1

The University of Edinburgh

Internal Review 2016/17

Teaching and Postgraduate Programme Review (TPR/PPR) of the School of Economics 7th and 8th March 2017

Final report

A Introduction 1. Scope of the review Range of provision considered by the review: Undergraduate Degree Programmes 2016/17 MA Economics MA Economics with Finance MA Economics and Politics MA Economics and Accounting MA Economics and Mathematics MA Economics with Management Science MA Economics and Statistics MA Economics with Environmental Studies MA Economics and Economic History MA Economics and Sociology MA Economics and Chinese MA Economics and Law

Postgraduate Taught Programmes 2016/17 MSc in Economics MSc in Economics (Finance) MSc in Economics (Econometrics)

Postgraduate Research Programmes 2016/17 PhD in Economics MScR in Economics (Exit only)

The TPR/PPR of Economics consisted of:

The University’s standard remit for internal review (listed in Appendix 1)

The subject specific remit for the review, consisting of the following items:

a) The Undergraduate tutorial System The School wished to explore topics including the frequency of tutorials and number of contact hours at honours level and the pedagogic value of tutorials at non-Honours. In addition, to be included under this item was the consideration of the Personal Tutor system and its current effectiveness.

b) How the current programme of PhD courses could be enhanced to better meet the needs of students for their PhD studies Postgraduate Research students within the School requested that the review team consider a number of issues including: Whether the structure of a three year degree with first year course requirements and a writing-up year still the best for producing PhD students to compete with those graduating from similar UK universities, or from the U.S; Whether the current programme of credit-weighted course provide sufficient preparation for the remaining years of the PhD programme.

c) Considerations around the MSc student workload

It was noted within the School that MSc students are subject to a heavy workload flagged by students as being an area of concern. The School wished to gain the perspective of the external members of the review team in order to draw comparisons with programmes at other institutions.

2

The analytical report and additional material provided in advance of the review.

The visit by the review team held on 7/8 March 2017, including consideration of further material (listed in Appendix 2).

The final report produced by the review team.

Action by the School and others to whom recommendations were remitted following the review.

2. Membership of review team

Role Member

Convenor Dr Sarah Henderson, Programme Director, School of Clinical Sciences

Internal Dr Samantha Fawkner, Senior Lecturer, Moray House School of Education

External Professor Edmund Cannon, Professor of Economics, University of Bristol

External Professor Jennifer Smith, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Warwick

Student Ms Clare Ann Banga, School of Health in Social Science

Administrator Ms Katie Urquhart, Academic Administrator (Governance), College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.

3. Situation of School within its College

The School of Economics is situated with the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. 4. Physical location and summary of facilities The School of Economics is situated at 31 Buccleuch Place within the Central University campus. Teaching takes place within 31 Buccleuch Place as well as across the University estate. 5. Date of previous review

The previous Teaching Programme Review took place on 13/14 February 2013. The previous Postgraduate Programme Review took place on 17 August 2011. 6. Analytical report The Analytical Report was prepared by Dr Richard Holt, Director of Teaching and Learning/Director of Quality. Students’ suggestions were solicited via the Staff Student Liaison Committees.

