Minutes of Meeting on 01/02/2017

Neil Heatley attended this week’s meeting to inform the MSc students that the School will be looking into Hoodies for them at a discounted price and that there would be a standard School colour of blue.

No issues to report.

No problems so far with the course, but for INF2B the students said that they find the lecturer unapproachable and feel like they are unable to take notes or even any pictures of slides on their phones. The outside building work on Appleton Tower also makes it hard to hear in the lecture.

No UG3 students were present due to them all working on their System Design Projects.

The Reps asked when they would receive their informal feedback from their Intermediate Report. Bjoern said their interim report is read by your supervisor, who will give written or verbal feedback.

It was asked if it was possible for the School to have an MSc Fare bringing together students and MSc project supervisors, but due to the size of the class and 100+ staff this isn’t possible (venue size and scheduling constraints).

It was also asked if the deadline for project proposals could be extended, as the deadline didn’t give students enough time to decide, Bjoern will look into this. Update: I’ve discussed this now with the MSc project organisers and we have decided that we won’t re-open the system for self-proposed projects due to the risk of supervisors cherry-picking strong students, thereby disadvantaging weaker students in the project allocation process.

The web page that has all the projects choices, the students aren’t able to see what projects have been newly added.  Update: New date column has been added and project can be ordered by date now.

Neil said he had been informed by Geography about some incident between one of our students and a Geography student, we currently hold a CCN lab in the Geography Building, which is classed as a quiet lab for Geography but the CCN students work in groups which they discuss and this caused a heated argument.

If the students access their My Career in MyEd they will find an advert for an Intern, in which all can apply, this will be for the Summer of 2016.

All students are entitled to view their exam scripts, this can be done by appointment made via the ITO.  Please note that the opportunity to view your papers is for feedback purposes only and it should not be used to take issue with the exercise of the markers discretion in the award of marks.  We recommend that students read the following web pages as a guide to viewing their exam scripts for further clarification:



Further clarification of our policy will be published shortly.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Minutes of Meeting on 01/02/2017

  1. mwolters says:

    I have to say that the current MSc allocation process is deeply unsatisfactory for the supervisors, too. I get that we want to make sure everyone gets a supervisor, but this is too much of a lottery. Let’s have a look at what we can do better next year.

  2. s1678551 says:

    With respect to “we won’t re-open the system for self-proposed projects due to the risk of supervisors cherry-picking strong students, thereby disadvantaging weaker students in the project allocation process”, I feel like there should be a better compromise. Why should students who work harder and therefore get higher grades not have some advantage when it comes to choosing their projects? With the current system you can have a hard-working student for whom the project is perfect and who themself is the perfect candidate for the project, yet that student has an equally low chance of getting it as someone who doesn’t care much about the project but put it at the same “ranking”.

  3. bfranke says:

    I agree that the process isn’t yet ideal – there shouldn’t be any cherry picking that could result in weaker students not getting any of their preferred projects without us enforcing this in the process.
    Prioritising students with higher grades in the project allocation process would be unfair and discriminatory. Students who end up without a project from their list of preferences could appeal and claim that they weren’t given a fair chance to work on a project in their area. It goes too far to say that weaker students care less about their projects than stronger students. I think there are strong moral (and legal!) reasons to treat all students equal w.r.t. project allocation.
    The existing suitability feature takes into account if the student meets the essential criteria for a project (mostly in terms of relevant skills and background knowledge), but this is primarily a safety net, which prevents students from selecting projects they cannot do due to lack of essential skills.

Comments are closed.