Previous page
Table of Contents
|
Previous page
|
Table of Contents
|
Next page
|
The BOARD OF GRADUATE STUDIES beg leave to report to the Council as follows:
During 2002, the Board considered the first draft of the HEFCE report Improving Standards in Postgraduate Education. While the Board noted that most of the standards set out in the report are already met at Cambridge, it found a number of the examples of good practice helpful to its discussions of, for example, training for supervisors. The Board questioned, however, the numerical standards suggested for some aspects of provision and the implications these may have for funding.
The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) invited the views of the University on its Doctoral Training Account system for awarding Studentships after its first year of operation. The Board sought the views of the relevant institutions and reported that the scheme had generally run smoothly but that considerable time and effort on the part of University staff had been required to administer the funds. The EPSRC also asked for views on the merits of introducing a similar umbrella scheme for postgraduate awards associated with industry and for Masters Training Packages.
The Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) reported that the submission rates for Ph.D.s in all Departments and Faculties were sufficiently good for the one existing sanction to be lifted, and all relevant institutions are now eligible for AHRB Studentships. One Department that had not been successful in its application to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for recognition of one of its M.Phil. courses appealed against the decision with the support of the Board, but was unsuccessful.
The Board reviewed the result of the previous Academic Audit (1992) and was pleased to note the extent to which concerns raised in the report about graduate matters have been met. The Board noted that the 2003 Institutional Audit would include taught and research postgraduate courses. The Board called together all Degree Committee Secretaries to discuss the forthcoming Audit and the general applicability of the QAA guidelines to postgraduate courses. Among the matters agreed at this meeting was the need for all degree level qualifications to have an External Examiner, either for the cohort (courses with taught elements) or for individuals (courses examined by research dissertation and oral only).
A draft of the University's Guidelines on Good Research Practice was discussed. The Board forwarded to the Research Services Division its observations about the general applicability to graduate students across the University of guidelines based on those of the medical research charities.
The response of the General Board's Education Committee to the implications of the Bologna Declaration was discussed with respect to the University's graduate courses. Particular caution was expressed with regard to a system of transferable credits for graduate study.
(a) Applications (Table 1 (a) - (d))
The overall number of applications for admission in 2002 rose by 8.3% compared to the previous year (Table 1(d)); this is in contrast to a 2% increase in the previous year. Applications from UK students rose by 5%, reversing the trend of the previous two years. However, the total number of applications from UK candidates is still only about 75% of the peak of the early 1990s. Applications from EU students also rose (+9.7%), again reversing a steady decline over recent years. Applications from overseas students rose again (+9%), with a striking increase in applications from the People's Republic of China; this particular trend has been noted at most British universities.
Applications for M.Phil. courses rose by almost 12%; increases were noted in all constituencies (UK +16.7%; EU +6.1%; overseas +11.7%). Applications from UK candidates for research courses fell marginally (-1.3%), to continue a general trend of decline since 1993. Applications from EU candidates, however, show signs of recovery (+15.5%) and the increase in overseas applicants for research (+3.1%) brings both these constituencies within the range of the 1990s figures. Applications to other taught postgraduate courses (see the footnote to Table 1) increased sharply (+8.7%) to the highest ever figure; here the rise in overseas numbers (+13.2%) and EU numbers (+9.3%) was sufficient to counteract another decrease in applications from UK candidates (-11.2%).
The Board considered in detail applications from eighteen prospective students whose formal academic qualifications did not meet its normal minimum entry requirements, but for whom admission was recommended by Degree Committees.
(b) Offers of admission, confirmation, and numbers coming into residence (Table 2 (a) - (d))
The number of conditional offers of admission rose by less than 1% to 3,910 (sum of Tables 2(a) and 2(b)), compared to 3,899 in 2001; this represents a stabilization of offers following the previous year's 18% increase. M.Phil. offers rose by 2.8%, largely because of an increase in offers to UK candidates (+7.4%). However, the number of offers made to UK students for other courses fell back (-9.7%) after the 15% increase of the previous year.