3

B Report 1 Strategic approach to enhancing learning and teaching

1.1 At undergraduate level, the School comprises a single subject area which offers twelve four-year single and joint honours programmes. Since the last Teaching Programme Review (2012-13), the undergraduate programme has been considerably restructured. This, amongst many other alterations outlined in the Analytical Report, included changes to the compulsory courses offered in the first three years with both extended contact and tutor hours. 1.2 Postgraduate provision within the School consists of a one-year taught MSc in Economics/Economics (Finance)/Economics (Econometrics), and a three-year PhD in Economics (with a taught first year). An MScR is offered as an exit award for students not progressing after the first year of the PhD. The three MSc programmes are part of the Scottish Graduate Programme in Economics (SGPE), which is owned by the eight Economics departments of the pre-1992 Scottish Universities. The MSc programmes are taught in Edinburgh University by staff from each of the eight participating institutions. Changes to PGT provision since the last Postgraduate Programme Review in 2011 include the introduction of the MSc Economics (Econometrics) pathway, the introduction of a pre-MSc summer school, and the creation of a parachute degree to address the student failure rate. Changes to PGR provision since the last review include a complete restructuring of the first year and of the PhD supervision, supervisory training and examination procedures. The review team noted the positive changes made across both undergraduate and postgraduate provision and commends the School on the sensible reforms which were proposed and implemented through the Teaching and Learning Committee, Postgraduate Studies Committee and Management Committee by key office bearers (namely, the Director of Teaching and Learning/Director of Quality, the Director of Undergraduate Teaching, the Postgraduate Directors, and the Head of School) since both the Teaching and Postgraduate Programme Reviews. 1.3 A concern from the School that they may be falling behind competitor programmes in terms of training for PhD students was discerned through discussion with management staff. The School is constrained by the University regulations in offering a three plus ‘writing-up’ fourth year PhD into which time must be allowed for taught content, student research, and teaching obligations. In order to address the short nature of the Edinburgh PhD when compared with competitor institutions (both in the UK and overseas), the School operate a model whereby a student studies first on the one-year MSc programme, followed by four years on the PhD, followed, for the best students, by a one year post doctorate position within the School. The review team were confident that the School has found a sustainable model for PhD research within the University regulations as they stand but suggests that the University relax the regulatory framework for PhD length to allow longer prescribed period of study for PGR. The review team notes that it is the intention of the School to further bolster the training elements with the PhD and suggests that the School continue to work on the structure and strategic direction of both the PhD and MScR. 1.4 The monitoring of all School learning and teaching activity is overseen by the School Teaching and Learning Committee (STLC) (for undergraduate provision) and the School Postgraduate Studies Committee (SPSC) (for postgraduate taught and research provision). Strategic issues are discussed by the School Management Committee upon which representatives from STLC and SPSC are also members. This ensures that matters concerning learning and teaching are fully taken into consideration at a strategic level within the School.

4

1.5 The review team observed that key formal teaching-management and leadership roles have been held without change in officer-bearer since the creation of the School in 2009. It was noted that this had been an area of concern in the previous Teaching Programme Review and that, consequently, a strong recommendation around the splitting of these roles and the succession planning for the management of undergraduate teaching be made by the review team. The review team therefore recommend the School split key management and leadership roles and that this should be done in the near future. The School may, for example, wish to introduce fixed tenure for these roles followed by a period of research sabbatical leave. Furthermore, the review team commend the work of the small number of staff who have held the key formal teaching-management and leadership roles over such an extended period. 1.6 The School has seen rapid growth in both student and staff numbers in recent years with projection for further future growth in the size of the School likely. The review team recognised that limitations in physical space available to the School - both in overall size and in quality and layout - pose a significant risk to the School’s ability to provide a high quality experience for its students. The review team noted that problems around lack of space have been reflected in recent National Student Survey (NSS) results. The review team was worried by the inadequacy of the space and estate, especially given the projected future growth of the School. The review team therefore recommends that the University urgently make additional dedicated, permanent and high-quality space available to the school. 1.7. The review team commends the School for ensuring that funding is available for all postgraduate research students in the School. PhD students not awarded an external scholarship are admitted to the programme on a School Research and Teaching Scholarship. Fully funding all postgraduate students within the School ensures the School remains attractive to potential students in a highly competitive market and creates financial parity across the PhD cohort. 1.8 The review team commends the professional services staff in both the undergraduate and postgraduate offices for the exceptional service provided to staff and students within the School in the face of the challenging growth in student numbers. Furthermore, the review team suggests that the School consider enhancing the provision of professional services staff (for example, professional staff grading, number of staff) in line with other College and University departments.

