JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ADMIN-PLANNING Archives


ADMIN-PLANNING Archives

ADMIN-PLANNING Archives


ADMIN-PLANNING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ADMIN-PLANNING Home

ADMIN-PLANNING Home

ADMIN-PLANNING  2000

ADMIN-PLANNING 2000

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

RE: Calculation of student load

From:

M Milne-Picken <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 7 Sep 2000 15:33:00 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (108 lines)

The University of Central Lancashire has an extensive modular programme
(called MODCATS) and there are significant net in-flows and out-flows of
students between departments.  We have recognised for many years that the
'home' department has a substantial administrative, academic advice,
pastoral and coordination role for a student, that would not be recognised
if we used pure module loads.

Currently our system gives about one seventh (c14.3%) of the weight of a
full time student to the home department and distributes the balance (c
85.7%) based on module load.  For part time students the home department
weight varies but can be as high as 33%.

The way it works sounds a little complex to explain at first, but once
you've seen it in practice it's reasonably easy to see what's happening.
Our full time students typically take six of our modules a year (ie each
module = 20 CNAA/National CATS points - there are some half and some double
modules).

We have two elements to our resource model - 'S' & 'M' (all jokes about
famous chain stores, little round sweeties and dubious sexual practices are
banned!).  For each student, S is allocated according to the 'home'
department, M is allocated to the department teaching the module (pro rata
if it is a half or double).  The two are totalled for each department, added
together and pro rata'd (normalised) for the total FTE calculated
traditionally.

To give an example, a full time student studying six modules equally across
two departments, 'gives' one S to the 'home' department, three M's also to
the home department and three M's to the other department, ie a load of
four-sevenths and three-sevenths respectively.  Hence the statement that one
seventh is the 'administrative allowance'.  For part time students, however,
the S is a higher proportion, eg a PT student taking four modules equally
across two departments typically gives one S to the home department, two Ms
to the home department and two Ms to the other department.  So in this
instance one fifth of the load is distributed in 'administrative allowance'.
This is a simplified description, there are many other nuances to take
account of sandwich year outs, students studying in partner colleges, extra
costs of overseas students, shared modules, etc.

The principle is that it shouldn't matter how many modules the student is
doing or whether they are full or part time, the load they create on the
home department in terms of maintaining records, keeping in touch, providing
academic advice, processing assessment boards, notifying the student of
results etc, is the same.  This method also has the added advantage of
providing an incentive to departments to recruit more part time students,
which is important to our mission (40% of our students are part time).
Under this methodology a department composed entirely of part time students
will benefit in the resource model compared to one composed entirely of full
time students, even if their module load FTEs are identical. (Not that we
have either sort of department of course - this is notional stuff!)

This system has served us well for some years, however in 2001-02 we will be
moving towards a more 'income-led' model based on HEFCE and the other
funding bodies rules and on the fees collected.  We will be looking in the
near future at how we can continue to recognise the administrative load in
the new model.

Mike Milne-Picken
Head of Planning & Performance Review
University of Central Lancashire
[log in to unmask]
 ----------
From: Fiona Robertson
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Calculation of student load
Date: 07 September 2000 10:47


This is an enquiry about practice at other institutions in apportioning
student load and I should be grateful for any help members of the list can
give.

In calculating student load for departments ( the first stage in resource
allocation calculations) at Bradford we have traditionally had the practice
of  a 10% administrative allowance.  This means that 10% of each student
FTE is attributed to the 'home' department for the administration involved
in admitting, registering and supporting students.  The remaining 90% is
distributed to departments according to the teaching on modules.

As a consequence of organisational changes we are reviewing the student
load calculation mechanism.  What I am interested in knowing is

do other institutions have a similar ' administrative allowance' ?

and, if so

at what level is it set?
higher or lower than 10%?







Fiona Robertson
Assistant Registrar
Planning Office
University of Bradford
BD7 1DP

 --------------------
phone - 01274 235080
fax  01274 235740


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager