AGENDA Item Paper Lead - EPCepc.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/20140219-Agenda-and-papers... · AGENDA Item Paper Lead 1. ... SK then tabled a draft scoping document for one of

Engineering Professors’ Council

Committee

The 123rd Meeting of the Committee will be held at 13.30 on 19th February, 2014

in the Bloomsbury Room at Senate House, University of London

AGENDA

Item Paper Lead 1. Apologies SNH2. Minutes of the meeting held on 27th November, 2013 EPC/14/02-01 SNH3. Matters arising (not covered elsewhere in the agenda) Verbal SNH4. President’s Report Verbal SNH5. Treasurer’s Report EPC/14/02-02 JY6. EPC staffing arrangements To be tabled SNH7. Director’s Report EPC/14/02-03 SJK8. Reports of the Working Groups (Sub Committees)

- Recruitment and Admissions and Maths Working Group

- Engineering Education, Employability and Skills - Research, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer

EPC/14/02-04

EPC/14/02-05 EPC/14/02-06

DM/GP

CN-S SKH

9. SEFI update Verbal KH10. Perkins Review “call to action” EPC/14/02-07 SJK/HVA

11. Update on student essay competition Verbal MB/SJK12. Research into the impact of concentration of research

funding EPC/14/02-08 SJK

13. Committee membership 2014/15 EPC/14/02-09 DKH

14. Congress venue 2015 Verbal JY15. Any other business Verbal SNH

Date of next meeting: 7th April, 2014 at 14:00 (lunch from 13:00)

Venue: University of Glasgow

EPC/14/02-01

1

Engineering Professors’ Council Minutes of the 122nd meeting of the Committee

held on 27th November 2013 at Senate House, University of London

Present Professors Simon Hodgson (SHo) (Chair), Jim Yip (JY), Stephanie Haywood (SHa), John Davies (JD), Dik Morling (DM), Helen Atkinson (HA), Colin Turner (CT), Kamel Hawwash (KH), Djamel Ait-Boudaoud (DAB), Barry Clarke (BC), Sarah Spurgeon (SS) and Ms Susan Kay (SK)

With Mrs Vicky Elston (VE)

Apologies All other members of the Committee.

The following notes summarise the discussion briefly with actions arising detailed in the Actions log at the end of the document.

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 4th September 2013 Action ref a) The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.

b) Regarding the notes from the 2013 Retreat, SK said that Robin Mellors-Bourne had completed the gathering of statistics for the Unemployed Graduates project (data now available on the EPC website) and she would be meeting him the following week to discuss next steps. It is intended that the findings of other related studies will now be reviewed with a view to drawing them all together to make some practical recommendations in a session at Congress. Other tasks identified during the Retreat would be covered by the agenda.

3. Matters arising (not covered elsewhere in the agenda)

1307-04 The Queste SI project will continue and the sustainability self-assessment forms will not be available other than to universities that apply for the Queste Si label. Action completed. 1310-03 CNS was not at the meeting, but KH said that it was possible to download his presentation to the SEFI Conference from the SEFI website by following the link http://epc.ac.uk/category/blog/education/ Action completed.1310-06 SHo read out his draft letter giving support for the current QAA Benchmark guidelines and the Committee members present gave their approval for it to be sent to QAA. 1310-09 SK said that she had not so far been able to obtain a copy of the RAEng’s submission to the consultation on the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Women in STEM Careers. All other actions from the previous minutes are either complete or will be discussed as part of the agenda.

1311-01

EPC/14/02-01

2

4. President’s Report4.1 SHo reported that his focus since the last meeting had been on the

meeting with BIS in early November. It had been agreed that several issues discussed at the Retreat should form the focus of the BIS meeting.

4.2 Representing EPC at the meeting was SHo, HA, SK and Tony Brown. Members heard that the EPC group had focussed the meeting on how EPC can help BIS in developing policy and resolving current issues.

4.3 In particular, the discussion focussed on the financial implications of a) the difficulty in recruiting good quality “home” PhD and Master students, b) remaining issues over visas for non-EU staff and students, particularly because engineering departments rely more heavily on overseas students than other subjects, c) the gap in supply and demand of engineering graduates, and d) the outcomes of the Perkins Review along with how to produce a viable funding system. A number of potential practical actions whereby EPC might be able to contribute were discussed.

4.4 The actions arising from the meeting are summarised in the Appendix to these minutes.

4.5 SHo and SK observed that BIS felt that many issues had already had been resolved, and that their main agenda at the meeting was to implement the Perkins Review. SK felt that many of the recommendations in the review are on EPC’s “to do” list anyway, so the main focus of follow-up activity would be to ensure that EPC members were involved in the workstreams that BIS was establishing to implement the Review’s recommendations. BIS also raised some queries regarding the apparent anomaly that employers were claiming that there were insufficient graduate engineers being produced but that the employment outcomes for these graduates were significantly less than 100%. There was an apparent view within BIS that academic departments were out of touch with industry and hence our courses were not providing graduates with appropriate skills.

4.6 Other Committee members observed that the impact of the financial crisis seemed to be having more of an impact on European universities than those in the UK and there was a suggestion that the professional institutions be asked to provide information to EPC on the number of industry participants on university course accreditation/advisory boards to evidence the extent of industrial involvement.

1311-02

5. Treasurer’s ReportJY presented his written report.

5.1 Regarding invoicing for annual subscriptions, SK reported that the number of universities that still have outstanding payments was now down to 7 rather than 10 as in the report, which is a good position to be in at this time of the year.

5.2 The Committee APPROVED the requested release of reserves in the sum of £20k for the Engaging with Engineering public engagement grant award.

5.3 The 2012-13 accounts were APPROVED for onward presentation to the Annual General Meeting for formal approval in April 2014.

6. Director’s Report

SK presented her written report summarising the extensive list of activities

EPC/14/02-01

3

currently underway. In particular, the launch of the Student Essay Prize and the Engaging in Engineering public engagement grant award were emphasised.

SK then tabled a draft scoping document for one of the workstreams (postgraduate study) arising from the Perkins Review indicating that EPC and EEF would be involved. She indicated that if this did move forward as indicated, it would supersede the EPC’s own project workstream on postgraduate study and funding.

7. Reports of the Working Groups (Sub Committees)

7.1 Recruitment and Admissions (RASC)

DM thanked SK for writing the update report which he then presented.

7.1.1 A successful Recruitment and Admissions Forum was held on 4th

November at the Institution of Civil Engineers. Good feedback had been received and popular speakers were Matthew Harrison and Andrew Ramsay.

7.1.2 DM also thanked SK for the enrolments survey, including postgraduate recruitment that she set up and analysed for the Forum. He said that this year’s results are more promising than last year’s and felt that an interesting task would be to compare the next set of HESA data (2012-13 enrolments available in February 2014) against last year’s survey.

7.1.3 JD, as a member of the IoP panel looking at the new physics A level, said that he thought that the document detailing the content of it was not at all promising. The document will be discussed at the next meeting of the sub-committee on 4th December. SHa explained that while she had yet to review it in detail, a key concern was that there will be four years in the future when the old and new physics syllabus of both A level and GCSE will be “out of synch” which could prove challenging for school teachers and students.

7.1.4 SHo then reported that Geoff Parks had requested for resolution of the issues of where the Mathematics Working Group should report – RASC or the Engineering Education, Employability and Skills (EEES) sub-committee. It was agreed that a member of the EEES should sit on the Mathematics Working Group (in the same way that a member of RASC sits on the Group) to facilitate issues being raised in the appropriate forum, as they arise.

7.2 Engineering Education, Employability and Skills (EEES) CNS was not at the meeting so SK presented the written report.

7.2.1 Several projects identified at the inaugural meeting have been initiated.

7.2.2 SK then asked the Committee to approve the commission of a new project (identified at the Retreat) – to obtain statistics on the number of BEng students who go on to study at PhD, MSc or MBA. These data are available from HESA at a cost of c. £1200. While it was agreed that the data would be useful, there was a concern that adjustments might need to be made to the data specification and a number of questions of clarification, particularly around unique identification and tracking of individual students was discussed. It was agreed that SK would check that students are tracked to obtain the data.

1311-03

1311-04

1311-05

EPC/14/02-01

4

7.3 Research, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer (RIKT)

SHa reported that owing to several apologies (owed to REF deadlines), only 5 people had attended the meeting that morning, so not all items on the agenda had been discussed. The workplan had been the main topic of conversation, with items being:

7.3.1 Knowledge Transfer – SK had been contacted by Ruth Graham at the Royal Academy of Engineering about a similar study with which she had been tasked. The RAEng study will focus on the role that education and teaching play in selection and promotion criteria in university engineering departments; the EPC study had intended to focus on the role of knowledge transfer in this regard. It was therefore intended to combine the surveys and promote to the EPC membership.

7.3.2 Funding Concentration – this was postponed until the next sub-committee meeting.

7.3.3 Panel for Engaging in Engineering – it had been agreed that the sub-committee would meet in February to choose the final six submissions, possibly the morning of the next full Committee meeting on 12th

February. 7.3.4 Frontiers of Knowledge – SK had received some of the submissions

and it had been agreed that the project leaders would be contacted to obtain their permission to showcase them on the EPC website.

7.3.5 Witty Review – there had been a discussion about a potential EPC position statement and it had been agreed that SK would poll EPC members on some of the recommendations.

8. Accreditation and KIS Statements

CT said that a problem had been identified whereby professional bodies give accreditation to engineering programmes for a fixed period. Given the extensive and lengthy processes now in place for data gathering and checking for the new KIS statements (which include details of accreditation) and, depending on the timing of a renewal visit, it may be that a formerly accredited course might appear in the KIS statement not to be accredited which has a serious potential implication for recruitment. CT said that some professional bodies had overcome the problem, but many of them are not even aware of it. He said that the consequences for an engineering department could be significant.

Members reflected on the issue and the suggestion was made that it be outlined in a letter to the EAB (which BC chairs) so they could, in turn, write to the professional bodies to raise awareness. CT said that he already had something drafted, so it was agreed that he would send this to the EAB.

BC then gave a brief report on the activities of the EAB, one of the key issues currently under consideration being the release of accreditation reports to the public and they were looking at what was required by law. There are also discussions currently regarding MEng degrees from countries that have signed up to the Washington Accord.

1311-06

9. Research into the impact of concentration of research funding

This was another potential piece of research identified at the Retreat. SK said

EPC/14/02-01

5

that she had being working with both Thomson Reuters and Elsevier, both of which offer bibliometric consulting services but that there were serious issues around both cost (current indications around £40k) and obtaining a credible and usable dataset. She indicated that she had briefed Kedar Pandya at EPSRC owing to the potential controversial nature of the subject matter, who had indicated that EPSRC had done some work in this area which he would investigate and share if possible.

The study envisaged at Retreat would only be feasible to pursue if we had partners to share the cost and that a credible dataset were available. SK indicated that it might be that the REF would provide such a dataset and it may be preferable to wait until this was available in 2015. It was agreed that SK would review and summarise the original Canadian study from which the idea first came, together with any information provided by the EPSRC and circulate amongst members before deciding next steps.

1311-07

10. Updated Proposals for Congress 2014

JD presented the updated programme. He said he hopes to get the web pages for online registration agreed

within the next couple of weeks, but is finding the event organisation system at the University of Glasgow slow and bureaucratic.

The timings for day 2 have been changed so the event will finish before lunch and he will arrange for optional tours of the building for delegates after lunch.

There was a discussion regarding the inclusion of workshop sessions. SK said that she had had good feedback in the past for these sessions, so it was felt that they are an important part of the event providing an alternative format to plenaries which were helpful in generating discussion plus the sessions would be repeated meaning that delegates did not have to miss out by having to choose.

1311-08

1311-09

11. Proposals for alternative website front page

SK said that she felt that the front page of the EPC website was becoming text-heavy and rather unwieldy and so had developed an alternative page for the Committee to review. Due to time constraints, it was agreed that rather than discussing at the meeting, SK would send the link of the new web page to Committee members who would then send feedback to SK.

1311-10

10. Any other business SK reported that the PHEE, PHOMME and COMEH Sectoral Groups

now all have their web pages hosted by the EPC. After meeting with representatives from the ACED Sectoral Group, they are also keen to have their web pages hosted, so she has drafted some pages for them and they will be made live once agreed.

SK then tabled a document on IBM’s Smarter Cities Challenge in collaboration with AOSEC which is run for FE colleges. She has asked if EPC might be interested in running something similar for HE. It was agreed that SK will arrange a meeting between SHo and SK with the relevant contacts at IBM. SS said that Cisco had run something similar (with inter-discipline teams including engineering, psychology and computer science) which had been very successful.

1311-11

1311-12

EPC/14/02-01

6

Action log

Reference Agreed action By 1311-01 SHo to send his letter giving support for the current QAA Benchmark

guidelines to QAA.SHo

1311-02 SK to ask professional institutions to provide information on the number of industry participants on university course accreditation/advisory boards.

SK

1311-03 Once HESA 2012-13 data available (February 2014), compare with results from 2012 EPC enrolments survey.

SK/DM

1311-04 Identify a member of the EEES sub-committee to be involved with the Mathematics Working Group.

CNS

1311-05 Check that the data available from HESA on BEng students that go on to further study (at a cost of £1200) suits EPC’s needs.

SK

1311-06 Write to the EAB asking them to raise awareness amongst professional institutions of the issue regarding the accreditation of engineering courses and KIS data.

CT

1311-07 SK to review and summarise the original Canadian study on research funding concentration together with any information provided by the EPSRC and circulate to Committee members.

SK

1311-08 Work with the event management contacts at the University of Glasgow to get the web pages for online registration agreed and built.

JD/SK

1311-09 Arrange tours of the engineering facilities at University of Glasgow for Congress delegates.

JD

1311-10 Send link to alternative EPC website Home Page to Committee members who should send feedback to SK.

SK/All

1311-11 Make ACED Sectoral Group web pages lives on EPC website once agreed.

SK

1311-12 Arrange a meeting between SHo, SK and the relevant contacts at IBM to discuss the potential running of something similar to the Smarter Cities Challenge for HE.

SK

EPC/14/02-02 COMMITTEE

19 February, 2014 For information and

approval

Report of the Honorary Treasurer

1. 2013/14 invoicing At the time of writing, 77 (out of 80) universities plus the Royal Academy of Engineering had paid their subscriptions. Of these, 10 universities have paid for 2 years. As previously reported, De Montfort University has advised us formally of its decision to cease membership so £958 worth of subscriptions now remain outstanding:

University of Abertay, Dundee University of Chester

It may be unfair to assume that Chester will pay for this year as will not be operational as a department until 2014/15. That said, they did indicate their keen-ness to join. Both are being followed up actively but in the case of Abertay, the former representative has now moved to the University of Greenwich. We have now written to all members we can identify at Abertay asking them to get in touch if their membership and access to the website is not to be withdrawn.

2. 2013/14 operating budget The Q2 2013/14 management accounts are attached as Appendix 1. The current position is broadly as expected although the somewhat higher than anticipated cost of the Retreat at the University of Chester has resulted in this cost being set against the contingency budget. The Q1 expense position has also been updated owing to receipt of some expenses relating to Q1 being received in early Q2.

3. 3 year cashflow re-forecast The 3 year cashflow forecast has been amended to reflect the updated position with regard to current subscriptions and expense profile and is attached as Appendix 2.

4. Proposal for 2014/15 subscriptions Subscription levels were nominally increased by 3% for 2013/14 but an early payment discount of 3% for subscriptions received within 28 days of receipt of invoice was offered. Just over half of members took up this opportunity. In addition, the offer to maintain 2014/15 rates at those of 2013/14 for those paying 2 years in advance was made with 10 universities taking advantage.

Our options for 2014/15 are as follows: a) To maintain subscription levels at 2013/14 rates, mindful of the continuing financial constraints on

members. b) To make a modest defensible increase, given increasing levels of costs generally and the additional

costs associated with our increased activity, in line with CPI which is currently forecast at around 2.4%.

c) To make the increase of 2.4% but to again offer an early payment discount of 2.4% for subscriptions received by 30 September. (28 days was offered last year but as invoices are issued on 1 August, some universities missed the 28 day deadline owing to holidays etc.). For those choosing not to pay by 30 September, this results in an increase of less than £100 at every subscription band.

d) To offer to maintain 2015/16 rates at those of 2014/15 for those paying 2 years in advance to aid longer term planning.

e) To, once again, offer options c and d in conjunction.

As we said last year, it is unlikely that we can grow EPC’s income materially from within the sector on the current model. This year, we have been focusing on delivering tangible benefits to members and growing our external profile. This seems to be starting to bear fruit, as, while we have lost 1 member, we have gained the University of Bedfordshire, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the University of Chester (we hope) and won 1 back (University of Sunderland).

Committee members are invited to APPROVE the recommendation to once again offer option (e) to go forward to the Annual General Meeting for members’ approval.

Academic staff numbers greater than or equal to

But less than 2013/14 rate (£)

2014/15 rate (£)*

Proposed

1 40 479 490

40 80 958 981

80 120 1,437 1,471

120 160 1,916 1,962

160 200 2,395 2,452

200 2,874 2,943

*Payment by 30 September will result in the subscription being discounted back to 2013/14 levels. Payment of 2 years’ subscription within 28 days will extend the protection of 2013/14 rates to 2015/16.

