This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hello,
I do a maths module this semester. The lecturer is currently teaching differentiation, which I've done before during A level maths.
I can remember being able to do it, but that's about it.
The lecturer I have is awful. He can't explain the subject and is very difficult to follow. He also does all his work on power points, which aren't very well laid out.
In the past I've learned maths by going through worked examples, which the teacher wrote out on the board, followed doing lots of them, again and again and again.
I've spoken to other people on my course and none of them understand what he is saying either.
What can I do about it?
I do a maths module this semester. The lecturer is currently teaching differentiation, which I've done before during A level maths.
I can remember being able to do it, but that's about it.
The lecturer I have is awful. He can't explain the subject and is very difficult to follow. He also does all his work on power points, which aren't very well laid out.
In the past I've learned maths by going through worked examples, which the teacher wrote out on the board, followed doing lots of them, again and again and again.
I've spoken to other people on my course and none of them understand what he is saying either.
What can I do about it?
In reply to Tom Ripley: complain! to the lecturer in question, head of course, the staff student liason commitee, the student representative, your tutor. Preferably in writing, preferably getting others to compain also. Or just sit there, do nothing and fail...
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Speak to him.
Whilst you should not expect to be spoon fell at degree level, it does sound like he is doing a poor job of teaching a beginners module.
Speak to him.
Whilst you should not expect to be spoon fell at degree level, it does sound like he is doing a poor job of teaching a beginners module.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Get a good text book then re-learn it the way you learn best. FWIW it's easily forgettable stuff that's not desperately hard to re-learn if you need to, just treat the course as a guide to what you need to know.
Or speak to him, tell him you're struggling with the presentation, he may not be aware it's an issue. Or have a word on your supervisor or student rep or whoever else may be able to raise the point on your behalf if you don't want to.
jk
Get a good text book then re-learn it the way you learn best. FWIW it's easily forgettable stuff that's not desperately hard to re-learn if you need to, just treat the course as a guide to what you need to know.
Or speak to him, tell him you're struggling with the presentation, he may not be aware it's an issue. Or have a word on your supervisor or student rep or whoever else may be able to raise the point on your behalf if you don't want to.
jk
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Its not school. You are on your own, get used to the idea of not being spoon fed. PLENTY of resources available to teach yourself anything. It will of course enable you to get a first when everyone else is complaining about how shit the lecturers are and copying each others work. Yeah, again what's the point of university?
Regards
D
Its not school. You are on your own, get used to the idea of not being spoon fed. PLENTY of resources available to teach yourself anything. It will of course enable you to get a first when everyone else is complaining about how shit the lecturers are and copying each others work. Yeah, again what's the point of university?
Regards
D
In reply to Tom Ripley: By all means speak to him, but my maths experience at uni was of powering through really pretty incomprehensible stuff on overhead projector slides. No examples were given and the only way we got through was by clubbing together and trying to brain it out for ourselves in the library. It is a shame that most maths lecturers I have encountered assume you already have a degree in maths!
If you are doing engineering maths, I would highly recommend these books:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Engineering-Mathematics-K-Stroud/dp/0333919394/ref=...
and for second year
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Advanced-Engineering-Mathematics-K-Stroud/dp/140390...
Lots of worked examples where they don't miss out the "obvious" (if you are a mathematical genius) steps.
If you are doing engineering maths, I would highly recommend these books:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Engineering-Mathematics-K-Stroud/dp/0333919394/ref=...
and for second year
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Advanced-Engineering-Mathematics-K-Stroud/dp/140390...
Lots of worked examples where they don't miss out the "obvious" (if you are a mathematical genius) steps.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
First, the library should be stuffed full of "intro to calculus" textbooks. Find one you like and work through it, doing all the examples you can. Get copies of the exams from the last few years as a guide to what you need to be able to do; work through all the past exams for the past 5 or 6 years or more, and you should be ok.
Second, you should have mechanism to feedback opinions on the quality of the teaching, such as questionnaires or student-staff liaison committees.
Finally, anyone who teaches maths using powerpoint is hopelessly bad and should be shot.
First, the library should be stuffed full of "intro to calculus" textbooks. Find one you like and work through it, doing all the examples you can. Get copies of the exams from the last few years as a guide to what you need to be able to do; work through all the past exams for the past 5 or 6 years or more, and you should be ok.
Second, you should have mechanism to feedback opinions on the quality of the teaching, such as questionnaires or student-staff liaison committees.
Finally, anyone who teaches maths using powerpoint is hopelessly bad and should be shot.
In reply to Tom Ripley: hunt them with dogs
In reply to Tom Ripley:
If you want to, speak to him. If unhappy after that, speak to the year tutor/course leader. However, University life involves learning to learn and making the most of opportunities and because most get a wide range of quality in lectures (even from the same person sometimes!) most of that most feel their efforts are better placed elsewhere.
