1 This is a report of an audit of the academic standards and quality of programmes of the University of Cambridge (the University). The purpose of the audit was to provide public information on the quality of the University's programmes of study and on the discharge of its responsibility as a UK degree-awarding body.
2 The audit was carried out using a process developed by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP) and Universities UK (UUK), and endorsed by the Department for Education and Skills. For institutions in England, it replaces the previous processes of continuation audit, undertaken by the Agency at the request of UUK and SCOP, and universal subject review, undertaken by the Agency on behalf of HEFCE, as part of the latter's statutory responsibility for assessing the quality of education that it funds.
3 The audit checked the effectiveness of the University's procedures for establishing and maintaining the standards of its academic awards; for reviewing and enhancing the quality of the programmes of study leading to those awards; for publishing reliable information; and for the discharge of its responsibility for awarding degrees. As part of the audit process, according to protocols agreed with HEFCE, SCOP and UUK, the audit included consideration of examples of institutional processes at work at the level of the programme, through six discipline audit trails (DATs), together with examples of those processes operating at the level of the University as a whole, one of which was identified as a thematic enquiry. The scope of the audit encompassed all of the University's provision.
Section 1: Introduction: the University of Cambridge
The University and its mission
4 The University has its origins in the thirteenth century and is one of the oldest educational establishments in the UK, distinctive in its structures and traditions. It is a large and complex institution with a commitment to maintaining an extensive range of subjects in all major academic disciplines. Twelve thousand and twenty undergraduate students, 5,859 registered graduate students and 2,101 other postgraduates were reported to the Higher Education Statistics Agency in December 2002. Of a total of some 7,900 staff, over 1,600 hold academic posts. The University's total turnover is close to £400 million, of which approximately half is classified as 'Chest' income and so available directly to the central bodies for use in pursuing the University's mission.
5 The University is a collegiate institution, with 31 colleges sharing with the University the responsibilities for students. The colleges are independent bodies with distinguished figures as heads and senior academics among their fellows. They have primary responsibility for the academic direction of undergraduates, for their individual teaching, and for the provision of accommodation and personal student support. They are responsible for the undergraduate admissions process and provide important learning resources such as computer facilities and libraries. Colleges differ considerably in size and wealth so that, potentially, the quality of their support can depend on the student's college. While the collegiate structure is one of the defining characteristics of the University, and one of its great strengths, the division of responsibility between the University and the colleges requires particular care in the context of teaching quality and enhancement.
6 The University's academic provision is organised into six Schools: Arts and Humanities; Biological Sciences; Clinical Medicine; Humanities and Social Sciences; Physical Sciences; and Technology. Each covers a number of faculties, some of which, particularly in the sciences, are subdivided into departments. The University refers to these units - of which there are around 100 - as 'institutions'. Undergraduate teaching is primarily through Triposes taught by the faculties or their constituent departments in conjunction with the colleges. The Tripos system provides flexibility and academic choice by permitting students to construct their own degree programmes within a broad academic area. A student may take both parts of the same Tripos (the choice of the majority of students), or Part I of one Tripos followed by Part I or Part II of a different Tripos. Some Triposes, such as Natural Sciences, include components from more than one faculty. Two Tripos examinations must be passed in order to achieve the Cambridge degree, BA Honours. In addition, there are a number of specialist diplomas, certificates and degrees in, for example, theology, languages, music and medicine (including veterinary medicine). All undergraduate courses are full-time.
7 At postgraduate level, all faculties offer PhD programmes, the majority offer MPhil programmes, and programmes leading to several other postgraduate awards are also available. The MPhil is a taught or research programme of one or two years' duration, available on a full-time basis only. Students who wish to study part-time may register for the Master of Studies (MSt) degree, a two-year, part-time taught programme available in certain subjects. Provision for part-time study towards the degree of PhD has been recently introduced. A small number of institutions and laboratories external to the University contribute to provision for research students.
8 The University has recently announced the appointment of a new Vice-Chancellor who will take up post in October 2003. At the time of the audit visit, a number of other important developments were in progress. The University was seeking to alter the manner in which resources were distributed to faculties and departments through the development of a new Resource Allocation Model (RAM), and was debating changes to its governance arrangements. While the proposed governance changes are not expected to impact directly on quality and standards matters, they do include the establishment of additional Pro-Vice-Chancellor posts, one of which may carry responsibility for teaching and learning issues.
Mission statement
9 The University's mission is 'to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence'.
Collaborative provision
10 According to the self-evaluation document (SED) prepared for the audit, the University 'does not at present participate in collaborative provision, in the sense in which that term is defined by the QAA'. However, it does have a number of links by means of which students can spend part of their time at other institutions, mainly overseas. Some Triposes, for example, have requirements that students spend a period of study or appropriate employment abroad, and some faculties and departments participate in Erasmus/Socrates exchanges. Since 1999 the Faculty of Law has collaborated with the University of Paris II - Assas - in a Double Maîtrise programme, whereby students from both universities spend two years in Cambridge followed by two years at Paris II, resulting in a qualification from both universities. More recent collaborative arrangements have been established with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), involving reciprocal undergraduate student exchanges in certain Triposes and collaboration in certain MPhil programmes. Further comment on the nature and extent of the University's involvement in collaborative provision is provided below, paragraphs 74, and 88 to 91.
Background information
11 The published information available for this audit included:
- the information on the University's web site, including its undergraduate and postgraduate prospectuses, and the detailed information about current developments provided in the Cambridge University Reporter (the Reporter);
- the report of a quality audit of the University by the Committe of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (now UUK) Academic Audit Unit (AAU), July 1992;
- the 24 reports of HEFCE and Agency reviews of provision at subject level published in the six years preceding the audit.
The University initially provided the Agency with:
- an institutional SED and appendices;
- discipline self-evaluation documents (DSEDs) for the six areas selected for DATs.
12 During the briefing and audit visits, the audit team was given ready access to a range of the University's internal documents, both in hard copy and through the intranet, and to a range of documentation relating to the selected DATs. The latter included examples of student work. The University also provided the team with access, on request, to specified recent reports by professional and statutory bodies (PSBs).
The audit process
13 Following a preliminary meeting at the University in July 2002, the Agency confirmed that six DATs would be conducted during the audit visit, and made an initial identification of possible DATs. The DATs followed the format of the University's model of internal periodic review, which is based on the faculty or department, rather than on particular programmes. The audit team's final selection of DATs was: the Institute of Astronomy; the Computer Laboratory; the Department of Experimental Psychology; the Faculty of History; the Centre of International Studies; and the Faculty of Law. The team decided subsequently to refine the scope of some of the DATs to focus on particular aspects of the provision of the institutions concerned.
14 The Agency received the institutional SED and supporting documentation in December 2002 and the DSEDs, accompanied by programme specifications, in February 2003. Both the SED and the DSEDs were written specifically for the purposes of the audit.
15 The audit team visited the University on 6 and 7 March 2003 for the purpose of exploring, with the Vice-Chancellor, senior members of staff and student representatives, matters relating to the management of quality and standards raised by the SED and other documentation provided for the team. During this briefing visit, the team signalled a number of themes for the audit visit, and identified one area of thematic enquiry at University level for pursuit during the audit visit:
- the University's provision of support for taught graduate students (MPhil and MSt) and the work of the Board of Graduate Studies in relation to both taught and research graduate students.
At the close of the briefing visit, a programme of meetings for the audit visit was developed by the team and agreed with the University.
16 At the preliminary meeting for the audit, the students of the University were invited, through the Cambridge University Students' Union (CUSU), to submit a separate document expressing views on the student experience at the University, and identifying any matters of concern or commendation with respect to the quality of programmes and the standard of awards. They were also invited to give their views on the level of representation afforded to them, and on the extent to which their views were taken into account. In December 2002, CUSU submitted a detailed document to the Agency. It had been prepared by CUSU's Academic Affairs Officer, with the help of other sabbatical and executive officers, and included an analysis of a modest email survey to which around 300 students had responded. It was broadly supportive of the University and expressed satisfaction with many aspects of provision, but also drew attention to concerns in a range of areas. CUSU indicated that the document had been shared with appropriate staff of the University and that there were no matters within it that would require the audit team to treat it with any level of confidentiality greater than that normally applying to the audit process. The team is grateful to the students for preparing this clear and helpful document to support the audit.
17 The audit visit took place from 28 April to 2 May 2003 and included further meetings with staff and students of the University, both at central and college level and in relation to the selected DATs. The audit team was Professor J L Beeby, Professor E J Evans, Professor B S Gower, Professor R J Harris, Professor J M Masson, Professor A Narayanan and Dr F C Quinault, auditors, and Dr K R Hodgson, audit secretary. The audit was coordinated for the Agency by Ms S J Clark, Assistant Director, Reviews Group.
Developments since the previous academic quality audit
18 The University has not been subject to an external quality audit since the AAU visit of 1992. The 1992 report was generally favourable but highlighted several matters for further consideration by the University. These included giving more precise definition to quality assurance policies and responsibilities, and developing mechanisms for central oversight of the quality of teaching, particularly in colleges.
19 The University responded formally to the 1992 report in October 1993, specifying the positive measures it had taken in respect of many of the points for consideration but arguing against the substance of some others. An appendix to the SED for the current audit listed the actions promised in the 1993 response and the progress made in achieving them in the intervening nine years, while emphasising that 'the key characteristics which underpin the University's approach to educational provision and its quality assurance...remain fundamentally unchanged...and are likely to remain so'. It was clear to the audit team that significant changes had indeed been made, although some had only been implemented very recently. One consequence of this slow progress was that the team was unable to evaluate fully the security and effectiveness of these revised arrangements.
20 Since 1992, the University has participated in 35 HEFCE and Agency reviews of provision at subject level. The University's performance in these reviews has been outstanding, with all of the subjects visited between 1993 to 1995 rated as 'excellent' and all of those visited between 1996 to 2001 'approved', with almost all aspects of provision in all subjects judged to be making a full contribution to the attainment of the stated objectives.
Section 2: The audit investigations: institutional processes
The University's view as expressed in the SED
21 In its SED, the University set its processes for the assurance of quality and standards in the context of its constitutional arrangements, its collegiate nature and democratic structure, and the quality of its staff and students: 'these contribute to a culture in which (a) significant responsibility is delegated to the individual Faculty/Department; (b) initiatives are typically generated locally, rather than imposed from the centre; (c) central prescription is limited to the minimum necessary; (d) substantial developments are subject to extensive consultation before they are implemented; (e) informal networking and mutual scrutiny by the University and the Colleges of each other's provision is as influential as more formal processes; and (f) it is recognised that high quality academic staff and students, reflecting continuously (and, to an extent, implicitly) on teaching and learning arrangements, are the University's most important assets in maintaining standards and assuring quality'.
The University's framework for managing quality and standards
22 The University's framework for managing quality and standards reflects its collegiate structure and collegial culture, and places emphasis on both formal and informal quality assurance mechanisms. Formally, overall responsibility for supervising academic policy and provision rests with the General Board, although some areas of the University, notably the Institute of Continuing Education, have fallen within its jurisdiction only relatively recently. The Board is accountable to the Council, the principal executive body, and, through it, to the Regent House, the governing body and electoral constituency of the University. The General Board is advised by its Education Committee, which has substantial delegated powers relating to teaching, learning and assessment, and is the main engine room of formal quality assurance in these areas. In respect of graduate student matters, the Board of Graduate Studies has formal responsibilities for admissions, supervision and examination and, through the Education Committee, provides advice to the General Board on graduate education more generally. Support for both the Education Committee and the Board of Graduate Studies is provided by officers in the University's Academic Division.
23 At subject level, each faculty has a board responsible for general oversight of its provision. Where the nature of the subject requires collaboration between faculties, Faculty Board functions are undertaken by a Syndicate. Operational responsibility for undergraduate course delivery within each faculty or department rests with a Teaching Committee (or equivalent), with a faculty Degree Committee responsible for graduate students. Within each college, responsibility for managing and assuring quality in all aspects of collegiate provision for students rests with a Senior Tutor, and Directors of Studies deal with the academic progress of all undergraduates in a college reading for a particular subject. The Senior Tutors' Committee, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, provides a mechanism for collective discussion of intercollegiate matters. While faculties and departments have no formal role in the assurance of teaching and student support provided by the colleges, there are strong informal links, underpinned by General Board guidelines on the coordination of teaching and the work of the Directors of Studies. The Senior Tutors' Committee, which is supported from within the Education Section of the Academic Division and two members of which are also members of the Education Committee, has an important strategic role in monitoring the implementation of University policies in colleges and faculties/departments, and in sharing good practice.