Professor Jim Yip

3 February, 2014

Appendix1: Operating budget position as at Q2 2014

Appendix 2: Updated 3 year cashflow forecast

Appendix 1 to EPC14/02-02As at 31 January, 2014

2012/13 actual Budget 2013/14Q1 actual (updated) Q2 to date Q3 actual Q4 actual

Variance (end of year

forecast to budget)

Wages and salaries (incl er's NI) 35,794 41,000 10,305 10,306 20,389

Employer's pension contributions 3,316 4,000 952 952 2,096Training 210 600 0 174 426Travel and subsistence 10,100 11,000 2,042 1,404 7,555Conference and event attendance by EPC Office/Committee 1,301 1,500 261 80 1,159

Subscriptions 1,827 4,000 1,000 325 2,675Sundry office expenses (stationery, committee lunches, room hire, postage etc) 6,086 6,500 865 1,929 3,706Insurance 470 400 0 400Bank charges 873 1,000 219 242 539

Web and email hosting 346 350 300 - 50Web development and other software 402 500 222 103 175Audit & Accountancy fees 3,815 2,500 0 400 2,100

Research and data support/student prize 4,000 7,000 0 7,000

Contingency 2,719 2,500 1,372 1,12871,260 82,850 17,538 15,914 - - 49,398

Note 1

Total invoiced income relating to subscriptions for 2013/14 £90,466Outstanding (as at 31 January, 2014) £2,874 3.2% (includes £1,437 for De Montfort University which has cancelled its membership)

Note 2Recruitment and admissions forum Income

£Delegate fees 1,71050% share of costs to Institution of Civil Engineers (not included in operational expenses) (800)Travel expenses for speakers/EPC Committee attendees

Surplus 910

Note 3 £Cost of Retreat (set against contingency as not allowed for in office expenses budget) 1,372

Operating budget 2013/14 (excl. events income and expenses)

(this has been corrected from the previous report which had incorrectly included some subscriptions collected for 2014/15)

Appendix 2 to EPC/14/02-02

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Bfwd 91,232 164,735 151,122 111,510 87,510 149,545 135,527 115,364 90,788 154,312 140,399 120,3432012/13 surplus transferred to reserves 11,526Subscription income flow 78,977 4,388 4,388 79,443 4,414 4,414 81,350 4,519 4,519Operational expenses flow (17,000) (18,000) (24,000) (24,000) (17,408) (18,432) (24,576) (24,576) (17,826) (18,432) (24,576) (24,576)Release from reserves (public engagement grant award) (20,000)Cfwd 164,735 151,122 111,510 87,510 149,545 135,527 115,364 90,788 154,312 140,399 120,343 95,767Term deposit 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,675Cash available 119,735 106,122 66,510 42,510 104,545 90,527 70,364 45,113 154,312 140,399 120,343 95,767

164,735 151,122 111,510 87,510 149,545 135,527 115,364 90,788 154,312 140,399 120,343 95,767AssumptionsSubscription income invoiced 90,466 91,000 93,184% Subscription income received 97% 95% 95%Expense inflator 2.4%Income receipt pattern 90% 5% 5% 90% 5% 5% 90% 5% 5%Minimum annual operating cost assumption 60,000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4Cash balance 164,735 151,122 111,510 87,510 149,545 135,527 115,364 90,788 154,312 140,399 120,343 95,767Min annual operating cost 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Cash balance

Min annual operating cost


19 February, 2014 For information

Director’s Report of activities undertaken since 27 November, 2013

Task Progress

Consultations House of Lords Science and Technology Committee enquiry on immigration (upcoming) BIS Consultation on capital funding (upcoming)

Newsletter 3 x Periodic (one-two weekly) electronic infoDigests issued Autumn bi-annual newsletter issued

Events arrangements Congress programme including preparation of materials for student prize and public engagement grant, securing of speakers (incl. David Docherty NCUB)

New professors’ and Patrons’ invitations to Congress issued Promotion of student prize and organisation of submissions and winners Promotion of Engaging in Engineering – our public engagement grant fund Questionnaire on future of PGT developed and issued (for Congress workshops)

Events/meetings attended since 27 November, 2013

E4E Operations Group meeting Verity O’Keefe, Engineering Employers Federation EEES sub Committee meeting Royal Academy of Engineering re DLHE/internship/student employment research Ruth Graham, RAEng project on role of education in academic promotion criteria Neil Randerson, Engineering UK re HESA data sharing RA sub Committee meeting CaSE planning meeting (re CSR) Meeting with HE and FE client manager from IBM Follow up with IBM and preparation of sponsorship proposal Stephanie Fernandes (BIS secondee) re Perkins Review (x3) CaSe/Fragomen roundtable on immigration policies Policynet at RAEng on Catapults Jo Gilman, Loughborough Daniel Cressy, Nature on the impact of immigration policy on UK science

Administration Prepared Treasurer’s report and range of papers for Committee meeting Papers and minutes and post-meeting follow-up for EEES sub Committee Prepared and circulated packs for RIKT sub Committee meeting and Engaging in Engineering

judging panel

Analysis Edited DLHE research by CRAC and turned into infoBrief for website. Quick Poll developed and circulated for RIKT sub Committee on impact weighting in REF Preparing data request for and liaising with HEFCE Started AY 2012/13 HESA data updates for website as they become available

Website Continued development of Members’ Area with Data and Analysis and Useful Policy Papers sections.

Built and launched new webpages for ACED Constructed and launched alternative front page for website

Susan Kay 6 February, 2014

HESA Services Ltd is registered in England at the above address. Registered No. 3109219. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Higher Education Statistics Agency Ltd (Registered in England No. 2766993. Registered Charity No. 1039709). Certified to ISO 9001 and ISO 27001. 34903_IP4_v3.docx

Date: 15 January 2014 Ref: 34903_SD_v3

SCHEDULE TO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE SUPPLY OF DATA BETWEEN HESA SERVICES LIMITED AND THE CLIENT

IP4 (V 1.5) SCHEDULE OF SUPPLY

1. Client: Engineering Professors' Council

2. Contact name: Ms Susan Kay

3. Client address: Engineering Professors' CouncilPo Box 789GodalmingSurreyGU7 9FW

4. Client telephone: 07901670897

5. Client fax:

6. Billing address (if different from above):

N/A

7. Delivery address (if different from above):

N/A

8. Commencement Date: 15 January 2014

9. Licence End Date: 15 February 2015

10. Payment(s)(£) Excluding VAT: £1,587

11. Payment(s) frequency: Single

12. Data: Data to be supplied in Microsoft® Excel PivotTable®

95 PromenadeCheltenham

GL50 1HZ

Tel: 01242 211133Fax: 01242 211122

Web: www.hesa.ac.uk


format (version 2010):

Students qualifying with a first degree or Integrated undergraduate/postgraduate taught masters degree (M22 or M26) in subjects H0-H9 2007/08-2011/12 linked to subsequent years of HESA data (2008/09 to 2012/13) by

Academic year of qualification (2007/08 - 2011/12) Subject of qualification (H0-H9) Level of qualification (first degree / M22 / M26) Year first found on higher degree course (2008/09 to 2012/13) Higher degree level of study (All higher degree qualifications (D,E,L,M) shown separately, not found on higher degree) Subject of higher degree (subject H0-H9 shown separately / in a different subject / not found on a higher degree)Mode of higher degree study (full-time, sandwich, part-time)Major source of tuition fees (full)Domicile (UK, Other EU, non-EU)

Specified subjects:(H0) Broadly-based programmes within engineering & technology(H1) General engineering(H2) Civil engineering(H3) Mechanical engineering(H4) Aerospace engineering(H5) Naval architecture(H6) Electronic & electrical engineering(H7) Production & manufacturing engineering(H8) Chemical, process & energy engineering(H9) Others in engineering

13. Expected timescale for delivery (from receipt of this signed Schedule):

15-20 Working days

14. Permitted Purposes: Data may be used for internal purposes. Aggregated extracts of data may be included in an internal report on trends of engineering students going on to study specific masters qualifications. This report may be distributed amongst members of the Engineering Professors’


Council and included within the password protected members area of the website at www.epc.ac.uk.

Any data published within the report must be rounded to the nearest 5 according to the standard rounding methodology as outlined in special condition 1.

15. Special conditions (if any): 1. Any reproduction or publishing of Data by the Client, subject to the above Permitted Purposes, must adhere to the HESA Services Standard Rounding Methodology – see Terms and Conditions Clause 7.3.

2. All copies of Data must be destroyed by the Licence End Date shown above – see Clause 6.6.

3. Special permission is required before any HESA data is reproduced e.g. commercial publication or on an Internet Web-site with general access. In such cases written permission should be sought in advance of the intended publication date and must include a copy of the data extracts intended for this purpose. Permission for any proposed reproduction or publication of the data may be refused at the absolute discretion of HESA Services Limited.

16. Publication caveats/data attribution: Source: HESA Student Record 2007/08 to 2012/13Copyright Higher Education Statistics Agency Limited 2014HESA cannot accept responsibility for any inferences or conclusions derived from the data by third parties.

This document is the Schedule to the Agreement for the Supply of Data, a copy of which has been supplied to the Client (the "Agreement"). In signing this Schedule, the parties are agreeing to the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement, including this Schedule.

Signed by :for the Client

Name:

Date:

Signed by :for HESA Services Limited

Name:



approval

Report of the Mathematics Working Group

Appendix 1 contains the minutes of the meeting of the Mathematics Working Group held on 4th December, 2013, for information.

Appendix 2 contains the position statement, recommended by the Group for circulation to key influencers and policy-makers. The Group seeks the APPROVAL of the Committee to do so.

Dr Geoff Parks Chair, Mathematics Working Group

3 February, 2014

Appendix 1: UNCONFIRMED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 4TH DECEMBER, 2013

Appendix 2: ENGINEERING PROFESSORS’ COUNCIL POSITION PAPER CONCERNING MATHEMATICS AND FURTHER MATHEMATICS A LEVEL REFORM


1

Engineering Professors’ Council Notes of the meeting of the Mathematics Working Group

held on 4th December 2013 at Senate House, University of London

Present For Engineering Professors’ Council Dr Geoff Parks (GP) (Chair) Professor Dik Morling (DM) For IMA Prof Nigel Steele (NS) Dr Les Mustoe (LM) For OCR Ms Katherine Bird (KB) Martin Webber (MW) For Royal Academy of Engineering Mr Stylli Charalampous (SC) For MEI Mr Richard Browne (RB) For IoP Prof Peter Main (PM)

With Mrs Vicky Elston (VE) from the EPC and Keith Proffitt from OCR

Apologies For Sigma Mr Duncan Lawson For Royal Academy of Engineering Mr Dominic Nolan For Engineering Professors’ Council Ms Susan Kay (SK) For ASE Ms Annette Smith (AS) For Imperial College London Prof Esat Alpay (EA) For Clevelands Training Mr Malcolm Carr-West (MCW) For National STEM Centre Stephen Lyon For NCETM Ms Norma Honey For Ofsted Ms Jane Jones For IMA Professor Chris Budd

The following notes summarise the discussions briefly with actions arising detailed in the Actions log at the end of the document.

