Hilary 2007

PGA 30/1/07

1. Andrea Miller, Linacre: I’m VPG, I chair PGA, the democratic body where postgrads discuss things that can then go straight to university committees. If no objections, I’d like to move election to after motions, as Kaushal (our only candidate) isn’t here yet. No objections seen.

3. Motions.

No motions passed nem con.

Motion A:

Doron Schulsinger, Lincoln: Most grad and PHD students go through phases in studies. 1st stage is transition from PRS to dphil, up to 2 years, regs say other phases are dependent on confirmation of status. Regs say that once you submit papers to Wellington Sq, and then there is a 2 month period in which University and department should take action and have your viva within that time regarding the application. What actually happens is that the regs aren’t met – in my case, it took 8 months.

My case might be exceptional, but a lot of things can happen between 2 and 8 months, many violations of students’ rights. What new system will do is that when students submit papers, they input data straight away and the clock will start ticking! If then after 2 months you haven’t had the chance to do your viva and other stuff, supervisors and directors are emailed automatically to alert them.

Students don’t usually realise there are avenues for them to pursue (e.g. proctors), and when they do, they don’t want to antagonise people who assess them. Formalisation of this gets round the problem.

Ben Fletcher, SJC: Curious, as in my department we do viva and everything in department and then send off form. Could get university to do that instead? Less red tape.

David Semple, BNC: I agree, I’ve just gone through PRS system. Grad studies office isn’t best place to trust with your info! Definitely worth seeing how many problems from respective systems.

Ben Fletcher, SJC: Motion is good, but worth also looking at other options too.

Jenny HM, Merton: What could happen is that this motion could pass, then we could do research, and then propose a new motion at next PGA to deal with new information.

Ken Owen, Queens: In history, 2 diff systems. In masters in historical research, viva on masters doubles as transition viva. Usually happens within 3 weeks, fairly efficient. But not sure how it works if you do Dphil after masters.

Jenny HM, Merton: My ex bf submitted thesis, but grad studies dept hadn’t sent request for thesis to be examined.

Hugh McCormick, Lincoln: Real concern is that people are hanging around in limbo not wanting to cause a fuss. Don’t understand other system, but one which we should implement is one that puts most pressure on examiners and supervisors.

Ben Fletcher, SJC: Clearer explanation of other system. In physics, you submit it to dept secretary, passes it onto internal examiners, you have viva in 2 weeks, and then dept sends you letter saying ‘you’ve passed’, any suggestions from examiners, and also a form which needs to go to grad studies.

Hugh McC Lincoln: Seems physics is just more efficient#

Ben Fletcher, SJC: My stuff never went to grad studies so they couldn’t screw it up.

Amendment received, acknowledged as friendly.
“Resolves 2: mandate grad exec officers to investigate different methods of status transfer”.

No opposition to motion, it passes.


Motion B:

David Semple, BNC: One of my campaign promises was that we’d review welfare procedure on basis that all too often mentral and physical illnesses are treated in the same way as disciplinary problems, e.g. rustication, which inhibits access to support networks. This motion mandates us to change welfare procedures on a college by college basis. Refer to paper attached to agenda, which shows recommendations. Very simple suggestions which provide support, e.g. keep email address, etc.

Ben fletcher, SJC: Curious that you have ‘students have paid considerable amounts of money’ as one of arguments. Surely college/uni view is that while status is suspended, they’ve left their course, so money is irrelevant? Basically subsidising students? Fair in terms of illness, but this argument might not be valid.

David Semple, BNC: Proctors and colleges might not like this, some refuse to accept mental disabilities as grounds for special accommodation, etc. For instance, manic depressiveness might NEED to be based near chaplain, nurse, etc. Your point, students do pay for accommodation… seems unreasonable that students should be kicked out, when they’d still be paying accommodation costs.

Ben fletcher SJC: I agree, I was thinking more about deprivation of bod cards, etc, rather than accommodation. I can see reasonable argument from university regarding not needing to give them free internet access. May not agree, but may want to reconsider report.

