Chemical heads slam 'jargon'

Heads of chemical engineering departments say teaching quality assessment of their discipline is riddled with jargon, takes up too much time and is carried out by assessors who do not know enough about the subject.

The criticisms are made in a report commissioned by the Standing Conference of Professors and Heads of Department of Chemical Engineering based on a survey of assessors appointed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and department heads.

The survey found "near-unanimous" agreement that the funding council exercise was useful in raising the profile of teaching in chemical engineering, but was also in need of improvement. As well as placing "excessive demands" on the time of departments and being "too rushed", the report says the quality assessment has led to a substantial decrease in the research output of chemical engineering departments this year.

Peter Milton, acting director of HEFCE's Quality Assessment Division agrees that it is "incumbent upon the funding council to rationalise the current process". But he adds: "If departments had good quality assurance systems in place they wouldn't need to spend all this time producing the documentation. The bother to academics is, on current projections, only once every eight years."

Chemical engineering heads also criticised the quality of the subject assessors. John Garside, convenor of the standing conference and professor of chemical engineering at UMIST, says: "A criteria that could be applied is that members of the assessment team should be credible candidates for employment in departments that they assess."

The report concedes that much of the responsibility for the appointment of inappropriately qualified assessors rests with departments themselves: many heads of department, under time pressure, failed to nominate suitable staff to serve as assessors. Dr Milton says: "The council is at the mercy of the institutions. We are careful to confirm the status of the majority of assessors nominated with institutions and professional bodies."

There was a widespread complaint that many of the visits lacked objectivity because many assessors held "pre-conceived" ideas. Several departments felt that they were being judged against a "gold standard" and 25 per cent of assessors surveyed believed their colleagues had arrived at departments with prejudicial views.

Many departments "deplored" the fact that the grades will be used in league tables. The report says: "This is especially true because they feel that there was considerable uncertainty and inconsistency in assigning grades depending on the composition of the assessment team, the reporting assessor and other factors."

HEFCE's Dr Milton, however, says: "There is no question of a gold standard being imposed. We discourage league tables and do not produce them."

HEFCE's teaching assessment of chemical engineering departments covered 17 departments in England and Northern Ireland. All scored between 17 and 23 points out of a maximum of 24 for various aspects of teaching including curriculum design, content and organisation, and student progression and achievement. The top scorers were Cambridge, Imperial College, Loughborough and UMIST.