As there had not been a meeting of the group for some time, and as the group now has a new chair, the meeting began with introductions.

2 Notes of last meeting held 1st February 2013

The notes were approved with the exception of 4. HE Academy para 1, Steve Hibbert should be spelt Steve

Hibberd 8. Updates from other groups bullet point 4, the sentence


2

“Another 42 are being worked on” should be removed 1312-01

3. Matters arising not on the agenda

3.2 It was not known whether Fred Maillardet (now retired from the group) had approached Joan Ashley for a response regarding the idea of mathematics and D&T teachers teaching joint modules. GP agreed to contact Joan to see what the current situation is.

All other actions are completed.

1312-02

4. A level Reform

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the current A level reforms, in particular about the new group set up by the Russell Group universities, ALCAB( A level Content Advisory Board) which is to consider the subject content in mathematics, along with other subjects, and then lead the annual post-A level review. There were concerns that the mathematics panel, including the chair Professor Richard Craster, is composed of staff from university mathematics departments, rather than reflecting a wider range of expertise and interests.

A major concern discussed was that ALCAB had only been tasked with looking at the content of the new A levels and the structure and assessment are to be left to the awarding bodies, with no independent organisation to oversee this. The group felt that OfQual should be overseeing this, but they do not currently have the subject expertise (although it seems that they are currently advertising for such posts) and this resulted in a lack of ownership of the reforms. The IoP have written to the Chair of the Select Committee expressing their concerns.

NS reported that the IMA have written to Professor Craster, expressing their similar concerns, but have yet to receive a response.

PM reported that the IoP are similarly concerned over the reform of the science A levels and that they had not been consulted by the awarding bodies (and that other learned societies felt the same) during the discussions. He noted that the content of the AS level qualification will now be the same as the first year of the A level, but if a student continues on after AS, their grade will not count towards the A level grade.

PM also expressed his concern that there will be four years of “out of sync” qualifications due to the phased launch of the new GCSEs and A levels, with mathematics at A level being launched a year later than other subjects, but a year earlier that others at GCSE level.

KP from OCR said that they (and other awarding bodies) had been put into the position of having to mediate, due to the lack of subject expertise at OfQual. He said that discussions were ongoing regarding whether mathematics and/or further mathematics will continue to be “unitised” or will become linear


3

to conform with other new A level qualifications. He noted that everyone agreed that ‘linearisation’ of maths and further maths would discourage participation in the subjects. He said that OCR appreciated the importance of AS maths and further maths, but funding could change such that students will no longer have the opportunity to study 4 A levels in year 12, then drop to 3 in year 13, which could decrease participation in AS maths and further maths.

There was then a discussion about what should be included in the core of the mathematics syllabus and whether it should include the application of techniques or whether they should be included in other relevant subjects. It was finally agreed that the concerns of the group should be set out in a position paper that would be presented to the EPC Committee at its next meeting and then sent on to ALCAB. As the IMA have already written to ALCAB, NS will send a copy of their letter to GP. 1312-03

5. GCSE Reform GP asked the members for any updates and KP briefed everyone

on activities at OCR. He said that the new mathematics and English qualifications at GCSE level will be available from 2015 and other subjects from 2016. He said that it was unclear at this point where grade C in the current qualifications would map to the new grading structure of 1-9, but is expected at 4 or 5. There was a brief discussion about the new grading system and many felt that there were too few grades in the top tier for mathematics (4-9), which would make it difficult to distinguish between the top performing students.

KP said that there would be a change to how the school league tables are published with the new system. Rather than a school being rated on the number of children that achieve at least a grade C, each grade would count in the new system, so a school will be rated higher if more children achieve the top grades. There will also be age constraints in place to dissuade schools from entering children for exams a year early.

KP reported that a new consultation on the content of Key Stage 4 has just been launched, with a deadline of 3rd January 2014. Another consultation is due to be launched that will look at which subjects are examined at GCSE level, and it was felt that some subjects may no longer be available under the new system.

6. Updates from other groupsIoP

A new report to be published the week beginning 9th December will be looking at the progress of students who study physics, economics and mathematics (popular A level choices for boys) compared to biology, English and psychology (popular choices for girls) and will be launched by Liz Truss, Education and Childcare minister. Its main finding is that nearly 50% of co-educational state-funded schools are actually making the gender imbalance in


4

these subjects worse. The teacher training scholarship programme for 2014 has been

launched. The IoP have set up their own panel looking at the physics

curriculum. Its membership includes three representatives nominated by the EPC.

ACME A report on the new core mathematics qualification was

published earlier this autumn, but no formal response has been received from the government yet. The new qualification will be post-GCSE for students not studying for A or AS mathematics.

A report on professional development, recently published, was recommended to members of the group – the report is available from the ACME website.

OCR KP encouraged members of the group to approach OCR with

opinions on the A level and GCSE reforms.

IMA 91 scholars from last year’s scholarship programme (for those

studying for secondary maths teacher training) were invited to an event earlier in the autumn. There are 250 scholarships available in this year’s programme which has recently been launched.

IMA will be celebrating 50 years in 2014 so a number of events are planned including one at the Royal Society in June.

7. Any other businessDM suggested that the aims and purposes of the group should be revisited so it was agreed that the current document would be discussed at the next meeting.

1312-04

8. Next MeetingIt was agreed that the next meeting would be held on 4th June 2014 in the morning before the Recruitment and Admissions Sub Committee meeting in the afternoon. Venue to be arranged.

1312-05

Action log

Reference Agreed action By1312-01 Make two amendments to draft notes from last meeting in

February 2013. VE

1312-02 Contact Joan Ashley regarding the possibility of joint modules for mathematics and D&T teachers.

GP

1312-03 NS to send a copy of IMA’s letter to ALCAB to GP who will prepare a position paper for presentation to the EPC Committee and subsequent communication to Professor Craster at ALCAB.

NS/GP

1312-04 Add a discussion of the document detailing the Aims and Scope GP


5

of the group to the agenda at the next meeting.1312-05 Arrange venue for next meeting on the morning of 4th June 2013

before the Recruitment and Admissions Sub Committee meet in the afternoon.

VE


1

ENGINEERING PROFESSORS’ COUNCIL

POSITION PAPER CONCERNING MATHEMATICS AND FURTHER MATHEMATICS A LEVEL REFORM

The Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) is the representative body for engineering in higher education. Its primary purpose is to provide a forum in which engineers working in UK higher education (HE) can exchange ideas about engineering education, research and other matters of common interest and come together to provide an influential voice and authoritative conduit through which engineering departments’ interests can be represented to key audiences.

Mathematics is a subject of enormous importance to the education of engineers in all disciplines. This importance is illustrated by the fact the EPC has for many years maintained a Mathematics Working Group. It was that working group that played a central role in the successful development of the Mathematics for Engineering Additional & Specialist Learning qualification for the Advanced Engineering Diploma.

As a body with 80 institutional members (from all university mission groups) encompassing ~6,000 (permanent FTE) academic staff in all branches of engineering, the EPC wants to express its willingness to offer advice and help to those charged with reforming A Levels in subjects that help prepare students for HE engineering courses, including, of course, Mathematics and Further Mathematics. The EPC also wants to state briefly its considered view, formulated by its Mathematics Working Group, about the future of these two key subjects at A Level.

1. It is important to recognise that the majority of students of A Level Mathematics do not go on to undertake a degree course in mathematics and that other subjects in HE (such as engineering, the natural sciences and economics) are important stakeholders with an interest in the standards and content of A and AS Level Mathematics and Further Mathematics. The Mathematics Working Group of EPC includes representatives from the mathematics, physics and science communities in addition to engineering. Our experience is that there is a very high degree of agreement as to the required content of A and AS Level Mathematics courses across these disciplines.

2. We believe that the principal problem with current A Levels lies in the forms of assessment used rather than their subject content. These assessments have been allowed to become too structured and predictable, especially in Mathematics and to some extent Further Mathematics; they no longer test genuine mathematical knowledge, understanding and insight but rather the ability to be led through questions that are very similar to examples previously seen in class.

3. While we agree that changes are necessary to A Levels to restore standards, we feel that the modular structure of A Levels has been made something of a scapegoat in the debate on standards. We would advocate the retention for Mathematics and Further Mathematics of a modular structure, in which the results of AS Levels completed the end of Year 12 contribute to the award of A Levels completed in Year 13. We recommend such a structure because we are concerned that, while depth could be assessed at the end of the course, time constraints make it difficult to cover the required breadth in the assessment.

For mathematics, a two-stage assessment process has much to commend it. The first stage (usually taken at the end of Year 12) could measure a wide range of mathematical skills. This would free up time at the end of Year 13 for final synoptic assessments that contain in-depth questions requiring problem-solving skills and the ability to apply and combine the mathematical principles learnt over the past two years.