David Semple, BNC: Of course, I will happily consider amendments. Primary facility of both bod card and internet aren’t just about entertainment, but more about keeping people connected to their social network and support groups impt.

Ken Owen, Queens: I don’t disagree regarding accommodation, but are there council tax implications? HMOs?

Semple BNC: No council tax implications, still classed as students while suspended, as long as they’re not in full time employment.

Jenny HM, Merton: POI, while on year out, you can’t get things like income support. Govt still thinks you’re a student, only university doesn’t.

Ken Owen, Queens: What exactly is wrong procedure that colleges are using? What would you like them to do?

Semple, BNC: Most things are brought before the Dean, so one resolution is to applaud Merton who has a dean divorced from disciplinary proceedings. So two different procedures for disciplinary and health problems. Outcome of procedures needs to be different.

Jenny HM, Merton: Question regarding meeting with proctors, in terms of access to college facilities. Perhaps change from ‘should permit’, to ‘should permit unless overwhelming reasons not to’? As some people come back and cause problems for other students. I agree that ‘default’ should be to be permitted access.

Semple, BNC: I agree. Should have basic rights, and then things follow later from college deans.

Doron, Linacre: I agree, default is that college should provide protection, we do pay college fees.. regardless of rustication, etc. We don’t need to integrate what university should say, this is about our opinions.

Kirsty, Magdalen: Motion is important, as there are very capable people who’ve had a breakdown who just need support. I would be keen to see, in addition to specific rights, there should be independent oversight who can provide indication to colleges as to what’s happening on a specific case. Perhaps wrong to provide blanket rights to, e.g. stay in college. Need to be caveats that each case is assessed individually to see what level of support is correct.

David Semple, BNC: Accept premise, but can’t think of body independent enough to act in that capacity. Various bodies do set down grounds for suspension of status… once those grounds have been att

Sarah-Jane, Hilda’s: In support of motion in principle, but may need to come back for revision. Not palatable to academics? Needs to be set into embedding graduate studies context. Needs to be in context of current research, also. Needs to be worked on a bit before its agreed on.

Semple, BNC: Research; don’t accept need for evidence other than views of sabattical officers.

Sarah-Jane, Hilda’s: I contest that, but from a background of someone with mental-health research. Needs to be framed in context of research, inc. UK Policy, universities UK research into student mental health.

Semple, BNC: Whenever we discuss with college officers, they don’t seem to have a problem with this part of the argument.

Sarah-Jane, Hilda’s: Yes, but concrete studies would strengthen it.

Semple, BNC: Agree, but doesn’t need that much strengthening. Just need precedents from few colleges.

Strickland, Merton: Agree with Sarah-Jane about embedding it in research, could pass motion then add Sarah-Jane’s info later?

Jenny HM, Merton: In terms of ‘what we want’, this motion is fine.

James Frew, Keble: As motion stands, nothing prevents paper being worked on further, at all. No problem in passing then working on it.

Margaret, Univ: If we accept motion, and then paper is changed, do we need to decide to support it again?

Semple, BNC: Evidence is complementary, so paper won’t be changed, but further info as it comes to light will be added.

Jenny HM, Merton: Agrees with motion anyway, as reasoning and conclusions stay the same.

Amendment received:
Resolves 4, Mandate grad exec to take account of research in field and work by Universities UK, and incorporate into paper.

Accepted as friendly by Semple.

No opposition, motion passes.


Motion C:

AM relinquishes chair to DS, BNC.

Andrea Miller, Linacre: I think there should be one more graduate officer on OUSU exec, and it should be a women’s officer. Grad women make up large proportion of university, and they have specific concerns. I think that graduate contribution would be especially valuable on women’s campaign.

Sarah-Jane, Hilda’s: Funding?

Andrea Miller, Linacare: Not paid, so none needed.

