The centre’s quality policy is based on the importance of consolidating a culture of quality in the university field, of its consideration as a determining factor in achieving the satisfaction of the educational expectations of its graduates and their recognition in the academic, professional and social spheres in which they are integrated.
To this end, a commitment is made to use all available human and material resources in compliance with current regulations and in accordance with the established criteria and guidelines. Thus, the following general lines are established as the quality policy of the Centre:
-
- Provide an academic offer adapted to the demands, needs and expectations of society and, in particular, of the Ministry of Defence and the Navy, in order to consolidate high levels of quality in its degrees, without renouncing the academic foundations of the University based on the development of a critical spirit, the analysis and reflection capacity.
- To achieve national and international recognition of teaching quality through the achievement of the goals associated with academic indicators, with special relevance to those related to stakeholder satisfaction.
- To facilitate the extension of the quality culture and continuous training in quality for lecturers, researchers, administrative and service staff and students, promoting the efficiency and continuity of the systems and processes linked to it.
- To ensure the implementation, development and monitoring of both the Internal Quality Assurance System (SGIC) and all the processes linked to quality that affect the centre and its qualifications.
- To ensure teaching, research, management and knowledge transfer with a gender perspective in order to eliminate the obstacles that prevent real equality between women and men.
- To achieve a permanent commitment to continuous improvement as a standard of conduct, and to propose and carry out the necessary actions for the maintenance and improvement of quality.
Students’ level of satisfaction with the teaching activity of the faculty.
Calculation method: result of the aggregate assessment, for a degree D and a centre C, of the faculty evaluation survey.
(University of Vigo)
The historical data is shown below:
- 2010-2011. No information.
- 2011-2012. No information.
- 2012-2013. 3,09 (M) y 2,97 (F) (Max. 5).
- 2013-2014. 3,08 (M) y 3,31 (F) (Max. 5).
- 2014-2015. 3,02 (M) y 3,30 (F) (Max. 5).
- 2015-2016. 2,92 (M) y 2,91 (F) (Max. 5).
- 2016-2017. 3,12 (M) y 3,36 (F) (Max. 5).
- 2017-2018. 3,28 (M) y 3,38 (F) (Max. 5)
- 2018-2019. 3,27 (M) y 3,37 (F) (Max. 5)
The quality objective is set at achieving a value of 3 out of 5 for both genders.
Satisfaction of graduates with the planning and development of teaching.
Calculation method: result of the aggregate assessment, for a degree D and a centre C, of the items related to the planning and development of teaching in the survey to evaluate the satisfaction of graduates carried out by Armada.
In the 2016-2017 academic year, graduate surveys were carried out directly through the Armada, with a rating from 0 to 10.
- 2016-2017. 6,52 (max. 10).
- 2017-2018. 7,24 (max. 10).
- 2018-2019. 6,16 (max. 10).
Given that the new rating scale in the satisfaction surveys of graduate officers has a maximum of 10, we set ourselves a quality objective of obtaining an average of more than 7 points out of 10.
processes / methods
|
Objectives |
Indicators (included in the SGIC indicator panel) |
Goal |
|
|
|
||||
| AC-Academic management
AC-0104 Access and admission DO-Teaching DO-0202 Degree promotion |
|
Evolution of the students enrolled in each academic year. Calculation method: It registers the evolution of the students enrolled in each academic year over the last academic years in a degree. |
The number of new admission places offered for each academic year is published in the BOE, by means of a Royal Decree approving the provision of places in the Spanish Navy and the Higher Scale of Officers of the Guardia Civil for a given year. The number of students is determined by the needs of the Navy. In the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 academic years, the number has decreased as the situation of budgetary restrictions has also affected the Public Employment Offer. From the 2015-2016 academic year onwards, the number of students enrolled has increased again to the initial figures, maintaining a fairly stable level. Given the total influence of factors external to the centre, it is not appropriate to establish a target. The following graph depicts the historical evolution of the number of students. The number of students entering this academic year is the highest in history.