4. Given the declared intention to increase the testing of mathematical skills in relevant A Level subjects, it is important that the reforms of subjects such as Chemistry and Physics take into account the reform of Mathematics and Further Mathematics and vice versa. The fact that the reforms of these subjects are progressing on different timelines is a matter of significant concern. In addition to the obvious risks associated with disjointed reform processes, the lack of synchronisation in effect eliminates the opportunity for the discussion of potentially beneficial cross-subject reforms. This is particularly


2

important in the context of mechanics, which features in the specifications of Mathematics/Further Mathematics and Physics A Levels. If these subjects are properly coordinated, there is considerable scope thereby to support and strengthen advantageously the mathematical sophistication of Physics A Level. This opportunity should not be missed.

5. Although we do not see any need for significant changes in subject content, we do believe that structural aspects of Mathematics A Level (and Further Mathematics) need reconsideration. One example is the question of how mechanics is taught, as mentioned above. Another is the question of which parts of the specifications should be ‘core’ and which ‘options’. We believe that a greater proportion of Mathematics A Level should be ‘core’ and that the core should include some mechanics, probability theory and statistics in addition to pure mathematics.

6. The linkage between applications and options should also be reconsidered. As the considerable majority of those who take Mathematics A Level and progress on to HE do not go on to study mathematics at university, we believe the interests of learners as a whole would be better served if examples of the wide applicability of the mathematics they are learning were encountered throughout their study of the subject. Such examples help motivate students and contribute to understanding.

7. The revival in the popularity of AS and A Level Further Mathematics has been a great success story in the last decade. This has been due, in no small part, to the work of the Further Mathematics Support Programme (formerly the Further Mathematics Network) managed by MEI. In particular, the provision of a Further Mathematics AS Level, which can be taken either during Year 12 or Year 13, has been very popular.

Further Mathematics AS Level is very well regarded by Admissions Tutors for HE engineering programmes. In consequence, EPC is concerned that the reforms could have the unintended consequence of reducing the take-up of Further Mathematics, which is often taken as a fourth A Level subject. With the concentration of assessments into a few weeks at the end of the two years, we fear that many students will be advised by their school/college to take no more than three A Levels. This would undoubtedly reduce the take-up of both A Level and AS Level Further Mathematics in Year 13. Our proposal for a two-stage assessment of Mathematics would help to alleviate this problem by reducing examination load at the end of Year 13 of those taking Mathematics A Level.

EPC/14/02-05 For information

1

Engineering Professors’ Council Minutes of the Engineering Education, Employability and Skills (EEES) sub Committee

held on 20th January, 2014 by teleconference

Present Clive Neal-Sturgess - CNS (Chair), Henri Huijberts - HH (Vice Chair), John Mitchell – JM, Susan Kay - SJK, Catherine Hobbs – CH, Gill Cooke - GC

Apologies Sally Heslop, Jonathan Lawrence, Kamel Hawwash , Peter White, Chike Oduoza, David Barton, Simon Hodgson

Item Action ref1. ApologiesApologies were received and noted as above.

2. Minutes of the meeting held on 21 October, 2013The minutes were received and approved without amendment.

3. Matters arising not elsewhere on the agenda The action log was reviewed and updated.

Regarding item EEES13/10-01, it was agreed that as the OECD report focused on sub university-level education and the group had other priorities, this action would be removed from the list.

Regarding items EEES13/10-02 and 03. Owing to the re-focused priorities of the sub Committee, SJK reported that she had agreed with DB that this project would be re-visited during academic year 2014/15.

Regarding item EEES13/10-06, this has now been subsumed within the Perkins Review implementation workstream, discussed in item 5 on the agenda

Regarding item EEES13/10-07, SJK reported that the Director of Employment and Skills at the Institute of Directors had recently left and a replacement was not yet in place.

All other items had either been completed (and so now removed from the action log) or remain to be addressed.


2

4. Chair’s reportThe Chair reported that he had attended the EPC Recruitment and Admissions sub Committee meeting in November, where the format of the EPC Congress 2014 workshop session to be hosted jointly with this sub Committee was discussed extensively. The proposal would be covered under item 6 on this agenda.

He went on to note that the deadline for the Engineering Council-led consultation on the Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) had closed on 7 January, 2014 and the outcome was awaited.

The Chair also reported that he had attended the PHEE/PHOMME Sectoral group conference in January and that it had been relatively poorly attended, partially owing to the clash of dates with the initial meeting of the REF advisory panels. There had been no new actions or recommendations arising.

The Chair advised of an upcoming lecture by Tom Donnelly of Coventry University’s Business School regarding the “skills – a brake on the UK economy” which he would attend and on which he would report back.

EEES14/01-01

5. WorkplanSJK updated the committee on an opportunity that had arisen for the EPC that had impacted the workplan.

Following the publication of the Perkins Review of Engineering Skills in November, 2013, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) had handed over the recommendations to the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) for action. The recommendations have been grouped into four workstreams and while RAEng will lead on three of them, the Engineering Professors’ Council, together with the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) has been asked to lead on the workstream entitled “Specialist Skills: Employers and universities working together to boost high level engineering skills at postgraduate level” and to chair a task and finish group. As many of the issues which were to be tackled as part of projects 2 and 4 on this committee’s work programme and given the limited capacity of the membership, it was proposed and agreed that focus would switch to this high profile opportunity. That said, it was agreed that tackling the issues around undergraduate internships was still important. It was therefore proposed that JM and HH would discuss the possibility of including this issue within project 6 (“appropriate assessment”) in the workplan and would draft terms of reference. CH and PW would participate in the Specialist Skills task and finish group which would be chaired by Helen Atkinson, EPC Vice-President. SJK would ensure that the committee was kept up to date as the terms of reference were developed.

6. Congress 2014 sessions

SJK reported that following input from the Recruitment and Admissions sub Committee (RASC), it had been agreed that there would be two workshop sessions to be held at Congress – one on Day 1 which would then be repeated on Day 2 to allow all Congress delegates to attend. The session had been billed to focus on the future of postgraduate study and funding in engineering and given that this fitted well with the Perkins

EEES13/10-11


3

implementation workstream, the focus of the workshop sessions would be on gathering views and input from the wider membership. This would be facilitated as follows:

the EPC membership (in particular, the committees) had been asked to complete a short pre-Congress survey to gather views on the future and funding of postgraduate study and involvement and interaction from employers. This would then be turned into a short Pecha-Kucha-style presentation which would kick off the workshop.

Two universities which had received funding from the HEFCE postgraduate funding pilot would present short case studies.

A panel, chaired by C N-S and consisting of an EEF nominee, Chris Millward of HEFCE, a PG student, CH, PW, HA (plus nominee from RASC) would lead and generate a discussion with workshop attendees with a view to identifying and prioritising practical actions which could be taken to improve the situation.

The members present approved this approach. GC suggested that Judith Shawcross of the Institute of Manufacturing at Cambridge could be a potential participant as she had carried out some relevant work on engineering skills.

7. Other business The Chair requested a volunteer from EEES to sit on the Maths Working Group which, he explained, had been recently re-constituted to provide, in particular, input on the curriculum changes to Mathematics and Further Mathematics A level. HH volunteered and SJK indicated that she would provide background details.

There was no further business.

Action log

Action ref ResponsibilityEEES13/10-04

KH to send a copy of a presentation from Nottingham University (who have experience of establishing an overseas branch campus) to DB.

KH

EEES13/10-10

KH to provide update on research workshop on “How engineers think” attended on 9th Dec

KH

EEES13/10-11

JM to provide scoping and resourcing document for “appropriate assessment” project

JM

EEES14/01-01

CN-S to report as necessary on any actionable outcomes from this event

CN-S

EEES14/01-02

SJK to research Judith Shawcross’ s work and approach if appropriate to participate at Congress

SJK

EEES14/01-03

SJK to advise Chair of MWG of HH’s participation and provide HH with access to relevant papers.

SJK

Date of next meeting: 16 June, 2014 at UCL Engineering. 11:00-14:00


1

Engineering Professors’ Council Minutes of the meeting of the Research, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer

Sub Committee held on 27th November 2013

at Clore Management School, Birkbeck, University of London

Present Professors Stephanie Haywood (SHa) (Chair), Alison Hodge (AH), Jim Yip (JY) and Ms Susan Kay (SK)

With Mrs Vicky Elston (VE)

Apologies Professors Diane Mynors, Anthony Bull, Tony Brown, Farhad Nabhani, Miltos Petridis, Mike Blundell, Sarah Spurgeon, Tony Brown, Anthony Bull, Dr Linda Newnes.

The following notes summarise the discussion briefly with actions arising detailed in the Actions log at the end of the document.

Owing to the extensive number of apologies, the result of transport problems and a deadline clash with the Research Excellence Framework submission, only agenda items 4a, 5, 7, 8 and 9 were discussed in any detail. Mr Pandya’s visit from the EPSRC was postponed until a later meeting.

4a a. Knowledge Transfer – contribution to promotion criteria

SK provided an update on progress with scoping this proposed study, explaining that a similar study was about to be initiated by the Royal Academy of Engineering but focusing on the contribution of educational/teaching activity to recruitment and selection criteria and that the EPC had been approached to promote the study and completion of the questionnaire amongst its members. A proposal regarding the way forward was discussed and is attached as an Appendix to these minutes. 4.1

5. Panel for EPC 20th Anniversary Engaging in Engineering public engagement grant

SK updated the meeting on the launch of the EPC’s Engaging in Engineering public engagement grant award, explaining that a panel would need to be convened to conduct the initial judging and select 6 entrants to go forward to the final. This would take place at Congress in Glasgow on 8th/9th April 2014 when delegates would be invited to vote for the 2 winning entries.


