Accessibility statement

10. Evaluation of PGR programmes


Departments must have in place appropriate mechanisms for: (i) PGRs and recent graduates, and their supervisors to evaluate their experience, (ii) monitoring TAP reports (including those relating to annual progression), and (iii) reviewing examiners’ reports. Departments may wish to consider whether feedback might usefully be requested from other interested parties e.g. sponsors, PGR administrators, alumni, employers and collaborating organisations.


At the end of each Thesis Advisory Panel meeting PGRs are asked to comment confidentially on the quality of the supervision received and on the PGR/supervisor relationship. Departments should ensure that there is a process in place for attempting to resolve any issues raised in this way.


Departments also receive feedback from PGR representatives. Each department must ensure that there is at least one PGR on its Graduate School Board (or equivalent).


Graduate School Boards should consider the data noted above in the context of centrally distributed data (including PRES data, submission and completion data etc.) and ensure that any issues raised are dealt with appropriately.


When undertaking Annual Programme and Periodic Reviews, a department should ensure that PGRs and their programmes are fully covered and, where relevant, issues are flagged for consideration by YGRSB.


YGRSB will ensure that the institution’s Annual Programme Review and Periodic Review processes pay due attention to PGRs and their programmes. The GSA represents PGRs on relevant University committees.