JOINT STAFF STUDENT COMMITTEE
Thursday 25 November 2010
MINUTES
PRESENT
Dr Ruth Siddall (Chair)
Mr Michael Chessum Dr Jonathan Rogers
Mr Thomas Elliott Ms Lindsay Taylor
Professor Mike Ewing Ms Laura Terry
Dr Helen Hackett Dr Andrea Townsend-Nicholson
Mr Christopher Hallas Mr Andrew Tranter
Mr Alex Nesbitt Dr Adam Wojcik
Mr Leo-Alexander Nicholas Ms Astrid Wood
Ms Leslie Pitman
In attendance: Ms Maria Darmon, Ms Ann Glasser (for Dr Ann Griffin), Professor Sue
Hamilton, Mr Alistair King (for Mr William Wilson), Professor Alexi Marmot, Ms Shelley Webster and Mr Rob Traynor (Secretary).
Apologies for absence were received from Mr Oli Burbage-Hall, Dr Paul Greening, Dr Ann Griffin, Professor Raman Prinja and Mr William Wilson
Key to abbreviations used in these Minutes:
AC Academic Committee EC Education Committee EFD Estates and Facilities Division
HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England ISB International Student Barometer
JSSC Joint Staff Student Committee NSS National Student Survey QCR Quiet Contemplation Room
SSCC Staff Student Consultative Committee SEQ Student Evaluation Questionnaire StARs Student Academic Representatives
StARsSG Student Academic Representatives Steering Group UCLU UCL Union
2
1 TERMS OF REFERENCE, CONSTITUTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF JSSC 2010-11 Noted:
1.1 The terms of reference of JSSC were at: APPENDIX JSSC 1/01 (10-11)
1.2 The constitution of JSSC and membership of the Committee in the 2010-11 session were at: APPENDIX JSSC 1/02 (10-11).
1.3 The constitution and terms of reference had been updated following the review of Academic Committee and its sub-committees and a number of membership matters were still to be confirmed. These were:
(i) the academic staff member nominated by the Deans of the Faculties of Social and Historical Sciences and the Built Environment;
(ii) the member of staff nominated by the Director of Finance Division; (iii) the member of staff nominated by the Director of Information Systems; (iv) the two members of UCL Registry staff, and
(v) the member of non-professorial academic staff elected by the elected non-professorial members of Academic Board.
JSSC will be informed of the outcome of these outstanding membership matters at the next meeting.
2 MINUTES Approved:
2.1 The Minutes of the JSSC meeting held on 20 May 2010 [JSSC Minutes 23-29, 20.05.10], issued previously, were confirmed by the Committee and signed
by the Chair.
3 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
3A Provost Fund Allocation for the Dean of Students Office “Enhancing the Student Experience” Fund
[JSSC Min.24C, 20.05.10] Noted:
3A.1 During the last session JSSC discussed the Dean of Students Office
"Enhancing the Student Experience" and noted that a considerable amount of money, £37,000, was available to fund student activities. There was an
expectation that this funding should be used by the end of this session. 3A.2 JSSC resolved that the UCLU officers contact the Chair as necessary regarding
possible UCLU activities which might benefit from funding, as well look into possible Medical School activities and ensure that the International Student Experience Working Group were made aware of the fund.
3 Received:
3A.3 An oral report from the Chair. Reported:
3A.4 The Chair reported that:
• considerable funds were available from the Provost’s Greatest Needs and Opportunities Fund and the Friends Trust, totalling 10% of the former and the income on investments of the latter, this amounting to c. £17,000. • this could be spent on any activities designed to enhance the student experience (although not on activities usually funded by HEFCE) and priority would be given to those activities that benefit the largest number of students;
• some schemes had been set up as part of the Skills4Work initiative with UCLU, including a joint project with UCL Museums and Collections; • money had also been spent, again with UCLU, on improving the Freshers’
experience in the first week of term. Discussion:
3A.5 The discussion focussed on ways to ensure that funded initiatives would include post-graduate students, who tended to miss out on UCL extra curricular activity. Examples could include funding for attendance at
conferences and workshops and it was suggested that an event could be held to publicise the funding for postgraduate students and agreed that the Chair and UCLU officers consider this further. It was further agreed that JSSC members report the availability of the funds to their faculties and departments and refer any expressions of interest to the Dean of Students Office.
RESOLVED:
3A.6 That the Chair and UCLU officers consider further ways to use and publicise the available funding and to focus on the post-graduate student experience.