2

It was AGREED that the RIKT sub Committee would act as the initial panel and that the meeting would take place on 12th February at 10:30. Panellists would receive the submissions to be judged, together with the criteria by email as soon as practicable after the closing date of 3/2/14.

5.1

5.2

7/8. Call for impact case studies/ Frontiers of Knowledge call for proposals update

The call, some 16 months ago, for impact case studies to be provided by members for use on the EPC website and in providing input to MP and civil servant briefings etc had received minimal response. It was thought to be probably too soon in the “REF cycle” at that point for members to have developed their thinking but that now the REF submissions had been made, more response might be elicited.

In addition, the engineering-related submissions to the call made by the All Party Parliamentary Universities Group (copied provided with the agenda and papers) had now been received and it was thought that these could provide a starting point/examples to encourage others to provide examples/narratives on high impact work.

It was therefore agreed that the contributors to the APPUG call should be approached and asked if they would permit their work to be show-cased on the EPC website and then to approach the membership to contribute others.

The possibility was further discussed of using the workshop session at Congress to generate discussion amongst members about how they now intended to use their impact case study narratives in communication and engagement work within their own institutions.

7.1

7.2

9. Witty Review

The main themes and recommendations of the Witty Review were discussed. It was agreed that the EPC should publicly welcome its recommendations, whilst cautioning strongly that the linear approach to innovation that it seemed to imply was not applicable or appropriate to engineering. Also, the focus on combining technologies was good and very applicable to engineering but the single “triage” point within universities was less so and too generic to be useful to industry enquirers.

A specific issue debated was the proposal to increase the contribution impact has in future Research Excellence Framework exercises to 25%. It was AGREED that the membership should be polled within the next few weeks to gain views, and then again after the results of the REF were announced.

9.1


3

Action log

Reference Agreed action By4.1 All to contribute to scoping of study on contribution of

knowledge transfer and public engagement activity to selection and promotion criteria

All

5.1 VE to publish details of the meeting of 12/2/14 on EPC website, organise venue and invite attendees

VE

5.2 SK to collate submissions to public engagement grant awards and distribute with criteria to panel as soon as possible after 3/2/14.

SK

7.1 SK to approach contributors to APPUG call to ask for permission to publicise on EPC website and call on membership to contribute links to impact case studies

SK

7.2 SK to approach David Nash (running workshop at Congress) re discussion on how members were using impact case studies

SK

9.1 Members to be polled on opinion on percentage contribution of impact in future REF exercises

SK


4

Appendix

STUDY: The contribution of knowledge transfer and public engagement activity in the selection, promotion and reward of engineering academics in the UK

In September 2013, the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) launched a study to explore the role of educational quality in UK engineering academic selection and promotions procedures.

The Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) has been asked to promote this study to its members, encouraging them to complete the questionnaire which will gather the evidence on which the study will be partially based.

Co-incidentally, the EPC’s Research, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer sub Committee was about to initiate a similar study, exploring the role of knowledge transfer and public engagement activity in UK engineering academic recruitment, selection and promotions procedures.

The RAEng study has been scoped as follows:

In any organisation, procedures for identifying and rewarding excellence drive improvements and change. In the university sector, research quality and contribution underpin the procedures, and the metrics for assessing these core aspects of academic performance are robust and widely-accepted. Less weight has been given to teaching quality and contribution, and metrics typically rely on proxy indicators such as student satisfaction scores. There is increasing recognition that the development and integration of reliable measures of educational excellence into the process of academic selection and reward is central to improving the quality of engineering education.

The study will examine the current UK approach to recognising and rewarding excellence in engineering education and, drawing on national and international exemplars of innovative practice, identify changes that can be implemented within engineering schools. Specifically, the study will address three key questions:

1. To what extent are educational factors considered in the selection, promotion and reward of engineering academics in the UK and what metrics are typically employed?

2. What examples of national and international good practice exist in the rewarding and celebrating of educational excellence in engineering academics that can be integrated into UK engineering schools?

3. On the basis of the study outcomes, what practical advice can be given to enable UK engineering schools to initiate and leverage support for improvements in procedures for rewarding excellence at all stages of the academic career?

The study will draw on an on-line survey of UK engineering academics and one-to-one interviews with senior university managers, engineering academics and research experts in the field.

The EPC will add one or two additional questions to the survey:


5

To what extent is knowledge transfer and public engagement activity considered in the selection, promotion and reward of engineering academics in the UK and what metrics are typically employed?

In addition, the EPC study will: Seek to gather examples of promotion criteria from members, initially Committee

and sub Committee members then widened to examine how many are publicly available on university websites

Carry out a follow-up questionnaire amongst the membership which explores: o How far actual experience of the recruitment and promotions process

matches the stated policies o What training and development opportunities are provided to academic

staff in knowledge transfer and public engagement skills o Are the measures used to ascertain quality of activity appropriate and do

they drive appropriate behaviours? Seek to gather information from engineering and tech-based companies on the

contribution such activity plays in their selection and promotion criteria

Appendix to RIKT minutes

STUDY: The contribution of knowledge transfer and public engagement activity in the selection, promotion and reward of engineering academics in the UK

In September 2013, the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) launched a study to explore the role of educational quality in UK engineering academic selection and promotions procedures.

The Engineering Professors’ Council (EPC) has been asked to promote this study to its members, encouraging them to complete the questionnaire which will gather the evidence on which the study will be partially based.

Co-incidentally, the EPC’s Research, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer sub Committee was about to initiate a similar study, exploring the role of knowledge transfer and public engagement activity in UK engineering academic recruitment, selection and promotions procedures.

The RAEng study has been scoped as follows:

In any organisation, procedures for identifying and rewarding excellence drive improvements and change. In the university sector, research quality and contribution underpin the procedures, and the metrics for assessing these core aspects of academic performance are robust and widely-accepted. Less weight has been given to teaching quality and contribution, and metrics typically rely on proxy indicators such as student satisfaction scores. There is increasing recognition that the development and integration of reliable measures of educational excellence into the process of academic selection and reward is central to improving the quality of engineering education.

The study will examine the current UK approach to recognising and rewarding excellence in engineering education and, drawing on national and international exemplars of innovative practice, identify changes that can be implemented within engineering schools. Specifically, the study will address three key questions:

1. To what extent are educational factors considered in the selection, promotion and reward of engineering academics in the UK and what metrics are typically employed?

2. What examples of national and international good practice exist in the rewarding and celebrating of educational excellence in engineering academics that can be integrated into UK engineering schools?

3. On the basis of the study outcomes, what practical advice can be given to enable UK engineering schools to initiate and leverage support for improvements in procedures for rewarding excellence at all stages of the academic career?

The study will draw on an on-line survey of UK engineering academics and one-to-one interviews with senior university managers, engineering academics and research experts in the field.

The EPC will add one or two additional questions to the survey: To what extent is knowledge transfer and public engagement activity considered in the selection, promotion and reward of engineering academics in the UK and what metrics are typically employed?

In addition, the EPC study will:

Seek to gather examples of promotion criteria from members, initially Committee and sub Committee members then widened to examine how many are publicly available on university websites

Carry out a follow-up questionnaire amongst the membership which explores: o How far actual experience of the recruitment and promotions process matches the

stated policies o What training and development opportunities are provided to academic staff in

knowledge transfer and public engagement skills o Are the measures used to ascertain quality of activity appropriate and do they drive

appropriate behaviours? Seek to gather information from engineering and tech-based companies on the contribution

such activity plays in their selection and promotion criteria



Perkins Review “call to action”

The attached draft terms of reference outline the framework which is in the process of being established to take forward the recommendations of the Perkins Review for information and discussion.

Susan Kay 3 February, 2014

Professor John Perkins’ Review of Engineering Skills

Responding to the call to action

DRAFT v2 030214

Appendix to EPC/14/02-07

Perkins Implementation Plan – call to action

Oversight CommitteeRichard Olver

Alan CookJudith Hackett

Experiencing industry

Steve Holiday

Cutting Edge SkillsCarol Burke

Pulling ThroughJulia King

Specialist SkillsHelen Atkinson

Now handed over to

RAEng by BIS

4 task and finish groups in process of

establishment

Employers and educators working to boost supply of work experience for students and industrial placements for teachers

Employers engaging with FE/Teach Too/MOOCs to share up-to-date skills and knowledge with students

Employers and universities working together via the RAEng’sDiversity leadership Group to attract more engineering graduates into graduate employment, including with SME employers

Employers and universities working together to boost high level engineering skills at postgraduate level

The engineering community has

been called upon to establish task-finish groups to identify

and facilitate actions that will

have real impact in these areas

2

Specialist SkillsHelen Atkinson


Task-finish group 4: specialist skills

Task Group

Catherine Hobbs EPC

Peter White EPC

EPC- nominated PG student

Association of Graduate

Recruiters Board member (Thales)

approached

EEF nominee x1

IET to recommend industry nominee

Others TBC

Advisory Panel

To include: National Council for Universities and Business

(NCUB)

CBI

Technology Strategy Board

(re. KTP)

HEFCE

Engineering Council

Secretariat – EPC (will require close connection and co-operation with RAEng secretariat with common reporting mechanism, format and timetable). IET potentially providing meeting space and corporate nominees.