2 Enhancing learning and teaching and the student experience

Supporting students in their learning 2.1 The School has adopted the University model of the Personal Tutor (PT) system for all undergraduate students whereby each student is assigned to a Personal Tutor responsible for providing academic guidance during the course of their studies. In the School of Economics, each tutee meets with their assigned tutor during Welcome Week and then once a semester to discuss academic related matters (for example, advice on choosing courses). The Senior Tutor in the School maintains an overview of the PT system. The review team met with a number of undergraduate students during the course of the review who were broadly supportive of the aims of the Personal Tutor System within the School, but who felt that the role of Personal Tutor might be better defined. The review team suggests that the School provides better signposting of the role and remit of Personal Tutors to undergraduate students. 2.2 On entry to the MSc programme, all taught postgraduate students are assigned to a Postgraduate Personal Tutor (PPT) for the duration of their studies. Formal meetings between taught PG students and their PPTs are held in September and December to discuss progression and elective course choices. The review team noted that taught PG students regularly meet less formally with their PPTs during lectures on the taught

5

programme resulting in a closer, more organic relationship being established between taught PG students and their tutors. PPTs are also available to discuss students’ future career options and progression to further study during the course of the programme. During the review, the taught postgraduate students highly praised their personal tutors and considered the PT system to be both a valuable and useful part of their experience during their studies. The review team commends the taught postgraduate Personal Tutors on the support offered to students, and the School on the implementation of the PT system at PGT level. 2.3 As well as being allocated academic supervisors, postgraduate research students within the School are allocated a Personal Tutor. PhD students meet with their Personal Tutor at least once a year in a formal context with many informal points of contact throughput the course of their studies. Having a Personal Tutor distinct from the supervisory team allows PGR students within the School to discuss any potential problems with supervisory arrangements with a third party and it was clear, through discussion with PGR students during the review, that this is much appreciated. There was consensus amongst the PGR students of feeling cared for by the Personal Tutors for which the School is commended by the review team. 2.4 The review team strongly commends the School on the excellent pastoral support given to students by the School administrative teams (in both the undergraduate and postgraduate offices). Throughout the course of the review, both staff and students frequently made reference to the outstanding service provided by the professional services staff who are often the first port of call for students seeking answers to both academic and pastoral support questions. In particular, the review team commends the establishment of the Student Support Office and the work of the Student Support Officers (SSOs) for undergraduate provision and suggests that this model is extended to postgraduate provision. 2.5 The School operates a helpdesk system for undergraduate non-honours, honours and postgraduate taught courses to provide academic support outwith staff office hours. The helpdesks are staffed by students with high performing UG honours students staffing the UG non-honours helpdesks, PGT students staffing the UG honours helpdesks, and Teaching Fellows staffing the PGT core course helpdesks. The helpdesks were noted by students with whom the review team met as being of great value and an important alternative source of academic advice. In discussion with the group of PGT students with whom the review team met it was requested that the provision of PGT helpdesks be enhanced, in particular at key times. The review team suggests that the School review the provision of PGT helpdesks at key times and overall commends the School on the introduction and continued support for student helpdesks.

Student engagement

2.6 The review teams commends the School for their efforts to foster a sense of community at undergraduate level through a variety of student engagement activities. The review team note that physical constraints on space within the School mean that there is no dedicated social or study space available for undergraduate students but acknowledge that the School has, in the absence of any dedicated physical space, endeavoured to engage students through participation on a programme of social and academic-related activities. The review team again recommend that the University make available dedicated, permanent high-quality space to the School. The review team further commends the School for recognising the difficulty of engaging with all students and commends the efforts made, in particular, by the Senior Teaching Fellows, Director of Teaching, Director of Undergraduate Teaching and Head of School, in this area. 2.7 The efforts of School staff responsible for communications with students were commended by the review team. The School is conscious of the need to engage students through a variety of communication methods and endeavours to do so through a