However, the number of offers confirmed by the Board and the number of candidates subsequently coming into residence were much higher than in the previous year, principally because of the unusually low take-up of offers in 2001. Increases occurred across all fee categories, but most markedly for UK students.
The net result was that 208 more graduates came into residence in 2002 than in 2001. The most significant increase was in the number of new UK students coming into residence (+93), but the number of new students arriving in 2002 was the highest ever in all three fee categories.
The disaggregation of new entrants by School shows an increase in the proportion of the intake to instutitions in the School of Technology, and a corresponding decrease in the Humanities and Social Sciences, compared to the last three years.
| School | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 |
| Arts and Humanities | 15% | 16% | 15% | 14.3% |
| Humanities and | ||||
| Social Sciences | 35% | 32% | 33% | 30.9% |
| Physical Sciences | 18% | 20% | 17% | 18.3% |
| Biological Sciences | 20% | 19% | 20% | 19.3%* |
| Technology | 11% | 14% | 14% | 17.3% |
* School of Biological Sciences and School of Clinical Medicine to be disaggregated in future reports.
It is pleasing to note that the number of Cambridge graduates staying on to take graduate courses rose by 20.5% to the highest level for ten years for both men and women (Table 2 (e)).
(c) Admissions processes
The sharp increase in the number of candidates who had fulfilled all their financial and academic conditions for admission produced a rush in mid-September to secure College places for a large number of these candidates. The Board, with the co-operation of Graduate Tutors, found College places for almost all these candidates, but for some only just in time for admission in October 2002. This experience caused the Board to review fundamentally the approach of the University and Colleges to graduate numbers and admissions policies. The Chairman and Secretary set out in a letter to all interested parties the problems associated with increasing numbers (including accommodation and the speed at which applications can be processed centrally) and called for a review at all levels.
Although it recognizes the lack of an overall proactive University strategy for managing the number of offers of admission to be fundamental to the general problem, the Board has declined to set a cap on offers for 2003, but instead agreed to provide Departments and Faculties with comparative data and an online tracker to follow the progress of applications and offers to inform their own policies.
In anticipation of an increased number of applications in 2002, a number of temporary staff had been engaged to support the permanent staff. However, a very high turnover in permanent staff (17 posts fell vacant during the year) severely hampered the service provided. Delays in the initial processing of applications has prompted several courses to bring forward their application deadlines for the 2003 admissions round in order to meet deadlines for funding competitions.
The Board recognized that the speed with which applications are processed must be improved at all stages and has engaged in a number of projects to achieve this. For example, as part of the solution to the last minute search for College places, the Board's officers reached an agreement with Graduate Tutors to allow offers of admission to be confirmed once a candidate has met all the academic, English language, and financial conditions for which he or she is responsible, regardless of whether a College has so far agreed to accept him or her. A candidate will be assured of coming to Cambridge at an earlier stage and so able to make arrangements for a visa (if required) and have a better chance of being accommodated in College. The corollary will be that the Colleges agree collectively to find a place for all such candidates. This agreement will run for a trial year in 2003. A further step towards speeding up the later stages of admission was agreed with the Colleges: candidates who have not been accepted by the first five Colleges to which their papers are sent will be pooled.
However, the major concern for the Board is the formidable difficulties faced by the Admissions Office in processing the increasingly large volumes of applications centrally and making papers available to Faculties and Departments in a timely manner. It was agreed to engage more temporary staff for the 2003 admissions round but also to concentrate on improving systems to reduce time spent in processing and to facilitate a transition to electronic processing of applications. Many improvements were achieved during the 2002 admissions round, but these proved insufficient to match the increase in numbers, and much more development is needed in 2003. The limitations of the current student record system are keenly felt and the Board continued to support the plans for a new system.
The Graduate Studies Prospectus for 2003 was published in August 2002. The project was managed by the University's Press and Publications team. The new A4 format and design was judged to be a great improvement on previous years. For the first time, CDs were produced to supplement the paper copies. Distribution was again outsourced to the University Printing Service.