24 The SED articulated the University's belief that 'assuring quality and standards is most effective when primarily undertaken by those delivering the provision' and emphasised the importance of initiatives originating with those directly responsible for teaching and learning, particularly Faculty Boards and Syndicates. In this respect, the University regards the role of the centre as being 'to encourage local innovations, disseminate those which have a more general applicability, and to focus its own provision in areas of demonstrable demand for central support'. Nonetheless, the SED was clear that the centre, through the General Board, had become increasingly proactive in developing quality management policies and in offering staff support and information. In 2002, a substantial 'Quality Guide' - Quality Assurance and Enhancement of Teaching, Learning and Assessment: a guide for Faculties, Departments and other University institutions - was produced, and important changes were made to procedures for approval, monitoring and review. The SED described the Guide as 'in part, a response to recommendations made following the last audit that the General Board consider the publication of guidelines on procedures...'. It also explained that the General Board was aiming for 'centrally-generated processes which strike a balance between certain minimum expectations across the University, and a recognition of the local responsibility for determining how those expectations are to be met'.
25 With consistently impressive performances in subject review and the research assessment exercises, over 90 per cent of its undergraduates entering with at least three A grades at GCE A-level, and a superfluity of excellent applicants for postgraduate places, the University can claim to have demonstrated exceptional achievement across the piece. The audit team perceived that its quality preoccupations were therefore geared, appropriately, more to enhancing the already excellent than to attaining a threshold of minimum acceptability. The extent to which its dispersal of responsibilities for quality management affects the University's capacity to respond speedily and effectively to the increasing range of external demands and initiatives is a more complex issue. The team discerned some slowness, for example, in engaging with and embedding all aspects of the academic infrastructure developed by the Agency. In general, however, the team was satisfied that the University had set up an appropriate framework for managing quality and standards.
The University's intentions for the enhancement of quality and standards
26 The SED described the University's intentions for the further enhancement of quality and standards in terms of local initiatives (including innovations in course delivery and assessment techniques), staff development provision and central developments. It also foresaw a range of future developments in the arrangements for quality management. These included embedding the recent changes to quality assurance procedures, in particular achieving an integrated six-year cycle of periodic reviews and Quality Statements (see below, paragraphs 31 to 37). Other matters on the agenda included aiming to exploit any opportunities for quality enhancement offered by both the present trajectory of postgraduate admissions and the steeper trajectory envisaged following the expansion of part-time numbers; addressing the implications of any future expansion in collaborative activities and e-learning; and monitoring the impact of the new RAM, with particular reference to quality and standards matters. In the audit team's view this was a responsible and achievable agenda, although - if further enhancements were to be achieved - one that might necessitate speedier and more decisive decision-making than the University acknowledges that it has always achieved in the past.
Internal approval, monitoring and review processes
27 The University discharges its responsibility for the quality of its courses and the standards of its qualifications by using a system with four 'main pillars' or 'strands': processes for making changes to courses and examinations; processes for considering external examiners' reports; a rolling programme of internal reviews of all faculties and departments; and the production by each faculty and department of an annual statement of its arrangements for quality assurance and enhancement. While the details of the ways in which these tasks are operated may vary, the General Board has set out guidelines, in the Quality Guide, with which faculties and departments are required to engage.
Programme approval
28 The General Board has responsibility for approving changes to regulations (as set out in Statutes and Ordinances) and approving new courses. Proposals are submitted by Faculty Boards or Degree Committees and, following consideration by the Education Committee, recommended for approval or referred back for further consideration. In the case of graduate courses, the support of the Board of Graduate Studies is also required. To ensure that they have the widest possible circulation, all changes are publicised in the Reporter. The details of the process vary in accordance with the extent of the change sought: major developments, such as the introduction of a new part of a Tripos, require the consent of Regent House as well as the General Board's approval; minor or straightforward changes, such as a change in the title of an examination paper, may be approved by a member of the Education Section on behalf of the Education Committee. Practical explanations for faculties and departments, including advice on timescale and a reminder that students and colleges should be consulted, are set out in the Quality Guide, and further assistance is available from the Education Section. The Guide stipulates that proposals for substantial revisions or new courses should address resource implications, provide a suitable academic rationale, take into account relevant subject benchmark statements, define the level of the course in accordance with The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland Ireland (FHEQ), provide a programme specification, and consider any implications of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code of practice), published by the Agency. Consultation with 'an external reviewer' is 'sometimes useful', but is not a requirement.
29 The SED analysed the strengths and weaknesses of the University's previous approach to course approval and indicated the areas in which the new Quality Guide was expected to bring about improvements. It acknowledged, for example, that the resource implications of changes had not always received due attention, and expressed the expectation that this difficulty would be addressed and minimised by clearer definitions of where responsibility lay. Similarly, the complexities of the Tripos system had meant that publicity for approved changes had not always been effective and implications for students had not always been identified; the Guide was intended to improve adherence to the timetable for approvals and ensure that all relevant bodies were made aware of impending changes - an improvement likely to be assisted by the introduction of a new student record system, CamSIS, with the potential to enable Directors of Studies and tutors to identify difficulties more readily.
30 From the evidence available to it, the audit team endorsed the view expressed by members of the Education Committee that the Quality Guide was proving a useful aid to those preparing proposals for the approval process. It also noted that the Education Committee, with a membership that included student representation and representatives of the Senior Tutors' Committee, was well-placed to monitor the effectiveness of the consultation with students and colleges about proposed changes.
Annual monitoring
31 The University expects faculty and departmental Teaching Committees to review teaching, learning and assessment practices 'at appropriate regular intervals'. The Quality Guide suggests that such reviews should be conducted 'normally...at least annually' and should incorporate responses to external examiners' reports and to student questionnaires. The SED was frank in acknowledging that an annual reporting process introduced in 1999 had proved unsatisfactory as a mechanism for reporting on the outcome of such reviews and that, as a consequence, in 2002 the General Board had introduced a new means of securing up-to-date faculty and departmental evaluations of quality and standards. Under the new arrangements, a meeting - the 'quality interview' - takes place between an authorised member, or members, of each institution and an officer of the Education Section, following which an agreed 'Quality Statement' is prepared. The institution will be required to review and, where necessary, revise its Statement annually, evaluating the effectiveness of quality assurance procedures used and identifying any support or advice that might be needed.
32 According to the Quality Guide, the content of a Quality Statement constitutes a benchmark for self-assessment, and a means by which the Education Committee 'can inform itself of quality assurance processes at the local level', thus permitting 'the transfer of good practice to other Faculties and Departments'. Each Statement includes information about collecting and responding to student feedback, procedures for considering external examiners' reports, arrangements for reviewing courses, and staff development information. The Statements will be made available to internal review panels (see below, paragraph 35). The cycle of preparing, reviewing and revising a Quality Statement will last for six years, after which a further meeting will take place and a new Statement will be prepared. Responsibility for overseeing and evaluating the effectiveness of the arrangements rests with the Education Committee.
33 At the time of the audit visit, experience of using Quality Statements was limited and it was therefore too early for the University or the audit team to judge their effectiveness in meeting the General Board's needs. However, the SED identified several characteristics that were expected to make the process more useful as a quality assurance instrument and more acceptable to the academic community. In particular, the 'personal proactive approach' of officers of the Education Section was intended to improve liaison, ensure a common format for Statements, and avoid excessive documentation. Similarly, the appointment of a designated contact in each institution was expected to permit the development of expertise and provide a focal point for advice and for the identification and dissemination of good practice.
34 By the time of the audit visit, quality interviews had been conducted and Quality Statements prepared for all institutions. However, the audit team found that, among those academic staff whom it met, knowledge of the new arrangements and of the contents of the Statements was limited and variable. The team noted that a recent, helpful report to the Education Committee on experience of the procedure to date had identified several improvements to be made, including securing wider ownership of the Quality Statements by requiring their approval at local committee level. It remains to be seen whether the expectation of an improved annual monitoring system, built into the design of the new process, will be realised. In the meantime, given the importance of the Quality Statements as one of the four 'pillars' of its approach to quality assurance, the University is advised to secure their academic ownership, and to give further consideration to their use centrally, both as a means of formally monitoring activities at a local level, and to facilitate the sharing of good practice. Further comment on the positive aspects of Quality Statements is provided below, paragraphs 47, 49 and 53.
Periodic review
35 Since 1989, the General Board, through its Education Committee, has undertaken periodic reviews of faculties and departments, as one means of fulfilling its statutory responsibilities for oversight of the academic institutions. The reviews, which may examine, among other matters, the manner in which delegated responsibilities for quality assurance are discharged, are undertaken by an independent panel - a 'Review Committee' - and the subsequent reports and recommendations are considered by the General Board. The SED reported that some revisions to the review process had been introduced in 2002 to 03, 'partly in recognition of external expectations and partly on the basis of previous experience'. The key changes include ensuring that all reviews encompass explicit consideration of teaching and learning, and the automatic inclusion of an experienced person external to the University on each Review Committee. In 2001-02 a six-year review cycle was introduced, instead of the 10-year cycle previously used. However, the scope of the reviews remains wide and includes research, resources, accommodation and internal governance, as well as teaching. As with the previous procedure, the General Board may decide that a periodic review - now called 'Standard Review' - will be followed by a more detailed and strategic 'Full Review'.
36 At the time of the audit visit, no reviews using the revised process had been completed and thus neither the University nor the audit team had evidence on which to base conclusions as to its effectiveness. The review reports available to the team had been conducted using the superseded process, and often assured the General Board about quality and standards by referring to the favourable outcomes of Agency subject reviews. Members of the Education Committee acknowledged to the team that, in so far as the reviews were expected to yield information about the quality of provision comparable to that produced through Agency subject review, close monitoring of relevant aspects of the process would be necessary. There is no intention that the process will generate information about student achievement comparable to that available through Agency subject review. The team concurred with the view expressed in the SED that further evaluation of the revised process would be required.
37 The audit team heard that the move to a shorter review cycle presented an operational challenge for the Education Committee in terms of ensuring prompt completion of the annually agreed schedule of reviews, particularly since, to judge by previous experience, there would be some instances in which a Standard Review would be followed by a Full Review. In the light of evidence about the operation of the schedule for the 10-year cycle of internal reviews, and recognising that some flexibility is appropriate, the team endorsed the view that particular attention be paid to the implementation of the new schedule in order to ensure that its demands can be met.
External participation in internal review processes
38 For substantial revisions to existing courses, or for new courses, the Quality Guide advises that it may sometimes be 'useful' to consult an 'external reviewer' on proposals, thereby achieving 'an external perspective' (see above, paragraph 28). The University looks to international as well as national comparisons, and the audit team's attention was drawn to instances in which external consultation involving international partners had helped to provide appropriate assurance, for example, in the several courses involving collaboration with MIT. In the view of the team, such external consultation on course proposals was likely to provide the Education Committee and the General Board with explicit assurance that the University's expectations in respect of standards would be met. However, in the interests of consistency, for the benefit of users, and in the context of an expanding portfolio of graduate courses, it might be helpful to indicate in the Quality Guide the circumstances in which the University would expect external consultation on course proposals to take place.
39 In the now superseded periodic review process (see above, paragraphs 35 to 36), external persons played a prominent part in 'Full Reviews' but were not required for 'Preliminary Reviews'. The new process requires each Review Committee to include one external person (or at least two if 'Full Review' is invoked), able to advise on teaching, learning, assessment and quality assurance. The audit team was informed that one reason for this requirement was to provide the General Board with an external view on whether the largely favourable verdicts of Agency subject reviews continued to be justified. As the new review arrangements take effect, the University will no doubt be monitoring whether or not the advice provided by external members is sufficient to enable such judgements to be made. In general terms, however, the team was satisfied that there was appropriate use of external participation in the University's revised arrangements for quality assurance.
External examiners and their reports
40 The SED stated that 'standards are determined primarily through internal points of reference', paying 'due heed' to external benchmarks: 'each Faculty has, over time, consensually developed its expectations of the qualities and skills its students should acquire and be capable of demonstrating...according to the level of the Part of Tripos being undertaken....These expectations are shared between teachers (within the University and the Colleges) and examiners'. It reposes trust in 'high quality academic staff and students...reflecting continuously...on teaching and learning arrangements' as one of 'the University's most important assets in maintaining standards and assuring quality'.