6

successful weekly newsletter and other targeted communications throughout the year. Workshops where recent graduates return to speak to non-honours students are also popular amongst the student body and should continue to be supported. 2.8 The review team suggests that the School further promote engagement in Econpals, the Peer Assisted Learning Scheme for Economics. The popularity of Econpals has increased over the past two years (from 20 to 80 students taking part) amongst non-honours students but it was considered to be under-promoted amongst the honours students with whom the review team met. 2.9 A strong sense of community amongst the postgraduate students was discerned by the review team. The relatively small numbers of PGT and PGR students has allowed close working relationships between staff and students to develop. PhD students are allocated dedicated space within the body of the School, whilst MSc students are afforded a dedicated workroom and computing facilities. An annual residential research conference for PGR students and a residential methodology conference for PGT students further fosters a sense of shared identity and academic community. 2.10 The review team were assured that the School has robust mechanisms in place for welcoming and responding to student feedback through various channels including: the Staff Student Liaison Committees (SSLC) for each programme, the Academic Audit Committee for undergraduate programmes, formal surveys (including the NSS, PTES, PRES and EERS), and ad hoc student feedback events such as ‘Food for Thought’ where students are invited to feedback their academic experience to the School. It was noted that the Schools Teaching and Learning Committee and Postgraduate Studies committee have dedicated some time to examining student feedback data in order to highlight key themes and to put in place responses and actions to student concerns. The review team suggests that the School consider the most valuable means of communicating responses to students as it was observed that students do not always perceive changes made by the School in response.

Approach to promoting an accessible and inclusive learning environment for all students

2.11 The School publishes all learning materials on Learn (the primary Virtual Learning Environment at the University). The School has a designated Co-ordinator of Adjustments who has responsibility for ensuring that any adjustments mandated by students’ Learning Profiles are communicated to course organisers in advance. The School endeavours to mainstream any adjustments where this is possible. 2.12 The building in which the School is housed presents some difficulties in terms of accessibility for all students with restricted access to much of the building. The review team noted that the School made every effort to address these restrictions within the parameters of the existing building by including accessible rooms in the refurbishment of the building in 2012. 2.13 The School offers a number of elective courses within the curriculum which address issues around equality, diversity and sustainability at both undergraduate and postgraduate level, along with equality, diversity and sustainability content being embedded into the core curriculum.

Learning and Teaching 2.14 The review team were asked by the School to scrutinise the current tutorial system within undergraduate provision. Through discussion with both staff and students, it was clear that there is an appetite amongst the student population for tutorials to be both more frequent and longer (typically more than 50 minutes). There was consensus amongst the students and in the School that the non-honours tutorial system was working adequately although it was noted through discussion with students that the standard of tutorial

7

teaching (which is undertaken by PhD students within the School) sometimes varied. The review team reflected that more training for PhD Tutors might address this variability (see the recommendation in 2.26). Prior to the review, the School specifically asked that the panel consider a sense that there is a lack of homogeneity of provision of tutorial hours at honours level. This was discussed with staff and students during the course of the review. At honours level, the duration and frequency of core honours courses is expanded which is considered favourable by the students. However, it was noted that there is no standard requirement for the provision of tutorials by lecturing staff for honours options courses. The review team were assured by students of the excellent standard and choices of option courses available, but students also expressed their frustration at the lack of consistency of tutorial provision across these courses. In particular, there seems to be no adequate mechanism to ensure that there are additional tutorial groups when the number of students on a unit rises. The review team advises that variation in the tutorials being offered at undergraduate level must be for sound pedagogical reasons and not on the whim of lecturing staff. The review team recommends that the School review, with a view to standardising, the undergraduate tutorial system with a particular focus at honours level. 2.15 At Masters level, the review team noted some frustration with the size of the MSc tutorial groups which comprise the entire cohort of students. The review team suggests that the School consider splitting MSc tutorials into smaller groups and carefully consider potential ramifications around marketing such large groups as tutorials. 2.16 The School requested that the review team consider the workload for students undertaking the MSc in light of comments made in the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey during 2014/15 and 2015/16. The review team noted that the School has made efforts in recent years to address student concerns around a demanding workload (outlined in the Analytical Report) including resequencing final examinations and making small changes to course content. The review team commends the School on continuing to make sensible adjustments to the MSc programme and for considering options for further lightening the student workload whilst not compromising the quality of the programme. The review team suggests that streamlining the assessment for 10 credit courses on the MSc programme be considered as well as the proposal to add a reading week into the first semester. The review team further commends the School on successfully managing the expectations of students entering the programme which was positively commented on by the group of MSc students with whom the review team met. The review team were assured that the measures taken by the School to address the student workload were having a positive impact through discussion with current MSc students who confirmed that although the workload was challenging, it was expected and manageable. 2.17 The review team found that the provision of STATA and the treatment of applied econometrics could be improved at undergraduate level and suggests that formal treatment of applied econometrics be introduced in the first, rather than the second, year of the undergraduate programme. The review team heard that STATA training is provided in groups of around six students to one computer which the team felt diluted the learning experience. The review team noted that the School has faced resource issues with not enough lab space being made available to facilitate adequate teaching of STATA and applied econometrics to large cohorts. The review team therefore recommends that the University enhance the provision of computer labs available to the School. The review team further recommends that STATA software be provided to all individual students in the School at entry onto Economics 1 so that students gain exposure and experience in using the software. The review team suggests that the School reconsider the design of applied econometrics teaching and consider introducing this earlier with hands-on experience of STATA and data analysis. 2.18 The review team suggest that PhD students require further support in achieving a balance between the work required for the taught and research elements of their programme. There was a sense of confusion from the PhD students with whom the

