april 2010 In the meeting of the University Council (UC) of 7 April 2010, the agenda items focused on the minors policy and the organisation of the primary process. In particular on the latter subject the UC and the Executive Board had a heated discussion. Announcements Marije Telgenkamp has given up her seat in the UC after accepting a job outside the UT. Frans Houweling (CC) has meanwhile taken over from her. Organisation primary process In the previous consultative meeting of 3 March 2010, the UC expressed its great concerns about the way in which research and education (the primary process) are currently organised and how this functions. In particular the number of administrative and management levels and an unclear separation of powers and responsibilities (especially between the Executive Board, Academic Directors and Deans) leads to an unwieldy consultative structure resembling an unmanageable tanker. Whereas in particular in the current climate of shrinking funds and falling student numbers, considerable decisive action and a consistent policy are called for. The Executive Board acknowledges the leaks in the tanker, but believes an extra pump will keep it afloat. The Executive Board first wants to have the organisation of education in order, without the pressure of changing the organisation at large. The UC, in turn, subscribes to the value and success of interdisciplinary research institutes, but only sees possibilities for a forceful organisation of the primary process that is called for by reviewing it completely within the near future. Examples include a return to faculty units only, which the research institutes constitute part of (integration of research and education within one unit) or proceeding to an organisation of Schools and Institutes (with the necessary guarantees for the mutual relationship between research and education). The UC has given the Executive Board the unsolicited advice not to shy away from the discussion about the desired organisation of the primary process, and to take a decision within the foreseeable future that leads to a transparent and forceful organisation that has clearly formulated powers and responsibilities including an implementation process. The Executive Board will respond in writing within six weeks To respond, send an email to: f.l.lagendij[email protected] Minors policy An exchange between universities, at home and abroad, is the purpose to be achieved by creating extra space in the minors programme, from 20 to 30 ECs. The UC backs this decision from the Executive Board, but insists on a number of concrete commitments. These commitments will be defined more specifically in the next period, but will involve the following: 1. how to guarantee that a sufficient number of the minors offer depth, and in particular breadth as well as an international scope; 2. how will the transitional period be organised; 3. what items will be evaluated, and when; and 4. how and when will the programmes Create, Health Sciences and Technical Medicine provide the extra space. To respond, send an email to: [email protected] Newsletter UNiversity coUNcil About the University Council The University Council (URaad) is the central representa- tive body of the UT and regularly consults with the Execu- tive Board. The council has 18 members; nine staff mem- bers and nine students. The Council has a say in UT policy at the central level. Five parties are represented on the council: Campus Coalitie and UReka, Pro-UT, Lijst Chair- man and PvdUT. At the moment the University Council has the following members: Oscar Bloemen, Nikolai Oudalov, David Smits, André Veenendaal, Jan van Alsté, Frits Lagendijk, Laura Franco Garcia, Sandra Hackurtz, Mark Franken, Dick Meijer, Stas Verberkt, Silke Kücking, Jann van Benthem, Peter Prins, Frans Houweling, Herman Poorthuis, Jan de Goeijen and Nick Leoné.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
april 2010
In the meeting of the University Council (UC) of 7 April 2010, the agenda items focused on the minors policy and the organisation of the primary process. In particular on the latter subject the UC and the Executive Board had a heated discussion.
Announcements
Marije Telgenkamp has given up her seat in the UC after accepting a job outside the UT. Frans Houweling (CC) has meanwhile taken over from her.