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Occupation of the degree Calculation method: % of new students enrolled in a degree in relation to the number of places offered in degree. |
The admission process for students to the Defence University Centre is centralised in the Ministry of Defence (through the General Department of Recruitment and Military Education), where all the tests for access to the three academies/schools for officers of the Army, Air Force and Navy, respectively, are coordinated. In this process, all vacancies are filled. Occupancy is, obviously, 100%. | |||
|
|
||||
|
Preference Calculation method: % of students pre-registered as first option in a degree in relation to the number of places offered in the degree. |
Students who apply for the national call (Resolution of the Undersecretary’s Office, announcing the selection processes for entry into military training centres, by direct entry, with and without the requirement of a previous university degree, for incorporation as career military personnel into the Officer Scales of the General and Marine Corps and into the Higher Officer Scale of the Civil Guard Corps) do not choose the grade to study, they choose the army/corps they want to join: Navy, Army, Marines, Air Force or Spanish Civil Guard. The figures below show the level of demand. They are the historical data of the ratio of places demanded/offered. The data presented are global, and do not take into account whether it is first choice.
Promotion and recruitment initiatives are the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, which carries them out in general for all armies. Students choose an army, not a particular grade. If it were a different grade, there would be no reason for these figures to vary. There is no need to set a quality objective on this point. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Adequacy Calculation method: % of students enrolling for the first time in the degree in their first pre-enrolment option out of the total number of students enrolling for the first time in the degree. |
Taking into account the above (students choose an army in the selection process, not a degree), this information is not available and it is not appropriate to set a target for this section. | |||
|
|
||||
|
Students’ average marks for Access to Bachelor Degrees
|
The historical data is shown below:
Curso 2010-2011. 8,96 (M) and 9,79 (F) (max. 12,5). The following graph shows the evolution of the average mark of the students scaled to a maximum of 14.5 points.
The above data are calculated on the total number of students enrolled, not only on those who have made the school their first preference. Since the centre has no influence on the selection processes, it is not appropriate to establish a value for the parameter as a target. Although it is true that the higher the average entrance mark (the greater the demand for the places offered), it is assumed that students will be in a better position to pass the degree with greater guarantees of success. |
|||
|
|
||||
| DO-0201 Teaching planning and development |
To improve the planning and development of the Bachelor degree |
Satisfaction rate of students with the teaching planning and development. Calculation method: result of the aggregate assessment, for a bachelor degree D and a centre C, of the items related to the planning and teaching planning and development in the student satisfaction survey for official bachelor degree programmes (university of Vigo) |
The historical data is shown below:
Given that the rating scale in the degree satisfaction surveys has a maximum of 5, the quality objective is set at achieving a value of 3 out of 5 for both genders. The following graph shows the historical evolution of this index, in the new scale, together with the proposed quality target.
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Lecturer satisfaction with the teaching planning and development. Calculation method: result of the aggregate assessment, for a bachelor degree D and a centre C, of the items related to the teaching planning and development in the survey for the evaluation of satisfaction with official bachelor degree programmes for the faculty. |
The historical data is shown below:
The quality objective is set to reach a value of 3.5 out of 5. Next survey in 2020-2021. The following graph shows the historical evolution of this index together with the proposed quality target.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
| Improving the academic performance of bachelor degree programmes |
Average length of studies Calculation method: It measures the average number of years it takes for students to graduate from a degree programme. |
AY 2014/2015 was the first academic year in which there were graduates. The historical data is shown below:
The degree at CUD has a duration of 5 academic years. Although the success and performance rates so far are high, there is a small drop-out rate and a certain repetition rate, so we set the quality target at 5,5 academic years (target achieved). |
||
|
|
||||
|
Performance rate Calculation method: for an academic year, percentage ratio between the number of ordinary credits earned in the degree D at the University U and the total number of ordinary credits matriculated in the degree D at the University U. (ACSUG. Official Degrees Monitoring Programme) |
The historical data is shown below:
It is proposed as a quality target to exceed 85%. In addition, the progress and permanence regulations for military training centres require this indicator to be high. The following graph shows the historical evolution of this indicator together with the quality target.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Drop-out rate Calculation method: percentage ratio between the students of an entry cohort enrolled in the university degree in academic year X, who did not enrol in that degree D in academic years X+1 and X+2, and the total number of students of that entry cohort C who entered that degree D in academic year X. (CURSA) |
