UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
STAFF/STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE: MINUTES
An Open Meeting of the SSCC was held on Wednesday 31 January 2007 at 2.00pm in Room
209.
PRESENT
Louise Martin Staff Chair (joint); Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer
Dave Honess Student Chair (joint) (BSc Archaeology, Yr 3)
Judy Medrington Secretary, Academic Administrator
STUDENTS
Rob Davis SAS President (BA Archaeology, Yr 2)
Ashleigh Haruda MA/MSc rep (MSc Palaeoecology )
Daniel Jones MA/MSc rep (MA Egyptian Archaeology)
Hilary Orange Research Students' Rep
Maiya Pina-Dacier SAS Publicity Officer (BA Archaeology, Yr 2)
Tobias Richter Research Students' Rep
Blake Sawicky MA Maritime Archaeology
Helen Stamp MA/MSc rep (MA African Archaeology, part-time, Yr 1)
Paul Wordsworth MA Field Archaeology
STAFF
Ethan Cochrane MA Archaeology Tutor, Deputy Graduate
Admissions Tutor
Andrew Gardner Undergraduate Admissions Tutor; Field Training
Course Co-ordinator
Andrew Garrard Staff
Robert Kirby Librarian
Alan Johnston Chair of Library Committee, AWS Rep
Norah Moloney Undergraduate Tutor Year 1
Clive Orton MA London Tutor; Chair of Fieldwork Sub-Committee
Clifford Price Chair of Teaching Committee; MA Conservation Tutor
Elizabeth Pye MSc Conservation Tutor
Arlene Rosen Graduate Tutor, Tutor to Part-time Students
Bill Sillar MA Artefact Studies Tutor, Field Training Course Co-ordinator
Ken Thomas MSc Palaeoecology of Human Societies Tutor, Graduate Admissions
Tutor
Ignacio de la Torre Undergraduate Tutor Year 2
Todd Whitelaw Audit Co-ordinator
Karen Wright Staff
Louise Martin welcomed everyone to the Open Meeting. Although more staff than students were
present, the students agreed that the meeting could nevertheless proceed. The Staff Chair drew the
attention of the committee to the official UCL terms of reference and constitutional requirements for
Staff/Student Consultative Committees, which were tabled. It was noted that the Institute SSCC
complies fully with these. It was also noted that the Institute’s Equal Opportunities Liaison Officers
are Louise Martin, Ian Carroll and Jose Oliver.
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Tyler Dash, Joe Flatman, Dafydd Griffiths, Kris Lockyear, Kevin MacDonald, Jose
Oliver, Stephen Shennan
2. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING,
The minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2006 were approved and signed by both
Chairs.
3. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
Minute 4.9 Access to artefact collections
It was reported that Ian Carroll was about to write to undergraduates to arrange times for
students to have access to the artefact collections. This contact had been delayed because
he and Rachael Sparks had been setting up the new Petrie Palestine Collection exhibition,
which had recently opened at SOAS. Students and staff were encouraged to visit the
exhibition, which runs until 24 March.
Minute 11(b) Facilities Committee report
It was reported that the problem with the radiators in G7b had been resolved, and that further
work was underway on the leak on the 6th floor (indeed maintenance staff had attempted to
resolve the problem on a number of occasions).
Minute 13 Graduate Research Student Conference
It was reported that the dates for the conference had been confirmed – it will be held on
Thursday 26 and Friday 27 April. Students were reminded that the deadline for
volunteering to speak was 28 February and supervisors were asked to encourage their
students to do so. Stephen Shennan, Clive Orton and Matthew Johnson had agreed to speak
at a plenary session.
4. NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY 2007
It was reported that the National Student Survey for 2007 had recently gone live, and all final
year undergraduates were urged to complete this. The link is
http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/ and it was agreed that a link to the survey should be set
up from the SAS website.
5. INSTITUTE FOYER
A Master’s rep reported that graduate students had recently been surprised to receive a
message from a member of administrative staff indicating that conversations may not be held
in the Institute foyer. On behalf of the Director (who was unable to be present), Clifford
Price re-assured students that the foyer is not a designated ‘quiet area’ and regretted that
misinformation had been issued. It was hoped, however, that all those using the foyer would
exercise natural consideration for others. The importance of the foyer as the welcoming
public face of the Institute was highlighted. Ways in which those working in the reception
area could be insulated from noise were discussed, and it was agreed that a number of
possible solutions should be investigated. Ways in which the submission of essays at the
reception desk could be streamlined were also discussed, and these suggestions will be
pursued further in consultation with those involved.
The Librarian reported that some users of the library were taking calls on their mobile phones
in the rooms at the far end of the library. Students were urged to use peer pressure to make
people aware that this is unacceptable .