41 External examiners are appointed annually by the General Board through its Education Committee. They are normally appointed for one year and do not serve for more than three unless approval for an extension is given by the Committee. Published Guidance by the General Board on the arrangements for external examiners makes it clear that they 'may be asked to mark scripts and other assessed work as first or second markers' and states that, while their duties 'may necessarily vary between different disciplines', external examiners fall into 'two main categories': those who 'are appointed to mark one or more papers...but who do not have a moderating role', and those who 'whether they mark individual papers or not, are responsible for taking a moderating role across the whole of the examination'. The SED reported that the General Board had recently been considering the different roles played by external examiners across institutions and expected 'to promote changes to the Ordinances governing their appointment' to make those roles clear.
42 The SED identified consideration of external examiners' reports as one of the four 'strands' of the University's quality assurance systems and argued that the maintenance of standards 'is testified to by the(ir) almost overwhelmingly favourable reports'. It made no claim, however, for 'an absolute uniformity of standards across all Triposes' - 'it is within each Tripos that standards applicable to that particular Tripos are set' - but asserted confidence 'that there are adequate mechanisms to spot quickly any falling away in standards'. There is no prescribed format for external examiners' reports, although the Guidance encourages them to comment on the topics listed in the relevant section of the Code of practice, which are provided. The SED was frank that this degree of freedom occasionally resulted in reports that were 'brief and relatively uninformative', but 'too infrequently to cause the General Board to constrain that freedom'. The reports are submitted formally to the Vice-Chancellor, and then sent on to the Education Section or the office of the Board of Graduate Studies as appropriate, where they are collated and forwarded for response to Secretaries of Faculty Boards, Secretaries of Degree Committees, or Heads of Department. Responses are sent to the external examiners and to the Education Committee or the Board of Graduate Studies, as appropriate.
43 The SED reported that the Guidance and the University's general approach to external examination had been reviewed and revised in the light of the Code of practice. As a result, and in addition to the invitation to external examiners to comment on topics listed in the Code of practice, the Education Committee now reviewed annually any general issues arising from all external examiners' reports, had established better systems for tracking the responses to reports, and had identified (and considered the rationale for) 'those Parts of Triposes without external examiners', with the Board of Graduate Studies taking similar action in respect of MPhil programmes. The audit team was able to confirm that the Education Committee had responded in a detailed and robust way to matters raised in external examiners' reports across institutions, although it had insufficient evidence on which to judge the overall effectiveness of the recent changes. The team was also satisfied that the University was, in general, making appropriate use of external examiners in the summative assessment of students, and that their work contributed to assuring academic standards and the quality of the student experience.
44 These factors notwithstanding, and in spite of the moves towards standardisation implied by the Education Committee's response to the Code of practice, the audit team remained concerned that continued variability in practice in the use of external examiners, coupled with variability in internal marking practices, ran the risk of inequity in the treatment of students. The team noted in particular that faculties were not required to insist on double-marking of examination scripts; that some Parts of some Triposes continued not to have external examiners; that there were differences - both within faculties and across institutions - in the moderating roles played by external examiners; that there appeared to be some inconsistency between central guidance and practice in some institutions; and that moderating external examiners were not always used, making it difficult for the University to assure itself about the appropriateness of standards across all Triposes. The University is advised to consider further whether this degree of variability in the use of external examiners is acceptable.
External reference points
The Code of practice
45 The University's engagement with the Code of practice was initiated by the Education Section, on behalf of the Education Committee and the General Board, in 2001 to 02. The Section identified where responsibility should lie for addressing each section of the Code of practice - at the central, local or college level - and identified any areas of potential difficulty in terms of current practices. The results of its analysis are published in the Quality Guide. In most cases the analysis consists of annotations to a particular section, indicating where responsibility lies for addressing specific precepts and guidance. Most of the sections are identified as 'of significant relevance to most institutions', although the section on recruitment and admissions is seen as applying mostly to the colleges in terms of undergraduates. In respect of collaborative provision and placement learning - identified as 'of limited relevance to most institutions' - there are no annotations, but the sections are reproduced alongside existing General Board guidelines that summarise the University's expectations of institutions.
46 The SED reported that, having reviewed the precepts, the University was confident that 'in many instances' its practices exceeded the expectations of the Code of practice, citing several examples. It summarised the issues raised and the action taken in relation to each section, including amendments to the General Board's guidance on external examiners (see above, paragraph 41), the completion and publication of a University complaints procedure (although work continues on colleges' internal complaints procedures), the joint production of a new University/CUSU guidance note on appeals for examination candidates, and an Education Committee review of various aspects of assessment. CUSU's own submission to the audit team also commented on each section of the Code of practice and highlighted positive recent developments in a range of areas, while drawing attention to a number of matters, particularly relating to graduate students, on which it felt that further action was desirable. Several of these matters are the subject of current discussions in the University.
47 The SED acknowledged that the organisational structure of the University could pose difficulties in promoting awareness of, and ensuring appropriate local response to, new initiatives and developments. The introduction of faculty and departmental quality interviews and Quality Statements (see above, paragraphs 31 to 34) opens up a new line of communication with institutions, and is intended, among other things, to facilitate dialogue on engagement with the Code of practice and other external reference points, and to provide advice on the production of programme specifications (see below, paragraphs 49 to 50). The audit team noted that the process of producing the first round of Quality Statements demonstrated that the University had successfully communicated its new expectations to institutions. The examples of Statements seen by the team were systematic and thorough in addressing matters raised by the Code of practice, particularly in respect of students with disabilities, external examining, assessment, and programme approval, monitoring and review.
48 However, it was less clear to the audit team how institutions locally had actually addressed the precepts of the Code of practice or had adapted them to their own context, and how University mechanisms ensured that, where appropriate, changes had been made in response to the precepts. The team noted, for example, that one institution, whose students spent a year at another European university as part of their programme, appeared to have had limited engagement with the section relating to placement learning (see below, paragraph 146). The team was also unclear about how the centre was intending to achieve sufficient oversight to ensure that the variability of local practice was not such that students - particularly those taking courses from more than one institution - might be disadvantaged. In the view of the team, moves to require approval of the Quality Statements by Teaching Committees and Faculty Boards (see above, paragraph 34) would assist in ensuring that their contents - and thus actions taken in response to the Code of practice - were shared and owned locally. In general, the team was satisfied that the University had responded appropriately to the Code of practice and had initiated the process of taking action to confirm its continuing adherence, although further work was required on the mechanisms to ensure both local ownership and central oversight of local practice.
The FHEQ, subject benchmark statements and programme specifications
49 The SED drew attention to participation by members of the University's staff in the work of a wide range of subject benchmark groups, and described how expectations in respect of the FHEQ, subject benchmark statements and programme specifications had been embedded in the revised quality assurance procedures. The course approval process, for example, now includes a requirement for engagement with the relevant benchmarks and the production of a programme specification; quality interviews cover benchmarks, and Quality Statements are accompanied by programme specifications. Detailed guidance on the production of programme specifications is published in the Quality Guide.
50 The documentation available to the audit team through the DATs indicated the positive effects of this work. The draft programme specifications attached to the DSEDs provided evidence of initial local engagement with subject benchmark statements and the FHEQ. However, the specifications varied in quality, and while most were appropriate and correctly located awards at their intended level within the FHEQ, a few lacked clear information on the level of the award or used outcome descriptors that were not, in the view of the team, appropriate (see below, paragraph 105). The team was informed that the task of evaluating final versions of programme specifications, including the appropriateness of award levels, would be the responsibility of the relevant departmental or faculty committees, and - in due course - periodic review committees. The team was therefore unclear as to how the University intended, formally, to ensure that all of its awards were located correctly within the FHEQ, and described consistently and accurately in its programme specifications. The University is advised to give further consideration to this matter, in the context of its continuing work on mechanisms for annual monitoring.
Programme-level review and accreditation by external agencies
51 Since the 1992 audit, the University has participated in 35 HEFCE and Agency reviews of provision at subject level. Taken as a whole, its performance in these reviews has been outstanding, with almost all aspects of provision in all subjects reviewed since 1996 judged to be making a full contribution to the attainment of the stated objectives. The SED described the University's performance as 'strong' although it provided a careful analysis of those aspects of provision where reviews of some subjects had identified scope for improvement - Teaching, Learning and Assessment, and Quality Management and Enhancement.
52 The SED described how the Education Committee had sought and evaluated departmental and faculty responses to each report, and provided examples of improvements made as a consequence. It also identified those general themes emerging from the reports which would benefit from further consideration, including improved provision of staff development opportunities, and assessment policy and practices. The audit team heard that implementation of the University's Learning and Teaching Strategy was providing an opportunity to address staff development matters, and the detailed enquiries undertaken as part of the recent 'Project on Indicators of Academic Performance' (see below, paragraph 62) had led to progress in considering the University's assessment methods, particularly the prominence of timed examinations. On the basis of the evidence available, the team endorsed the University's claim that subject review reports had been taken seriously, had been generally accepted, and had assisted in the enhancement of quality.
53 A number of the University's courses are subject to accreditation by PSBs. The subjects involved include engineering, medicine, veterinary medicine, architecture, education, computer science, psychology and law. Examples of accreditation reports seen by the audit team were generally very favourable, with few matters raised for the attention of academic staff. The SED reported that, although there had been instances when the Education Committee had assisted institutions in their preparations for accreditation visits and in considering PSB requirements, central oversight had 'hitherto varied' and responsibility for implementing any report recommendations rested at subject level. It expressed the Committee's recognition of the need to have a better capacity for monitoring this activity, indicating that the new Quality Statements were being used as a means of acquiring information about when accreditation events were taking place so that central support could be provided, internal reviews scheduled appropriately and duplication of documentation avoided. These are developments that the team would encourage.
Student representation at operational and University level
54 The SED claimed that the University encouraged 'a sense of shared ownership of...educational provision' through 'participatory arrangements' that include students sitting on several key central committees. One undergraduate and one graduate student sit on the General Board and CUSU's Academic Affairs Officer sits on the Education Committee. The President of the Graduate Union attends meetings of the Board of Graduate Studies but is not a full member with voting rights. At local level, staff-student liaison committees exist in all institutions, and all faculty boards and comparable bodies have student representatives. These arrangements are confirmed in the new Quality Guide, which also suggests that consultative committees should meet once a term, and reminds staff of the need to make provision for graduate as well as undergraduate representation.
55 The University is satisfied that these arrangements are broadly satisfactory, a view endorsed by the students who met the audit team during the DATs, who placed greater emphasis on informal methods of consultation and discussion. CUSU's submission to the team indicated, however, that there was 'great variation' in the support provided for student representatives at faculty level: 'many faculties rely on students coming forward with complaints rather than making the mechanisms whereby their opinions can be taken readily available'. Within this context, the team noted that the Quality Guide recommended as good practice an induction programme for student representatives and an early meeting with relevant committee chairs, and provided advice on maintaining continuity and communication with the student body. The University may wish to monitor the impact of this guidance, in the light of CUSU's submission.
56 On the basis of the evidence available to it, the audit team considered that the University's arrangements for student representation were broadly adequate. The University is advised to consider one apparent anomaly: the fact that the President of the Graduate Union has only observer status on the Board of Graduate Studies, while CUSU's Academic Affairs Officer is a full member of the Education Committee.
Feedback from students, graduates and employers
57 Consistent with the University's general approach to quality assurance, there is no standard mechanism for collecting student feedback: institutions are free to determine, and take ownership of, systems that are appropriate to their particular circumstances. However, the Quality Guide commends 'as essential good practice in all Faculties and Departments' 'regular use of questionnaires as a mechanism for obtaining student feedback on teaching', supplemented by appropriate arrangements for analysing and acting upon the results. The SED commented that 'more diverse means of soliciting student feedback' had also been generated at local level over recent years. The University is resistant to the notion of collecting student feedback through a centrally organised survey, arguing, among other reasons, that 'were local arrangements to be inadequate, this would quickly become known (and resolved) through one or more of the extensive opportunities for formal representation of student views'. The audit team saw many examples of good practice in questionnaire design and evidence that much effective feedback was generated locally.
58 The SED was frank in acknowledging that several Agency subject review reports 'had drawn attention to issues concerning effective reporting back to students on actions taken as a result of their feedback'. This matter was also raised in CUSU's submission, which commented that University guidelines on feedback and course monitoring had been adopted 'very recently' and that feedback on matters raised by students could be 'woefully slow': 'the majority of students fill in lecture evaluation questionnaires...but few know what happens to the responses'. There were 'examples of good practice' in some faculties but no apparent mechanisms for disseminating them more widely. These are matters to which the University will no doubt wish to give further consideration, in the context of its expectations for the new Quality Statements (see above, paragraphs 31 to 34).