The historical data is shown below:
The target proposed is that established in the verification report: <10%. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Efficiency rate Calculation method: percentage ratio between the total number of credits of the degree plan for which the graduates of a given academic year should have enrolled during their studies and the total number of credits for which they actually had to enrol. |
The historical data is shown below:
The target proposed is that established in the verification report: >75%. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Graduation rate Calculation method: % of students who complete their studies within the established timeframe of the degree plan or in one more academic year in relation to their entry cohort (RD 861 as amended by RD 1397) |
The historical data is shown below:
The target established in the verification report is the following: >30%. We assume that we will be able to exceed this target by a wide margin and we set for ourselves the quality objective of exceeding 80%. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Success rate Calculation method: For an academic year X, percentage ratio between the number of credits passed by the total number of students enrolled in degree D at University U and the number of credits submitted for examination by the total number of students enrolled in degree D at University U in that same academic year X. |
The historical data is shown below:
A quality target of over 90% is proposed. The following chart shows the historical evolution of this indicator together with the proposed quality target.
|
|||
|
|
||||
| Average time to find a job | Students who pass the degree programme are immediately civil servants in the General State Administration, and immediately assume their duties in their assigned posts. It is not appropriate to define a target for this indicator. | |||
|
|
||||
| DO-Teaching
DO-01 Management of learning programmes |
Effectively management of learning programmes |
Monitoring of Bachelor’s Degrees Calculation method: % of official degree programmes with a positive evaluation of their annual monitoring report, whether carried out by the competent quality agency (ACSUG) or internally (at the University of Vigo), in relation to the total number of degree programmes evaluated in each edition. |
The historical data for the monitoring reports of the centre’s only degree programme (Degree in Mechanical Engineering) are shown below. The academic year being monitored is indicated.
A quality target of 100% is proposed. |
|
|
|
||||
|
Degree accreditation Calculation method: % of official degree programmes that obtain the renewal of their accreditation by the competent quality agency (ACSUG) in relation to the total number of degree programmes evaluated in each edition. |
The historical data for the monitoring reports for the only degree of the centre (Bachelor Degree in Mechanical Engineering) are shown below:
A quality target of 100% is proposed. |
|||
|
|
||||
| PE – Staff management | Improving the qualification of the faculty and research staff (PDI) and administrative and service staff (PAS) |
PDI qualification Calculation method: It registers the percentage of PDI with a PhD degree in the year (N-1) over the total PDI staff in the year (N-1) |
The historical data is shown below. The percentages correspond to the current year.
It is proposed to reach a target of 80% of PhD lecturers. The chart below shows the evolution of this indicator together with the quality objective set by the centre.
The accreditations of the PDI with PhD are shown below. The percentages correspond to the current year.
It is proposed a quality objective to maintain an 80% percentage of PhDs with an associate professor accreditation or higher. The following chart shows the evolution of this indicator together with the quality target set by the centre.
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Academic research results Calculation method: Ratio between the number of six-year research period obtained by the PhD lecturers with “i” potential six-year research period and their number of potential six-year research periods (where i=1, 2, 3) |
The historical data is shown below:
2016-2017. Ratio: 1,2 six-year research period per lecturer. 2017-2018. Ratio: 1,5 six-year research period per lecturer. 2018-2019. Ratio: 1,5 six-year research period per lecturer. The permanent faculty of the Centre (10 lecturers in the academic year 2018-2019) accumulate a total of 15 six-year research period (1.5 six-year research period per lecturer). It is proposed as a quality objective to maintain the ratio of six-year research period per lecturer. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Results of the five-year assessment of teaching activity Calculation method: Ratio between the number of five-year periods obtained by PhD lecturers with “i” potential five-year periods and their number of potential five-year periods (where i=1, 2, 3…) |
The Centre’s permanent staff were not able to apply for five-year assessment of teaching activity until the 2017 call for applications. The historical data is shown below :
So far (academic year 2018-2019), the 10 permanent lecturers have accumulated a total of 13 favourably evaluated five-year periods (1.3 five-year periods per lecturer). It is proposed as a quality target to maintain the ratio of 1 five-year period per lecturer. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
% of faculty in learning programmes Calculation method: % of faculty of the centre participating in a training programme during the year N. (University of Vigo) |
Encourage the participation of the faculty in learning programmes. A percentage of >20% is proposed as a quality target (especially for trainee lecturers).
Below is a list of the faculty who have taken part in learning programmes:
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
% of administrative and service staff (PAS) in learning programmes Calculation method: % of the centre’s administrative and service staff participating in a learning programme during the year Y. (University of Vigo) |
Encourage the participation of the administrative and services staff in learning programmes directly related to the administration of the centre in all its areas and ensure that a percentage >30% participates in these learning programmes.
Below is a list of the administrative and services staff who have participated in a learning programme:
|
|||
|
|
||||
| MC- Quality Management and Continuous Improvement MC-05 User satisfaction |
Improving stakeholder satisfaction |
Satisfaction level of graduates Calculation method: rresult of the aggregate assessment, for a degree programme D and a centre C, of all the items of the survey on the evaluation of satisfaction with official degree programmes for graduates. |
The historical data is shown below.
Since the new rating scale in the satisfaction surveys of graduate officers has a maximum of 10, we set ourselves a quality target of obtaining an average of more than 7 points out of 10. |
|
|
|
||||
|
Satisfaction level of employing entities Calculation method: result of the aggregated assessment, for a degree programme D and a centre C, of all the items of the survey for the evaluation of the employer satisfaction with the official degree programmes. |
In the AY 2015/2016, the employer surveys (adapted to the peculiarities of the Spanish Navy employer) have been carried out directly through the Spanish Navy.
The historical data is shown below:
Since the centre’s objective is to contribute to the training of officers for the navy, it is crucial that the employer is satisfied with the result. Since the new rating scale in the employer satisfaction surveys has a maximum of 10, we set for ourselves a quality objective of obtaining an average of more than 7 points out of 10. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Satisfaction of the faculty Calculation method: result of the aggregate assessment, for a degree programme D and a centre C, of all the items of the survey on the evaluation of satisfaction with official degree programmes for the faculty. |
The historical data is shown below.
Since the new rating scale in the degree satisfaction surveys has a maximum of 5, the quality objective is set to achieve a value of 3,5 out of 5 for both genders. Next survey in 2020-2021. The following chart shows the evolution of the indicator in the years for which data are available, on the new scale.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Satisfaction level of the administrative and service staff (PAS) Calculation method: result of the aggregate assessment, for a degree programme D and a centre C, of all the items of the satisfaction evaluation survey of the official degree programmes for administration and services staff (PAS). |
The historical data is shown below.
A quality target of 3,5 sobre 5 for both genders is proposed as a quality objective. Next survey in 2020-2021. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Satisfaction level of the student body Calculation method: result of the aggregate assessment, for a degree programme D and a centre C, of all the items of the survey on the evaluation of student satisfaction with official degree programmes. (University of Vigo) |
The historical data is shown below.
The quality target is set at 3 out of 5. The following chart shows the evolution of the indicator together with the quality target.
|
|||
|
|
||||
| DE- Strategic Direction |
Implementation certification of the centre’s quality system | Implementation certification of quality systems | The application to certify the implementation of the quality system in the academic year 2019-2020 was sent. | |
*Note: The following table contains a list of institutional quality objectives, each centre must align them with the quality policy and with the strategic lines, establishing the appropriate goals in each case. The centre may also determine other additional objectives as long as it ensures that they meet the criteria of concreteness, measurability and realism, managing them as established in the procedure DE-01P1Planning and Strategic Development.