A procedure for appeals against procedural irregularity in the graduate admissions procedure was approved for use in the 2003 admission round.
(a) Degrees
Much progress was achieved by the Board during the course of the year on the introduction of a part-time route to research degrees and certain other qualifications. A second Joint Report of the General Board and Council to the University was published in May 2002, and a working party of representatives of the Colleges was convened by the Board to clarify the arrangements to be made for the admission of part-time research students. The Board developed protocols for Degree Committees, Departments, and Faculties to opt in to the admission of part-time research students. The protocol is based on the minimum provisions of the Joint Report. A similar protocol for Colleges, based on the working party's decisions, has been agreed with Colleges through the Graduate Tutors' Committee. The Board gathered comparative data nationally on the arrangements for fee payments by or on behalf of University staff undertaking part-time research degrees. This information was submitted to the Personnel Committee for consideration with a recommendation that some degree of waiver or relief would be appropriate in some circumstances.
A new Guide for candidates for the Ph.D., M.Sc., and M.Litt. Degrees was issued in January 2002, partly to introduce the possibility of submitting a dissertation in soft binding in the first instance. In the course of the year, further changes to, and clarifications of, the arrangements for the examination were brought forward in the light of the Board's monitoring of individual cases. Proposed changes were discussed with Degree Committees with a view to revising this Guide to candidates and producing a new Memorandum to Examiners early in 2003. These changes include: open examiners' reports; clarification of the distinction between 'corrections' and 'revision'; the status of revision advice in the examination of revised dissertations; notes on plagiarism; and good research practice.
During the year, the Board commended to the General Board proposals for new M.Phil. courses in: Environmental Engineering and Sustainable Development (and later agreed to change the title to Engineering for Sustainable Development); Biological Anthropological Research; Early Modern History; Modern European History; Politics; and Political Research. These courses, with the exception of the last two, were approved for introduction in 2002 or 2003.
Significant changes to the following M.Phil. courses were recommended for approval: Land Economy Option B and Development Studies (changes in structure to facilitate the sharing of papers among the M.Phil. courses offered in Land Economy); and European Studies, for which the Board considered the arrangements for transferring responsibility from the Faculty of History to the Centre of International Studies.
Minor changes were agreed to the Special Regulations for the M.Phil. Degrees in Polar Studies; Linguistics; Latin American Studies; and Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic; and also for the Certificate of Postgraduate Study in Archaeology.
The Board reviewed the arrangements for the oral examination for M.Phil. courses with taught elements and asked Degree Committees to review their Special Regulations to ensure that these reflect the practice of the examiners and vice versa.
A new M.St. course in Public Health was approved; this two-year part-time course is to replace the full-time Diploma in Public Health, which is to be suppressed. On the recommendation of the Board and of the (then) Board of Continuing Education it was agreed that candidates for the M.St. Degree should have the same recourse to examination allowances on the grounds of illness or other grave cause as candidates for the M.Phil. Degree.
A proposal for introducing a new degree, the Eng.D., was discussed. The Eng.D. represents a new type of doctoral degree, a professional doctorate, in which time is spent in industry or other appropriate profession during the course of the study period. In other respects, the degree is similar to the Ph.D. Degree. The Eng.D. Degree is available in many other British universities and supported by the EPSRC. The Board agreed in principle to support the proposal and has begun a consultation with Faculties and Schools with a potential interest.
The Board received for comment the report of the General Board's Committee to review M.Phil. provision in the University. The Board warmly welcomed the report and discussed (inter alia): the applicability of QAA guidelines; arrangements for the teaching and marking of shared papers; continuation to research degrees; rationalization of mark schemes; the possibility of awarding the degree with distinction; making provision for resits; charging differential fees; increasing payments to supervisors and examiners; setting up a forum for course directors; providing a part-time route to the M.Phil. Degree in some subjects; and the relationship between the M.Phil. and M.St. Degrees. The Board expects to consult Degree Committees on these matters in due course.
