University College London
Computer Science Department

Minutes of the SSCC meeting on March 11th 1998

Attendance List

1. Apologies for absence

2. Minutes of meeting held on December 11th 1997

3. Matters Arising

1. The MRes printer was looked at immediately after the meeting but then took two months to fix.
2. Staff had been advised not to ask students to print large quantities of material from the WWW.
3. Students could now buy extra printer quota.
4. There had been no change in the College attitude to opening times. The problems with the insurance policy (which made it difficult for students to act as "designated persons") remained. There were now further restrictions in that all designated persons had to hold first-aid certificates and had to be approved by the College safety officer. It was pointed out that several MRes students held first-aid certificates. Would it be possible for theses people to act as designated persons next year assuming the status of MRes students changed? SRW would investigate.  [ACTION SRW]
5. The magazine rack had appeared in the common-room. The room was now unlocked.
6. Staff had been asked to ensure that all "standard" texts were present in the library.
7. The summaries of course assessment forms from term 1 had not yet appeared on the WWW. [ACTION NM]. It appeared that all term 1 assessments had now been completed.
8. Some adjustments to coursework had been made as a result of representations from student reps.

4. Return of coursework to students

It was suggested that comments that would otherwise appear on many scripts should instead be addressed in lectures or via email. Feedback was felt to be especially important in cases where there were many small pieces set. Ideally students would get  feed-back on coursework 1 before they attempted coursework 2 etc.

SRW made a number of comments. We should distinguish between formative and summative aspects of coursework.
Perhaps formative work need carry no marks or a low mark. Model answers could be published and students could assess their work against these. Pure formative coursework would remove the problem of plagiarism. One reason for the lateness of feed-back was the heavy pressure currently on staff.

There was some discussion on these points. Some students felt that coursework which carried very few marks would lose out in competition to higher-valued work. The "model answer" approach would work with some courses (where answers were not open-ended) but not with others.

It was noted that the Department did have guidelines for staff on timing of feed-back from coursework. These were not always adhered to. This would be raised at the Teaching Committee meeting [Action GK]

There was also discussion on deadlines. 3rd year students, in particular, felt under pressure at the end of term 2 as project deadlines approached. It was stated that other departments allowed for this in scheduling coursework. It was pointed out that it was difficult to set a substantial piece of coursework until the bulk of the course had been taught. Further, students should anticipate coursework loads and plan their project work accordingly. It was felt by the student reps that students would be able to plan their time better if a coursework schedule was published well in advance of deadlines.

It was generally agreed that the Department should make an effort to manage the coursework load better. This would be followed-up. [Action GK]

5. MRes Issues

1. It was felt that the withdrawal of free photocopying had been underhand. There had been no announcement and students had been left to discover the change only when they went to collect the key. It was pointed out the the volume of MRes copying had been inflated by copies of lecture notes done by students on behalf of staff.
2. The access issue had been discussed under "Matters Arising"
3. There seemed to be a general lack of coordination. Exams had been moved forward to give more time for projects. However this left little time for revision and there were now major pieces of coursework to be handed in after the exams. The revision timetable had only been drawn up after pressure from students. It had been difficult to get definitive syllabuses from staff. There seemed to be poor liaison between the Department and the Graduate School. A clash between a GS revision day and a CS exam had been handled badly and the problem had only been resolved after efforts by students.

6. Student Common-room alterations

There was discussion on alternative locations for group work. Students asked whether seminar rooms could be used if these were free. GK agreed to investigate this. [Action GK]. It was pointed out by SRW that many rooms in the Department were controlled by the College. However, it was felt to be reasonable that students should use lecture rooms which were appeared to be free. GK would emphasise that this was the case. [Action GK]. Rooms containing expensive equipment would have to be kept locked.

The meeting agreed that the Pearson Society was the appropriate body to decide on the high table issue. They would consult with reps and others and report a decision to SB within a couple of days. [Action Pearson Society].

7. Any other business

1. There was a request for exams to be later. SRW pointed out that the schedule was not determined by the Department and that the requirement for Examiners' meetings to be completed by early June meant that later exam dates were impossible.
2. There was a request for more chairs in the 2nd year labs. This was to allow pairs of students to work at a screen. GK would investigate if this was possible [Action GK].
3. There was a request for more network sockets in the 1st yr lab and for the removal of the old terminals. GK would investigate. [Action GK].
4. The O2 machines in the MRes lab had insufficient memory. GK would pass this comment to the relevant people. [Action GK].
5. Many of the chairs in the 1st yr lab were still damaged (wheels missing). This would be investigated. [Action GK].

8. Date of next meeting: