UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN

SENATUS ACADEMICUS

Minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2003

Present: Principal, Professors Sewel, Logan and Houlihan, Dr JG Roberts, Professors Rodger, Torrance and MacGregor, Ms CA Macaslan, Professors Hubbuck, Thomson, Sleeman, Urwin, Racey, Gane, Jordan, Chandler, Bryden, Graham, Logie, Watson, Beaumont, Hunter, Dunkley Ohlmeyer and Secombes, Dr B Fennell, Dr S Kunin, Mrs L Stephen, Mr I Stefanov, Professors Blaikie, Duff, Lurie, Salmon, Saunders, Shucksmith, Mr WTC Brotherstone, Dr G Coghill, Dr I Craw, Dr P Edwards, Dr J Farmer, Dr J Geddes, Dr C Gray, Dr D Hay, Dr D Heddle, Dr M Holmes, Dr J King, Dr PR Kinnear, Dr WD McCausland, Dr D Macphee, Dr A Memon, Dr JG Ollason, Dr D Pearson, Dr LJ Philip, Mrs ML Ross, Dr H Sinclair, Mr SC Styles, Dr M Syrotinski, Dr SP Townsend, Dr HM Wallace, Mr D Cockburn, Mr M Raith, Ms D White, Dr N Dower with Ms J Duncan in attendance.

Apologies for absence were received from Professors Lyall, Pennington, Mordue, Miller, Forrester, Templeton, Spracklen, Harris, Seaton, Williams, Deregowski, Bruce, Baker, Whalley, Helms, Jolliffe, Hurst, Forte, Ritchie, Buckland, Sharp, Macinnes, Della Sala, Seymour, Docherty, Rees, Webster, Little, Hukins, Cassidy, Killham, Fraser, Hutchison, Evans-Jones, Lomax, Gilbert, Alexander, Booth, Flin, Dawson, Hannaford, Pope, Freeston, Ingold, Macdonald, Leboutte, Van der Merwe, Davidson, Simpson, Howe, Player, McCaig, Ayres, Roberts, Mitchell, Greaves, Smith, St Clair, Ms R Buchan, Dr J Murdoch, Ms M Ramsay, Dr I Ross, Professor PR Duff, Dr A D Clarke, Mr PB Wilson, Mr G Pryor, Ms C McCourt, Professors Archbold, Gow, Heys, Hotson, Reid, Swanson, Dr P Benson, Ms L Clark, Mrs B Hookey, Dr A Hull, Dr D Inglis, Dr AW Laing, Dr J MacDowall, Dr H McKenzie, Ms DW McKenzie Skene, Dr MR Masson, Mr LE Moffat, Dr AJ Mordue, Dr C Thomson, Dr ER van Teijlingen, Dr M White, Mr B Gunnee, Ms S Kemp, Mr C Galleitch and Ms C McCay

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

683. The minutes of the meeting of 20 November 2002 and of the Winter Graduation Ceremonies were approved.

STATEMENT BY PRINCIPAL

684.1 The Principal drew Senate’s attention to a number of recent and prospective external publications and consultation documents that, potentially, could have a significant impact on the future shape and funding of higher education in the UK. While the Government’s recently-published White Paper: The Future of Higher Education would have major implications for English Universities, the impact of the proposals for Scottish Higher Education would not be known until the Scottish Executive had published its proposals for Scotland. Nevertheless, it seemed likely that several of the proposals in the Government’s White Paper, when considered in light of a current consultation on the standards of research degrees and on an impending consultation on the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), would result in a significantly more competitive environment, with research being concentrated in a relatively small number of Universities in the UK. Since these external variables could have a major effect on the outcome of the merger discussions with The Robert Gordon University, the Principal indicated that they would need to be considered seriously during the forthcoming weeks and months. He then invited Professor The Lord Sewel to comment further on the Government’s White Paper and Professor Logan to update the Senate on the merger discussions.