If you want to, speak to him. If unhappy after that, speak to the year tutor/course leader. However, University life involves learning to learn and making the most of opportunities and because most get a wide range of quality in lectures (even from the same person sometimes!) most of that most feel their efforts are better placed elsewhere.
In reply to EeeByGum:
I'd recommend Stroud as a student and as a lecturer
Also from Coel's point its a great idea to be a student rep and go to course committees: good for your CV and inevitably you end up knowing the system better.
I'd recommend Stroud as a student and as a lecturer
Also from Coel's point its a great idea to be a student rep and go to course committees: good for your CV and inevitably you end up knowing the system better.
Cheers for the beta so far guys, I've just discovered youtube is pretty good for this sort of thing... youtube.com/watch?v=ufSiKnskey4&
In reply to Offwidth:
Lecturers? No point in trying to rock the boat on that one as you will probably lose or come off looking bad. I eventually stopped going to lectures and just picked the material up and learned it myself for most of my course. Bit of initiative.
Lecturers? No point in trying to rock the boat on that one as you will probably lose or come off looking bad. I eventually stopped going to lectures and just picked the material up and learned it myself for most of my course. Bit of initiative.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Sorry to sound like an old git, but differentiation was gcse maths when I did it, not university!
Sorry to sound like an old git, but differentiation was gcse maths when I did it, not university!
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Not sure if the Schaum's outline series is still going but they used to be pretty much just worked examples. I'm sure your library will have them or at least a similar A level text. Teach Yourself Books do a TY Calculus which a lot of OU students seem to like as preliminary reading.
However, this is something you are doing for the second time so you can't really expect more than a cursory run through the material to get everyone up to speed.
Not sure if the Schaum's outline series is still going but they used to be pretty much just worked examples. I'm sure your library will have them or at least a similar A level text. Teach Yourself Books do a TY Calculus which a lot of OU students seem to like as preliminary reading.
However, this is something you are doing for the second time so you can't really expect more than a cursory run through the material to get everyone up to speed.
In reply to Tom Ripley: Speak to him. Ask him to recommend a text book the course will probably be heavily based on one. That way you should be able to get your hands on more than enough examples.
Rob
Rob
In reply to Tom Ripley:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Schaums-Outline-Calculus-5ed-Calc/dp/0071508619/ref...
1105 fully solved problems, what more could you need?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Schaums-Outline-Calculus-5ed-Calc/dp/0071508619/ref...
1105 fully solved problems, what more could you need?
In reply to Milesy:
You must be a bright boy then or at a poor Uni... we have around 10% fail each year with that attitude. Students using correct channels and taking an interest in the quality of teaching get treated well and do better than average in my department.
You must be a bright boy then or at a poor Uni... we have around 10% fail each year with that attitude. Students using correct channels and taking an interest in the quality of teaching get treated well and do better than average in my department.
In reply to Milesy:
Nowadays with things like the National Student Survey results being published and fed into league tables, most universities take student feedback seriously and are responsive to it. That's particularly so if it isn't just a lone student but a pattern of comment from the students in the cohort.
> Lecturers? No point in trying to rock the boat on that one as you will probably lose or come off looking bad.
Nowadays with things like the National Student Survey results being published and fed into league tables, most universities take student feedback seriously and are responsive to it. That's particularly so if it isn't just a lone student but a pattern of comment from the students in the cohort.
In reply to Tom Ripley: I'd be delighted if one of our students cared enough to complain.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
I once made a complaint as a student rep because there was a strong consensus that a certain lecturer was, well, strange. But decided not to make it offcial, as the module in question was being scrapped and the person was also in charge of reviewing all student rep complaints!
In my experience, crap lecturers are frequently offloaded to first year's. There should be processes in place for raising concerns like these, and student reps can be a good way to do so anonymously.
Good luck and I hope it won't put you off your course...
I once made a complaint as a student rep because there was a strong consensus that a certain lecturer was, well, strange. But decided not to make it offcial, as the module in question was being scrapped and the person was also in charge of reviewing all student rep complaints!
In my experience, crap lecturers are frequently offloaded to first year's. There should be processes in place for raising concerns like these, and student reps can be a good way to do so anonymously.
Good luck and I hope it won't put you off your course...
In reply to rh5980:
Oh yes, our maths lecturer based the entire first year course on the textbook which he had written and which we were all required to go out and buy. Kerching! Mind you, better than one of our other courses which was based heavily on a textbook which had been out of print for the last five years! The Uni Bookshop just rolled their eyes and said "We keep telling him we can't get it any more!" Also our Nuclear Physics lecturer would turn up with a handful of OHP slides, and procede to read them to the lecture theatre. We got the impression that he probably wouldn't notice if there were any students in there or not!
I also suggest getting together with other students and making a representation to either the lecturer himself if you think he's approachable, or to your tutors/student rep./etc..
> (In reply to Tom Ripley) Speak to him. Ask him to recommend a text book the course will probably be heavily based on one. That way you should be able to get your hands on more than enough examples.
Oh yes, our maths lecturer based the entire first year course on the textbook which he had written and which we were all required to go out and buy. Kerching! Mind you, better than one of our other courses which was based heavily on a textbook which had been out of print for the last five years! The Uni Bookshop just rolled their eyes and said "We keep telling him we can't get it any more!" Also our Nuclear Physics lecturer would turn up with a handful of OHP slides, and procede to read them to the lecture theatre. We got the impression that he probably wouldn't notice if there were any students in there or not!
I also suggest getting together with other students and making a representation to either the lecturer himself if you think he's approachable, or to your tutors/student rep./etc..
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Maths is notoriously difficult to teach using 'chalk & talk' (or poweroint) so that's not a massive surprise (which doesn't excuse it).
If there's enough of you on the course who are finding it problematic then you could potentially ask the dept to put on some extra tutorials for those who are struggling? I organised a few of these in my dept when I was at uni, and the lecturers were usually happy to help out.
Maths is notoriously difficult to teach using 'chalk & talk' (or poweroint) so that's not a massive surprise (which doesn't excuse it).
If there's enough of you on the course who are finding it problematic then you could potentially ask the dept to put on some extra tutorials for those who are struggling? I organised a few of these in my dept when I was at uni, and the lecturers were usually happy to help out.
In reply to steev:
Which is why for first year physics students at Bristol, the lectures are backed up by weekly group tutorials (around 10 in a tutor group) where the previous week's marked work is worked through. I always gave a little mini-lecture at the beginning of each tutorial clarifying some common misconceptions, difficulties, or whatever, which came to light while I was marking the group work.
> (In reply to Tom Ripley)
>
> Maths is notoriously difficult to teach using 'chalk & talk' (or poweroint) so that's not a massive surprise (which doesn't excuse it).
>
> Maths is notoriously difficult to teach using 'chalk & talk' (or poweroint) so that's not a massive surprise (which doesn't excuse it).
Which is why for first year physics students at Bristol, the lectures are backed up by weekly group tutorials (around 10 in a tutor group) where the previous week's marked work is worked through. I always gave a little mini-lecture at the beginning of each tutorial clarifying some common misconceptions, difficulties, or whatever, which came to light while I was marking the group work.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Awful lecturers are par for the course - you are lucky if you only have the one. As others have said, get a book from the library and don't waste time on the lectures.
Whingeing about won't help.
Awful lecturers are par for the course - you are lucky if you only have the one. As others have said, get a book from the library and don't waste time on the lectures.
Whingeing about won't help.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Squirt some vinegar on his box of chalk
Squirt some vinegar on his box of chalk
In reply to Glen:
Really? It wasn't when I did my maths GCSEs in 1995.
> (In reply to Tom Ripley)
>
> Sorry to sound like an old git, but differentiation was gcse maths when I did it, not university!
>
> Sorry to sound like an old git, but differentiation was gcse maths when I did it, not university!
Really? It wasn't when I did my maths GCSEs in 1995.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
I had a dire lecturer for first year analysis. I couldn't understand any of it, not a sausage. It wasn't until about five years later when I had to _teach_ analysis, and bought myself a book, and read it, carefully, that I discovered it's not incomprehensible gibberish at all, it's not even hard (at that level).
So, as other's have said, get a decent textbook and get to it.
I had a dire lecturer for first year analysis. I couldn't understand any of it, not a sausage. It wasn't until about five years later when I had to _teach_ analysis, and bought myself a book, and read it, carefully, that I discovered it's not incomprehensible gibberish at all, it's not even hard (at that level).
So, as other's have said, get a decent textbook and get to it.
Can you get Tenure in the UK?
In reply to Dauphin:
On the other hand, since students now pay tuition fees (and will be paying more in future), I think he's entitled to complain if the service he's being provided with is sub-standard.
In theses days of market-driven education, surely the customer is king...?
I'm sure there's a student rep/council in the department. Gauge opinion of your peers, and present your argument to the rep, and get them to raise the issue. Or raise it yourself. Do you have tutors? Raise it with your tutor.
> Its not school. You are on your own, get used to the idea of not being spoon fed. PLENTY of resources available to teach yourself anything.
On the other hand, since students now pay tuition fees (and will be paying more in future), I think he's entitled to complain if the service he's being provided with is sub-standard.
In theses days of market-driven education, surely the customer is king...?
