to the size of the School and the recruitment of overseas students which had remained static. The School s masters programme is very diverse. An overview of the provision had been undertaken and a strategic plan was being devised to maintain the diversity where appropriate but increase efficiency of delivery by maximising common content and to streamline the programmes to reflect better the School s research interests. For example a new programme GeoSciences and Remote Sensing had been introduced to exploit the School s strength in meteorology. Anther area of potential development was geophysics. 22

23 Head of Graduate School and Quality Assurance Officer Professor Stuart Haszeldine (who had served as HOGS up to March 2006) and Dr Wyn Williams, the new HOGS, both attended the Panel interview with Dr Keith Weston, the School s Quality Assurance Officer. The School s strategic priorities were to harmonise procedures across the three institutes streamline operations to make them more cost efficient continue to develop and rationalise the Masters taught and research programmes support the organic growth in PhD student numbers. The allocation and management of the Schools funding for PG provision had been completely overhauled to maximise return and a new incentive scheme to encourage staff to generate additional funding had been introduced. This had been successful in helping to double the numbers of PhD students in the three years since the Graduate School had been set up. Additionally steps had been taken to ensure more consistency of resource availability to students by introducing a scheme that effectively gave each PhD student responsibility for their own RTSG and a scheme to part fund the purchase of a laptop. The aim was to continue to support growth of PhD numbers in a measured manner over a number of years and the School was looking for ways to identify new sources of funding and better exploit initiatives such as the China Scholarships and the established ORS scheme and Shell Scholarships scheme. Emphasis was also being put on the early development and advertisement of exciting, good quality projects to attract the top students. The school was aware that submission and completion rates were not as good as they should be and a more rigorous system of milestones and monitoring had been instigated to facilitate timely completion. The emphasis was on the 6 month and the 12 month reports as it was particularly important to be able to pick up potential problems as early as possible to allow the appropriate remedial action to be taken. More rigorous decisions had been made where there had been evidence of unsatisfactory progress and this may have contributed to the increase in the percentage of students withdrawing before completion. It was expected that the long term benefit (ie improved submission rates) would balance out the short term rise in statistics. The plan for the masters programmes was to develop a more modular system that would create nodes of courses that could be used to build up individual programmes and then to move to more centralised recruitment and delivery system. An annual review system had been instigated to look at the School s portfolio and programme and course development. The Panel noted that the Programme Directors reported serious problems in finding sufficient staff to supervise a range of dissertation projects. The general feeling from the supervisors was that taught masters and research masters students did not contribute very effectively to the School s research output and were considered to be hard 23