684.2 Professor Sewel indicated that he expected the thrust of the Scottish Executive’s impending proposals for Higher Education to be broadly similar to those proposed for England and, when taken together with the external consultations on Research Degree Standards and the RAE, were likely to result in a very radical restructuring of Higher Education in the UK.

684.3 Although increased funding would be made available to English Universities, partly through being able to charge higher fees than at present, details of the Scottish Executive’s proposals for funding teaching and for student financial support were awaited. However, it seemed clear that funding for research would be concentrated in universities with a predominance of subjects with the highest RAE ratings. Currently, the University of Aberdeen was not in this position. This likely future scenario would therefore need to be taken into consideration by the University in its preparations of Costed Academic Plans. It was also extremely important to assess the likely ability of a merged institution to achieve the future criteria for being considered as a research-intensive university.

684.4 In regard to the merger discussions, Professor Logan indicated that the vast majority of reports from the various academic groups had now been submitted. All reports would be made available to Heads of School in the Faculties of Arts & Divinity, Social Sciences & Law and Science & Engineering, and to Heads of Department in the Faculties of Education and Medicine & Medical Sciences, for dissemination and discussion within Schools and Departments as considered appropriate, on the understanding that all reports were confidential to the University. Deans would also be asked to undertake some editing of reports prior to circulation, to ensure that individuals could not be identified from the reports. Professor Logan indicated that the reports should be considered as position papers and encouraged wide discussion and participation within Faculties. Professor Logan and other Vice-Principal’s would attend meetings that would be organised by Deans, to engage in discussions and to ensure that Faculties’ views were considered by Senior Management as part of a dynamic process of consultation and discussion. Senior Management would then formulate a position paper, to incorporate the outcomes of the reports from the academic groups and the further discussions within Faculties, and also to incorporate the outcome of financial, estates and constitutional analyses that were currently being undertaken. This consultation paper would be discussed at the Senate on 5 March, the outcome of which would inform the development of formal proposals, for discussion at the Senate and the University Court in June.

During discussion, the following points were agreed:-

    1. that Heads of School/Department could share the various academic position papers (once these had been edited by Deans – Minute 684.4 above refers) with whomever they wished within their School/Department, and indeed were encouraged to consult with staff as widely as possible, provided that it was made clear that the documents were confidential to the University of Aberdeen and should not be discussed or released outwith the University;
    2. that while it was considered not to be helpful to formally ascertain the views of staff on whether or not the University should merge based solely on the academic position papers, it was likely that those convening meetings within Faculties, at which Professor Logan and other Vice-Principal’s would attend, would be able to gauge the overall level of opinion concerning merger;
    3. that it was important that individual members of staff should be able to record their views on the merger discussions: it was therefore agreed that Professor Logan should consult with colleagues and implement the most appropriate method for individuals to inform Senior Management of their views.

684.5 In conclusion, the Principal indicated that he believed it unlikely that the governing body of either institution would support a merger if the overwhelming view of their institution’s academic body was against merger.

MOTION FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION

685.1 The Principal invited Mr Cockburn to address the Senate in regard to the Students’ Association concerns at the introduction of top-up fees that had been announced recently in the Government’s White Paper (Minute 684.3 above refers).

685.2 Mr Cockburn indicated that the Students’ Association opposed the introduction of top-up fees for several reasons: that they would lead to a two-tier system whereby some students would be unable to afford to attend certain universities; that access to Higher Education would be deterred; that student debt would become normalised and would increase compared with current levels; that the introduction of top-up fees would not resolve the problems of funding teaching in universities; and that graduates currently contributed significantly to the economy and that the proposals for top-up fees would increase this level of contribution by graduates.

685.3 During discussion, it was agreed that the points made by Mr Cockburn were extremely cogent, although they were related primarily to English Universities and students attending those institutions. While the general thrust of the Scottish Executive’s proposals for the future of Higher Education were likely to be similar to those for England, there would be some differences, one of which was likely to be in the detailed arrangements for the funding of universities and student support. The Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning had already publicly stated that top-up fees would not be introduced in Scotland. It was therefore suggested that the Senate should defer reaching a view on the various funding proposals until the Scottish proposals had been announced and there had been opportunity for a full and considered discussion on the various issues.