59 The General Board is of the view that 'preparation for any specific branch of employment is not the main objective of most educational programmes provided by the University...The requirement to include specific employers' needs and opinions in programme specifications would distort the aims and objectives of many Cambridge programmes'. Consistent with this statement, the audit team saw no evidence of any systematic collection or use of feedback from employers or graduates of the University in programme specifications.
Progression and completion statistics
60 Statistics relating to student admissions and performance are provided by the Cambridge Admissions Office and Student Records and Statistics Section, and exceptionally full statistical information is published in the Reporter. In particular, special annual editions provide data on admissions, student numbers, examination results, classing distributions and completion. The audit team was impressed by the quality, nature, range and accessibility of the statistical information made publicly available through this medium. The statistics themselves reveal the very high entry qualifications of the majority of students and, undoubtedly linked, the University's impressive retention and completion rates. These factors have been recognised across HEFCE and Agency subject reviews. Ninety nine per cent of undergraduates and 91 per cent of MPhil students complete their degree programmes successfully, while PhD completion rates within the standard four-year period currently stand at 70 per cent (higher in sciences and technology and lower in arts, humanities and social sciences).
61 The SED expressed the University's belief that its information-gathering systems were effective, while acknowledging that data on student progression and retention for each year of a course were not yet routinely available centrally. The audit team recognised that the complexities of the Tripos system made it more difficult for the centre to monitor progression year on year, and that efforts were being made to make information about failure, withdrawal and transfer between Triposes routinely available through the new Student Information System, CamSIS, planned to come on-line from 2005.
62 Within the context of the University's use of statistics, the audit team noted in particular the 'Project on Indicators of Academic Performance', a detailed University-wide investigation into the performance of undergraduates at Cambridge and the factors that might influence degree classification. The research was instigated by the Joint Committee on Academic Performance, established in 1996. The first part of the 'Report of Findings', based on the 1997 entry cohort, investigated the extent to which performance in Tripos examinations varied between different social and ethnic groups. The cohort was distinguished in terms of gender, social class, ethnicity, type of school attended and entry qualifications, and tracked through to completion in 2001. The first part of the report concluded that, while the strongest association with class of degree was subject area, further work was required to determine whether combinations of attributes influenced class of degree. The second part of the report investigated some of those combinations in detail and concluded that the major influences on academic performance were related to the teaching and learning environments provided by faculties, departments and colleges. The 'Summary' of the report was published in the Reporter in February 2003. In the view of the team, the report was innovative and comprehensive, and it demonstrated the ability of the University to analyse data relating to student achievement, its willingness to give careful and public consideration to the effects of its assessment methods, and its openness to public discussion of perceptions of underachievement by particular student groups.
Assurance of quality of teaching staff, appointment, appraisal and reward
63 The University recognises that 'the calibre of its students and staff is its greatest asset', and the SED drew attention to various external measures, including the results of research assessment exercises and a range of national and international distinctions, that confirmed the quality of its academic staff. The SED stated that the appointment processes for academic staff were 'rigorous' and, for posts involving teaching, 'increasingly involve a presentation'. Currently, appointments of University Teaching Officers (UTOs) are normally to lectureships for an initial period of three to five years and then, if satisfactory performance is confirmed, reappointment to retirement age. Teaching is also provided by College Teaching Officers (CTOs) appointed by the colleges, and a wide range of research staff, research students and others who are employed by the colleges and institutions to supervise undergraduate students.
64 The SED stated that all institutions had staff appraisal schemes, for which General Board approval was required. Appraisal is biennial but probationary staff are appraised annually. The appraisal scheme was revised recently with more emphasis being given to recording outcomes. The SED also reported that the University had given 'very extensive consideration to personal promotions procedures' since the 1992 audit, resulting in several developments. In 2000-01, the promotions system was revised to introduce senior lectureships as a means of rewarding achievement in teaching and general contributions to the University. From 2002-03, the system is again being revised so that senior lectureships, readerships and professorships are joined in a single promotion process. 'Satisfactory evidence of an effective contribution to teaching' is now 'an integral part' of the criteria for promotions to readerships and professorships, and teaching excellence is also recognised through the award of 10 annual Teaching Prizes.
65 The audit team was provided with documentation illustrating these aspects of the University's approach to assuring the quality of teaching, and was able to discuss them with staff groups. In terms of appointments, the team noted that the University maintained a Personnel Division web site that included detailed guidance on aspects of employment law and on good practice in recruitment. It heard, however, that it was not yet routine practice for UTO candidates to be expected to give a presentation, and that arrangements for the appointment of CTOs and supervisors varied. It was informed that research students were generally only accepted as supervisors on the personal recommendation of their research supervisors, but that the University was experiencing considerable pressure to identify sufficient supervisors given other demands on staff and research students. The team also noted that there were difficulties in recruiting to assistant lectureships in some subject areas, and that the EU Directive on Fixed-Term Working was necessitating substantial changes to appointment practice. The University was currently consulting on the introduction of a formal system of probationary appointment to replace assistant lectureships. Among the issues being considered was whether appointments should be made one or two weeks before the start of term to allow new staff to prepare for their responsibilities. Given the demands on new staff and the cultural adjustments necessary, this appeared to the team not to ensure an adequate preparatory period.
66 The audit team noted that the University had commented on the 'patchy' implementation of appraisal when consulting on the development of its Human Resources Strategy in 2000 and during its Equality Audit in 2001. The selection of Quality Statements seen by the team indicated that not all faculties and departments currently operated appraisal processes, a view confirmed by the DATs. The team also heard that colleges varied in their practices in relation to appraisal of CTOs. Drafts of the information to be provided by the University to staff on its appraisal processes expressed the expectation that appraisers would receive training and that staff development needs would be identified better through the new appraisal process than had occurred previously. The University will wish to monitor the implementation of the new scheme, to ensure that it delivers what is intended in all faculties and departments.
67 Staff who met the audit team valued the introduction of senior lectureships as recognition of the importance of teaching and of their own abilities; the team heard that some staff had progressed rapidly from senior lectureships to readerships as a result of their ability to combine teaching excellence with research. Similarly, teaching prizes were valued for the recognition they provided for the individual and the individual's institution. The team heard that the Staff Development Office (see below, paragraph 68) was seeking to capitalise on this development by recording and disseminating the experience of prize winners.
Assurance of quality of teaching through staff support and development
68 The University makes provision for staff development through its Staff Development Office, situated within the Personnel Division. The Staff Development Committee, established in 2001, is responsible through the Personnel Committee for advising the General Board and the Council about University-wide provision, and for the implementation and monitoring of agreed policies. In addition to its staff development team, the University employs a group of University Teaching Associates (UTAs), staff with roles elsewhere in the University who act as part-time trainers. Among the UTAs are 16 researchers with experience in giving undergraduate supervisions who have been trained to train others for their role as supervisors. The University places particular emphasis on central support for local trainers; institutions are asked to identify a member of staff as a Staff Development Coordinator to liaise with central services and to respond to local needs.
69 A wide range of courses relating to different aspects of academic life is provided centrally, supplemented by written guidance on various matters. Consistent with the University's general ethos, the approach is supportive rather than prescriptive: most courses are optional but some, for example those relating to health and safety, are mandatory. Training for new supervisors is not mandatory but is required by some institutions. The use of peer observation and mentoring for new staff is similarly variable across institutions. Staff who wish to join the Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education are encouraged through the provision of financial assistance.
70 The SED reported that staff development provision had 'expanded significantly' since the 1992 audit and that, in particular, the establishment of a single Staff Development Committee made the University better placed 'to take an overview of staff development activities and to prioritise resources' accordingly. The audit team noted that the Staff Development Office was comparatively small given the size and complexity of the University, but was impressed with the obvious enthusiasm of its permanent staff and the UTAs, and with the central programme of activities that had been developed. The team noted that the availability of courses to the colleges enhanced staff development provision more generally. New staff spoke favourably about the courses they had attended. The team was also provided with details about the development of the UTA programme for training supervisors, noting that it had been well-received by those attending and was expanding to meet developing needs. In the view of the team, this initiative was a feature of good practice.
71 The audit team was provided with access to Staff Development Committee papers relating to the induction programme for new staff and the introduction of a probationary system. It noted that some periodic review reports had commented that considerable pressure could be placed on new staff through heavy teaching loads and high expectations for research and publication. Rather than limit the required training for new staff to a minimum, the University may wish to consider the desirability of providing, as part of its probationary arrangements for staff new to teaching, a period of protected development which incorporates a reduced teaching load in order to facilitate appropriate training in teaching and learning strategies.
72 A survey conducted by the Staff Development Office in 2001-02 indicated that some new UTOs and CTOs felt unprepared and unsupported for their role of supervisor. The audit team noted that some institutions provided written guidance for supervisors and heard that some Directors of Studies took particular care to ensure that supervisors were trained and supported in their role. Nonetheless, the large number of staff and others acting as supervisors, the varied practices in colleges and institutions, and the emphasis on voluntary training made it likely that there would be supervisors who were insufficiently prepared for their crucial role. Variability in the quality of supervisory support was a matter of concern raised in CUSU's submission to the audit team, and is undoubtedly one that the University will wish to keep under continuing review. Further comment on the supervision system is provided below, paragraphs 78 to 82.
73 The position of Staff Development Coordinator was introduced in October 2002 to replace separate systems for supporting local staff development for academic and assistant staff. The audit team noted that by January 2003 a third of institutions had yet to inform the Staff Development Committee of their coordinators' names and that those that had been appointed included administrative staff who might not, in the view of the team, be best placed to create a culture of staff development among academic staff. Although a wide role had been specified for coordinators, it was clear from the DATs that, to date, some had acted only to pass on information about courses. In addition, the overview of Quality Statements indicated that only about half of institutions had any form of in-house staff development. These matters suggested to the team that, while considerable progress had been made at central level since the 1992 audit, the University should not yet rely too heavily on local initiatives to secure the development of its teaching staff.
Assurance of quality of teaching delivered through distributed and distance methods
74 Until very recently, the University's provision has been delivered largely through traditional means, and largely to students attending the University full-time in Cambridge. The audit team noted that the University was participating in the work of the new eUniversity through the University of Cambridge Programme for Industry, and that a postgraduate certificate, to be awarded by another university, was being advertised under its name. The SED did not cover the University's intended approach to satisfying itself about the quality and standards of such awards, but it signalled the University's appreciation that developments in non-traditional delivery methods would require particular vigilance. These are matters to which the Education Committee will no doubt be giving further attention in the near future, particularly in the context of the matters raised in paragraphs 88 to 91 below.
Learning support resources
75 The University's learning resources have received maximum grades in all of the HEFCE and Agency subject reviews undertaken since 1995. The SED set out the division of responsibilities for learning support resources between the University and the colleges. Lectures and other forms of large group instruction, such as practicals and seminars, are provided by the University, which is also responsible for the basic academic infrastructure, such as libraries, laboratories and lecture theatres. The colleges, with their responsibilities for individual teaching at undergraduate level, and for academic and personal guidance, provide 'libraries and learning and IT resources to complement the University facilities'. The students who met the audit team during the DATs generally recognised the high quality of the learning support resources offered by the University and the colleges.
76 The SED gave brief accounts of five of the learning resources provided by the University: the University Library, a legal deposit library; the Computing Service; the University's museums and galleries; and the Language Centre. It did not describe the means by which these services were evaluated by the University or by their users. CUSU's submission to the audit team made reference to the 'wealth of (library) resources' available to students, but maintained that students did not enjoy all the benefits potentially available to them because of restricted access to certain faculty, department and college libraries by students who were not themselves members of those bodies. It also pointed out that college libraries varied in size and quality. This description of variability was supported by students who participated in the DATs: some spoke highly of the multiple opportunities for accessing textbooks from a variety of sources; others pointed out that University library closures at weekends made them dependent on college libraries which varied widely in what they could provide.
77 The penultimate section of the SED commented on likely future developments in the University's management of quality and standards. It expressed the University's awareness that extensions to traditional methods of teaching - to encompass more part-time study, distance and e-learning, new student exchange programmes, and collaboration with other universities - would 'need to be carefully handled' to ensure that 'the distinctive features of a Cambridge education', in particular college membership, close supervision and access to substantial learning resources, were 'not diminished'. The reality of these matters was borne out by the audit team's discussions with graduate students who, during one DAT, described how difficulties were caused by the limited opening hours of one library, and generally felt that the University should do more to accommodate the special needs of part-time students. Staff at central level informed the team that provision for part-time students had been the subject of major debate, the goal being to guarantee an experience that was 'equivalent' to that of full-time students, and that part-time students would not be admitted without adequate support in place, but also that some elements of this support might have to be concentrated into vacation periods. Consistent with its comments in the SED, the University will wish to keep these matters under close review.