[ACTION: Dr Ruth Siddall and UCLU officers] 3A.7 That JSSC members report on the availability of the funds for enhancing the
student experience to their faculties and departments and refer any interest to the Dean of Students Office.
[ACTION: JSSC Members]
3B Blood Donation Facility [JSSC Min.24D, 20.05.10] Noted:
3B.1 At the previous meeting, JSSC had discussed a UCLU suggestion that UCL
consider the provision of a blood donation facility on the Bloomsbury campus, in order to encourage more student usage than the current facilities provided
4
periodically at Friends House. JSSC had agreed to support the request for the Blood Donation facility at UCL on five occasions a year.
3B.2 UCLU officers had discussed the facility further with Estates and Facilities Division, who raised some concerns with the implications for resources of the possible high volume of usage it might receive throughout the year. EFD was also unable to offer a discount for providing a room and it was thus unlikely that the Blood Service would be able to afford to move the sessions from Friends House to UCL.
3B.3 The Director of Estates Administration agreed to follow up this matter with his division and report back to JSSC.
Received:
3B.4 An oral report from Mr Alistair King, Student Accommodation Operations Manager (on behalf of Mr William Wilson, the EFD representative). Reported:
3B.5 Mr King reported that EFD’s decision not to provide main campus
accommodation for the blood donation facility was due to conflicting demands on tight university accommodation and the expense of providing a room, which could incur an excess of £1, 000. It was thus not considered appropriate to allocate accommodation for the facility.
3B.6 However, EFD had considered two alternative possibilities:
• to hold the blood donation facility at accommodation in Margaret Street; • to promote the facility prominently in the student halls of residences, which
whilst not providing a space, should increase student participation. Discussion:
3B.7 The following points were noted in the discussion:
• the Margaret Street location was actually the Blood Donation Service main central London centre (i.e. not part of UCL);
• it was possible for UCLU officers (or others) to book a room for the facility, but this might not resolve the problems of expense for the Service as a discount would not be provided;
• a mobile blood donating facility did operate at some of UCL’s medical sites and it was suggested that this could be extended to visiting the main campus.
3B.8 It was noted that although EFD officers would be able to consider any suggestions for the blood donation facility, it would be more effective if suggestions came from within the student body itself. It was agreed that UCLU officers and interested students discuss the possibilities and then re-approach EFD for further consideration of the facility.
5 RESOLVED:
3B.9 That UCLU officers and interested students discuss further the possibilities for the blood donation facility and then re-approach EFD for further consideration. [ACTION: UCLU officers and JSSC student members]
3C Contemplation and Quiet Facilities [JSSC Min.24E, 20.05.10]
Noted:
3C.1 During the last two sessions, JSSC had discussed the Quiet Contemplation Room (used by students for prayers and other activities such as yoga) and the on-going request by UCLU and student groups for improved accommodation, which JSSC supported. It was resolved that the Chair continue to report on progress of the room.
3C.2 It was noted that the Director of EFD had informed the Chair that there were still plans to re-locate the QCR and that this would become clearer once the
outcomes of the UCL master planning for space utilisation strategy were known. In the meantime, Hut 34, the current accommodation had been enhanced, a wheel chair ramp installed for disabled users and the whole building had been allocated for the temporary QCR.
Received:
3C.3 An oral report from the Chair. Reported:
3C.4 The Chair reported that EFD were still considering a permanent location for the QCR as part of the UCL master planning for space utilisation strategy. In the meantime, the refurbishment of Hut 34 had doubled the available space and improved the facilities. The users, including the Islamic Society, were delighted with progress and thanked JSSC, UCLU and EFD for all their support and hard work in achieving this outcome.
Discussion:
3C.5 It was agreed that the Chair would continue to report on further developments on the proposed permanent accommodation for the QCR.
RESOLVED:
3C.6 That the Chair inform JSSC of future developments regarding the QCR. [ACTION: Dr Ruth Siddall to note] 3D UCL Personal Tutoring Strategy and JSSC
[JSSC Min.27, 20.05.10] Noted:
6
3D.1 At its last meeting, JSSC had discussed the UCL Personal Tutoring Strategy which had been approved by AC. The strategy contained an Action Plan for implementation of the new scheme which contained a number of points to be undertaken by JSSC, which it considered at the last meeting.
3D.2 JSSC had agreed to flesh out the reporting time-lines and arrangements for the system and to discuss the Personal Tutoring scheme at its first meeting this session. However, since the last meeting it had become clear that the new Education Committee will be responsible for policy on the scheme, although JSSC was expected to monitor references to it in the student feedback data and include in its reports where appropriate.