 

685.4 Mr Cockburn indicated that the Students’ Association was willing to withdraw the motion that had been placed on the Agenda, on the understanding that there would be an opportunity for the Senate to give full consideration to the strategy for, and funding of, Higher Education in Scotland, once it had been published by the Scottish Executive.

685.5 Mr Brotherstone, who had seconded the motion proposed by Mr Cockburn, also agreed that the motion should be withdrawn. The motion was not, therefore, formally considered by the Senate.

REPORT FROM THE UNIVERSITY COURT

(17 December 2002)

 

1. Draft Resolution No of 2002 [Chair of Public Health]

686.1 The Senate noted that the Court, at its meeting on 17 December 2002, had agreed that the following draft Resolution be forwarded to the Senate and made generally available in terms of Section 6 of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1996.

DRAFT RESOLUTION NO OF 2002

[CHAIR OF PUBLIC HEALTH]

After consultation with the Senatus Academicus, the University Court of the University of Aberdeen, at its meeting on , passed the following Resolution:

    1. The title of the Chair of Social Medicine referred to in Ordinance No 409 (Aberdeen No 83) [Office of Principal, Chairs in the University, and Composition of Faculties] is hereby amended as follows:
    2. Chair of Public Health

    3. Nothing in this Resolution shall affect the rights or tenure of office of any Professor holding a Chair in the University of Aberdeen on the date on which this Resolution is passed by the University Court.
    4. This Resolution shall come into force on the date on which it is passed by the University Court.

686.2 The Senate, for its part, approved the draft resolution.

2. Admissions Targets 2003

687. The Senate noted that the Court had approved various admissions targets for entry in the 2003/04 academic year, as recommended by the Joint Planning, Finance & Estates Committee.

3. Partnership Agreement – Barony College

688. The Senate noted that the Court had approved a recommendation from the Senate that a Partnership Agreement with Barony College be approved.

4. Policy on Good Research Practice and Procedure on the Handling of

Allegations of Research Misconduct

689. The Senate noted that the Court had approved the Policy on Good Research Practice and Procedure on the Handling of Allegations of Research Misconduct, as recommended by the Senate.

5. Race Equality Policy

690. The Senate noted that the Court had approved the Race Equality Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT FROM THE JOINT PLANNING, FINANCE AND ESTATES COMMITTEE

(3 December 2002)

1. Going Rates for 2004 Entry

691. The Senate noted that the Joint Planning, Finance and Estates Committee had approved a recommendation from the Student Recruitment and Admissions Committee that there would be no change to the ‘Going Rates’ for admission for session 2004/05.

2. Three Year BA Programme in Arts & Social Sciences

692. The Senate noted that the Joint Planning, Finance and Estates Committee had approved a recommendation that the University withdraw from development of a three year Bachelor’s Degree in Arts and Social Sciences.

REPORT FROM THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON TEACHING AND LEARNING

(13 December 2002)

  1. Degree Examination Statistics

693.1 The Senate noted that, in May 2002, the University Committee on Teaching and Learning (UCTL) had agreed that degree examination statistics should be routinely circulated to Faculties and that where failure rates exceed 20%, the Heads of relevant Schools/Departments should be asked to comment and to suggest remedies, where appropriate. The UCTL, at its meeting in December 2002, had received a request from the Academic Standards Committee (Science, Engineering & Medicine) for clarification of the procedures to be used in the exercise for monitoring degree exam pass rates and the role of the ASC in this process. In the light of this request, the UCTL had agreed to establish formal procedures for the monitoring of degree examination statistics, as detailed below:-

    1. Registry to prepare details of the degree examination statistics following the January and June diet of examinations (the exercise would not be carried out following the August resit diet as these generally reflect a small data set, the majority of whom are weaker students). A copy of the full statistics would be circulated to Deans, Faculty Officers, undergraduate ASC Conveners and Clerks and the Director of Wider Access Policy (for referral to the Academic Learning Support Unit).
    2. Where the failure rate is greater than 20%, Registry would circulate a report form with the relevant degree examination statistical information (with comparative data from the previous two years) pre-entered, by e-mail, to the relevant Heads of School/Department for completion.