Academic guidance, support and supervision
78 The word 'supervision' has a particular meaning at Cambridge, where it describes the small group teaching provided by the colleges that is 'the cornerstone of the University's undergraduate educational environment'. Directors of Studies are responsible for the academic progress of all undergraduates reading a particular subject in a particular college. Their duties are set out in guidelines published by the Senior Tutors' Committee and include the appointment of supervisors and monitoring the standard of supervision. All Directors of Studies in a subject area 'are expected to meet at least annually to discuss matters of mutual interest'. Within each college, all Directors of Studies report to the Senior Tutor, the college officer responsible 'for managing and assuring quality in all aspects of collegiate provision for all student members', including graduate students.
79 The 1992 audit report expressed doubt as to whether the full potential of the supervision system was being realised because reporting mechanisms differed across colleges. Partly as a response, the Senior Tutors' Committee, an intercollegiate body comprising the Senior Tutors of all colleges, was established, replacing the former Tutorial Representatives (see above, paragraph 23). The SED reported that the Senior Tutors' Committee had introduced various new measures designed to secure greater consistency of practice in the operation of the supervision system, and to strengthen formal reporting lines. These included making training available for new supervisors, and the introduction of supervisory guidelines and a common format for termly reports on students. The latter has been supported by CamCORS, an on-line reporting system introduced in 2002- 03 and already operational in all colleges.
80 The SED described the supervision system as 'labour-intensive' and requiring many supervisors, with the result that not all were UTOs or CTOs: some were graduate students, post-doctoral workers, or 'others resident in Cambridge'. It claimed that, while 'blanket uniformity of supervisory practice is neither desirable nor achievable', the arrangements in place allowed 'academic difficulties to be promptly identified and addressed' and that the 'small group nature of supervision' made supervisors 'quickly familiar with each student's progress'. CUSU's submission to the audit team described the supervision system as 'an extremely valuable method of teaching' that 'should always be protected', but commented that the lack of compulsory training for supervisors 'results in a huge variation in the quality of teaching'.
81 The audit team discussed these matters with staff and students as part of its University level enquiries and through the DATs. Students, while constructively critical of some aspects of supervision, cited many situations where approaches on their part had elicited immediate and effective responses from supervisors, Directors of Studies and tutors. While some students are not yet able to access CamCORS, those who could had praised its speed of response and flexibility. The team heard that although not all colleges (or institutions) required supervisors to have undertaken training for the role, training opportunities were increasingly available; graduate students confirmed to the team that they had received useful training for their work as supervisors. Less favourably, members of the Senior Tutors' Committee acknowledged that, while poor performance in the case of supervisors based in a faculty or department would soon become generally known, the sharing of such information might be less certain for supervisors appointed by colleges. The team also heard that it was becoming harder to persuade UTOs to take on the responsibilities of Directors of Studies, as a result of other pressures on their time. In this context, the team noted that Directors of Studies in some subject areas did not seem to be meeting to discuss matters of mutual interest, as expected by the SED.
82 Overall, the audit team concluded that there was a range of matters relating to the operation of the supervision system that the University and the colleges would wish to keep under continuing review, particularly in the light of comments made in CUSU's submission (see above, paragraph 80). However, the team recognised the considerable recent work of the Senior Tutors' Committee in addressing matters of consistency, and noted that its membership - chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, with all colleges represented - enabled it to play a key strategic role in keeping an overview of and coordinating educational provision; achieving common standards; and identifying and disseminating good practice. The team considered that the Senior Tutors' Committee had real influence, partly because two of its members were also members of the Education Committee of the General Board.
83 Academic support and guidance for taught graduate students are provided at faculty and departmental level. Students are allocated an academic supervisor responsible for giving them advice in planning their year's work and for their general academic progress. Overall responsibility for graduate student support rests with the Board of Graduate Studies. The SED was frank in acknowledging that the level of independent study expected of graduates 'can challenge some students, particularly overseas students accepted onto MPhil courses' and also recognised the challenge faced by the University, as a predominantly residential institution, in providing appropriate levels of support for part-time students. Further comment on these matters is provided above, paragraph 77 and below, paragraphs 155 to 156.
Personal support and guidance
84 General oversight of each student's welfare is a college responsibility, exercised through a Tutor. Individual colleges deliver this support in different ways, and while in some the 'Tutor' may indeed be a single person, in others there may be a tutorial team. Support for graduate students is provided by Graduate Tutors, with broadly similar duties to Undergraduate Tutors, although with some additional elements. The responsibilities of Tutors in respect of the provision of personal - and indeed academic - advice are detailed in guidelines produced by the Senior Tutors' Committee. A Graduate Tutors' Committee reports to the Senior Tutors' Committee on particular issues affecting graduate students. The SED acknowledged that the tutorial remit 'is a wide one and that Tutors can vary in their knowledge and experience of University procedures'. It indicated that quality assurance of the system was the responsibility of Senior Tutors, and members of the Senior Tutors' Committee who met the audit team alluded to the extensive range of information they were required to assimilate to carry out their role effectively, using the mechanism of the Senior Tutors' Committee to share and discuss matters as appropriate.
85 Specialised central support services are provided by the University. The SED described three such services - the Careers Service, the Disability Resource Centre and the Counselling Service - but did not explicitly evaluate their effectiveness. In terms of careers guidance, CUSU's submission to the audit team commented favourably on the Careers Service and students who met the team during the DATs also spoke appreciatively of the latter, mentioning electronic resources and advice on the preparation of curricula vitae. The team noted that the Quality Guide's annotations (see above, paragraph 45) to the section of the Code of practice relating to careers education, information and guidance (CEIG) showed that the Careers Service was working towards compliance with the national standards introduced by the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services and indicated ways in which the precepts of the Code of practice were observed. Within this context, the team noted that the suggestion that CEIG should be integrated within the curriculum was thought to be 'inappropriate to Cambridge's strategy and mission', and that the SED (although not the annotated version of the Code of practice) disagreed with the precept that academic staff offering careers advice to students should receive appropriate training for this role.
86 In terms of disability support, the audit team noted that the Disability Resource Centre had been instrumental in establishing a new Joint Committee on Disability (which includes representation from the Education Committee) to provide an integrated approach across the University. Documentation provided for the team included an excellent guide for staff on 'Supporting disabled students and colleagues'. CUSU's submission to the team commented on the 'excellent service' provided by the Centre, although it questioned the voluntary nature of training for staff in relation to disability matters.
87 The Counselling Service's annual report for 2002 shows that the percentage of the student population seen by the Service, at 5.5 per cent, is above the UK average of 3.4 per cent. The report attributes this situation to the success of the college system in identifying and referring potential problems, and also draws attention to the University's impressive retention rates. The SED reported that pressures on the Counselling Service during 2002 had caused delays and resulted in restrictions. As a result, the Service's direction and staffing structure were reviewed by its Executive Committee and new arrangements were introduced. Documentation provided for the audit team confirmed that these changes had already cut waiting times significantly.
Collaborative provision
88 The SED reported that, although the University 'does not at present participate in collaborative provision, in the sense in which that term is defined by the QAA', there were extensive and long-standing informal links between some faculties and departments and their counterparts in other, mainly overseas, universities. In the case of any proposed MPhil courses to be taught jointly with other institutions, for example, with MIT, it is intended that there will be a formal agreement governing the provision. In the case of undergraduates, the SED drew attention to several courses that permitted or required students to study abroad in partial fulfilment of degree requirements. Given the acknowledged risks to quality and standards of provision involving cooperation between universities, the SED signalled the University's awareness of 'the need to exercise particular vigilance in setting and monitoring robust quality assurance arrangements' in any such provision. Consistent with this approach, the Quality Guide incorporates advice on the section of the Code of practice relating to collaborative provision - which it expects to be 'of limited relevance to most institutions' - in the form of General guidelines for the consideration of proposals for collaboration with other universities in the provision of courses and examinations.
89 Each Quality Statement is expected to include information about provision involving collaboration with other universities. The audit team noted that the Quality Statement of the Institute of Continuing Education appeared to indicate that there was collaboration with several European universities in the provision of courses and examinations leading to undergraduate and graduate qualifications. This impression was confirmed by information available in the Institute's Annual Reports and on its web site. The latter included reference to a Postgraduate Diploma in the Law of the European Communities, offered in collaboration with a European university, and the award of undergraduate certificates and diplomas for successful completion of courses and examinations taught in collaboration with other European universities. Within this context, the team noted that the Institute had authority to award its own certificates, in subjects approved by the General Board, for satisfactory performance in examinations for those who had followed courses primarily intended for persons who were not members of the University. It also had the authority to award other qualifications, within categories approved by the General Board, to those who had followed the Institute's courses and whose work had been assessed by criteria determined by the Institute. It appeared to the team that the Postgraduate Diploma in the Law of the European Communities, particularly since it was represented as an award of the University attracting 'M' level credits, fell within the second of these groups of qualifications, even though this qualification did not appear on the list of degrees and other awards of the University.
90 Prior to 2000-01, the Institute (previously Board) of Continuing Education operated under the supervision of the University Council. In 2000-01, a Joint Report of the Council and the General Board on Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning brought the Institute under the supervision of the General Board. It also indicated that the Education Committee would seek assurance that continuing education and lifelong learning activities conducted by the University met the appropriate standards and quality for a research-strong higher education institution (HEI). However, the audit team was informed that, although new courses and examinations were indeed subject to the General Board's guidelines for quality assurance, those approved prior to the establishment of the Institute were not. The Education Committee had therefore yet to be assured that the provision offered by the Institute of Continuing Education in collaboration with European partner universities satisfied the expectations of the General Board.
91 The audit team concluded that, although collaborative activity with other universities leading to awards of the University may be a relatively minor aspect of the provision supervised by the General Board, the 'particular vigilance' it required in respect of the quality assurance of such provision had yet to be exercised. The University is advised to give high priority to reviewing the practices of the General Board so as to enable the Education Committee to receive the information it needs to assure itself that the quality and standards of all those programmes provided by institutions under its supervision, and offered in conjunction with bodies outside the University, fully meet the requirements of the University for the award of its qualifications. In the view of the team, it is important that the University takes prompt action to address this matter.
Section 3: The audit investigations: discipline audit trails and thematic enquiries
Discipline audit trails
92 For each of the selected DATs, two members of the audit team met staff and students to discuss the provision, studied a sample of assessed student work, saw examples of learning resource materials, and studied internal review and other documentation. The team's findings are as follows.
Astronomy
93 The DAT covered the teaching of astrophysics by the Institute of Astronomy, an institution within the School of Physical Sciences. The Institute is housed in its own buildings with a modern lecture theatre and library. At undergraduate level, astrophysics is taught as a third-year course in Part II of the Natural Sciences Tripos (NST). Around 20 students are following the course at any one time. A fourth year, Part III, programme will commence in the academical year 2003-04. In addition, there are about 50 graduate students studying for research degrees. The DSED, prepared specifically for the DAT, evaluated the undergraduate and graduate provision separately.
94 The DSED was accompanied by programme specifications for the NST, prepared in November 2002 but still in draft form. They consist of a generic section covering assessment, student support, admission criteria and quality assurance and enhancement, together with specific aims and learning outcomes for the astrophysics course, and statements about the teaching, learning and assessment methods employed. The astrophysics course corresponds to the levels of attainment set out in the FHEQ and exceeds the expectations of the Subject benchmark statement for physics, astronomy and astrophysics.
95 The DSED made clear that University oversight of the Institute's provision was through the Faculty Board for Physics and Chemistry and its Degree Committee, the NST Management and Strategic Committees, and the Board of Graduate Studies. The undergraduate course is managed by a Teaching Committee that carries out much of its business by email. The audit team was able to confirm the ways in which the work of these bodies took place within the University's quality framework. The recent consideration of the proposed Part III programme provided an example of the course approval process, from consultation with external examiners through to final approval by the General Board. While the DSED did not make explicit reference to the Code of practice, staff who met the team explained that they had been made aware of it by the Education Section and the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies, and that it was having an impact on their consideration of teaching and learning activities. Similarly, a Quality Statement has been produced and is to be updated annually by the Teaching Committee, although it has yet to be seen as useful in terms of departmental policy.
