STAFF STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Meeting on Wednesday 29^th November 2006 at 1pm in Room 101 Foster Court

Staff Present

Graham Roberts (Departmental Tutor, Departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer, Chair), Neil Daeche (Head of Internal Infrastructure), Robin Hirsch (Conversion Programmes Co-ordinator), Nicola Jarvis (Departmental Administrator (Academic Policy and Operations)), Chris Neil (Undergraduate Administrator), Jill Saunders (Departmental Manager), Steve Hailes (Director of Studies, Deputy Head of Department), Soren-Aksel Sorensen (Alumni Co-ordinator, Advanced Courses Co-ordinator), Brad Karp (Services Representative).

Student Representatives Present

Christina Wallenta (Graduate Research Student Rep), Adam Beautement (MSc ISecRep), Natasha Rooney (MSc Computer Science Rep), Victoria Wiggins (MSc Computer Science Rep), Zara Ahmed (Maths and Computer Science Rep), OrlandoDoehring (MSc IS Rep), Casey Qi (MSc DCNDS Rep), Alex Gillis (1st Year UG Rep) , Jeremy Proctor (1st Year UG Rep), Ali Adeli (3rd Year UG Rep), Ian Stanton (3rd Year UG Rep), Stefanie Foerch (2nd Year UG Rep), Lukasz Muziol(2nd Year UG Rep), David Tatarata (4th Year UG Rep), Bob Singh (MSc SSE Rep).

1.            Apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Denis Timm (Head of Technical Support Group). 

2.            Notification of any other business.

Alex Gillis wanted to ask how to raise issues between committee meetings.  Ian Stanton raised the issue of the word limit on feedback forms.  Lukasz Muziol wanted to raise issue of timetables for Labs. 

These items were addressed during the course of the meeting.

3.            Approval of minutes of the last meeting (<st1:date year="2006" day="28" month="2">28th Feb 2006</st1:date>)

3.1.      Minutes should be signed by chair and at least one student representative.

The Chair, (Graham Roberts), signed the minutes of the last meeting and asked representatives who have read them to sign them as well.  Minutes are available to read on the departmental website at any time. 

4.            Matters arising from last minutes

4.1.      Denis Timm and other TSG staff have been added to the student-reps mailing list, so will now receive notification of meetings.

Closed.

4.2.      More tables in 5th floor of <st1:place><st1:placename>Roberts</st1:placename><st1:placename>Building</st1:placename></st1:place> (Jill Saunders/JJ)

The issue was discussed under item 7.

4.3.      Liaison with Maths Department on MATH6301/B45 (Robin Hirsch)

Mark Roberts, (Departmental Tutor, Mathematics Department) has been contacted about the content of MATH6301/B45.  He and Robin Hirsch have planned a meeting to discuss the issues.

Action: Robin Hirsch to ask Second Year Students for feedback on their experience of having taken the course.

5.            UCL Joint Staff-Student Committee (Graham Roberts)

5.1.      Everyone should be aware of its existence (seehttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/committees/staff-student)

Representatives were made aware of the Joint Staff-Student Committee and how it relates to the Departmental Staff-Student Committee. 

6.            Student representation on departmental committees (Graham Roberts)

6.1.      Places are available on the following: Operations and Premises Committee, Technical Services Committee & Teaching Committee

Students are able to attend departmental committee meetings such as the Operations and Premises Committee, Technical Services Committee and the Teaching Committee.  Those who wish to do so should email Nicola Jarvis, (n.jarvis@cs.ucl.ac.uk).  The Purpose of the Teaching Committee was explained and Student Representatives were to note that they could attend all discussions with the exception of examination and assessment issues – (items marked as “reserved business”).  Minutes of the Teaching Committee will be sent to Student Representatives. 

7.            Student Common Room (UG reps)

7.1.      Closure of the CS student common room.

Student Representatives met with the Head of Department and other staff to discuss the proposed closure of the Student Common Room immediately before this meeting.  Alternative rooms were discussed but there has been no time to discuss the implications yet.  Using the Quiet Lab area was one possibility that was discussed. 

Update following the SSCC meeting: a new room has been allocated and detailed discussions are under way about its layout.

7.2.      Common room was too small, no projector, no facilities.

This was noted and will be addressed as part of the ongoing discussions about a replacement common room.

7.3.      The lack of suitable common room space, especially for group working, is an issue.

Student representatives stated that it was important for the CS Common Room Area to be located within the department.  The lack of suitable common room space, especially for group working, is recognized as an issue.