Ben Fletcher, SJC: Likely to have candidates?

Miller, Linacre: Difficult to fill places, but that’s not argument against trying.
Many grad women feel they’ve faced discrimination and other issues, they might feel like getting involved.

Matthias, Queen’s: Would there also be a man’s officer?

Jenny HM, Merton’s: No, as needs of grad women are exceptions to the rule. E.g. vast majority of single parents are women, majority of sexual assaults and harassment are against women. Very specific why I’m in favour of this, as during 80s the idea that undergrads could switch supervisor was brought in and worked very well. Graduate students can’t do that, so more susceptible to harassment. Not saying that men don’t have concerns, but women’s issues are more so.

Matthias, Queen’s: So why not have a specific officer just for that kind of thing? Why call it women’s officer?

Jenny HM, Merton: I am contacted by men, and we need it to be female

Martin McDermot, Univ: Given that there are two fulltime sab officers for this, why another?

Miller, Linacre: Sab portfolios are too full, need more help. Not humanly possible to do all of that. Current exec officers are exceptionally helpful, could use more similar help. Important that graduate women are represented on exec.

Jenny HM, Merton: POI, exec are there to help rather than represent quite as much.

? Linacre: Overlaps?

Hugh McCormick, OUSU: Higher up you go in OxUni, fewer women represented, I take this as positive motion which encourages equality.

Doron, Linacre: POI, you mentioned harassment etc. Any data, or just hearsay?

Jenny HM, Merton: Can’t provide statistics, but I deal with bulk of harassment claims. Over last 5 years, it’s been overwhelmingly women who’ve been harassed.

Ralph Schneider, St Catz: What would duties be?

Miller, Linacre: It’s in the motion.

RS, St Catz: Just slightly worried that it needs to be clarified. E.g. cater for single fathers as well as mothers?

Miller, Linacre: Resolves 1.b. shows that representation is for men and women.

RS, St Catz: Why not welfare officer rather than women’s then?

Miller, Linacre: I understand what you’re getting at, but majority of single parents are women

? Linacre: Discriminate against male parents?

David ?, Wadham: At MCR level we all have women’s officers, so can be replicaqted here.

James Frew, Keble: Change to graduate equal opportunities instead of grad women? Solve some problems?

Ken Owen, Queen’s: Interested in knowing why current provisions regarding sab officers and exec officers is insufficient.

Miller, Linacre: Not enough grad students on OUSU exec. Also important to secure female presence on exec.

Sarah-Jane, Hilda’s: How are non-sab members supported? Counselling training?

Miller, Linacre: P-t exec don’t deal with casework.

Hugh McC, OUSU: Officership covers many different roles, most people see benefit in greater representation for women. Also gives greater representation to people who are single parents. One is gender-based, one is not, but this seems like a semantic argument.

Amendment from Bagshaw + Frew:
Adds resolves 2: Amend constitution so that position is voted for only by women.
Accepted as friendly.

No opposition, motion passes nem con.


Elections

Grad Internat Officer – Koshal

Elected

Heartfelt apology to Hugh for re-advertising his position accidentally. I’m really really sorry about that.

AOB

Green sheet at the back – copy of Embed Grad Studies. I promised to get it out to as many indiv grad students as possible. Read it and send comments you have to me, so that I can take them back to EPSC. I’ll send it out as an e-mail attachment as well.

VP (Women)
12% women students nationally suffer from eating disorders – 36% in Oxford


VP (Grads)
Noms open this Thursday, election in 6th week. RO sending out information.

Hugh – Lincoln; studying politics. Help Andrea ensure smooth running of academic affairs at Oxford. Sit on many committees. Can help with courses from beginning to end. If having problems with supervisor, or anything academic, I’m your man!

Dave – welfare officer. Anything related to inadequate welfare provision.

Kaushal – Thank you for electing me! Let’s see what I can do and hopefully it will be a nice year.

Sabbaticals introduced themselves.