University College London

Computer Science Department

Name Yr&Course

Jill Saunders Dept. Manager

Sarah Berke ( Secretary) Dept. Manager

Graham Roberts Staff representative

March Delacour 4^th Year Rep

Melissa Ho MSc DCNDS

Martin Sewell PhD

Greg Paperim 3^rd yr Rep

Sam Cheung MSc IT Rep

Chris Clark Staff representative

John Dowell Staff representative

Minati Das 2^nd yr Rep

Simon Arridge Staff representative

Barry Stein Staff representative

Janet McDonnell Staff representative

Robin Hirsch Staff representative

Keri McCrensky MSc CS Rep

Nathan Lea MSc CS Rep

Simon Yu (Chair) 3^rd Year

Yogen Mauree CS/EE (2^nd year)

Andrew Cheung 3^Rd Year

There were no apologies for absence

The only item of other business was from Robin Hirsch relating to a request from the student union to have teach-ins as a protest should war against Iraq go ahead

The minutes of the meeting on 29^th January were approved

There were no matters arising

5.1 Restructuring of the undergraduate programme

Anthony Finkelstein spoke on the new proposals to restructure the undergraduate programme. There was a meeting scheduled for 19^th March to discuss the proposals with the whole student body.

In the meantime he was keen to give student reps the opportunity to make comments and ask questions.

ACWF said there had been a long process leading to the announcement of the changes. He had been keen to engage and involve all groups in the process through Teaching Committee. He believed the changes would benefit students and the department. He emphasized to the students that although the procedures had been well developed to the extent they had been submitted to the college absolutely nothing was written in tablets of stone. He was keen to make the student experience a better one.

Greg Paperin representing the third year students welcomed the extended range of options proposed, but was concerned about the timetabling of the exams prior to Easter and the reduction in the amount of revision time.

ACWF emphasized there was no ideal model. The model now proposed had been proven in the advanced masters courses. It allowed a more concentrated effort at the projects. Currently he believed the projects suffered because of the overlap with exam preparation.

It was agreed to further pursue discussion at the meeting on the 19^th and then if necessary have a meeting with the current 3^rd yr MSci students.

Jill Saunders Saunders reported the low response rate on the student feedback questionnaire. It was less than ten percent. The questionnaires wee currently in a web based format.

Melissa Ho believed more students would complete the questionnaires if they were paper based. Although feedback might be important for the department it was not so important to the students.

Nathan Lee (MScCS) Felt that the request to students to complete the forms should be more assertive

JFS tabled a paper showing the revised Teaching Committee structure. As from April, there would be an undergraduate teaching committee and a postgraduate teaching committee

Melissa Ho complained the print quota was 100 pages. Barry Stein pointed out it was 100 pages in terms 1 and 2 and 250 pages in term 3. I.e. a total of 450 pages. Further print quota could be purchased.

Although staff present sympathized with the students, especially the overseas ones, it was pointed out this was an University of London issue. It was felt that the department could help by arranging a more formal occasion to run alongside the traditional end of course parties.

John Dowell said that he would convey to the registry the views of the students’ representative at the meeting.

Michelle Ho raised the issue of teaching support. She has had undergraduate students looking to her for Java help. She understood there were special lab sessioning for the MscCs/IT students but what about other courses including DCNDS. Steve Hailes said the department was looking at this issue

JFS had spoken to the registry to ascertain why the dates were not known and why students had to pay. The registry had informed her that before dates could be set the registry needed to know numbers. The charging for students was new this year. Previously only guests had been charged. The graduation ceremonies team had pointed out that the hire of the hall, printing of the programme and reception were all costly item that needed to be recouped.

The way plagiarism cases had been dealt with were raised by some 3^rd year students. There was a general feeling that the way they had been contacted about the plagiarism was harsh and impersonal. John Dowell pointed out to the meeting that last year the CS department had more cases of plagiarism then the rest of the college put together.

This year the department had institute fast track procedures to deal with first and minor offences which resulted in a 0 mark and a formal reprimand - they would not be reported to college unless it was a second occurrence or a major offence.

A number of appeals against these judgments had been held, the vast majority of which were spurious

The third year reps complained about the number of assignments left for them to complete before the end of term. Some of these courseworks should have been set before reading week and had not yet been set. This was the case of Bernard Buxton’s coursework for 3C16.

Robin Hirsch informed the meeting he had spoken to Bernard himself as he was also culpable. He recognised that a general message needed to be sent to Yr 3 lecturers. He understood the need to keep the holidays clear for revision.

RH had spoken to MH about this. A hard coursework had been set, but students needed to “sweat” on this course to understand it.

MH would be working on model answers and exam preparation in the next couple of weeks.

RH stated it was possible to make the course easier, but that we did not want to “dumb down” our courses.

Greg Paperim (3^rd yr rep) stated it was not a case of making the course easier, but there should be more problem solving in class.

Marc Delacour (4^th yr rep) said when they did the course it had been taught by Sean Holden and similar problems had arisen. MH was using Sean Hoblen’s notes hence the persistence of the problems

There was a college policy of no summer resits.

September referrals had been available about 5 years ago but the failure rate was high and often papers were set and students failed to turn up.

The higher failure was with 1B11 whereby if students failed they were forced to take the year out.

New procedures in year 1 with the splitting of the course into two district pars should mean that fewer 1^st year students are in the situation of having to take a year out.

Greg Paperim representing the 3rd year questioned why the 3C16 Technology Management course was required. It was explained that it was a requirement of the IEE/BCS accreditation that we offer such a course.

Steve Hailes told the reps that if there was a problem with the content as the means of delivery they should contact him.

Action: Student Reps

Robin Hirsch told the meeting that in the event of war, as a protest the S.U was encouraging lecturers to change their lecture to incorporate a talk on war. He was proposing to do a talk on Computer Science and war. All regularly scheduled lectures would be rescheduled.

Term 1 in academic year 2003/4 date to be announced.