8

review team met around the structure of the first year of the programme where there is a greater emphasis on taught, rather than research, content. The PhD students also reported a tension between the dual requirement of teaching on the MSc and for undertaking their own research, reiterating that carrying out research is difficult whilst also preparing for and delivering MSc tutoring. The review team further suggest that the School provide more clarity to students on the focus of the first year of the PhD. It was noted that the majority of PhD students that met with the review team did not want to study a PhD based on the US six-year model, but did note that there is an inherent time pressure associated with the shorter Edinburgh model. 2.19 From 2017/18 the School will be required under University policy to employ lecture capture for all taught courses. The review team suggests that the School take advantage of the application of this new policy to consider developing and enhancing their online provision of learning materials.

Assessment and Feedback 2.20 At undergraduate level, a high proportion of the assessment of core and option courses is undertaken through the form of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs). The review team noted that there was some dissatisfaction amongst the undergraduate students at the extensive use of MCQs. The review team were informed by the School that the use of MCQs permits quick feedback for students and is useful for maintaining student motivation, in particular during Year 1 and Year 2 at undergraduate level. The review team acknowledged that other forms of assessment are used at undergraduate level but recommends that the School consider alternative methods of assessment to Multiple Choice Questions. The review team suggests that the School may consider holding post-exam feedback classes in order to feedback to large groups of students at one time. 2.21 At Masters level, the review team determined from MSc students that the mid-term (February) exams for microeconomics and macroeconomics were considered less useful than the exams held in December. These mid-term exams take the format of MCQs and are not reflective of the format of students’ final exams for the programme. It was also noted that the mid-term exams take place at the same time as graduate programme job applications are due to be submitted making it difficult for students both to revise for the exams and to apply for post-MSc employment. The review team suggests that the School consider changing, or indeed discontinue altogether, the mid-term MSc exams. The review team would like it noted that the University is out of line with UK and international practice in not allowing students to re-sit examinations at Masters level and recommends that the University allow students to re-sit examinations at Masters level. 2.22 The review team commends the School on the face-to-face feedback provided individually to students in the undergraduate Economics 2 and Topics in Microeconomics compulsory courses as an example of best practice within the School and College. Although resource heavy, the feedback sessions were well received by students and the review team suggests the school investigate offering more of this type of feedback across undergraduate and taught postgraduate provision.