Details of the other groups may be found on pages 7 to 10. 3

Task-finish group 4: specialist skillsTerms of Reference

BackgroundPerkins ref: Recommendation 21 - Engineering employers should explore the potential for developing cross-sector support to support postgraduate students


Objectives• Attract engineering graduates into postgraduate level qualifications where there is demand for higher level skills in the emerging

industrial strategy. For example: • recommend and promote ways in which relationships between SMEs and HEIs could be brokered (possibly via consortia for

programme delivery)• Gather and communicate case studies to promote innovative best practice in content, funding and mode of study

Scope• All engineering disciplines• Postgraduate (taught) – excl. integrated Masters• Postgraduate (research)• All engineering disciplines• All industrial sectors• Programme structure and content• Funding and support• Communication, knowledge sharing and promotion

Constraints• Avoid duplication of effort and ensure inclusion of organisations and initiatives already in place• Assume no additional money (unless it can be shown that the recommendation can be self-financing in the medium to long term)

although there may be opportunity to recommend “re-purposing” existing funding

DRAFT

4

Task-finish group 4: specialist skillsTerms of Reference

Resourcing• The task-finish group of no more than 10 people will be resourced and facilitated jointly by the Engineering Professors’ Council and

the Engineering Employers’ Federation. These organisations will be responsible for ensuring that other appropriate organisations are invited to either participate or advise as appropriate.

• EPC and EEF will pay travel expenses for its nominees respectively, IET to provide meeting space and industry reps to cover own expenses

Deliverables• Recommend and promote ways in which relationships between SMEs and HEIs could be brokered (possibly via consortia for

programme delivery)• Gather and communicate case studies to promote innovative best practice in content, funding and mode of study

• Other – to be determined by the Group…

DRAFT

5

Task-finish group 4: specialist skillsKey milestones and reporting

Jan 14 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Agree Terms of reference

Hold workshops to gain wider HE sector input at EPC Congress

Professor Perkins to deliver keynote speech providing programme overview

Meeting 1 of task group

Agree objectives and ways of working

Meeting 2 of task groupReview workshop material and allocate actions

Meeting 3 of task group

Progress review

Formal report “One year on” achievements

Case study development and pilot activity ??

6

Progress report to oversight committee



Other Task and Finish Groups

Task Group 1: Schools – Experiencing industry Chair - Steve Holliday CEO, National Grid

This group is being established for implementation of recommendations 9 and 11 from the review:

Recommendation 9: The engineering community should provide continuing professional development for teachers, giving them experience of working in industry to put their academic teaching in practical context and enabling them to inspire and inform their students about engineering.

Recommendation 11: The engineering community should work with employers to encourage and support provision of work experience for post-16 students studying in colleges and schools.

Aim Enable 16-19 year olds students and teachers to gain high quality experience and understanding of modern engineering.

What does success look like? All schools having strong links with engineering employers in their local area which provide placement opportunities All students encouraged by their teachers (and parents) to undertake engineering work experience Options for a CPD programme that allows more teachers to be released from school to gain industry experience, with a range of choices to facilitate easy access for

teachers Employers playing a bigger role in providing mentoring/careers advice to students and teachers in local schools. Create a set of KPI’s to measure and track effectiveness

Proposed Tasks Understand the barriers to school/industry engagement Identify schools/regions where there is a particular problem and scope out how different methods of employer engagement can be effective See how feasible it is for current models of successful employer engagement to be extended to schools on a national level

7

Proposed Members

Yvonne Baker National Science Learning Centre

IET Education & Skills panel member

John Holman Gatsby/Wellcome Craig Naylor (EEF representative) MTR Ltd Tony Moloney National Grid Jim Wade Principal, JCB Academy IET Education & Skills panel

member Peter Finegold IMechE Gareth James IET Anne Evans HTI Careers Lab Working group employers and head teachers

tba

Task Group 2: Cutting edge skills in FEChair - Carol Burke, MD Unipart Manufacturing

This group is being established for implementation of recommendations 15 and 16 from the review:

Recommendation 15: Engineering employers should encourage their staff to share their skills and knowledge, for example by participating in the Education and Teaching Foundation's Teach Too scheme.

Recommendation 16: Government and the FE sector should encourage the application of learning technologies to extract maximum value from expert lecturers and the materials they produce, for example through Teach Too.

Aim: Enable FE colleges to secure up-to-date occupational expertise by encouraging employers to become more involved in the FE sector by supporting teaching staff

and helping to shape the content of courses.

What does success look like? FE being perceived as a source of high quality skills provision FE teaching staff having a better understanding of up-to-date workplace skills requirements and training their students in the latest industry standard skills Ensure that regional skills needs are met

8

Proposed Tasks Identify specific subject areas/levels of skills that need support Map out regional needs skills needs and potential FE colleges that can supply See what can be learnt from the RAEng visiting professors scheme and suggest what lessons can be applied with regard to methods of employer engagement Look at the feasibility of extending successful models of engagement to other colleges

Proposed Members

Steve Wadey MBDA Jennifer Burden Gatsby Charitable Trust Heather Aspinall Wirral Metropolitan College Harriet Harnisch Walsall College David Russell Education & Training Foundation Ralph Saetzer (EEF Representative) Liebherr

Sunderland Works Ltd Bob Millington NFEC Andrew Stanley ICE Frank McLoughlin Royal Academy of Engineering Visiting

Professor/Teacher Fellow Alistair Taylor Inst. Agricultural Engineers

Task Group 3: Employer engagement in HE Chair - Julia King (VC, Aston University)

This group is being established for implementation of recommendation 20 from the review:

Recommendation 20: The engineering community should develop concerted engagement with university students, including work placements to raise the profile of engineering careers and ensure that students on every campus are aware of the full range of diverse opportunities with engineering employers, large and small.

Aim: Raise the profile of engineering throughout student life which promotes the benefits and rewards that a career in engineering can bring. In particular, ensuring

that a wide range of employers are represented across the full spectrum of HEIs. Wider provision of high quality engineering work experience (including internships and placements) for all engineering students across all HEIs.

9

What does success look like? Engineering students across wider range of universities have access to work experience and job opportunities with engineering companies. Attract more engineering graduates into the profession, especially those with diverse backgrounds

Proposed Tasks Better understand the issue – Look at where and why there is a lack of employer engagement in university engineering departments Develop levers to encourage businesses (including SMEs) to broaden reach Identify specific actions/initiatives that would help to enable more students and from more diverse backgrounds to access relevant work placements A dedicated inclusive recruitment drive - for engineering to have a stronger impact, on par with other professions such as law/banking etc.

Proposed Members

Jo Lopes JLR Richard Earp National Grid IET Education & Skills Policy

Panel Ian Duffy BP Mark Ridgeway Group Rhode (EEF

representative) David Docherty NCUB Laurianne Griffiths GSK Keith Clarke EngineeringUK Business and

Industry panel Dr Beatrice Nicholas Selex ES Paul Blair BG Group Nicola Price Rolls Royce Simon Howison BAE Systems

10



Research into the impact of a policy of “concentration” of research funding

1. Background At our Retreat meeting in September, it was suggested and agreed that we would look into the feasibility of carrying out a similar study to that reported in the following publication. The research it reported used the disciplines of Chemistry, Ecology and Biology and the country Canada as its units of analysis. It was proposed we should seek to do something similar for engineering in the UK.

Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding Jean-Michel Fortin and David J. Currie Abstract Agencies that fund scientific research must choose: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines (Chemistry, Ecology, Biology) funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientific impact: numbers of articles published, numbers of citations to those articles, the most cited article, and the number of highly cited articles, each measured over a four-year period. We related these to the amount of NSERC funding received. Impact is positively, but only weakly, related to funding. Researchers who received additional funds from a second federal granting council, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, were not more productive than those who received only NSERC funding. Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive.In more detail, the authors postulated that:

scientific impact, as measured by bibliometric indices, is generally only weakly money-limited (although other important impacts of grant support such as training of students probably do scale closely with funding). Nobel Prize winning research may be highly funded, or not funded at all. At present, we can only speculate about why impact varies so greatly among researchers: perhaps differences in training, in career stage, in other responsibilities (teaching and administrative), in institutional priorities, or perhaps differences in something ineffable, akin to talent. Whatever drives impact, it largely persists through time in individual researchers.

In the absence of statistical evidence in favour of the few-big model, we suggest that there are many other advantages to the many-small model. Each grantee represents an experiment in scientific impact. If the variation of scientific impact among researchers is treated as stochastic, then larger numbers of grantee-experiments will increase the probability of high impact research. The “few big” approach is risky in that it reduces the number of experiments.

An advantage of the many-small model is that at least moderate grant funding serves to keep scientists, and the students around them, active in research. Funding more scientists increases the diversity of fields of research, and the range of opportunities available to students. Greater scientific diversity, like greater genetic diversity, increases the probability that some researcher (like some genetic mutant) will possess characteristics that will flourish in an unpredictable future. It may be relevant that Gordon & Poulin suggest that, given the cost of grant review, it could be more economical simply to give a baseline grant to every qualified researcher. Our results suggest that the consequences for scientific impact would not be bad.

the most unique characteristic of universities is, arguably, their interface between research and teaching. Our results suggest that impact is maximized by funding research as broadly as possible in university communities.

2. Exploration of current situation Exploring whether there was any similar work which had used the UK as the unit of analysis has elicited the following:

The EPSRC commissioned an analysis of the publications arising from EPSRC-funded grants in 2009 and it indicated that research published by EPSRC-funded researchers receiving larger grants had had greater citation impact than similar research published from other grants – the Impact Profiles showed a “clear and consistent shift to the higher impact categories for larger grants compared to other grants”. Source: http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Publications/Other/citationstudy2009.pdf.

