Agenda and Papers - University of Edinburgh

It was identified that it would be useful to include in future reports a
breakdown of high level reasons for using the service. This would support
the identification of common themes across student support services.
Action: Director, Counselling Service; Vivienne McFarlane, Academic
Services
The need was noted to ensure that mechanisms were appropriate for
reviewing the resource base of services in the light of any increase in student
intake numbers. It was noted that the new student support service review
method involved the Head of the Student and Academic Services Group, and
that both the excellent work of the Counselling Service and the broader need
for ongoing timely communication of any rise in student numbers would be
brought to her attention.
Action: Convener
The report had been written using the new draft template for student support
service reports. The Counselling Service had found the format helpful,
particularly in identifying key issues and allowing aspects of the service to be
highlighted which had not been brought out under the previous format. It was
suggested that an executive summary might be included in the report format.
Action: Vivienne McFarlane, Academic Services
The Committee approved the commendations and recommendations relating
to the Counselling Service in Paper O, and with the inclusion in next year’s
report of a user profile according to use of the Service, and the need for the
University to ensure the timely communication to student support services of
any rise in student numbers, remitted the recommendations to the
Counselling Service for action.
Action: Director, Counselling Service
The Committee was pleased to endorse the excellent work of the Counselling
Service. The Convener thanked the Director of the Counselling Service for
preparation of the report, and the lead reader for their comments.
College Annual Reports
5.2 College of Humanities and Social Science Report 2009/10 QAC 10/11 5 E
Introducing the report, the Associate Dean for Quality noted that the College’s
aim had been to reduce the length of the report while focusing strongly on
strategic issues. The report was welcomed as making good use of the
revised reporting structure, with good links to further information throughout.
Forward plans for enhancement were communicated well, and a good
overview was provided of the processes and mechanisms for annual
monitoring and review. The configuration of the Directors of Quality
Assurance Group to align more closely with the configuration and remit of
Senate Quality Assurance Committee was commended. The Report
provided an excellent overview of commendations and recommendations
arising from individual School reports.
The lead reader queried whether the move from a College Quality committee
to the College Directors of Quality Assurance Group was appropriate in terms
of the University’s statutory obligations in monitoring and review of its
4