In response to the HEFCE report (section 1), the Board agreed to set up a new course of short meetings in 2003-04 for supervisors on various topics including: dealing with problems with research students; assessing applications for admission; applying for funding. These are additional to the existing induction day run annually by the Board's officers for new supervisors.
The Board developed, in collaboration with the Management Information Services Division (MISD), a system of online reporting by the supervisors of graduate students (CamGRAD) based on the undergraduate supervision reporting system (CamCORS). It was agreed that the introduction of the online system should mark the transition to open reporting and that supervisors should be encouraged to discuss the reports with their students in a supervision. The aim is for the CamGRAD system to be introduced in 2003-04 following a pilot in one Faculty in 2002-03.
The Board received the annual reports of the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) pre- and in-sessional courses. The courses had been highly successful and the achievements of the new in-sessional course in providing continuing support were commended. The Board reviewed, in consultation with the Language Centre staff, the minimum standards of English language test results required of candidates seeking admission to the EAP course.
The annual report of the Graduate School for Biological, Clinical, and Veterinary Sciences was received and the achievements of the School commended in co-ordinating student training and establishing standards for monitoring progress across the School. The Board noted, however, that the Graduate School has no clear constitutional role; further discussion with officers of the Graduate School established a framework for its relationship with the two Degree Committees concerned.
The Board considered applications for renewal of approved Non-University Institution (NUI) status. Eleven renewals were approved during the year and one denied because of Health and Safety concerns. The Board also discussed the possibility of extending NUI status to commercial companies linked to the University but agreed to restrict the category to publicly funded and equivalent bodies, such as the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology.
The Board appointed the Secretary to represent it on the Council for Lifelong Learning.
The four-year submission rate for Ph.D. students was 74% this year when calculated against the total number of students who began in Michaelmas Term 1998 and did not subsequently withdraw within 12 months; this is the highest rate so far recorded (Table 10 (a)). The four-year submission rate disaggregated between the schools (Table 10 (b)) shows considerable improvement in the School of Arts and Humanities and the School of Technology.
During the year, the Board approved 893 candidates for the Ph.D. Degree (Table 11), four for the M.Sc. Degree, and two for the M.Litt. Degree. Three candidates who had originally been examined for the Ph.D. Degree accepted the M.Sc. or M.Litt. Degree.
The failure rate for M.Phil. courses was the highest for 6 years, with a striking imbalance between the results for male and female candidates (Table 12). These figures do not include candidates who do not complete the course.
Eight candidates were approved for the Ph.D. Degree under Special Regulations (these are not included in the figures in Table 11). An amendment to the Regulations for the Ph.D. Degree under Special Regulations was agreed whereby applicants are asked to provide an introductory summary of the rationale behind the selection of works submitted, the extent to which they form a consistent body of research, and their original contribution to knowledge.
In 2002 the Board approved five candidates for the Sc.D. Degree, four for the Litt.D. Degree, and one for the B.D. Degree.
The quota for nominations allocated to the University of Cambridge fell again, to 155, from 162 in the previous year. However, the success rate of candidates put forward returned to its usual high level (88%) after a sharp fall in 2001 caused by severe cuts (and only partial restoration) in the total number of awards offered by Universities UK. The Board noted a striking increase in the number of awards made nationally to candidates from the People's Republic of China.
The Board relayed to Departments and Faculties the concerns expressed by UUK about declining standards of references from some sponsoring institutions and was pleased to note an improvement in the overall strength and depth of references in 2002. The Board also reviewed its role in the competition and formally recognized a meeting of its nominations panel as part of the nomination process.
The ORS Committee launched a policy review and invited institutional comments on the success of the annual competition in meeting its stated aims and on the mechanism by which the scheme is administered centrally. The Board consulted the Degree Committees and the Cambridge Trusts and contributed to a robust response by the University concerning, among other issues, the falling numbers of nominations (and therefore awards) allocated to Cambridge.