Received:
3D.3 An oral report from the Dean of Students (Academic). Reported:
3D.4 The Dean of Students (Academic) reported that the Personal Tutoring scheme was now working and departments were required to implement it as part of UCL policy. The policy was important in:
• ensuring that vulnerable students have continuous contact with a personal tutor throughout their time at UCL (this also helps to address concerns on UCL pastoral care raised by the Caldicott enquiry into the ex-UCL student charged with terrorism offences in the USA in early 2010);
• supporting learning and providing opportunities for student reflection on their personal and professional objectives, skills development planning and recording evidence for their progress and achievements;
• ensuring that the number of contacts with students met Points-Based Immigration System requirements.
3D.5 Undergraduate students and taught postgraduate students were required to
meet their Personal Tutors five times in the first year and then three times in subsequent years. The system did not cover research students, who already had clearly defined engagements with their supervisors outlined in the UCL regulations and by the research e-log book. It was further reported that
departments are expected to report to the EC later in the year on the progress in implementing the Personal Tutoring system.
Discussion:
3D.6 It was agreed that in order to help facilitate JSSC’s monitoring of student feedback on the Personal Tutoring system, staff student consultative committees should be asked to include it as an agenda item at least once each session.
7
3D.7 That SSCCs be asked include the Personal Tutoring system as an agenda item at least once each session and that this be added to the guidelines provided to the committees each year.
[ACTION: Rob Traynor to note]
3E Post Institutional Audit Steering Group (“Prevent Initiative”) [JSSC Min.13B, 25.02.10]
Noted:
3E.1 During the last session, JSSC discussed UCL’s student representation systems following a request by AC’s Post Institutional Audit Steering Group, which was acting on the findings of the five yearly Quality Assurance Agency review of UCL in 2009.
3E.2 JSSC considered, amongst other things, extending the Student
Representation page which it had approved in 2008-09, to provide more information for students. It was noted that UCL Media Services had agreed to provide a student representation web-site which could extend the information available. JSSC was also informed of available funding for student
representation web-pages and other activity from the Government’s “Prevent Initiative”, which was designed to help institutions counter violent extremism. Received:
3E.3 An oral report from the Chair. Reported:
3E.4 The Chair reported the following:
• the “Prevent Initiative” and actions arising from the Caldicott Enquiry had led to increased liaison with the local Camden police and this had also proved useful in providing assistance to resolve other issues affecting individual students such as instances of stalking;
• UCLU had tightened up its policies and system for managing external room bookings to exclude meetings with individuals or organisations associated with violent extremism;
• a talk was given by the Chair together with the UCLU General Manager to higher education conference on the “Prevent Initiative” outlining the UCL experience and subsequent development of good practice in this area. The talk had been well received and led to useful contacts in other institutions as well as to requests for more information.
3E.5 It was agreed that the Chair inform JSSC of future progress with the “Prevent Initiative” as it arises.
RESOLVED:
3E.6 That the Chair inform JSSC of future progress with the “Prevent Initiative” as it arises.
8
[ACTION: Dr Ruth Siddall to note]
4 UCL SERVICE STANDARDS FOR PROVISION OF FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS ON ASSESSED WORK
Noted:
4.1 In the last session, AC had approved proposals from the UCL Board of
Examiners to introduce service standards for provision of feedback to students on assessed work [AC Min.45, 23.03.10].
4.2 UCL Union requested that JSSC discuss the measures being used to
communicate to students and departments about the new service standards. Received:
4.3 An oral report from Mr Alex Nesbitt, UCLU Medical and Postgraduate
Students’ Officer. Reported:
4.4 The Medical and Postgraduate Students’ Officer reported the following:
• UCLU welcomed the introduction of the service standards and appreciated that implementing it in an institution with wide and diverse provision as UCL was difficult;
• however, there appeared to be a lack of consistency in student awareness of the new service standards across UCL;
• UCLU proposed to hold a campaign to raise student awareness of the service standards and to gauge how they were communicated to students and provide a written report to JSSC on the feedback received.
Discussion:
4.5 The discussion noted the following:
• there appeared to be wide variation within UCL on how feedback on assessed work was given, as well as to how students were informed of the new service standards;
• this variation was partly a result of the diverse disciplines at UCL, but also of different styles used by departments;
• a number of examples of good practice in feedback on assessed work were noted, including: (i) workshops held in the Faculty of Life Sciences to inform students of common errors and mistakes in work (ii) the use of standardised cover sheets addressing feedback criteria given to students in the Institute of Archaeology and (iii) self-assessment sheets used by a number of departments.