Supporting and developing staff 2.23 The review team strongly commends the high quality of teaching being delivered by all staff within the School. In particular, the review team noted the outstanding teaching being delivered on the MSc programme which was extensively praised by students as being both innovative and interesting. 2.24 The review team specifically commends the commitment and enthusiasm for teaching and learning which is demonstrated by the Senior Teaching Fellows in the School. During the course of the review, the enthusiasm for providing innovative and engaging teaching by the Senior Teaching Fellows was referenced on numerous

9

occasions by the groups of students with whom the review team met, as well as being demonstrated through meetings with the Senior Teaching Fellows themselves. 2.25 It was noted by the review team that the School has increased their use of Senior Teaching Fellows to deliver high quality teaching within the School. The review team also noted that Senior Teaching Fellows are typically employed on fixed-term contracts funded by grant income. The review team suggests that the School carefully consider the sustainability implications of relying on staff on fixed term contracts to deliver teaching. Correlated with this, the review team observed the absence of an adequate career path for Senior Teaching Fellows to follow within the University, which is increasingly out of line with good practice within the UK. The review team recommends the University to consider the career track for Teaching Fellows and Senior Teaching Fellows especially with regards the progression from Grade 8 to Grade 9 so that enthusiastic and talented teaching staff are not lost to other institutions. 2.26 The review team noted that all PGR students in the School have postgraduate tutoring responsibilities which are considered an important pursuit in preparing for an academic career. The School has in place a series of PhD Tutor training activities which all PG Tutors are mandated to attend. It was further noted that a small number of Senior Honours (Year 4) undergraduate students are selected as Demonstrators but that no mandatory training is required for this group. The review team recommends that mandatory training be required for all student demonstrators and that the School undertakes a review of the training currently available. 2.27 A College policy which dictates the maximum number of hours a PhD Tutor may work was recently enforced in the School. This policy places a cap on the total number of hours to be worked at six per week which the School have found to be overly restrictive and which, in turn, is impeding the development of the skills required to succeed in future academic careers. The review team suggests that the College reconsider the cap imposed on PhD tutor hours. 2.28 In 2011, the School introduced a new system whereby new PhD supervisors are obliged to act as a co-supervisor for at least one PhD to completion before being permitted to act as first supervisor. From 2016/17, the School have reduced this obligation to one year. The School ensure that all staff undertake College/IAD training before commencing as a supervisor and that this training is re-taken every five years in line with University standards.

10

3 Academic Standards 3.1 All undergraduate and postgraduate taught provision is mapped to the Scottish Credit

and Qualifications Framework (SCQF).

3.2 Postgraduate Research Programmes adhere to the framework set in the UK Quality

Code for Higher Education, chapter B11 on research degrees.

3.3 All new courses or significant changes to the curriculum are discussed and ratified, in

the first instance, by the School’s Boards of Studies. New programmes, or changes to

existing programmes, are ratified by the School’s Boards of Studies and passed to the

College of Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences Undergraduate Learning, and Teaching

Committee (CUGLAT) for approval for undergraduate provision, or to the College of Arts,

Humanities and Social Sciences Postgraduate Studies Committee (CPGSC) for approval

for postgraduate provision.

3.4 The review team noted that External Examiner reports for the undergraduate

programmes were predominantly positive in nature and that academic standards were

considered by External Examiners to be of a high quality. The review team were satisfied

that the School was acting upon recommendations from External Examiners. It was noted

that External Examiners for the Masters programmes were also assured of, and praised

the School on, the high academic standards within the School.

3.5 The review team noted that the School has implemented a procedure of having a non-

examining chair present for all PhD vivas for which the review team commends the

School.

4 Collaborative activity

4.1 The only collaborative activity within the School is the Scottish Graduate Programme

in Economics (SGPE) under which fall the following MSc programmes: the MSc

Economics, the MSc Economics (Finance) and the MSc Economics (Econometrics). The

MSc programmes are ‘owned’ by the Economics departments at the eight participating

institutions (across Scotland) whilst the programmes are subject to the University of

Edinburgh’s degree regulations and are awarded by the University. The SGPE is ‘bid’ for

every five years and no changes are planned to existing agreements.

11

C Review conclusions

1. Confidence statement

The review team found that the School of Economics has effective management of the quality of the student learning experience, academic standards, and enhancement and good practice. 2. List of commendations and recommendations Key Strengths and Areas of Positive Practice for sharing more widely across the institution

No Commendation Section in report

1 The review team commends the school on the sensible reforms ns made since both the Teaching and Postgraduate Programme Reviews.

