Author: Shaun Williams, Executive Director Engagement and Advancement
- UEB discussed a second weekend of articles in the Sunday Times about the recruitment of international students by a number of Russell Group universities, in which a number of further allegations were made concerning some universities. The initial reports contained significant misunderstandings and inaccuracies, which are now the subject of a formal complaint to the press regulator IPSO by Universities UK (UUK) and the Russell Group. Our position remains clear: we run International Foundation programmes for international students in a range of subject areas. These are academically challenging programmes and students must meet attainments equivalent to our standard entry requirements by the end of the programme in order to progress onto year one of their chosen degree programme. We monitor the academic rigour of these programmes carefully. UEB also noted that Universities UK last week announced a series of reviews into the use of recruitment agents and international foundation programmes, as well as the code of practice governing admissions.
- UEB noted a letter from Higher Education Minister Robert Halfon MP about the recognition of T Levels in the admissions policies of Higher Education providers, and a request to all providers to make clear their position on T Level requirements on course entry requirement website pages – which we do.
- UEB discussed a report recommending a review of the policy and processes governing sabbaticals, more formally called Study and Research Leave. These have not been updated since 2008 and although considered largely sound and consistent with those of our peers, it is recognised that the delegation of decision-making has led to clear divergence in the practical application of the policy in the intervening years, with a variety of school and faculty-level approval processes and policy interpretations now evident. This is not to imply poor practice or lack of rigour in delegated decision-making, but there is undoubtedly an inconsistency of approach. Furthermore, our existing processes have no mechanisms for oversight and no formal recording of sabbaticals, meaning there is no way of capturing the institutional-level implications of sabbaticals, or ensuring that this important and valued benefit is allocated in a fair and consistent way, let alone in a way that might be able to realise strategic benefits. Put simply, we cannot currently easily answer the question “how many staff across the University are currently on sabbatical?” UEB endorsed a proposal to develop, in consultation and for further discussion, a refreshed sabbatical policy and a revised, centralised approach to approval and recording, which will ensure fairness and also potentially identify the potential use of sabbaticals for our career pathways. UEB also agreed the merits of a new annual report, which could be considered by REEG, the ED&I Committee, and Senate.
- UEB noted a paper relating to the lay membership of the University Council. Over the next two years a number of key people on Council come to the natural end of their terms of office, so it will be important to ensure a continuation of the Council’s efforts over the past few years to ensure both diversity and the required skills are well represented among the lay membership. A specialist recruitment agency will be appointed, and UEB members will also be encouraged to search their own networks to encourage potential candidates to apply.
- Finally, there was the regular review of the University Risk Register.