4.6 JSSC agreed that UCLU should request examples of good practice in
9
its awareness campaign with students. JSSC members were also invited to submit examples of good practice to the Chair and Secretary. The examples could then be collated and brought to AC’s attention for possible further transmission faculties and departments.
RESOLVED:
4.7 That UCLU proceed with the awareness campaign to inform students of the
service standards on feedback on assessed work, solicit feedback on its implementation and ask students for examples of good practice.
[ACTION: UCLU officers]
4.8 That JSSC members forward any examples of good practice in assessment of
work to the Chair and Secretary.
[ACTION: JSSC Members]
5 StARs STEERING GROUP Noted:
5.1 The StARs Steering Group last met on 13 July 2010.
Received:
5.2 An oral report from Mr Michael Chessum, UCLU Education & Campaigns
Officer. Reported:
5.3 The Education & Campaigns Officer reported the following:
• the StARsSG had agreed a three year plan to develop the StARs system, which involved:
scoping the range and numbers of StARs and other student representatives within UCL;
improving communication with departmental student representatives; developing faculty level student representation, improving
communication with faculty teaching committees and enabling StAR progression from departmental to faculty level;
considering ways to improve first year undergraduate and taught postgraduate student participation, both under-represented as StARs. This might involve a change of the term of office for the StARs;
considering ways to align UCLU representatives with faculty representatives more closely, in order to improve communication between them and helping UCLU to be more academically focussed; • UCLU had provided fifteen StARs training sessions for over 200 student
representatives so far this session. Discussion:
10
5.4 It was noted that UCLU had put in a lot of effort into the StARS system and agreed that the proposed three year plan was a reasonable way to proceed. It was further noted that the StARsSG had lost some academic members recently and interested members of academic staff were invited to join. The StARsSG would continue to report on its progress to JSSC.
RESOLVED:
5.5 That the StARsSG continue to report on progress to JSSC and members of
staff interested in joining the group contact the JSSC secretary.
[ACTION: JSSC Members to note]
6 JSSC ANNUAL REPORT TO ACADEMIC COMMITTEE: WORK OF THE COMMITTEE 2009-10
Noted:
6.1 Under its terms of reference, JSSC is required to submit two annual reports to AC on (i) issues arising from student feedback mechanisms and (ii) the work of the committee in the previous session. The first report, the Student Data Overview Report, will be submitted to the next meeting of JSSC. The second report, the Work of the Committee 2009-10 is to be considered at this meeting and once approved by JSSC, will be submitted to AC.
Received:
6.2 The draft JSSC Annual Report: Work of the Committee 2009-10 at: APPENDIX JSSC 1/03 (10-11).
6.3 An oral report by the Chair. Reported:
6.4 The Chair noted the main matters arising from the report and the work of the JSSC in the last session.
Discussion:
6.5 It was agreed to approve the report as an accurate summary of the main business of the JSSC in the 2009-10 session.
RESOLVED:
6.6 That JSSC approve the draft Annual Report for submission to AC.
[ACTION: Rob Traynor]
7 NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY - 2010 UCL RESULTS Noted:
11
7.1 UCL had received the 2010 National Student Survey results and digests of the data had been sent to faculties for further dissemination to departments and other academic units. JSSC is the main committee to receive and consider the overall UCL NSS data, which is part of the dataset to provide an overview of student feedback. JSSC was asked to note the key points arising in the data and to consider whether any action is necessary in response.
Received:
7.2 A report outlining the main UCL 2010 NSS results, with key matters identified
at: APPENDIX JSSC 1/04 (10-11).
7.3 A sample faculty NSS digest (Faculty of Laws) at: APPENDIX JSSC 1/05
(10-11).
7.4 An oral report by the Secretary. Reported:
7.5 The Secretary reported that:
• approximately 250,000 student took part in the 2010 NSS;
• UCL scores were similar to 2009 with 87% of student satisfied overall; • the scores for learning resources and assessment and feedback had
slightly declined;
• UCL is still fifth in the Russell Group and its position in the leagues tables is likely to be similar to last year;
• the UCL 2010 response rate had fallen to 51%, despite the highest on-line rate achieved so far. This was partly attributable to a decrease in the proportion of telephone responses made by Ipsos MORI (who run the NSS on behalf of HEFCE), due to a larger national student population size; • the NSS Steering Group (which includes the JSSC Chair and Secretary,
UCLU officers and various UCL corporate services officers) had conducted research into good practice at Russell Group institutions with high
response rates and areas for improvement were identified. This included formalising the departmental contacts and re-designating them as NSS Liaison Officers in order to ensure consistency in promotional activity across UCL, which was approved by the Senior Management Team; • greater co-ordinated activity with Ipsos MORI in sending messages to
students will be implemented for the 2011 survey.