The results of this work showed that the overall rebased impact (RBI) of all of EPSRC-funded research papers is 1.63 (where world average is 1.0). The RBIs for mechanical and electrical engineering and materials science are shown in the above figure.

For comparison, the UK’s average rebased impact relative to world baseline for the 5-year period 2003-2008 inclusive in physical sciences was 1.39 (for engineering alone it was 1.05). Evidence report for the Department of Business, Innovation, and Skills, International comparative performance of the UK research base, indicators 1.10.06 and 1.10.07.

The EPSRC highlighted another study that assesses the effects of research unit size on researchers' scientific productivity (not the same as size of grants but a measure of research intensity): Horta & Lacy - Science & Public Policy, 38(6), 449-460 July 2011. This concluded that academics at larger research units publish more in

international than in national peer-reviewed journals which may suggest that research unit size positively affects international visibility.

They say that they would “always consider a range of evidence when developing policy decisions and research funding frameworks” and are convinced by the argument that to support ambitious programmes they have to “provide leading researchers and research groups with the critical mass of resources needed to deliver excellent research as part of the portfolio. There has therefore been a conscious decision, endorsed by EPSRC Council 2008, to address the balance and move away from the classical 3 year project as the only model of research funding.”

EPSRC also cited a University of Sussex Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) review paper from 2003 on the Effects of Size on Research Performance (Von Tunzelman, Martin and Geuna) which concluded that there is “reasonably convincing evidence of a size effect in the form a ‘critical mass’ threshold for productivity”. However, on examination, the paper also concluded that “this review of the literature strongly indicates that the most important unit in relation to the organisation of research is the group or team rather than the department or institution. The evidence suggests that government policy to enhance performance across the national research system might be more effectively targeted at the micro level – for example, a policy aimed at encouraging increased interaction among smaller units to counteract the problem of ‘loneliness’ as opposed to ‘smallness’. In conclusion, there seems to be little if any convincing evidence to justify a government policy explicitly aimed at further concentration of research resources on large departments or large universities in the UK on the grounds of superior economic efficiency.”

3. Way forward?

There seem to be a number of issues touched on by the EPSRC to be further explored.

The bibliometric studies are now more than 5 years old and do not take into account the increasingly prevalent policy of research concentration – allocation of larger grants to pre-screened groups.

The other studies mentioned look at size of research group NOT the amount of public funding received. It could be argued that the larger and more established the research group, the more well-equipped it is to attract its own sources of funding….“Whatever drives impact, it largely persists through time in individual researchers” (Fortin and Currie) and that “start-ups” or smaller groups could be disadvantaged by a policy of concentration making the sector much less dynamic.

The main challenge is gaining access to an appropriate data set – one that matches funding to citations and other forms of impact. The latest Research Excellence Framework assessment is the obvious source of such data and so it is recommended that we wait until this is available before pursuing the study further, while maintaining a “watching brief” on the emerging literature.

Susan Kay

3 February, 2014

1



decision

Committee membership 2014/15

The appendix sets outs the current situation in respect of the membership of the EPC Committee.

In relation to academic year 2014/15, current voting Members are now asked to:

1. Confirm their nomination for the position of President-elect, which falls vacant at the Annual General Meeting in April when Professor Helen Atkinson comes to the end of her term of office.

2. Confirm that Professor Atkinson is to be invited to be a co-opted member of the Committee for 2014/15.

3. Confirm their nomination for Congress Convenor for Congress 2015. 4. Suggest and commit to making personal approaches to candidates for the 3 elected member positions

which fall vacant at the Annual General Meeting. 5. Confirm that Dr Geoff Parks be invited to be a co-opted member of the Committee in his position as

Mathematics Working Group Chair. 6. Confirm that Dr Georgina Harris be invited to be a co-opted member of the Committee in her position

as Recruitment Working Group Chair. 7. Confirm that Dr Henri Huijberts be invited to be a co-opted member of the Committee in his position

as Chair-elect of the Engineering Education, Employability and Skills sub Committee. 8. Confirm that Professor Dik Morling be invited to be a co-opted member of the Committee in his

position as immediate past Chair of the Recruitment and Admissions sub Committee. 9. Members should note that Professor Mike Bramhall will assume the Chairmanship of the Recruitment

and Admissions sub Committee at the Annual General Meeting for a term of 3 years. It could be argued that this leaves an additional elected position vacant. It is recommended that, as the Sub Committee Chair positions are non voting, Professor Bramhall should maintain his elected (voting) position on the Committee until the end of his term in 2016. He would then continue for a further year in the non voting position of RASC Chair.

10. Confirm that Professors Excell, Clarke and Unsworth be invited to be co-opted members of the Committee for a further year.

Professor David Harrison

Honorary Secretary

3 February, 2014

2

Appendix

Directors of the Council (voting Members)

2013/14 2014/15 Name Institution Period of

office ends Name Institution Period of

office ends President (1 year)

Professor Simon Hodgson

Teesside University

AGM 2015 Professor Simon Hodgson

Teesside University

AGM 2015

Immediate past President/President elect (1 year in each capacity)

Professor Helen Atkinson

University of Leicester

AGM 2014 TBC TBC AGM 2017

Hon Secretary (2 years)

Professor David Harrison

Glasgow Caledonian University

AGM 2015 Professor David Harrison

Glasgow Caledonian University

AGM 2015

Hon Treasurer (2 years)

Professor Jim Yip

University of Salford

AGM 2015 Professor Jim Yip


AGM 2015

Elected Members (voting Members). Term of office 3 years



office ends

Professor Colin Turner

University of Ulster

AGM 2016 Professor Colin Turner

University of Ulster

AGM 2016

Professor Mike Bramhall

Sheffield Hallam University

AGM 2016 Professor Mike Bramhall


AGM 2016

Professor Tony Brown

University of Manchester

AGM 2015 Professor Tony Brown

University of Manchester

AGM 2015

Professor Sarah Spurgeon

University of Kent

AGM 2015 Professor Sarah Spurgeon

University of Kent

AGM 2015

Dr Geoff Parks University of Cambridge

AGM 2014 Vacancy AGM 2017

Professor Peter White

Coventry University


Professor John Davies

University of Glasgow


3

Annual Congress Convenors (voting Members). Term of office 3 years



office ends Congress 2012 Professor

Helen Atkinson


AGM 2014

Congress 2013 Professor Djamel Ait-Boudaoud

University of Portsmouth

AGM 2015 Professor Djamel Ait-Boudaoud

University of Portsmouth

AGM 2015

Congress 2014 Professor John Davies


AGM 2016 Professor John Davies


AGM 2016

Congress 2015 TBC AGM 2017

Chairs of Council designated Sectoral or Special Interest Groups (voting Members). Term of office to co-incide with term of office in position on sectoral group



office ends

Consortium of UK University Manufacturing Engineering Department Heads

Dr Linda Newnes

University of Bath

Dr Linda Newnes

University of Bath

Association of Civil Engineering Departments

Professor Kamel Hawwash

University of Birmingham

October 2014 Mr Callum Tooth

University of the West of Scotland

October 2014

The Council of Heads and Professors of Computing

Professor Jim Yip


Professor Jim Yip


Professors and Heads of Electrical Engineering

Professor John Senior

University of Hertfordshire

Professor John Senior

University of Hertfordshire

Professors and Heads of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

Professor Clive Neal-Sturgess




Association of Aeronautical Universities

Dr Thurai Rahulan


4

Non-voting co-opted members (co-opted annually, normally for a max. 3 years, can be re co-opted) – non-voting unless also a Member of one of the other voting categories



office ends

Sub Committee and Working Group Chairs and Chairs Elect

Engineering Education, Employability and Skills



AGM2015 Professor Clive Neal-Sturgess


AGM2015

Dr Henri Huijberts

Queen Mary, University of London

AGM2018 Dr Henri Huijberts

Queen Mary, University of London

AGM2018

Recruitment and Admissions (incl. Mathematics and Recruitment Working Groups)

Professor Dik Morling

University of Westminster

AGM2014 Professor Dik Morling

University of Westminster

AGM2014

Professor Mike Bramhall


AGM2017 Professor Mike Bramhall


AGM2017

Dr Geoff Parks University of Cambridge

AGM2015 Dr Geoff Parks

University of Cambridge

AGM2015

Dr Georgina Harris

Manchester Metropolitan University

AGM2015

Research, Innovation and Knowledge Transfer

Professor Stephanie Haywood

University of Hull

AGM2016 Professor Stephanie Haywood

University of Hull

AGM2016

Professor Sarah Spurgeon

University of Kent

AGM2019 Professor Sarah Spurgeon

University of Kent

AGM2019

Other co-opted

Professor Peter Excell

Glyndwr University

AGM2014 Professor Peter Excell

Glyndwr University

AGM2015

Professor Bill Banks

University of Strathclyde

Resigned during year

Professor Barry Clarke

University of Leeds

AGM2015

Professor Barry Clarke

University of Leeds

AGM2014 Professor Tony Unsworth

University of Durham

AGM2015

Professor Tony Unsworth

University of Durham

AGM2014 Professor Helen Atkinson


AGM2015

5

Observers

Dr Gill Cook Higher Education Academy

Professor John WatsonScottish Deans of Science and Engineering/Robert Gordon University