      1. Heads of School/Department to return completed forms to the relevant Faculty Officer for the Dean’s signature. Faculty Officers to forward the signed forms to the relevant ASC Clerk by 31 March for first half-session courses and 30 September for second half-session courses.

    3. Forms to be considered by the ASCs (first half-session forms at the May meeting and second half-session forms at the October meeting). An agreed response from the ASC would be circulated to the relevant Head of School/Department and the relevant Dean.

693.2 During discussion, it was suggested that Heads of Department should only be required to report on courses where, after the August examination diet, the overall failure rate for a course (i.e. when combining the results for the first attempt in January or June with the resit results) exceeded 20%. It was agreed that the UCTL should consider this suggestion and report back to the Senate.

2. Review of SENAS Forms

694.1 The Senate noted that the UCTL had given consideration to the issue of completion of questions 25, 31 and 35 concerning learning outcomes of the new course proposal form, which had been referred by the Academic Standards Committee (Arts & Social Sciences, Education, Divinity and Law). The ASC were concerned that many Schools/Departments adopt a standard 'template' approach to the completion of these questions and did not really address the questions posed on a course by course basis.

694.2 In view of the change in external focus from Subject Review to Institutional Review and the accompanying revisions to the University's procedures for Internal Teaching Review, the UCTL agreed that it was appropriate to give consideration to a review of the SENAS forms and accordingly established a Working Group to come forward with recommendations to a future meeting of the UCTL.

3. Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework

695. The Senate noted that the UCTL Working Group on Qualifications Framework and Levels Descriptors had held its first meeting and had given consideration to ensuring compliance of existing awards with the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF). The SCQF required that, with effect from 2003 entry, all University awards should comply with the Framework. In interpreting this statement, the Working Group had agreed that by the start of 2003/04, the non-Honours degrees offered by the University should be compliant with the SCQF. While there were some issues that required to be addressed in regard to Honours programmes, it had been agreed that these should be dealt with through the Planning Cycle in 2003/04. Any student who first registered in September 2003 would not commence their Honours programme until at earliest September 2005, by which time these programmes would be compliant.

4. Institutional Strategy for the use of C&IT in Teaching, Learning and Assessment

696. The Senate noted that, following discussion of the recommendation from the Staffing and Development Committee that the University Committee on Teaching and Learning had given consideration to the development of an Institutional Strategy, a Working Party had been established to come forward with recommendations to a future meeting of the UCTL.

REPORT FROM THE ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEES

1. Degree; Diploma and Certificate Regulations

697.1 The Senate approved, for its part, and agreed to forward to the University Court, the draft Resolution ‘Changes in Regulations for Various Degrees’ (Appendix 1 – copy filed with the principal copy of the minute), which enacted the changes in Degree Regulations recommended by the Academic Standards Committees since March 2002.

697.2 In response to a question concerning the reason for increasing the credit requirement for award of the degree of Bachelor of Science in Pure Science (BSc), the Senate noted that this change, along with others in the draft Resolution, had been proposed to ensure compliance with the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. It was agreed, however, that Professor Rodger, Dr Long and Dr Townsend should meet to discuss the potential implications of this change.

697.3 The Senate also approved, for its part, draft Regulations to govern award of the KEY Learning Certificate in Philosophical Studies, and various amendments to the Regulations for Certificates and Diplomas (Appendices 2 and 3 – copies filed with the principal copy of the minute).

697.4 The Senate also empowered the Conveners of the Undergraduate Programme Committees and the Convener of the Academic Standards Committee (Postgraduate) to consider and approve, on its behalf, any drafting amendments to the above documents which might be suggested by the Business Committee of the General Council in the course of its consideration of the draft Resolution, or which might come to light following circulation or discussion of the Senate Papers.