96 The Institute endeavours to foster a friendly informal environment in which undergraduate and graduate students can meet regularly with staff and discuss items of specific or general interest. The students who met the audit team attested to the success of this approach, which they greatly appreciated. Among other benefits, the informal contact provides an opportunity for timely feedback on lectures, although the feedback forms collected after each lecture course show that students do not always use this possibility. There is no staff-student liaison committee but the Teaching Committee holds a meeting with all undergraduates and the Senior Examiner each May to review the year's courses and to explain the examination structure. It is argued that this, and the regular informal contact, is more effective for the small, single-year class than a formal committee would be. The Chair of the Teaching Committee is charged with reviewing the feedback overall and preparing an annual report for discussion at a staff meeting.
97 Undergraduate supervision is arranged directly by the Institute on behalf of the colleges, avoiding possible variability in this narrow field. Each lecturer supervises at least one pair of students, so obtaining a measure of prompt feedback on teaching, and the effectiveness of graduate supervisors of undergraduates is evaluated as part of the course feedback process. Undergraduates noted that this feedback was sometimes too late to be useful and graduates commented that opportunities for supervisor training were sometimes not timely.
98 External examiners' reports are considered carefully, comments acted upon and a response sent to the examiner by the Board of Examiners. Recent external examiners' reports have been highly complimentary and the audit team saw evidence that the advice received since the inception of the undergraduate course in 1995 had been used to enhance the provision.
99 The audit team reviewed a range of undergraduate student work. It was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement in the astrophysics course met the expectations of the programme specification and the Subject benchmark statement for physics, astronomy and astrophysics and was appropriate to the award of BA (Honours) and its location within the FHEQ.
100 The Institute will, if necessary, help research students arriving in Cambridge with first degrees from elsewhere to find a college place, so that they can be admitted to the University. Students noted that accommodation costs could be more important than academic reasons in driving their preferences for a college. Unusually, new research students are not necessarily allocated a supervisor prior to arrival, but are allowed some months to discuss possible projects and to make an informed choice. Research students follow a prescribed lecture programme for the first two years. They are assessed on their progress by essays after one term and by an oral examination at the end of their second term. A further interview takes place at the beginning of the third year to ensure that satisfactory progress continues to be made. Annual year-end reports are provided as required by the Board of Graduate Studies.
101 Undergraduate and graduate students who met the audit team confirmed that the information available to them before commencing their courses was full and accurate. In particular, since astrophysics is not a Part I NST or Mathematical Tripos subject, they confirmed that adequate information was provided to allow them to appreciate the structure of the course and the nature of the material covered. Extensive and exemplary handbooks cover both pastoral and academic matters and explain everything students need to gain the maximum benefit from their courses. For undergraduates, the associated course guides describe the supervision arrangements, the detailed structure of the examination papers and the classing criteria. Students confirmed that this information was wholly satisfactory.
102 The Institute has a policy whereby the lecturer on each course is changed every third year. This is followed by peer observation of the incoming lecturer, however senior, during the first year after the change. New staff have light teaching loads and a mentor is appointed to support their work. Attendance at staff development courses is encouraged and, the audit team was informed, would be obligatory in the event of unfavourable reports from students. The team also heard that appraisal was used for all teaching staff, but now took place less than every two years.
103 The audit team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities available to undergraduate students was suitable for a course of study leading to the award of BA (Honours), and that the quality of learning opportunities for research students was appropriate.
The Computer Laboratory
104 The Computer Laboratory, within the School of Technology, is a department independent of any faculty. The Computer Science Syndicate, which operates as a Faculty Board, advises the General Board on the development of teaching in computer science and related subjects and provides a number of programmes and awards. The Syndicate comprises members drawn from the Computer Laboratory and, to provide externality, other parts of the University. The DSED, prepared specifically for the DAT, evaluated the full range of education provided by the Laboratory and included draft programme specifications for the Computer Science Tripos, the Diploma in Computer Science and the MSt and MPhil in Computer Speech, Text and Internet Technology. Around 130 students each year graduate from the Tripos and Diploma programmes, and round 25 to 30 from the masters programmes. There are also around 100 research students. The DAT focused on the Tripos and the Diploma in Computer Science.
105 The draft programme specification for the Computer Science Tripos corresponds to the levels of attainment set out in the FHEQ and reflects the intentions of the Subject benchmark statement for computing. The draft programme specification for the Diploma states that the qualification is at masters (M) level of the FHEQ and the programme is also described as a 'postgraduate course' in the recent submission for accreditation to the British Computer Society (BCS). However, students are permitted to choose modules from all three years of the Tripos, together with some special modules that introduce algorithms, mathematics, computer and operating systems. Staff who met the audit team agreed that it would be necessary to review the Diploma before the specification was finalised, to ensure that it was correctly located within the FHEQ, given its dependence on undergraduate material. Within this context, the team noted that some further work would also be required in relation to programme specifications for the MSt and MPhil, which did not currently use the appropriate M-level descriptors for describing what were clearly advanced, masters-level learning outcomes.
106 The Computer Laboratory operates its own internal procedures for quality management, providing assurance to the University that its arrangements are effective through the Quality Statement. Staff confirmed that they had found the Statement provided a useful means of informing the centre of local procedures. The Laboratory's annual monitoring arrangements include cohort tracking systems, and paper and electronic schemes for collecting student feedback. The audit team saw several examples of such feedback and noted in particular the existence of an internet-based course questionnaire for students to complete for each unit, with internet-based interfaces permitting both staff and students to see the feedback. The web site also provides an 'instant feedback' button to allow students to raise urgent matters with the Head of Department and other officers. Additionally, a Staff-Student Consultative Committee, with representatives from all years of the Tripos, the Diploma and the MSt/MPhil, receives feedback from students. Its minutes are presented to the Computer Science Syndicate, fed back to the Laboratory's Teaching Committee, and published on the internet. Minutes of recent meetings indicated student satisfaction with all levels of provision and suggested that matters raised by students were quickly and effectively dealt with by the Laboratory, where possible, and also by the Syndicate. Students who met the team were complimentary about the way in which they could raise matters with staff and see prompt action taken (or a satisfactory explanation of why action was not possible) in response.
107 Newly appointed external examiners are provided with detailed guidance on marking schemes and classing conventions, as well as other documentation relating to the structure of examination papers and the nature of projects. Recent external examiners' reports indicate great satisfaction with the standards of Tripos and Diploma awards, and with local assessment procedures. External examiners' reports are forwarded to the Computer Laboratory by the Education Section. The audit team saw evidence that the Education Section actively analysed the Laboratory's responses to external examiners' comments, and requested further information if it was not satisfied that the matters raised had been fully addressed.
108 Students are provided with several handbooks, including an introduction to the Computer Laboratory, and introductions to each Part of the Tripos and to the Diploma. The course handbooks provide basic information on module aims, lecture contents, objectives and reading lists. Students who met the audit team confirmed the availability of internet-based material, including classification criteria. They also confirmed that they had received clear information about the 'tick' system in operation within the Computer Laboratory, whereby students must achieve basic 'pass' judgements on a number of practical assignments during the first two years of the Tripos. Some students commented on the desirability of including these coursework marks in their end-of-year assessments, which were principally examination-based. Staff explained that the 'tick' system was introduced to ensure that students did not over-commit themselves to one particular assignment because of a perceived need to boost their marks at the expense of other components of the programme.
109 The audit team's review of student work was based largely on Part II and Diploma projects. For Part II students, an individual project contributes one quarter of the total marks for the third year. All of the project reports conformed to the guidelines issued to students on how to prepare and submit such reports. The team was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement in the Tripos met the expectations of the programme specification and the Subject benchmark statement and was appropriate to the title of BA (Honours) and its location within the FHEQ. It was also satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement in the Diploma was appropriate: the projects were longer and more advanced than those for the Tripos, although not quite to the level of a taught masters research project. This confirmed the team's view that further work was required on the programme specification for the Diploma, to ensure that the intended level of the award was correctly described (see above, paragraph 105).
110 The Computer Laboratory provides a comprehensive suite of appropriate hardware and software in support of its academic programmes. The recently-built Gates Building has a dedicated teaching facility, to which all students have 24-hour access throughout the week. Additionally, every college has a computer room for student use. Students confirmed the high level of resource available to them and commented on the availability of textbooks within colleges, locally and in the University Library. They also confirmed that the supervision system allowed individual problems to be quickly identified and addressed and that clear systems existed for bringing difficulties with supervisors to the attention of college Directors of Studies.
111 The DSED explained that the overall aim of the Computer Laboratory was to attract students of high quality and to provide them with an education that recognises and exploits their abilities. The content of courses indicates a desire to teach lasting underlying principles, rather than being directly and immediately vocational. However, students who met the audit team commented favourably on the range and variety of learning opportunities available to enable them to acquire desirable career skills and to make contact with future employers. In particular, the Industrial Supporters' Club, which involves several companies making presentations to students and working with staff, drew unanimous praise. The team noted that the Tripos Part II had been granted full exemption by BCS Professional Examinations and partial CEng accreditation for a period of five intakes from 2002, indicating that the award provided effective training for future engineers. BCS exemption has also been granted for the Diploma. The team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities available to students was suitable for programmes of study leading to the award of BA (Honours) or Diploma.
112 The Computing Laboratory's Quality Statement confirms that all staff participate in appraisal, with probationers appraised annually and other staff biennially. A mentoring system is in place for new academic staff. In respect of training for supervisors, Directors of Studies commented that there was less need to ensure preparatory training for graduates of Cambridge, but others were strongly encouraged to attend training before commencing supervision duties.
Experimental Psychology
113 Experimental Psychology, a Department within the Faculty of Biology in the School of Biological Sciences, is responsible for the teaching of two elements of the NST - Part IB Experimental Psychology and Part II Psychology - and for the supervision of research students. It also contributes to some other undergraduate programmes, which were not included in the DAT. There are around 200 students on the Tripos elements and around 30 research students. The DSED, prepared specifically for the DAT, was a self-critical evaluation of the full range of education provided by the Department.
114 The DSED was accompanied by draft programme specifications for the NST and for the psychology elements within it. The latter were very brief, with little explicit linkage between learning outcomes, curricula and assessment, and would benefit from some expansion before they are finalised. In their present form, they do not make it explicit that each of the core domains identified in the Subject benchmark statement for psychology is both taught and assessed as part of the undergraduate programme. This was confirmed when the Department's undergraduate courses were recently re-accredited by the British Psychological Society.
115 The General Board conducted a 'Preliminary Review' of Experimental Psychology in February 2002, using periodic review procedures that have since been modified (see above, paragraphs 35 to 36). The audit team was able to confirm that the Department had responded to the principal recommendation of the review, in respect of teaching quality, by establishing a Teaching Committee. It was also giving further thought to the particular needs of students taking its courses from the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences and the Faculty of Philosophy, whose scientific background was typically more restricted than that of the majority of students in the Faculty of Biology. Staff who met the team viewed the new requirement for a Quality Statement as having the potential to aid regular reflection. It was also clear that staff took their teaching very seriously and knew their students well.
116 Student feedback on the quality of teaching is sought through questionnaires, and summarised results are reported to meetings of a Staff-Student Consultative Committee. Staff and students who met the audit team provided good evidence of the ways in which the Department responded to student feedback, although the actions taken were not always minuted in the papers seen by the team. Students in particular emphasised the availability, range and value of informal means of communication with staff, in their colleges as well as in the Department.
117 External examiners are appointed separately for these subjects within Part IB and Part II of the Tripos. The external examiners' reports seen by the audit team indicated complete confidence in the standards achieved by students, and it was clear that, where possible, the Department had responded appropriately to matters raised. The team noted that the Part IB Examiner had commented on a possible tension between his role and the norm-referencing used in classifying performance in that part of the Tripos, a matter that the Department itself was not in a position to address because the procedure applied across the Tripos.
118 The audit team reviewed a range of undergraduate student work, including scripts from Part IB and Part II, Part IB practical reports, and Part II projects and dissertations. It was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement in the psychology courses met the expectations of the programme specification and the Subject benchmark statement and was appropriate to the award of BA (Honours) and its location within the FHEQ.
119 The Department does not review detailed progression data systematically, but they are frequently reported to staff meetings; the Agency subject review in January 2000 found undergraduate failure/withdrawal rates of less than 1 per cent. The audit team discussed with staff and students the operation of the supervision system in the Department. Staff recognised the importance of monitoring the quality of supervision, through 'Coordinating Supervisors' in colleges with no Director of Studies for Psychology. The team heard that the system was complex, with Part II students typically requiring several different supervisors and having to exercise considerable initiative in finding them. However, the students who met the team had not found this a problem. In addition, those who had used the new on-line reporting system, CamCORS (see above, paragraph 79), welcomed it as an effective medium for communicating reports on their academic progress.