1.2

2 The review team commends the work of the small number of staff who have held the key formal teaching-management and leadership roles over such an extended period.

1.5

3 The review team commends the School for ensuring that funding is available for all postgraduate research students in the School.

1.7

4 The review team commends the professional services staff in both the undergraduate and postgraduate offices for the exceptional service provided to staff and students within the School.

1.8

5 The review team commends the taught postgraduate Personal Tutors on the support offered to students, and the School on the implementation of the PT system at PGT level.

2.2

6 The review team commends the School for the excellent pastoral support afforded to PGR students.

2.3

7 The review team strongly commends the School on the excellent pastoral support given to students by the School administrative teams (in both the undergraduate and postgraduate offices).

2.4

8 The review team commends the establishment of the Student Support Office and the work of the Student Support Officers (SSOs) for undergraduate provision.

2.4

9 The review team commends the School on the introduction and continued support for student helpdesks.

2.5

10 The review teams commends the School for their efforts to foster a sense of community at undergraduate level through a variety of student engagement activities

2.6

11 The review team commends the School for recognising the difficulty of engaging with all students and commends the efforts made, in particular, by the Senior Teaching Fellows, Director of Teaching, Director of Undergraduate Teaching and Head of School, in this area

2.6

12 The review team commends the efforts of School staff responsible for communications with students.

2.7

13 The review team commends the School on continuing to make sensible adjustments to the MSc programme and for considering options for further lightening the student workload without compromising academic quality.

2.16

14 The review team commends the School on successfully managing the expectations of students entering the MSc programme.

2.16

15 The review team commends the School on the face-to-face feedback provided individually to students in the undergraduate Economics 2 and Topics in Microeconomics compulsory courses as an example of best practice within the School and College

2.22

12

16 The review team strongly commends the high quality of teaching being delivered by all staff within the School.

2.23

17 The review team commends the commitment and enthusiasm for teaching and learning which is demonstrated by the Senior Teaching Fellows.

2.24

18 The review team commends the School in having a non-examining chair present for all PhD vivas.

3.5

Prioritised list of recommendations for enhancement/Areas for further development

Priority Recommendation Section in report

Responsibility of

1 The review team recommends that the School split key management and leadership roles

1.5 School

2 The review team recommends that consideration is given to the career track for Teaching Fellows and Senior Teaching Fellows especially with regards the progression from Grade 8 to Grade 9

2.25 Vice Principal People and Culture, and to the Director of Human Resources

3 The review team recommends that the University make additional dedicated, permanent and high-quality space available to the School

1.6 and 2.6 Space Enhancement and Management Group.

4 The review team recommends that mandatory training be required for all student demonstrators and that the School undertakes a review of the training currently available

2.26 School

5 The review team recommends that STATA software be provided to all individual students in the School at entry onto Economics 1

2.17 School

6 The review team recommends that the School review, with a view to standardising, the undergraduate tutorial system with a particular focus at honours level

2.14 School

7 The review team recommends that the School consider alternative methods of assessment to Multiple Choice Questions

2.20 School

8 The review team recommends that the School and Information Services consider the enhancement of the provision of computer labs available to the School

2.17 School and Information Services

9 The review team recommends that the University allow students the option to re-sit exams at MSc level

2.21 Senate Curriculum and Progression Committee to be considered as part of wider work in the area

13

D Appendices Appendix 1: University standard remit 2016/17 The standard remit provides consistent coverage of key elements across all of the University’s internal reviews (undergraduate and postgraduate) while allowing for flexibility in the specific focus within each of the overarching themes. It covers all credit bearing provision within the scope of the review.

1. Strategic approach to enhancing learning and teaching The strategic approach to the management and resourcing of learning and teaching experience, the forward direction and the structures in place to support this.

