Ongoing Development of Degree Programme-specific Regulations

Revision and amendment of degree programmes and the associated development and revision of degree programme-specific regulations and module registers are – like the significant amendment and closure of degree programmes – usually based on findings from the quality assurance tools and observations of ongoing study and exam procedures by the degree programme supervisors and/or students. They are usually overseen in close consultation between the representatives from the Offices of the Deans of Studies and Academic Programme Development and Examination Regulations at Student and Academic Services, often even before the first committee has undertaken the relevant planning.

This dialogue-oriented process places great importance on unifying the ideas of the degree programme supervisors and representatives of the faculties on the one hand and basic structural as well as legal conditions on the other, or else identifying alternatives that are as close as possible to the intent of the regulations, whether at macro-level (e.g. arrangements for double-degree programmes with states outside the European Higher Education Area) or in the details of a module (e.g. when establishing innovative forms of examination).

Provided the basic outline is maintained, which is defined in particular in the many aspects of the General Exam Regulations (APO) regulated as standard throughout the university, the faculties and individual degree programmes should al- ways have leeway for individual solutions which in each case prove to be suitable for a wide variety of reasons. Besides all the relevant legal and structural criteria, in recent years however the effect of new regulations on the feasibility of studies and the (perceived) exam load has also become a major assessment criterion, which also plays a part in approval decisions.

With more than 200 different study programmes (including PhDs) a question of resources also arises with regard to the upkeep of degree programme regulations, and can be particularly pressing towards the end of the summer semester. The response to this has been to establish a regulating process with the declaration of binding guide data. The administration guarantees to prepare updated regulations that are passed by the faculty committees before 15th July of each year, so as to ensure that approval, publication and presentation in the electronic exam administration system is completed before the start of the next winter semester. This is the case at any rate where standard revisions (e.g. new or amended modules) are concerned.

If a revision affects a significant aspect of the degree programme (e.g. introduction or abolition of study focuses), has no precedent at the University, or the matter calls for discussion on quality assurance grounds (e.g. deletion of rules on free exam attempts), another deadline (15th May) applies. In these cases the opinion of the Central Committee for Teaching and Learning (zKLS) is also routinely obtained.

Nevertheless procedures have now been optimised to the extent that in urgent cases or when there are few parallel procedures, submission of regulations requires only four weeks from initial consultation by the faculty study committee to the official announcement. The introduction of the digital module register has also had positive effects, not least because it allows easy generation of synopses that can be used by the committees and that focus attention on the actual amendments.

Although the vast majority of reciprocally-agreed submissions are successful, approval by the Presidential Board (and/or the supervisory bodies of the Foundation) is not automatic. For in- stance, in justified cases the Presidential Board completely refuses approval or issues instructions. However the fact that such a procedure is only deemed necessary in very rare cases shows the success of the above dialogue process; on the other hand, their occurrence proves the ability of the system to apply proportionate controls in individual cases.