7.4.      The Engineering common room (5th floor Roberts building) has problems (e.g., too noisy, overcrowded, broken blinds, lack of tables and power points). Cafe prices are too expensive and it closes at <st1:time minute="0" hour="15">3pm</st1:time>.

It was agreed that the Roberts Building Common Room has unreliable RoamNetaccess and is generally unsuitable as a location for working in as it is too busy and noisy. The room is sufficiently big, but the equipment, (chairs, tables etc) is insufficient for 8 shared departments.  This will be raised with the Faculty, which operates the room.

The price of food and drink at the Café in the Common Room is not under the control of the Faculty as the service is provided by a private company.  The possibility of the Student Union providing the service instead was raised. 

Action: JJ Giwa to raise the issue with the Faculty and Student Union. 

It was asked why Research takes priority over Student facilities with regard to the Common Room area.  The response was that Research is important to the funding and the reputation of the Department.  Research success is also reflected in the value of degrees.

It was pointed out that Undergraduate Students also generate income.  It was agreed that a balance is needed between the two and that this is one of the functions of the Committee. 

The concern that the department will need more physical space in order for it to grow and improve was raised.  The response was that departments are always looking for more space, but that there are financial limitations, (not having enough funding for the proposed 9^th floor of the MPEB, for example). 

It was also noted that with the department getting a new building recently, we are unlikely to be seen as high priority with regard to additional space.  The possibility of the other half of the 8^th Floor becoming available was mentioned, but this is likely to be at least three years away. 

8.            Lockers and Drinking Water (UG reps)

It was suggested that lockers be installed and made available for student use in the lift lobby spaces in the MPEB or in the Undergraduate Lab.  Student Reps have seen lockers on the 5^th floor of the SSEES with a similar setup as the one suggested. Concerns are that the lobby space may not be suitable under the Fire regulations and that lockers in previous years were misused. 

Action: JJ Giwa to contact Fire Safety Officer regarding possibility of lockers in the lobby areas. 

There is a problem with students currently having no access to drinking water in the department.  Representatives were informed that the pipes do exist, but that builders failed to install a tap in the original Undergraduate Common Room when fitting the building.  It was agreed that the issue needs to be raised again once an alternative Common Room area has been found. 

9.            1st floor labs

9.1    Continuing noise problems (GAR)

9.2    Lack of natural light and general environment in Labs (Ian Stanton)

It was agreed that these were complex issues and that an alternative meeting should be arranged to discuss them. 

10.        Timetabling

10.1.  One lecture per day and other issues (UG reps)

The Representatives were informed that room allocation is done centrally and that requests for timetable changes are investigated but once fixed the timetable is very difficult to change. 

The MScCS representatives reported that timetable clashes are going to be a big problem in term 2 for MScCS students taking option courses. The MScCS Representative stated that she currently had three lecture clashes. 

Action: Natasha Rooney to find out which courses/students are affected and report back to Robin Hirsch who will investigate the possibility of rescheduling problem lectures. 

11.        Coursework

11.1.  Submission window, extending the number of days before a deadline that a coursework can be submitted (Alex Gillis)

The request for extending the submission window during which a coursework can be submitted was noted.  JJ Giwa responded that there can be some flexibility if students want to hand in coursework early to the CS Reception. 

Student representatives reported that often lectures or other responsibilities make it difficult to hand in coursework during the limited submission window. 

11.2.  Late return of coursework (a return date is now required when coursework is set) (<st1:city><st1:place>Orlando</st1:place></st1:city> Doehring)

The Reps were informed that lecturers are now giving deadlines for the return of coursework. 

11.3.  More use of electronic submission to reduce printing and the need to go to Reception (<st1:city><st1:place>Orlando</st1:place></st1:city> Doehring)

The use of electronic submission to reduce printing, and the need to deliver the coursework to the reception area, was discussed.  There are currently various ways to submit coursework electronically but it is up to the individual lecturers whether or not to use them. The department has no standard policy on electronic submission.  Representatives were advised to approach individual lecturers about submitting electronically. 

12.        Technical Issues (UG reps)

12.1.  Intermittent wireless networking on 4th floor

The problem of intermittent wireless networking on 4th floor has now been resolved. 

12.2.  Dirty keyboards in labs.

Denis Timm is now providing wipes for the dirty keyboards in the computer labs. Equipment cleaning was done in the past by external contractors but there is no longer the budget to have it done.