2. Enhancing learning and teaching and the student experience

Supporting students in their learning – e.g. key stages and transitions in the student journey, personal tutor system

Student engagement e.g. how schools engage students in their learning, building and supporting academic communities

Approach to development of graduate attributes

Mechanisms for listening to and responding to student feedback

Actions taken in response to student feedback

Accessible and inclusive learning environment

Assessment and feedback

Supporting and developing staff

3. Academic Standards The setting, maintaining and reviewing of academic standards to include for example, curriculum design and development, course and programme approval, External Examiner reports. Key themes and actions taken in response to External Examiner reports, annual monitoring, course and programme approval, student feedback, PSRB reports.

4. Collaborative activity (where relevant) The Strategy for the development and management of Collaborations. Key features – overview of provision, student numbers, oversight of Quality Assurance, annual monitoring of collaborations.

5. Self-evaluation overview A reflective overview focussing on the areas that are deemed to be particularly effective / successful or for promotion more widely (along with evidence of effectiveness/ success) and areas prioritised for improvement along with the actions planned.

14

Appendix 2: Additional information considered by review team During the review visit

Documentation considered during the review visit

Analytical Report

School Quality Assurance Reports (reports from three completed academic years)

PGT and UG External Examiners reports and responses to their comments (reports from previous three completed sessions)

School organisation chart

Undergraduate Programme Handbook

Postgraduate Research Student Handbook

PhD Course Guide

Postgraduate Research Student Guide to the Writing-up Year

MSc Programme Handbook

Programme Specifications (Undergraduate and PGT)

Statistical Information

National Student Survey (NSS) results and reflection (Report and Reflection document)

Edinburgh Student Experience Survey (ESES) results and reflection ( Report and Response document)

Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) results and reflection (Report and Reflection document)

Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES) results and reflection (Report and Response document)

University of Edinburgh Standard Remit 2016/17

Subject Specific Remit

List of School programmes and courses (UG and PG)

Previous PPR Report and response to recommendations

Previous TPR Report and response to recommendations

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Subject Benchmark statement

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) UK Quality Code Chapter B11 Research Degrees

Background Data for first Destination Information

15

Undergraduate Degree Classification Report

School Personal Tutor Statements (for UG, PGT and PGR)

Appendix 3: Number of students Undergraduate Student Numbers*

Degree

2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11

Economics

54 36 53 50 61

Economics and Accounting

19 16 10 14 26

Economics and Chinese

1 1 2 5 4

Economics and Economic History

4 4 1 2 1

Economics and English Literature

Economics and Islamic Studies

Economics and Law

3 2 1 4

Economics and Mathematics

7 10 8 5 9

Economics and Physics

Economics and Politics

23 12 16 12 13

Economics and Sociology

2 3 1 2 2

Economics and Statistics

1

Economics with Environmental Studies

2 2

Economics with Finance

Economics with Management Science

1 4 5 3

Economics with Psychology

1

Economics and Social Science

Total

114 85 96 101 122

Degree

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Economics

74 88 87 101 105 390

Economics and Accounting

31 29 22 19 16 48

Economics and Chinese 1 1 4 6 3 9

16

Economics and Economic History

3 6 3 5 5 16

Economics and English Literature

1

Economics and Islamic Studies

1

Economics and Law

3 2 2 5 1

Economics and Mathematics

13 10 6 5 8 43

Economics and Physics

1

Economics and Politics

14 6 11 17 19 73

Economics and Sociology

2 2 1 4

Economics and Statistics

1 4 1 2 1 17

Economics with Environmental Studies

3 1 1 3 8

Economics with Finance

1 5 27 43 54 196

Economics with Management Science

3 6 5 3 5 21

Economics with Psychology

Economics and Social Science

2 16 15 10 15

Total

147 161 188 219 235 841

* The data for 2016-17 comprises all years currently on programme. The data for earlier years relates to numbers of

students graduating for each degree. Note also, there are several degree titles with one student; these are Individual Subject Combination degrees. The University no longer offers ISCs and there are no students currently on ISC programmes. Postgraduate Student Numbers

Degree

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Doctor of Philosophy

7 6 4 2 9 35

Master of Philosophy

1

Master of Science

46 63 64 56 59 136

Non-graduating PGR

2 3 2 3 1

Non-graduating PGT

4 13 11 28 13 26

Total

59 85 81 89 82 198