The Board has continued to make awards from its General Fund and from the Lundgren Fund to research students registered for the Ph.D. Degree who find themselves in unforeseen financial hardship. In the course of the year the Board has provided assistance to 41 Graduate Students through these various schemes to a total value of £38,955. Other small grants were made to students to assist with dissertation binding and other minor expenses. The Board continues to make a contribution from its General Fund to the Domestic Research Students (DRS) Awards Scheme.
In 2002, the Committee on Grants awarded 30 new Domestic Research Studentships (the equivalent of 19 full-cost awards) and three Millennium Scholarships. 16 offers of partial maintenance awards (Allen, Meek & Read, and Le Bas Scholarships) were made. The Committee warmly acknowledged the support offered by the Isaac Newton Trustees for the DRS scheme, both in its continuing contribution and in its agreement to provide a financial safety net to allow the Committee to make more offers of DRS awards before the announcement of Research Council and AHRB awards without fear of over-committing the funds at an early stage.
The Board noted with pleasure the success of the Gates Cambridge Trust in making 130 awards to graduate students. The Board also supported a request to increase the contribution from the Chest to the Cambridge Trusts.
During 2002, the Board considered 11 new cases (eight in 2001, nine in 2000) in the first stages of the procedure for the review of the results of examinations for postgraduate qualifications (Statutes and Ordinances, p. 409). Of these, two were candidates for the Ph.D. Degree (including one under the Special Regulations), eight for the M.Phil. Degree, and one for the M.St. Degree. Three cases (all M.Phil.) were referred to the Review Committee. One report on a Ph.D. examination was received from the Review Committee (compared to zero in 2001, three in 2000); the candidate has been allowed to be re-examined. One M.Phil. case referred to the Review Committee was closed after the candidate failed to respond.
A case reported in the 2000 and 2001 Annual Reports was considered afresh as directed by the Court of Appeal.
The Board discussed the arrangements for the review of examination results and recommended to the General Board that the hearing be open to all parties invited by the Review Committee to make written submissions.
Professor I. Fleming and Dr D. R. Ferguson both retired from their University posts and from the Board during the year; Dr J. Runde was appointed by the General Board to fill the vacancy left by Dr Ferguson's retirement, for one year in the first instance. Professor M. J. Daunton was appointed by the General Board. Professor G. P. Hawthorn came to the end of his term of office and was reappointed for a further term.
The turnover of permanent staff has been noted above. However, the Board's senior staff has been expanded by the addition of a Studentships Officer, in recognition of the increasing activity of the Board in dealing with Research Council and other external studentships and with Trust funds. This post is funded partly by the Chest, the Cambridge Trusts, and the Colleges, which reflect the many facets of the post. Mrs Louise Everard was appointed in August 2002. Mrs Sarah Pickard was appointed Administrative Officer.
The offices of the Board were reorganized during August 2002 to provide reception and interview areas. The Board's opening hours were changed to 10 a.m. - 4 p.m., Monday to Friday, to enable the Board's staff to be available to personal callers through lunchtime, when many students have the opportunity to come in; telephone calls and e-mail messages are attended to throughout the day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The staff has regrouped into four teams each lead by an Officer: Admissions; Current Students; Studentships and Finance; Secretarial and Reception.
15 July 2003
| W. A. BROWN (Chairman) | G. P. HAWTHORN | F. J. LEEPER |
| G. A. J. AMARATUNGA | P. C. HEWETT | S. K. RANKIN |
| M. J. DAUNTON | L. B. JEFFCOTT | J. RUNDE |
| L. R. R. GELSTHORPE | P. F. KORNICKI | B. SAHAKIAN |
| L. F. GLADDEN |
Copies of the list of Graduate Students on the Register at 1 December 2002 are available from the Secretary, Board of Graduate Studies, 4 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1RZ.
Statistical Appendix [PDF, 620Kbytes]
|
Previous page
|
Table of Contents
|
Next page
|
Cambridge University Reporter, 23 January 2004
Copyright © 2003 The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars
of the University of Cambridge.