2. New and Discontinued Courses and Programmes

698. The Senate noted that the Academic Standards Committees, on the recommendation of the relevant Faculties, had approved changes to the list of courses and programmes available, subject where indicated to resolution of queries with individual Schools and Departments (Appendix 4 - copy filed with the principal copy of the minute).

FITNESS TO PRACTISE

699.1 The Senate noted that Regulation 14 for the Degrees of MBChB currently provided for any health, conduct, behaviour or other issue that could bear on an MBChB candidate’s suitability or fitness to practise medicine to be investigated by the Fitness to Practise Committee of the Undergraduate Programme Committee (UPC) [Medicine]. If the Fitness to Practise Committee judged that a student was not "fit to practise", the UPC (Medicine) Students’ Progress Committee, on the recommendation of the Fitness to Practise Committee, may suspend or terminate a student’s studies. The Senate had delegated authority to Students’ Progress Committees to take decisions on its behalf. Any appeals against decisions of Students’ Progress Committees were therefore made directly to the University Court.

699.2. During 2002, the UPC (Medicine) had established a Group, under the convenership of Professor Peter Duff, School of Law, to consider the practical aspects of considering fitness to practise cases. The Group had been asked to bring forward proposals concerning the remit and composition of a Fitness to Practise Committee for Medicine and to develop procedures for dealing with cases.

In considering these issues, the Group had recommended the following to the UPC (Medicine):-

    1. that the Faculty of Medicine & Medical Sciences should be responsible for the initial investigation of any concerns raised in regard to an MBChB student’s fitness to practise medicine;
    2. that if the Faculty, after investigation, considered that a medical student was not fit to practise, it should be for the Faculty to present a case to the UPC (Medicine) Fitness to Practise Committee;
    3. that the Fitness to Practise Committee should hear cases presented by the Faculty and any representations made by the students concerned; and judge whether or not the student was "fit to practise";
    4. that the Convener of the Fitness to Practise Committee should be a senior member of academic staff from outwith the Faculty of Medicine & Medical Sciences and that the membership of the Committee should include non-medical representatives in addition to senior University and NHS clinicians;
    5. that the UPC should seek Senate’s approval to the proposal that the Fitness to Practise Committee should be given delegated authority to take decisions, on behalf of the Senate, in regard to a student’s studies;
    6. that allegations of misconduct which, if proved, could have a bearing on a medical student’s suitability to practise medicine should be initially investigated under existing procedures, if applicable, namely the Code of Practice on Student Discipline; and that allegations of misconduct would only be considered by the Fitness to Practise Committee if they had been upheld following investigation under the Code of Practice on Student Discipline.

699.3. In considering the procedures for dealing with cases of fitness to practise, the Group had also taken cognisance of the likelihood that other professional areas of study, and in particular Education, were likely to seek to establish Fitness to Practise Committees and develop procedures in regard to their professions.

699.4 In approving the above recommendations, the UPC (Medicine) also had approved revisions to Regulation 14 for the Degrees of MBChB to take account of these recommendations, if approved by the Senate. The UPC (Education) had also approved changes to the BEd, BMus and PGCE Supplementary Regulations so that they would be consistent with the proposed MBChB Regulation 14. The various changes to the MBChB, BEd, BMus and PGCE Regulations were detailed in the draft Resolution "Changes in Regulations for Various Degrees" [Minute 697.1 above refers].

699.5 The Senate considered the following recommendations from the Undergraduate Programme Committee (Medicine):-

    1. that a Fitness to Practise Committee be established as a Sub-Committee of the Undergraduate Programme Committee (Medicine), with a remit and composition as indicated in Appendix 5 (copy filed with the principal copy of the minute);
    2. that Fitness to Practise Committees should have delegated authority to take decisions, on behalf of the Senate, to suspend or terminate students’ studies or their candidature for a degree or other award if, following a proper process of investigation, they are judged not "fit to practise". [The effect of this would be that any appeal against the decision of a Fitness to Practise Committee would be directly to the University Court, as was currently the case in regard to appeals against decisions of Students’ Progress Committees];
    3. that the principles outlined above in regard to the investigation of fitness to practise cases and the composition and remit of the medical Fitness to Practise Committee should be applied when bringing forward proposals to establish Fitness to Practise Committees for other areas of study of the University.