12.3.  Upgrading to OpenOffice 2.0 on lab machines.

Plans are now in place to upgrade lab machines to OpenOffice 2.0 and this should happen in the near future.

12.4.  iMacs in the Quiet Lab.

Issues with physical security and maintenance are currently preventing the use of iMacs.  The issue will be considered again in the summer. 

12.5.  Faster computers in Quiet Lab.

The request for faster computers in the Quiet Lab should be resolved in time by the periodic upgrading of PCs.  This happens year by year and all PCs will eventually be updated.

12.6.  More up to date software on computers in Quiet Lab (e.g., Java 5)

The machines in the Quiet Lab are older and slower than those in other labs but are required to run certain software packages needed for teaching. Upgrading other pieces of software (e.g., Java) would lead to performance problems.  However, students can still use the machines and use remote logins to other lab machines offering better performance. 

12.7.  Replacing use of CS email with IS email.

There are currently no plans to replace CS email with IS email.  However, new students are now being given IMAP email accounts and there are plans to upgrade all student emails accounts in the future. 

12.8.  Computer that can be booted off CDs, USB drives, etc.

The use of computers that can be booted off CDs or USB drives is not considered a priority and would be hard to support. 

12.9.  Control of spam filtering - can it be turned off?

It was noted that SPAM filtering can be turned off or configured differently. Students should contact the Helpdesk for further information.

13.        COMP3004 Computational Complexity (UG reps)

13.1.  Request for problem classes.

Problem classes have now been arranged.

13.2.           More guidance and examples.

The course lecturers are dealing with this issue.

14.        COMP4030/GZ03 Distributed System and Security (raised by DavidTatarata)

The course lecturer gave a detailed reply to the issues raised and noted that there was a misunderstanding about the way coursework would be marked.

15.        Teaching C (raised by David Tatarata)

The possibility of introducing the teaching of C prior to the third year was raised.  A possible place to introduce it would be the Computer Architecture module.  This item needs to be discussed at Teaching Committee. 

Action: Nicola Jarvis to place on Teaching Committee agenda. 

16.        Exams

16.1.  Model Answers, suggestion of an alternative to model answers as it is policy not to provide model answers (Ian Stanton)

It was noted that the policy not to provide model answers is justified as this may encourage students to cheat and that being able to answer unplanned questions is part of a degree course.  The issue was raised that for new courses students do not know what topics to revise and that past exam papers were not available online. 

Sample papers are provided for new courses and 2006 exam papers should be available via the library.

Action: Nicola Jarvis to find out when 2006 papers will be available in the library. 

16.2.  March exam schedule too tight (<st1:city><st1:place>Orlando</st1:place></st1:city> Doehring)

The issue was raised that the March exam timetable is too tight.  The possibility of extending the exam schedule for a week and reducing the time available for the project was suggested. 

Action: Nicola Jarvis to speak to Tracy Williams to see if exam period can be extended. 

17.        Lack of Feedback (UG Reps)

This will be discussed in other forums.

17.1.  Positive feedback on group work.

The feedback from Students is that they enjoy group work and find it a useful and challenging experience.  It was suggested that one improvement for the second year group programming projects would be to allocate the groups randomly so that students get to meet and work with different colleagues. 

18.        Maths for students without standard entry requirements (UG reps)

Student Representatives noted the importance of students having an A-Level in mathematics in order to be able to cope with the undergraduate programme.  It was highlighted that students without specific qualifications can struggle.  Use of the end of course feedback forms was suggested as a way of making lecturers aware of this, but it was noted that this does not address the issue for current students.

Action: Graham Roberts and Robin Hirsch to look at the issues further.

19.        The role and importance of students within the department (All reps)

Due to time constraints it was proposed that a separate meeting is arranged to discuss this.

20.        Any Other Business.

It was asked how Representatives can raise issues between Committee meetings. The response was that using the Student Representative mailing list, contacting the Helpdesk, using the Feedback Forms and speaking to Lecturers directly were all suitable ways to do this. 

Student Representatives raised the issue of there being a word limit on the online feedback forms. 

Action: Nicola Jarvis to investigate if more space can be added. 

It was requested that timetables be made available for Labs again.  The reason timetables have recently been unavailable is that new software has been introduced but a way to print lab timetables has now been found. 

Action: Nicola Jarvis to post lab timetables when available. 

21.        The next meeting is due in February 2007.

Also in June 2007 after the exams there will be end of year wrap-up sessions for each undergraduate year, providing a forum similar to that of the SSCC.