Organisation primary process
In the previous consultative meeting of 3 March 2010, the UC expressed its great concerns about the way in which research and education (the primary process) are currently organised and how this functions. In particular the number of administrative and management levels and an unclear separation of powers and responsibilities (especially between the Executive Board, Academic Directors and Deans) leads to an unwieldy consultative structure resembling an unmanageable tanker. Whereas in particular in the current climate of shrinking funds and falling student numbers, considerable decisive action and a consistent policy are called for. The Executive Board acknowledges the leaks in the tanker, but believes an extra pump will keep it afloat. The Executive Board first wants to have the organisation of education in order, without the pressure of changing the organisation at large. The UC, in turn, subscribes to the value and success of interdisciplinary research institutes, but only sees possibilities for a forceful organisation of the primary process that is called for by reviewing it completely within the near future. Examples include a return to faculty units only, which the research institutes constitute part of (integration of research and education within one unit) or proceeding to an organisation of Schools and Institutes (with the necessary guarantees for the mutual relationship between research and education).The UC has given the Executive Board the unsolicited advice
not to shy away from the discussion about the desired organisation of the primary process, and to take a decision within the foreseeable future that leads to a transparent and forceful organisation that has clearly formulated powers and responsibilities including an implementation process. The Executive Board will respond in writing within six weeks
To respond, send an email to: [email protected]
Minors policy An exchange between universities, at home and abroad, is the purpose to be achieved by creating extra space in the minors programme, from 20 to 30 ECs. The UC backs this decision from the Executive Board, but insists on a number of concrete commitments. These commitments will be defined more specifically in the next period, but will involve the following:1. how to guarantee that a sufficient number of the minors
offer depth, and in particular breadth as well as an international scope;
2. how will the transitional period be organised;
3. what items will be evaluated, and when; and
4. how and when will the programmes Create, Health Sciences and Technical Medicine provide the extra space.
To respond, send an email to: [email protected]
Newsletter UNiversity coUNcil
About the University Council
The University Council (URaad) is the central representa-tive body of the UT and regularly consults with the Execu-tive Board. The council has 18 members; nine staff mem-bers and nine students. The Council has a say in UT policy at the central level. Five parties are represented on the council: Campus Coalitie and UReka, Pro-UT, Lijst Chair-man and PvdUT.
At the moment the University Council has the following members:
Oscar Bloemen, Nikolai Oudalov, David Smits, André Veenendaal, Jan van Alsté, Frits Lagendijk, Laura Franco Garcia, Sandra Hackurtz, Mark Franken, Dick Meijer, Stas Verberkt, Silke Kücking, Jann van Benthem, Peter Prins, Frans Houweling, Herman Poorthuis, Jan de Goeijen and Nick Leoné.
2
Memorandum Route ‘14 – Institutional plan
Universities are obliged to formulate an institutional plan which the UC has the right to endorse. The Executive Board has suggested to consider the vision document RoUTe ‘14 as a portfolio in which the subjects referred to have to be elaborated in more detail. These separate items will also be presented to the UC. The UC supports this suggestion, listing a number of conditions. The underlying memorandum involves a number of subjects, which however differ as regards status
and substance. Therefore an overview is required in which the subjects are referred to as themes and which also states their status. The Executive Board has promised to do this. With this document, the UC also wants to discuss with the Executive Board the completeness of the themes to be named and the corresponding rights of codetermination.
To respond, send an email to: [email protected]
Furthermore, the UC wishes to annually include the progress of the status of the portfolio in the budget cycle in which context a policy update is provided. The Executive Board has committed itself to do this, noting that this will not exclude a mid-term review.
Any other business
A new student information system has recently been introduced: OSIRIS. It states that no rights can be derived from the data it contains. Since letters containing the student’s marks are increasingly disappearing, we asked the Executive Board:1. Is it correct that no rights can be derived from OSIRIS?2. Where can the student find his rights as regards his marks
and such?3. How are wrongly completed data in proprietary systems
dealt with?The rector (evidently) emphasised that students’ rights are important; he will answer these questions at the next meeting. During the previous meeting a question was raised about the policy on poorly performing programmes. It was stated that the accreditation was the only relevant criterion for quality. We briefly discussed the importance of surveys such as the
Keuzegids (a guide presenting all the study programmes offered in the Netherlands) and Elzevier magazine. The general trend and the points of attention found in these are a gauge for the quality of a programme indeed. If they shows poor scores, the rector will address the faculty to find an explanation for the scores, and how these can be improved.
To respond, send an email to: [email protected]
See also our website for more information: www.utwente.nl/uraad/.If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, or wish to subscribe to it, send an e-mail to [email protected]
Related Documents