699.6 In approving the above recommendations, the Senate agreed to record the disassociation from these decisions of the President and Vice-President (Representation) of the Students’ Association.

 

APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES

700. The Senate approved the following proposals:-

(i) that Dr J Murdoch be appointed to the Honorary Degrees Committee until 30 September 2006 in the first instance, vice Ms C Macaslan who would be in attendance at the Committee ex officio following her appointment as Dean of the Faculty of Education;

(ii) that Ms R Buchan, Ms M Ramsay and Professor M A Player be appointed to fill vacancies on the Committee for Research, Income Generation and Commercialisation, with immediate effect.

UNIVERSITY POSTGRADUATE OFFICER

701. The Senate approved a recommendation from the relevant Deans that Dr E C Phimister be appointed as a University Postgraduate Officer for Arts & Social Sciences, with immediate effect.

GRADUATION CEREMONIES : JULY 2003

702.1 The Senate approved the arrangements for the July 2003 Graduation Ceremonies, to be held in the Mitchell Hall, Marischal College, as shown below.

Ceremony 1: Monday 7 July at 11.00 A.M.

Higher Degrees in Arts & Social Sciences: MBA, MSc Econ and MSc Entrepreneurship

Designated and Honours Degrees of MA: Accountancy (Single and Joint), Economics [Economic Science] (Single and Joint), Economics [Political Economy] (Single and Joint), Entrepreneurship, European Management Studies, Finance-Management Studies, Management Studies to Management Studies-Sociology, Sports & Leisure Management

Ceremony 2: Monday 7 July at 3.00 P.M.

Designated and Honours Degrees of MA: Celtic Civilisation (Single and Joint), Celtic Studies, Celtic-History, English (Single and Joint), European Studies, Film Studies (Joint), French (Single and Joint), Gaelic Studies, German (Single and Joint), Hispanic Studies (Single and Joint), Language & Linguistics (Joint)

Ceremony 3: Tuesday 8 July at 11.00 A.M.

Higher Degrees in Law

Degrees and Honours Degrees of LLB

Ceremony 4: Tuesday 8 July at 3.00 P.M.

Designated and Honours Degrees of BSc: Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Environmental Microbiology, Genetics, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Neuroscience, Pharmacology, Physiology, Sports & Exercise Science

Degrees, Designated and Honours Degrees of BSc Biomed Sci

Higher Degrees in Medicine

Degrees of BSc Med Sci*

Designated and Honours Degrees of BSc Health Science

Ceremony 5: Tuesday 8 July at 6.30 P.M.

Designated and Honours Degrees of MA: Agricultural Economics-Management Studies, Countryside & Environmental Management, Environmental Geography, Geography to Geography-Sociology, Human Geography, International Relations-Legal Studies to International Relations-Sociology, Physical Geography, Political Studies, Politics & International Relations to Politics-Sociology

Designated and Honours Degrees of BSc: Animal Care, Animal Health & Welfare, Animal Science, Countryside & Environmental Management, Environmental Geography, Equine Science, Geography, Human Geography, Organic Agriculture, Physical Geography

Degrees, Designated Degrees and Honours Degrees of BSc Agr

Degrees and Designated Degrees of BSc For

 

 

Ceremony 6: Wednesday 9 July at 11.00 A.M.

Designated and Honours Degrees of MA: Computing, Information Systems & Management, Mathematics (Single and Joint), Mental Philosophy to Philosophy-Sociology, Psychology, Psychology with French, Statistics (Single and Joint)

Designated and Honours Degrees of BSc: Computing Science (Single and Joint), Mathematics (Single and Joint), Psychology

Ceremony 7: Wednesday 9 July at 3.00 P.M.

