1 / 8

Submission Rate Workshop An Engineering Graduate School Perspective. 28 th April 2015

Submission Rate Workshop An Engineering Graduate School Perspective. 28 th April 2015. Christine Wilkinson & Dr. Jon Howse. Some Numbers and Data Why we think the data is the way it is. How Data is Presented. Data is presented as a series of scatter graphs and histograms

twhitmire
Download Presentation

Submission Rate Workshop An Engineering Graduate School Perspective. 28 th April 2015

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Submission Rate WorkshopAn Engineering Graduate School Perspective.28th April 2015 Christine Wilkinson & Dr. Jon Howse

  2. Some Numbers and Data • Why we think the data is the way it is.

  3. How Data is Presented.. • Data is presented as a series of scatter graphs and histograms • Scatter graphs show the duration of the submitted thesis • X-Axis of graph is when the student started • Y-axis of graph is the duration of thesis, from start date date to submission, adjusted for LOA. • Data presented for FoE and then departments.

  4. Why is Chemical EngineeringDifferent ? • A consistent message from Day 1. • A HoD message “there are no extensions” • An induction that reiterates this message. • Documenting their awareness of p12 in the code of practice (cf. Plagiarism lectures) • 30 month presentations / thesis meetings • 42 month meeting with HoD & PGR tutor (no supervisor) • Completed form showing % completion of each chapter • Q1 always is “Are you still in the lab ?” • Lots of chasing by Admin Staff / lots of reminders.

  5. The Canary in the Mine

  6. The Canary in the Mine • Students learn from their peers. • If a student sees people in their group/dept moving into year 5 with little trouble…then their expectations become altered. • “He/She is in no hurry…why should I ?” • A department needs a culture that completes on time. • A vicious circle or virtuous circle

  7. A final thought…. How long is a PhD ?

  8. How long have they got ? We (The university) state (in our own code of practice) that the expected duration for a PhD is 3 years, with an absolute max of 4 years.  - fine and we try and enforce this. If we look at, for example the government funded  BBSRC, they say 4 years is the absolute max, irrespective of how long funding was for, which can be between 3 and 4 years. Same is true for NERC. However, EPSRC, say studentships can be funded anywhere between 3 and 4 years, with an additional year of cover for any delays in writing up, potentially allowing up to 5 years. Question:  Where did the time limits in the code of practice originate from? REF only assesses on the number of awards during the REF period. So the QR - cash returned is only affected by the number of thesis completed. Now, in this document: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK-prod/assets/documents/documents/TermsConditionsTrainingGrants.pdf 35. SUBMISSIONS 35.1. BBSRC, NERC and STFC expect submission within the funded period. MRC expect submission no later than 6 months from funding end date. The AHRC, EPSRC and ESRC expect submission within a year of funding end date.  So, from the outset clearly, our code of practice does not reflect this. Our registration system does not tell us who is funding whom What are we supposed to do ? Ignore the code of practice or ignore the terms and conditions of the research councils ?

More Related