7.6 The Secretary further reported on NSS dissemination within UCL and noted that: • overall results are reported to AC and Council as well as JSSC;
• data is also made available to UCL Union and the Equal Opportunities office; • at subject level the data is distributed in faculty results digests, for further
dissemination to departments and programmes, including Teaching Committees and SSCCs. Faculties were expected to consider the main matters of note and outcomes of any action taken and report back to JSSC through Faculty Teaching Committees.
12 Discussion:
7.7 The discussion noted the following:
• the NSS data had limitations, particularly at more refined levels as it was hard for some departments to identify their students due to the subject classification system used by the survey. However, it was acknowledged that many students participate, both nationally and at UCL and that the data received is robust enough for indicative purposes;
• it was important to continue to compare the NSS data with the other sources of student feedback data such as the International Student
Barometer data. This will form part of the analysis of the Student Feedback Data Overview report for JSSC next term. The ISB data might provide more detail on apparent student concerns with Learning Resources raised by the NSS;
• it was important to encourage a good response rate to all the surveys in order to provide more robust data, although there was a need to recognise and seek to avoid student survey fatigue. This is one of the reasons that the ISB is not run during Term 2, in order to avoid a clash with the NSS. RESOLVED:
7.8 That JSSC note the above report and discussion, with the key points to be incorporated into the overview report on the student feedback data, for submission to AC following the second meeting.
[ACTION: JSSC Members to note]
8 INTERNATIONAL STUDENT BAROMETER Noted:
8.1 JSSC receives a summary of the results of the International Student Barometer which it compares with the other sources of student feedback data it receives. The ISB is an independent survey of international and UK students which UCL subscribes to. It is conducted by the company I-Graduate and requests student feedback on the learning experience, including application and induction, teaching and questions on support services and overall university life. Received:
8.2 A report from the International Student Welfare Adviser, International Office, summarising the main outcomes from the summer 2010 and autumn 2009 ISB report and presenting summary data at: APPENDIX JSSC 1/06 (10-11).
8.3 An oral report from Ms Shelley Webster, International Student Welfare Adviser, International Office, (UCL Registry).
13
8.4 Ms Webster reported that:
• Overall UCL experience - 88% of UCL students (up 2% from 2009) were satisfied with their overall UCL experience, the same as the Russell Group average but above the average scores for London and the UK;
• Learning Experience - 85% of students were again satisfied with their learning experience, slightly below the Russell Group average. Students identified teaching, expert lecturers, course content and assessment as the most important aspects of the learning experience with scores all above 80% satisfaction. They were less satisfied with technology, performance feedback, work experience and departmental careers advice (i.e. not the UCL Careers Service);
• Living Experience - this figure improved on the 2009 surveys, with 87% of students satisfied overall, equal to the Russell Group. Students identified internet access, living cost and accommodation costs and quality as the most important aspects. Students were satisfied with the internet access, transport links and the quality of accommodation but were much less satisfied with living costs (most likely due to UCL’s central London location), financial support and accommodation costs;
• Support Services – overall 88% of students were satisfied with this area of provision, lower than the Russell Group, but higher than the London average. Support services with the highest usage were clubs and
societies, UCLU facilities, the Accommodation Office and campus eating places. Students were most satisfied with the first two, but less satisfied with the latter two. Student Counselling had improved on the previous ISB as had faith provision following the student campaign to improve the QCR; • 41% of UCL international students said that they would actively encourage
people to apply to UCL, an improvement on 2009 and higher than the Russell Group (38%) and London (33%) averages;
• the International Office continued to actively encourage students to engage with the ISB in order to produce good response rates for 2010-11.
Discussion:
8.5 It was noted that the key matters arising in the ISB data were fed back to international students in the regular newsletter provided by the International Office. The Autumn ISB was currently taking place and results were expected in March.
RESOLVED:
8.6 That JSSC note the above report and discussion, with the key points to be incorporated into the JSSC Annual Report: Student Feedback Data Overview, for submission to AC following the second meeting.
