School of Philosophy and Art History
GRADUATE FEEDBACK MEETING(SSLC - PG)
21 February 2017
1.00pm
Thomas’ Room (6.143)
MINUTES
Chair: / Dr Timo Juetten(Director of Graduate Studies)
Present: / Dr Steven Gormley (PY PGT Director), Dr Michael Tymkiw (Art History PGT Director), Wendy Williams (Postgraduate Administrator), Ana Varas Ibarra(PhD, Art History),John Schmick (Student RepPY PGT), Biung Ismahasan (PhD Curating), Edie Miller (Student Rep AH PGT), Ricardo Samaniego De La Fuente (PhD PY),
1 / Apologies for Absence:
There were no apologies for absence.
2 / Minutes of meeting held on 21 November 2016:
The minutes were accepted by the meeting.
3 / Matters arising from minutes of previous meeting:
There were no matters arisingfromtheminutes of the previous meeting.
4 / Items raised by students:
Robert Seymour asked for an update on GTA teaching for the following year following on from Fabian’s paper at the previous PG SSLC meeting. Timo responded that there was no further update at this stage, because no decisions about the GTA budget for 2017/18 had been made yet.
5 / Annual Review of Courses ARC (PGR and PGT) 2015-2016:
Timo asked if anyone had any questions about the Annual Review of Courses for PGR and PGT which had been previously circulated. No questions were raised.
6 / Philosophy Research Colloquia:
One person put themselves forward to present at the Spring Term Research Colloquium in February’s Reading Week. Traditionally, the Philosophy Research Colloquia takes place three times in the year. The Tuesday of Autumn Term Reading Week, the Tuesday of Spring Term Reading Week and the Tuesday in Week 38 (20 June). Timo suggested that presenting at the Colloquia should be made a compulsory requirement and that we would need to move towards a model where we select speakers each time.
Robert Seymour said he was unsure as to why students were reluctant to put themselves forward and said that the general feeling from research students was that it was rather intimidating. Ana Varas Ibarra said she had attended one colloquium and felt that the manner in which the staff asked questions to the presenters could be perceived as quite harsh. Steve Gormley suggested that we ask the students for feedback as to why they were not willing to present.
Timo also said that the attendance at Thursday seminars had dwindled.
Action: Timo to email students asking for feedback on the Philosophy Research Colloquia. / TJ
7 / Research Environment:
Timo raised the topic of the research environment and asked students to explain what they think of their own research environment i.e. share research, develop research, creating an intellectual environment. Robert Seymour said that he thought the Friday student run seminars were good and well attended and provided an intellectually stimulating environment. Steve asked if there was anything lacking from the School’s side to which Robert said that relationships between the staff and the reading groups were good. Edie Miller put forward an idea that an interdisciplinary environment would be very helpful.
Timo reported back to the Registry and the Dean that PhD workspace in the School was considered the be very important by the students.
The University is asking for students to think outside the box i.e. something significant to the University on PGR provision.
A question about the book ordering process was raised and Timo said he would look into this.
Action: Timo to look into the book ordering process / TJ
8 / Any other Business:
Timo raised the topic of supervisory panels, as they are now known. He apologised for the lateness of notification of the panels for the Philosophy February round, which was due to staff illness and a change-over in the role of Director of Graduate Studies. However, he did stress that students should know when the supervisory panels are scheduled and which round of supervisory panels they are on. The panels run in two cycles – November (Thursday of Autumn Term Reading Week (8)) and May (week 32) and February (Thursday of Spring Term Reading Week (21)) and June (weeks 37 or 38). This is outlined in the Research Students’ Handbook.
Discussion took place over the negative air surrounding supervisory panels which was perceived by some students. Timo said that most staff don’t see supervisory panels as disciplinary meetings but as productiveo and supportive ones, with advice being of a constructive critical nature which could be perceived as being relatively anxiety inducing, but should not be terrifying.
Two students raised issues about their panel submissions not being read. It was clarified that there had been a misunderstanding among staff. The normal expectation is that staff read panel submissions and can comment on them.
Action: Wendy and Timo to produce a sheet outlining the cycle of Philosophy supervisory panels along with the student allocation on each cycle. / WW/TJ
9 / Date of next meeting
Summer term – date and time to be confirmed. / WW
q:\sslc staff student liaison committees spah\pg sslc\2016-2017\pgsslmins_21.02.2017 tj.doc