120 Research students are required to submit a substantial report on their first year of work. The examples seen by the audit team were of a high standard and formed part of a notably thorough system for monitoring their progress. Staff informed the team that more than 85 per cent of students completed their doctorates within four years.
121 The student handbooks seen by the audit team were quite basic and did not make use of intended learning outcomes - a term unfamiliar to the students who met the team. The students were, nonetheless, satisfied with the information made available to them, irrespective of their point of entry to the Department. The team noted that the Department had responded to a recent request, from the Staff-Student Consultative Committee, to increase the amount of information available through the internet. Students also seemed satisfied with the learning resources available to them, with the Department's laboratory facilities receiving particular praise from the research students.
122 The audit team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities available to undergraduate students was suitable for a course of study leading to the award of BA (Honours), and that the quality of learning opportunities for research students was appropriate.
History
123 The Faculty of History is a large institution within the School of Humanities and Social Sciences. It offers a full range of undergraduate and postgraduate provision: the Historical Tripos, six MPhil programmes, one MSt programme, and research provision leading to the degrees of MLitt and PhD. MPhil courses have a specific remit for research training and as preparation for PhD work: a range of thematic programmes is available and the more generic MPhil in Historical Studies operates as a bridging course towards the PhD. The MSt, in Local and Regional History, is a part-time course offered in collaboration with the University's Institute of Continuing Education. In structure and forms of teaching, it mirrors the MPhil provision and is offered at the same level. At the time of the DAT, 583 undergraduates and 356 graduates were listed as studying in the Faculty. The DSED, prepared specifically for the DAT, was an evaluation of the full range of education provided by the Faculty. All of the provision was included in the DAT.
124 The DSED was accompanied by programme specifications for the Historical Tripos and for all taught postgraduate programmes. The Tripos specification is informed by the Subject benchmark statement for history and will respond to its recommendations when a compulsory long essay is introduced from 2003-04. Both the Tripos and postgraduate specifications set the awards at the appropriate level of the FHEQ. There are, however, variations in compensation rules for failure in parts of the MPhil programmes, leading to some risk of inconsistent outcomes.
125 The Faculty Board has overall responsibility for quality assurance. Eight Subject Groups, meeting once each term, report to a Teaching and Learning Quality Committee, which has five undergraduate student members. The Teaching and Learning Quality Committee advises the Faculty Board on course structure and content, and considers course evaluations. MPhil sub-committees and a Graduate Teaching and Learning Quality Committee, the latter with representation from students on each graduate programme, fulfil a comparable role for graduate courses. There is no separate staff-student liaison committee.
126 The Faculty's internal monitoring and review arrangements are extensive and involve students fully. The audit team noted that the Tripos had been reviewed regularly in response to both internal and external developments, including a General Board periodic Preliminary Review in 1998, the publication of the Subject benchmark statement, and changes in the school curriculum. The Faculty's Quality Statement reported that detailed review of undergraduate courses was undertaken by one of the Subject Groups, and that the Faculty had a 'particularly well coordinated series of structures in place to deal with the constituent areas of Quality Assurance', a finding with which the team concurred.
127 Student feedback is sought through a 'General Student Evaluation of the Historical Tripos', distributed by email, and through specific lecture evaluation forms. The former asks whether the Faculty provides adequate information about courses, whether the lecture programme has gaps, whether the lectures, classes and supervisions might be better integrated, and whether the Faculty Building and library facilities could be improved. The latter asks students to rate lectures on a five-point scale in terms of content, structure, presentation and quality of support materials. The evaluation sheet informs students of what will happen to their feedback. The forms are considered by the Teaching and Learning Quality Committee and by individual lecturers; graduate evaluations are discussed at MPhil sub-committees and an annual report of issues is forwarded through the Graduate Teaching and Learning Quality Committee to the Degree Committee. The audit team heard that, while feedback was generally good, there was concern about low undergraduate feedback responses, which ran at about 22 per cent in the academical year 2001-02. The Faculty is currently debating how to improve this. In the view of the team, the strong and constructive academic links between the Faculty and colleges might be exploited with a view to increasing student response rates.
128 External examiners' reports were extensive, detailed and, in general, very favourable. They are reviewed by a 'working party on examining matters' that reports to the Teaching and Learning Quality Committee and Faculty Board. The audit team noted that there had been some disagreement between external examiners about one compulsory Part II course, Historical Argument and Practice, and that student questionnaire returns had also indicated concerns about the learning opportunities available on the same course. The DSED reported that the course had 'elicited radically divergent opinions from different sections of the Faculty'.
129 Despite the recent decision to introduce a compulsory long essay, the undergraduate assessment base remains narrow, dependent to a large extent on timed examinations in both Part I and Part II of the Tripos. CUSU's submission to the audit team drew attention to an apparent imbalance of achievement between men and women in the Tripos. The team noted that the assessment structure was kept under constant review and that the Faculty had recently debated it in depth. Neither the meeting with students nor course evaluation data suggested that students had significant concerns about the assessment structure, and the Faculty's progression profile is excellent.
130 The audit team reviewed a range of undergraduate scripts from Parts I and II of the Tripos, including the Historical Argument and Practice course. It was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement met the expectations of the programme specifications and the Subject benchmark statement and was appropriate to the award of BA (Honours) and its location within the FHEQ. The team also reviewed work from a range of MPhil programmes and was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement met the expectations of the programme specifications and was appropriate to the awards and their location within the FHEQ.
131 Students and prospective students are provided with a range of information, both in hard copy and through the internet. Handbooks are accurate, detailed, helpful and accessibly written. A guide for applicants, History at Cambridge, provides information about the degree structure, the options available, the skills the degree should give them, and the facilities available. It also indicates that students may expect to receive substantial 'individual attention', a claim supported by evidence provided for the audit team. Similar information is provided in the University's Undergraduate Prospectus. Undergraduates are given Guidance for students about how the Tripos examination process operates, which provides exceptionally detailed information, including marking conventions and criteria for degree classification, in an accessible manner. Extensive reading lists are provided for nearly all course options in Part I and Part II, although material supporting the Historical Argument and Practice course is less extensive: staff emphasised that this course had an integrative function and that students were encouraged to make use of information and understanding acquired in courses taken earlier in the Tripos. Detailed course handbooks are produced for each MPhil programme and for the MSt. These provide information about the course itself, marking criteria, contact points and library facilities.
132 Students have access to the Seeley Library, described in the DSED as 'one of the largest specialist teaching libraries within the University'. Students who met the audit team were very satisfied with the learning resources available to them, and undergraduates also expressed themselves satisfied with the support they received through the supervision system. Graduate students confirmed that there was a supportive postgraduate culture.
133 The audit team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities available to undergraduate students was suitable for a course of study leading to the award of BA (Honours), that the quality of learning opportunities available to taught graduate students was suitable for courses of study leading to the awards of MSt and MPhil, and that the quality of learning opportunities for research students was appropriate.
International Studies
134 The Centre of International Studies is a graduate institution in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, and accountable to a Committee of Management. It offers full-time MPhils in International Relations and International Studies and, in collaboration with the Institute of Continuing Education, a part-time MSt in International Relations. It also contains a large number of research students. It has a total of around 170 students. The MPhil in International Relations is a longstanding and successful programme, the MPhil in International Studies, introduced more recently, offers generic research training, and the MSt is mainly taught face to face in out-of-term residential periods, with additional support and teaching provided on-line. The DSED, prepared specifically for the DAT, was a frank and self-reflective paper, drawing particular attention to the resource constraints under which the Centre operates and speculating on the future implications of these constraints for quality and standards. All of the education provided by the Centre was included in the DAT.
135 The DSED was accompanied by programme specifications for all of the taught programmes. The specifications set the awards at the appropriate level of the FHEQ.
136 The Centre became independent of the Faculty of History in 2000, since when its quality procedures have taken the form of a joint Degree Committee with the Centre of Latin American Studies, reporting to the Board of Graduate Studies. Its internal monitoring and review arrangements comprise periodic reports to the Committee of Management; the Degree Committee is concerned primarily with progressing immediate business. In discussions with the audit team, staff acknowledged that the pressures of 'keeping the show on the road' gravitated against longer-term strategic planning and review. Nonetheless, the Centre had benefited from an 'away day' prior to the audit visit, the minutes of which were made available to the team, and it was anticipated that participation in the new Quality Statement system would ensure that strategic considerations would continue to receive attention.
137 Written student feedback is recorded carefully, and a full set of quantitative and qualitative questionnaire responses was made available to the audit team, based on a 60 per cent response rate. Students who met the team spoke consistently highly of the individual responsiveness of all staff, emphasising that in this very small unit responses were generally informal and that they considered this to be entirely satisfactory. In addition to written feedback and individual approaches to staff, the Centre makes use of occasional large review meetings, and students have access to a personal adviser within the Centre as well as to their college support system. The team considered that these arrangements were appropriate to a unit of small size and student-friendly ethos.
138 The audit team was surprised to learn that not all recent external examiners had submitted reports. Nonetheless, following discussion the team was satisfied that enhanced monitoring by the Education Section and the Board of Graduate Studies would ensure that any recurrence of such lapses would be detected and rectified. The 2001-02 external examiner's report was extremely complimentary and invited no specific response.
139 The audit team reviewed a range of student work from the three taught courses and was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement met the expectations of the programme specifications and was appropriate to the awards and their location within the FHEQ. The team noted that the student completion profile was outstanding.
140 Student handbooks are friendly, informative and, on the basis of the evidence available to the audit team, accurate. They appeared likely to contribute significantly to students' ability to settle into the University. The broader matter of learning resources and support is more complex. Although the research students who met the team were universally complimentary about their supervisory arrangements, some taught students expressed reservations about provision at University level. Some MPhil students, for whom time was at a premium and whose disciplinary origins were varied, would have appreciated a less undifferentiated preliminary reading list to enable them to plug any gaps in knowledge prior to arriving. They, and in particular MSt students, were critical of the limited opening hours of the Mill Lane Library; some second language students expressed reservations about the cost of preliminary language training and what they perceived as the limited nature of continuing language support available to them. Students also suggested that the University appeared not invariably able to accommodate the specific needs of part-time students, particularly during the registration period.
141 These matters notwithstanding, the audit team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities available to taught graduate students was suitable for courses of study leading to the awards of MSt and MPhil, and that the quality of learning opportunities for research students was appropriate.
Law
142 The Faculty of Law, within the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, is a large institution with around 1,000 students. It offers the Law Tripos, LLM and Diploma programmes, and supervises research students. It also offers, as part of its undergraduate provision, a two-year programme which forms part of a four-year Double Maîtrise programme with the University of Paris II, completion of which results in qualifications from both universities. The DSED, a largely descriptive document prepared specifically for the DAT, covered the full range of provision. The DAT focused on the Tripos and the Cambridge element of the Double Maîtrise.
143 The DSED was accompanied by draft programme specifications for the Tripos, the Cambridge element of the Double Maîtrise and the LLM. The programme specifications were linked to the appropriate level of the FHEQ and, at undergraduate level, made full use of the Subject benchmark statement for law and the Joint Statement of the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar on Qualifying Degrees. Students who successfully complete Parts I and II of the Tripos obtain a Qualifying Law Degree, provided they take the seven subjects comprising the Foundations of Legal Knowledge and the Freshfields Legal IT course. The latter, introduced in 1999, teaches and summatively assesses skills in the use of legal databases. Although the course is formally optional, staff who met the audit team considered that the skills taught were essential. Given the focus on summative assessment by closed book examination in the Tripos, this course is one crucial means of ensuring that students have the necessary legal research skills.
144 The Faculty Board has overall responsibility for quality assurance, with an Academic Committee overseeing the Tripos. Its approach to quality assurance is documented in the Quality Statement produced in autumn 2002. This provides a clear and accurate account of Faculty practices relating to student representation, coordination of teaching, course review, staff development (including appraisal), and other matters that together secure the quality of the student experience. Nonetheless, some staff who met the audit team questioned the usefulness of the preparation of the Statement.
145 In 1999-2000, the Faculty undertook an extensive review of its educational provision and administrative structures, drawing upon the input of external experts. It is still in the process of implementing some recommendations of the review but the audit team heard that others, such as the introduction of peer observation of teaching, had not been followed through. The team also noted that the review had provided the basis for a wide-ranging internal review of the Tripos; this had resulted in changes to syllabi but not to Tripos structure or modes of assessment.