6. REPORTING PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE BUILDING
It was noted that offensive graffiti in the first floor lavatory had recently been reported. This
had been removed within 30 minutes of the report being received, and all members of the
Institute were urged to report straight away any such problems that might arise in the future.
The Building Manager wished the committee to know that he would always ensure that
problems of this kind are immediately addressed. The procedure for reporting problems in
the building was discussed, and several possibilities were suggested. These would be
discussed further with those involved and all members of the Institute would then be notified.
Meanwhile such problems may be reported to the Building Manager via the pigeonholes.
The matter was also referred to Facilities Committee.
7. RESEARCH STUDENT SUPERVISOR CHANGES AND SUPERVISION
POLICIES
The Research Student reps reported that concern had been expressed about the re-allocation
of responsibility for the supervision of some research students that had been proposed
recently. It was felt that continuity of both primary and secondary supervision was very
important, particularly towards the end of a student’s course.
The committee was re-assured by the Graduate Tutor that all of these proposals had, in the
event, been retracted, and it had been agreed that in future any such proposals will be
discussed in the first instance with the student and the existing supervisors. It was explained
that such proposals are sometimes made if a supervisor finds that they are responsible for a
particularly large
number of research students due to an unexpectedly high proportion of those made offers
taking up their places. Regret was expressed for any distress caused.
The Graduate Reps also requested that correspondence relating to such matters should not be
solely via the student pigeonholes.
8. SKILLS TRAINING FOR RESEARCH STUDENTS
A request was made for representations to be made to the Graduate School with regard to the
organization of the centrally-run Skills Training Courses for research students. The courses
clearly had to cater for students from a wide range of disciplines, but it was suggested that
the composition of the class should be borne in mind when identifying the types of examples
used. IoA students had comprised half of a recent ‘Small group teaching’ session but none
of the examples used had been relevant to the IoA students’ needs. It was agreed that
enquiries should be made as to whether the SDTU would be prepared to run tailor-made
courses for Institute students.
Concern was also expressed about the scores allocated to attendance at training courses in
relation to those allocated to other activities (eg giving a paper at a conference). It was felt
that too little credit was given for the latter.
Both of the above matters were referred to GRSSC and Teaching Committee.
9. LAB SPACE FOR RESEARCH STUDENTS WORKING ON MATERIAL CULTURE
Concern had been expressed about the lack of space available to research students working
on artefacts such as pottery, etc. This concern was also shared by a number of members of
staff. It was understood that space throughout the College is at a premium, but a number of
possible ways of freeing up space in the Institute were considered, in particular the
possibility of allocating certain lecture rooms on certain days for this purpose. This would
necessitate the transfer of some teaching either to rooms outside the building, or to the Staff
Common Room (particularly for small tutorial groups). It was agreed that it is essential to
protect the Student Common Room (which had in any case recently been reduced in size).
The possibility of designating the Staff Common Room as a joint common room for staff and
students (as had happened in the past) was raised. It was also suggested that one of the
larger seminar rooms could have a moveable partition inserted. It was noted that staff are
encouraged to teach in their rooms, but in most cases the rooms are not large enough for this
purpose. Staff and students were encouraged to make use of seminar rooms outside of term,
when the rooms are generally free of bookings – it was suggested that one or two rooms
could be designated for this purpose. It was strongly felt that space for working on
artefacts should be made available in the new Panopticon building, and it was agreed that
representations to this effect should be made now. It was noted that the Institute does have
access to a spacious offsite storage area but unfortunately, due to safety regulations, it is not
possible to work in this building. It was suggested that a working group might be set up
to look into this issue. The matter was referred to Policy Group.
10. LIBRARY BOOK RETURN
A request had been received with regard to the arrangements for the return of library books to
the Institute library. During the day the Institute library requires students to queue up and
return books personally (in contrast to some other UCL libraries). It was accepted that it
would be inappropriate to use the book box (that is available overnight) during the day, as
many IoA volumes are very fragile. It was therefore suggested that it would save both staff
and student time if provision were made for students to leave books in a large tray, as in
Senate House library. The matter was referred to Library Committee.
11. REPORTS FROM INSTITUTE COMMITTEES
(a) Teaching Committee
The Chair of TC reported that the following matters had been considered by Teaching
Committee when it met on 29 November:
(i) Annual Monitoring Review. It is now a College requirement that all degrees and
courses are reviewed on an annual basis. The IoA had submitted its report in
September and confirmation had recently been received that this had been endorsed
by the Faculty reviewer. The Chair noted that he was currently reviewing the end-of-
degree student evaluations of the Master’s programmes, and he also reported that
when the Third-year Tutor had reviewed the previous year’s end-of-degree student
evaluations on the undergraduate programmes, over 40% of IoA graduates were
either proceeding to a higher degree or employment in archaeology.