Higher Degrees in Science

Degrees of BSc (Ordinary)

Designated and Honours Degrees of BSc: Animal Ecology, Biology, Conservation Biology, Ecology, Environmental Science, Immunobiology, Marine Biology, Parasitology, Plant Science, Soil Science, Tropical Environmental Science, Zoology

Ceremony 8: Thursday 10 July at 11.00 A.M.

Designated and Honours Degrees of BSc: Chemistry (all programmes), Geology & Petroleum Geology, Geoscience, Physics

Degrees of MChem

Higher Degrees in Engineering

Degrees of MEng, BEng and BSc Eng

Ceremony 9: Thursday 10 July at 3.00 P.M.

Higher Degrees in Arts & Social Sciences: PhD, MPhil, MRes and MLitt

Degrees of MA (Combined Studies Programme)

Designated and Honours Degrees of MA: Anthropology (Single and Joint), Cultural History (Single and Joint), Economic History (Joint), History (Single and Joint), History of Art (Single and Joint), Sociology, Sociology with Women’s Studies

Ceremony 10: Thursday 10 July at 6.30 P.M.

Higher Degrees in Arts & Social Sciences: MLE

Designated and Honours Degrees of MA: Divinity (Single and Joint), Religious Studies

Degrees and Honours Degrees of BLE

Degrees and Honours Degrees of BSc Marine Resource Management

Higher Degrees in Education

Honours Degrees of BEd

Degrees of BA

Higher Degrees in Divinity

Degrees and Honours Degrees of BD and BTh

Ceremony 11: Friday 11 July at 11.00 A.M.

Degrees of MBChB*

*The size of the graduating Medical class means that the BSc Med Sci degree could only be conferred at Ceremony 11 on those who were graduating MBChB at Ceremony 11. In all other cases, the BSc Med Sci degree would be conferred at Ceremony 4.

GRADUATION ARRANGEMENTS FOR DOCTORAL CANDIDATES

702. The Senate approved a proposal that doctoral candidates carry the scarlet robes for their degree at Graduation Ceremonies rather than wearing black gowns and that conferral of doctoral degrees be signified by the Sacrist assisting graduates into their gown rather than the current procedure of placing the appropriate hood on the graduate. These procedures were analogous to those currently used for the graduation of honorary doctoral candidates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MONITORING STUDENTS’ PROGRESS

703. The Senate noted that the Vice-Principal for Teaching and Learning had held an open meeting with Advisers of Studies on 14 January 2003 and a meeting with Heads of School/Department on 16 January 2003 to discuss the new arrangements for monitoring students’ progress that had been implemented in the first half-session. Directors of Studies (Advising) and Undergraduate Programme Committee Conveners had attended each meeting. The meeting on 16 January had also been attended by Advisers representing each Area of Study. Following these meetings, Dr Roberts had taken Convener’s Action on behalf of the University Committee on Teaching and Learning to approve revisions to the system, for implementation either in the second half-session, where feasible, or in the next academic year.

UNIVERSITY ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENT OF ENDOWMENTS

704.1 The Senate noted that the Statement of Accounts for the year ended 31 July 2002 could be accessed at http://www.abdn.ac.uk/finance/accounts2002.hti

704.2 Members who wished to discuss any matter arising from the Accounts were asked to contact the Director of Finance by 19 February 2003 and, after such discussions, to indicate if they wished any issue to be discussed at the next meeting of the Senate.

704.3 It was noted that copies of the Statement of Endowments for the year ended 31 July 2002 could be obtained on request from the Secretary to the Director of Finance (r.davis@abdn.ac.uk or telephone extension 2115).

GRADUATIONS IN ABSENTIA

705.1 The Senate noted that a list of those qualified to receive degrees and diplomas who had applied to have them conferred in absentia could be obtained from the Senate Office of the Registry. [See Appendix to Minutes of June 2003].

705.2 The Senate conferred the degrees on, and awarded the diplomas and other qualifications to, the persons stated.