146 Students are represented on the Faculty Board and their representatives have direct access to the minutes of most Faculty committees. A Staff-Student Consultative Committee meets twice a year. The audit team noted as good practice the fact that law students from all of the colleges took part in the Staff-Student Consultative Committee, providing a forum for comparing opportunities and allowing the Faculty to identify the ways in which college provision was impacting on the student experience. Among issues raised were library hours, photocopying costs and the universities where students may spend a year abroad. In response to student representation, the Faculty has entered a new partnership to enable students to study in Spain. Within this context, it appeared to the team that staff were only beginning to recognise the relevance of the section of the Code of practice relating to placement learning to the Faculty's arrangements for students to spend a year studying law at another European university.
147 Student feedback is collected on each lecture course in relation to individual lecturers and library provision, and was a factor in changing syllabi in the recent Tripos review. The audit team saw summaries of the scores and students' comments for a sample of courses. The Faculty has been concerned to raise the response rate and, in Lent Term 2003, began to report back to students on its responses to their feedback. Students who met the team welcomed this development and thought that it would be likely to encourage questionnaire completion.
148 The Faculty appoints a moderating external examiner for each part of the Tripos, who pays close attention to the marking of one paper. Moderating external examiners in Law are not asked to advise on borderlines between classes and on Pass/Fail cases (one aspect of the University's guidance), but rather to assess the general standard of the examination by reading a sample of scripts in the middle of each class. In the view of the audit team, the external examining process consequently provides the University with a limited perspective on the standards of the Tripos (see above, paragraph 44). The team saw evidence that robust responses had been made to matters raised by external examiners' reports, and that their comments had influenced changes in syllabus. Since November 2002, following a suggestion by the Education Section during the quality interview, external examiners' reports have been included in the unreserved business of the Faculty Board and have been available for discussion at the Staff-Student Consultative Committee. It is too early to assess whether this change in practice will have a positive impact on the external examining process.
149 The audit team reviewed a range of undergraduate student work from all three years of the Tripos, including both core and optional subjects. It was satisfied that the nature of the assessment and standard of student achievement met the expectations of the programme specifications and the Subject benchmark statement and was appropriate to the award of BA (Honours) and its location within the FHEQ.
150 The Faculty's progression and completion rates are high, although the data relating to the small number of students on the Double Maîtrise programme are variable. Staff informed the audit team that some students, initially selected for the Double Maîtrise programme, preferred for academic and personal reasons to spend a final year studying law in Cambridge rather than two further years in Paris. Law was one of the eight disciplines subjected to detailed study as part of the 'Project on Indicators of Academic Performance' (see above, paragraph 62). The Project found, inter alia, that the difference in performance by male and female students in the Law Tripos was not statistically significant.
151 Students and prospective students are provided with information about the Faculty's courses in handbooks and through the internet, and the classification criteria are available. For current students, further information is provided through lecture handouts and from Directors of Studies and supervisors. The information is accurate and clear, and students who met the audit team felt well-informed about what was expected of them. Students who had studied abroad felt that they had been well-prepared for the experience.
152 The Law Faculty building houses all the Faculty-based teaching and learning resources, including computer facilities and the Squire Law Library. Teaching is provided through Faculty-based lectures and college-based supervisions. The Faculty seeks to ensure a high level of coordination of teaching through meetings of course convenors for each paper and of Directors of Studies in law. Students recognised and appreciated these efforts made on their behalf.
153 The audit team was satisfied that the quality of learning opportunities available to undergraduate students was suitable for a course of study leading to the award of BA (Honours).
Thematic enquiries
154 Since the 1992 audit, the University's full-time graduate student numbers have increased by around 42 per cent. At the time of the current audit, graduate students comprised 30.5 per cent of the full-time student body. The University receives a very high proportion of postgraduate awards from the research councils and is widely perceived as an international centre of excellence, attracting large numbers of overseas students. The Vice-Chancellor confirmed to the audit team that graduate work was 'at the forefront of teaching' and that there was a steady growth in student numbers. The SED stated that 'the particular external factors influencing graduate education' meant that 'new subjects of study for the MPhil degree are introduced more regularly than entirely new undergraduate programmes'. However, both the SED and CUSU's submission to the team indicated a number of difficulties relating to graduate education within the University. In view of its substantial and growing importance to the University, and the range of its provision, the audit team chose to consider, as a thematic enquiry, the University's provision of support for taught graduate students and the work of the Board of Graduate Studies in relation to both taught and research graduate students.
155 Oversight of the University's arrangements for graduate students is provided by the Board of Graduate Studies, which has formal responsibility for their admission, registration and supervision, and approves their degrees. The SED stated that the Board of Graduate Studies had 'become increasingly proactive' in recent years, and described how it managed both strategic and operational matters relating to graduate education. However, the SED was also frank in acknowledging that 'the admission of graduate students poses a number of challenges' and alluded to growing student numbers, accommodation, and the risks involved in admitting overseas applicants who could not normally be interviewed. The audit team noted that the matters relating to increases in student numbers had become a recurring theme in the papers of the Board of Graduate Studies and the Graduate Tutors' Committee, with the Board of Graduate Studies highlighting the 'need to establish with the University exactly what is its policy for encouraging the growth in graduate student numbers, and how that growth will be managed'. In particular, the team noted that growth in numbers had put pressure on, and produced some tension with, the colleges, membership of which students had to obtain in order to be admitted to the University. The Board of Graduate Studies had reported that the 'current constraint is in the provision of college membership and accommodation' and described the 'serial rejection of candidates by colleges' as a matter that 'must be addressed'.
156 A wider range of concerns was identified in CUSU's submission to the audit team. Graduate responses to the survey carried out in preparing the submission 'suggested that many graduate students lacked a supportive academic atmosphere'. While the survey found satisfaction with many aspects of the student experience, including induction, assessment and the provision of information, concerns were raised about the operation of the Board of Graduate Studies (particularly in respect of communications and admissions), variability in college provision, and the relative lack of support for MPhil students. CUSU's submission did not indicate the number of graduate students who had responded to the survey. The audit team learnt that the Board of Graduate Studies accepted some of the criticism of delays in processing graduate applications during the academical year 2001-02, and was confident that the remedial action taken to address the procedural issues involved had already led to improvements.
157 The University offers several different types of MPhil programme, some of which concentrate heavily on research training. In 2001-02, the General Board undertook a review of MPhil provision across the University. The subsequent report identified a wide range of 'key issues' and associated recommendations relating to resourcing, human resources, organisation (including the work of the Board of Graduate Studies), communications, and future developments. It urged consideration of 'alternative organisational structures' in relation to 'the balance between central and local responsibilities and functions'. While the audit team was informed that matters relating to academic standards were not at the forefront of the review's concerns, it noted that several of the 'organisational' recommendations touched on standards issues. The report recommended a review of MPhil mark schemes to reduce the amount of variety; considering the rationalisation of examination regulations, including clarification of the constitutional position of examiners, Degree Committees and the Board of Graduate Studies; and a review of procedures for considering external examiners' reports.
158 In the view of the audit team, the review represented a thorough and analytical contribution to the internal debate about the management of MPhil provision and provided good evidence of the University's capacity to take a self-critical oversight of specific areas of its work. The team believed that that there was scope to develop those aspects of the review relating to quality and standards, perhaps through the development of a common structure for describing and managing the standards of taught postgraduate awards. During the course of the audit, it found evidence that the further, focused reviews envisaged in the report's recommendations would be timely. A small number of MPhils still do not have an external examiner appointed, and external examiners' reports vary in usefulness and quality. Regulations for compensation in cases of failed units differ within and across institutions. Some staff who met the team were uncertain about the balance of central and local responsibilities for standards of graduate provision, and others had only limited awareness of the FHEQ. The team also shared the view, expressed to it in meetings, that the University should explore fully the resource implications of further expansion of postgraduate provision, including that for part-time students.
159 Both through the DATs and through the thematic enquiry, the audit team accumulated considerable evidence about the operation of taught postgraduate courses, and identified much good practice. It was clear that many courses offered high-quality research training, with high progression rates indicating that courses were well-designed and the teaching effective. The team also learnt that a number of research students in the sciences, clinical and veterinary medicine pursued their work at around 20 'non-university institutions' (NUIs). These institutions are expected to follow the procedures for assessment and management of graduate students in place in cognate University departments. The Board of Graduate Studies has instituted a procedure requiring the NUIs to reapply for recognition for a five-year period, and requiring the heads of the cognate departments to establish an appropriate structure for supporting students working in NUIs. The team noted these arrangements as an example of the proactive work of the Board of Graduate Studies, and of the University's capacity to respond to specific needs.
160 Overall, the thematic enquiry found that the University's provision of support for taught graduate students, and the work of the Board of Graduate Studies in relation to both taught and research graduate students, were appropriate. The University is advised to build on the review of MPhil provision by considering the development of a common structure both for describing and for managing the standards of taught postgraduate awards, and exploring fully the learning resource implications of the planned further expansion in graduate student numbers (both part and full-time).
Section 4: The audit investigations: published information
The students' experience of published information and other information available to them
161 The SED summarised the University's arrangements for providing information for students and prospective students in the context of its approach to HEFCE's document, Information on quality and standards in higher education (HEFCE's document 02/15) (see below, paragraphs 164 to 166). The audit team discussed access to course and University-level information with students during the briefing visit and the DATs. As part of the latter, the team was provided with a wide range of course information, including student handbooks and lecture lists. The team also had full access to the information made available on the intranet.
162 CUSU's submission to the audit team described the University's promotional material as 'reasonably accurate', made reference to a range of published material that students had found useful, and raised no concerns relating to the reliability of information more generally. It reported that the new complaints procedure (see above, paragraph 46) was 'clear and accessible' and had been published in the Student Handbook, although the potential for confusion between University and college procedures was noted. In terms of academic appeals, it was more cautious, describing the procedure for appealing against examination results as 'clear', but pointing out that the right to appeal was 'not well-publicised' and not included in the Student Handbook.
163 The information provided for the audit team during the DATs indicated that student handbooks and departmental web pages varied in terms of the detail and quality of the information they provided about, for example, assessment procedures and intended learning outcomes. However, much of the information was of high quality, and all of the student groups who met the team had an overall understanding of the assessment strategies and classing criteria for their subject, and were satisfied with the information provided.
Reliability, accuracy and completeness of published information
164 The SED detailed the University's approach to the collection of the information sets outlined in HEFCE's document 02/15. It indicated 'a willingness to make publicly accessible data which are demonstrably useful to "stakeholders"' but pointed out that national data requirements 'must not distort or ignore each HEI's particular purposes and arrangements', nor 'undermine the quality assurance processes they purport to calibrate'. At the time of the audit visit, the University was participating in a Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK pilot project on the production of the published information set, and had raised a number of matters relating to the impact and value of publishing the required information. Nonetheless, the SED provided a comprehensive analysis of its current position in relation to both the published and unpublished information sets, indicating the areas in which further work was required or the results of national discussions were awaited.
165 In practice, the University already makes publicly available significant amounts of information relating to quality and standards, and is well-advanced in meeting the requirements of HEFCE's document 02/15. Of particular importance is the Reporter, published weekly during term-time, in hard copy and on the internet, with special numbers providing details of such matters as student applications, student numbers, classification distributions and examination results. Students in one of the DATs commented that they had used this information when selecting their colleges. Additional analysis of trends in admission and classifications is provided in the University's Annual Report. The Reporter is also the vehicle for publishing annual reports from a range of bodies (including the General Board, the Board of Graduate Studies, the University Library, the University Language Centre, and the Careers Syndicate), records of the discussions and decisions of the Regent House, and special reports such as the 'Report of Findings of the Project on Indicators of Academic Performance' (see above, paragraph 62). Particularly notable are the reports of the Board of Scrutiny which has the statutory obligation to 'scrutinise on behalf of Regent House' the annual report of the Council and the University's accounts. The Board's reports, which have on occasion been highly critical of the University, provide evidence of the University's ability to evaluate itself critically, objectively and transparently. In the view of the audit team, it is a real strength of the University that such information is made publicly available through the Reporter.
166 The audit team was satisfied that the University was engaging appropriately with the recommendations of HEFCE's document 02/15 and was well-placed to fulfil its responsibilities in this matter. The team was also satisfied that the information that the University was publishing currently about the quality of its programmes and the standards of its awards was reliable.
ISBN 1 85824 984 6
next >> Findings
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube