Governance and strategy
A published mission, a council that meets and minutes its decisions, and a strategy with owners and dates.
Accreditation
Two separate routes run in parallel. One judges the university as a whole; the other judges a single award against the standards of the profession that will employ its graduates. Neither substitutes for the other, and passing one says nothing about the other.
Institutional Accreditation
Where we are
Where we are
The stages below are the standard route. The marker shows the stage the university has reached.
01
Readiness review
An honest internal look at whether the university can evidence what an agency will ask for.
02
Agency selection
Comparing agencies on recognition, scope, timeline and cost, then applying.
03
Self-evaluation
The university writes its own account against the criteria, with evidence attached to every claim.
04
Site visit
A panel spends several days on campus and speaks to staff and students without us in the room.
05
Decision and follow-up
A published decision, usually with conditions and a date by which each must be met.
What a panel examines
What a panel examines
Grouped the way most European agencies group them, following the ESG.
Quality system
A quality manual under version control, an audit cycle that runs whether or not a review is due, and closed actions.
Teaching and learning
Programme specifications, outcome mapping, and assessment that demonstrably measures what it claims to.
Staff
Qualifications on file, transparent appointment and promotion, and development that is recorded.
Students
Admission on published criteria, support services, a working complaints route, and graduate outcomes.
Resources and information
Facilities, library and laboratories, finances, and data the university can produce on request.
Agencies under consideration
Agencies under consideration
No agency is appointed yet. This page is updated when that changes.
| Agency | Based in | Recognition | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ASIC | United Kingdom | UK Home Office recognised; international institutional accreditation | Under review |
| ACQUIN | Germany | EQAR-registered, ESG-aligned | Under review |
| NOCN | United Kingdom | Awarding and assessment body; scope being checked against our need | Scope check |
Program Accreditation
Programme status
Programme status
Read with the programme register. A programme not listed here has not opened a file.
| Code | Department | Accrediting body | Stage | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AHU16 1 00 | Department of Dentistry | — | Preparing file | 2027 |
| AHU17 1 00 | Department of Pharmacy | — | Preparing file | 2027 |
| AHU23 1 00 | Department of Medicine | — | Preparing file | 2027 |
| AHU14 1 00 | Department of Computer Technology Engineering | — | Gap analysis | 2028 |
| AHU15 1 00 | Department of Medical Laboratory Techniques | — | Gap analysis | 2028 |
| AHU21 1 00 | Department of Architectural Engineering | — | Not opened | — |
Readiness test
Readiness test
A department that cannot answer all six in writing is not ready to open a file. Answer them first; the paperwork afterwards takes weeks instead of years.
- Can you show the programme specification approved by the college council, with the date of approval?
- Does every module outcome map to a programme outcome, with none left unmapped?
- For one outcome of your choosing, can you produce the assessment that measures it and the marks it produced?
- Are staff qualifications on file, and do they cover every module taught?
- Can you name what changed in the programme last year because of a review finding?
- Do you know where your graduates went, for at least half of the last cohort?