[ACTION: JSSC Members to note]
9 DEPARTMENTAL STAFF STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES AND STUDENT EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRRES
14
9.1 In addition to data from the ISB and the NSS surveys, the other parts of the student feedback dataset received by JSSC are matters of note arising from the Departmental Staff Student Consultative Committee minutes and from the faculty summaries of Student Evaluation Questionnaires.
9.2 The SSCC minutes and SEQ student feedback data will be considered by JSSC
at its second meeting. JSSC is responsible for the guidelines for the operation of SSCCs (and Programme Based SSCCs), which were circulated to Heads of Academic Departments and SSCC Chairs in October 2010.
Received:
9.3 A copy of the Guidelines for SSCCs e-mail to Heads of Department at: APPENDIX JSSC 1/07 (10-11).
9.4 An oral report by the Secretary. Reported:
9.5 The secretary reported that faculty tutors and Faculty Teaching Committees chairs and secretaries had been written to and informed of the process for submitting the faculty summary of the SEQs to JSSC, with a proforma attached in order to simplify the process. The deadline for responses is the end of January 2011, in time for the second JSSC meeting.
RESOLVED:
9.6 That the SSCC minutes and faculty summaries of SEQs be discussed at the next
meeting and continue to be included in the JSSC Student Feedback Data Overview report for AC.
[ACTION: JSSC Members to note]
10 LIBRARY FINES FOR STUDENTS Noted:
10.1 UCL Union had received some student concerns regarding library fines. Received:
10.2 An oral report from Mr Michael Chessum, UCLU Education and Campaigns
Officer. Reported:
10.3 The Education and Campaigns Officer reported that:
• many students had mistakenly taken books from the library without checking them out and had set off the alarm at the security gates, where they were stopped by the security guards and subsequently fined;
15
• students had complained that there appeared to be a presumption of guilt for such incidents and that fines could be large (£5 per book, or £2.50 if paid within 10 days). There appeared to be little consideration of whether it was the first time a student had made this mistake;
• students were also concerned with the large amounts of fine money that appeared to be collected and were not clear on what it was used for. Discussion:
10.4 The discussion noted the following:
• the Library Services representative had spoken to the Head of UCL Libraries Security about this matter and made the following comments: security guards always checked to ensure that the alarm system was
not at fault;
presumption of guilt is in the eye of the beholder; there is no wording in the email which is sent out to students that could be interpreted as an accusation of theft;
it was difficult for security guards to ascertain who had taken books in error and who was trying to steal them, however, in practice many first time “offenders” were given the benefit of the doubt and not fined; stolen books remained a big problem for the library and caused great
frustration to students. One of the largest student complaints concerned books listed as available in the library database, but being missing on the actual shelves. The value of books which had not been checked out and were picked up at the gates was over £22,000 over the last year; • the Chair noted that the money from fines was put into the student welfare
fund and redistributed to students in need. It was suggested that this should be advertised more widely to ensure greater student awareness; • it was further noted that the system was in a constant state of review and
whilst the fines were not ideal, a deterrent was needed to cut down on levels of theft in the library. However, there was disagreement as to whether the current system truly acted as a deterrent and a suggestion that it was instead punishing innocent, albeit absent-minded, students. 10.5 It was agreed that the Chair, as the Dean of Students (Welfare), meet with
UCLU officers to discuss these matters further. RESOLVED:
10.6 That the Chair and UCLU officers meet to further discuss the library fine concerns.
[ACTION: Dr Ruth Siddall and UCLU officers]
11 ANY OTHER BUSINESS Noted:
11.1 Mr Oli Burbage-Hall, the UCLU Part-time Students’ Officer, together with the UCLU Democracy & Engagement Unit, was conducting work on the
16
practicality of earlier exam timetabling for part-time students. Some data had already been obtained from the Registry and it was intended to conduct a survey to gauge part-time student views around this issue. This will be included as an item for discussion at the next meeting of JSSC.
[ACTION: Oli Burbage-Hall and UCLU officers, JSSC Members to note]
12 DATE OF NEXT MEETING Noted:
12.1 JSSC meetings for the remainder of the 2010-11 session are scheduled as follows:
• Thursday 24 February 2011 at 4.00pm in the Council Room
• Thursday 19 May 2011 at 4.00pm in the Room G17, Pearson Building
Rob Traynor Academic Services
[telephone: 020 7679 8591; internal extension: 28591; fax: 020 7679 8595; email: [email protected]] 9 December 2010