(ii) New degree and course proposals. It was reported that the proposed new three-year
BA in Classical Archaeology and Classical Civilisation, which will replace the four-
year BA in Archaeology, Classics and Classical Art, had been approved by the
Faculty and would be offered from 2008.
A new MSc in the Archaeology of Human Evolution had been approved in principle,
and the following new course proposals had been approved:
Lower and Middle Palaeolithic of Eurasia
Early Hominin Societies in Africa (to replace Early Hominid Societies)
The following name changes were approved:
‘Civilisations of Western Asia’ to become ‘Peoples and Societies of the Ancient
Near East', 'Archaeology of the Middle East 2000-300 BC' to become 'Archaeology of
the Near East 2000-300 BC'
'Archaeology of the Middle East from prehistory to 2000 BC' to become
'Archaeology of the Near East from prehistory to 2000 BC'
(iii) Use of new plagiarism detection software. It was reported that that this matter would
be
considered further by the Standing Committee of Teaching Committee. This had
recently been established to consider in detail matters which are better dealt with by
a smaller group than the full Teaching Committee.
(iv) Central Timetable. It was reported that, from 2008, the College proposes to organise
the
teaching timetable for undergraduate courses centrally, using fixed time-slots.
Teaching Committee had been unconvinced of the benefits of such a system.
(v) Standard wording in handbooks. It had been agreed that the standard wording
that all
staff are currently required to include in their course handbooks would be removed
and would now appear only on the Institute Intranet and in degree programme
handbooks.
(vi) Socrates agreements. It was reported that Socrates agreements with six universities
had
been approved. Students who are interested in participating in one of these schemes
should contact Roger Matthews.
(vii) Syllabus Review Working Group. It was reported that it had been agreed that
biennial
teaching of some undergraduate options should be introduced gradually with effect
from the 2007-8 session. In future, options would be open to both second and third-
years, and as far as possible, students’ preferences would be accommodated. In
accordance with College policy, the minimum number needed for an option to run in
future will normally be 10.
(b) Facilities Committee
The Facilities Committee had not met since the last SSCC meeting.
(c) Library Committee
The Library Committee had not met since the last SSCC meeting, but the Chair raised the
problem of users apparently misplacing books and requested that users show greater
consideration for others.
(d) Fieldwork Sub-Committee
The Chair of the Fieldwork Sub-Committee highlighted the following matters, which had
been discussed:
(i) UCL Safety Audit. It was reported that an audit of Institute procedures with regard to
fieldwork had recently taken place in the context of the UCL Code of Practice.
Arising from this, procedures with regard to insurance and maintenance of contact
have been tightened up.
(ii) Cancellation of fieldwork. Students were reminded that, if they find that they are
unable to attend a project on which they are booked, it is essential that they notify
both the organiser and the Tutor for Fieldwork as early as possible.
(iii) Course evaluation forms for course 3056 It was reported that the return rate for the
evaluation forms for 3056 Fieldwork Portfolio had increased to 80%, but the score
(3.4) had been disappointing. Steps were being taken to address the issues raised in
the evaluation forms, in particular through greater clarification of what is expected of
students.
(iv) Archive Archaeology Project. It was reported that the length of the course, which is
attended by all first-years, has been reduced to four days (one joint day at the end of
Term 2, plus a three-day course in Term 3, for which students are divided into
small groups).
(v) West Dean Field Courses. The length of the courses had been increased to 12 days.
This was welcomed.
(iv) Fieldwork outside the UK. At the last meeting of SSCC it had been noted that some
first-year students who had not been permitted to undertake fieldwork abroad in the
summer between their first and second year had felt that this ruling had been too
inflexible. This issue had been referred to the Fieldwork Tutor, who wished to
remind the committee that first years are permitted to work abroad provided that they
join a project that is run by a member of IoA staff. It was noted that it is in
students’ interests to gain a significant amount of experience of UK-style fieldwork
before working abroad. He also wished to make SSCC aware that Institute students
are funded to undertake a far wider range of fieldwork, for a far longer period, than
any other Archaeology Department in the UK .
12. DATE OF NEXT MEETING:
Thursday 3 May 2007, 2pm
13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Internal Quality Review
The Audit Co-ordinator, reported that the quinquennial audit of the Institute’s administrative
procedures would be taking place on Thursday 26 April. This would involve submission of
departmental documentation in advance of a one day visit by a panel of auditors. The draft
documentation would be circulated to SAS and SSCC reps for them to comment upon in
March. Some students would also be invited to meet the auditors.
Submission of essays during the vacation
A Student rep drew attention to the problems faced by students who are not London-based,
when an essay deadline fell during the vacation. It was agreed that such students should be
permitted to submit their coursework by post, and that an essay which was postmarked on or
before the deadline would be deemed to be on time. The committee was reminded that
essay coversheets may be downloaded from the Institute Intranet.