I'm sure there's a student rep/council in the department. Gauge opinion of your peers, and present your argument to the rep, and get them to raise the issue. Or raise it yourself. Do you have tutors? Raise it with your tutor.
In reply to gingerkate:
We had maths lecturers teaching us maths in the first two years of elec eng. They taught 'maths for maths sake', not the applied maths that we needed (one classic phrase being 'consider a parallel-piped'... 'why?'). And there was no apparent link-up with the maths we needed in other courses...
> I had a dire lecturer for first year analysis.
We had maths lecturers teaching us maths in the first two years of elec eng. They taught 'maths for maths sake', not the applied maths that we needed (one classic phrase being 'consider a parallel-piped'... 'why?'). And there was no apparent link-up with the maths we needed in other courses...
In reply to Tom Ripley:
If you are reflecting the consensus view of your class then approach your professor or head of department explaining that you speak for the whole class.
We did this on two occasions during my degree course and it worked. You shouldn't do nothing and let your entire future get screwed up by one crap lecturer. You never know, his head of department might just be looking for some ammunition to use against him anyway.
If you are reflecting the consensus view of your class then approach your professor or head of department explaining that you speak for the whole class.
We did this on two occasions during my degree course and it worked. You shouldn't do nothing and let your entire future get screwed up by one crap lecturer. You never know, his head of department might just be looking for some ammunition to use against him anyway.
In reply to jkarran:
This is the best advice I've seen on this thread. It's not, as some have said, about wanting to be spoon fed, it's about improving standards. If the standard of lecturing is perceived as being too low, if this is raised with the lecturer, then it can be discussed.
The answer may well be "go off by yourself with a book" or it maybe something the lecturer will be happy to change to help. I do occasional specialist guest lecturing slots, and I actively seek feedback from the students and from the course leader - if I can do better, I want to do better! If someone can give me information to help me to that, I will be grateful.
> (In reply to Tom Ripley)
>
> Or speak to him, tell him you're struggling with the presentation, he may not be aware it's an issue. Or have a word on your supervisor or student rep or whoever else may be able to raise the point on your behalf if you don't want to.
>
> Or speak to him, tell him you're struggling with the presentation, he may not be aware it's an issue. Or have a word on your supervisor or student rep or whoever else may be able to raise the point on your behalf if you don't want to.
This is the best advice I've seen on this thread. It's not, as some have said, about wanting to be spoon fed, it's about improving standards. If the standard of lecturing is perceived as being too low, if this is raised with the lecturer, then it can be discussed.
The answer may well be "go off by yourself with a book" or it maybe something the lecturer will be happy to change to help. I do occasional specialist guest lecturing slots, and I actively seek feedback from the students and from the course leader - if I can do better, I want to do better! If someone can give me information to help me to that, I will be grateful.
In reply to captain paranoia:
Agree with you, but how is it morally different from when 'the taxpayer' was paying all of it? You dig in and work and reap the benefits or achieve a mediocre result. Complain bitterly after the exams with a high score, demand your money back.
Regards
D
Agree with you, but how is it morally different from when 'the taxpayer' was paying all of it? You dig in and work and reap the benefits or achieve a mediocre result. Complain bitterly after the exams with a high score, demand your money back.
Regards
D
In reply to captain paranoia:
Complaining may feel good, and it may well be justified, but buying a book is a better strategy by far for improving Tom's maths ability. I once organised a petition about a course, it was so stunningly poor.... this was in the days before there was a good route for complaints... yes, it felt satisfying, yes, it meant that the following year's students weren't subjected to the same fiasco, yes, it greatly pleased dark forces at work in the dept lol .... but did it do anything for my maths? No.
Complaining may feel good, and it may well be justified, but buying a book is a better strategy by far for improving Tom's maths ability. I once organised a petition about a course, it was so stunningly poor.... this was in the days before there was a good route for complaints... yes, it felt satisfying, yes, it meant that the following year's students weren't subjected to the same fiasco, yes, it greatly pleased dark forces at work in the dept lol .... but did it do anything for my maths? No.
In reply to galpinos:
It was when I did O level in 1976
> (In reply to Glen)
> [...]
>
> Really? It wasn't when I did my maths GCSEs in 1995.
> [...]
>
> Really? It wasn't when I did my maths GCSEs in 1995.
It was when I did O level in 1976
In reply to Coel Hellier:
That's very very true.
> (In reply to Tom Ripley)
> Finally, anyone who teaches maths using powerpoint is hopelessly bad and should be shot.
That's very very true.
In reply to James Jackson:
Yeah, using any tutorials or examples classes you get is really important - there was loads of stuff that I missed the point of in lectures and was only found out how to use it properly after being baffled by the examples sheet...
It astonished me when I was lecturing how many people would skive the examples classes, despite the fact that I kept flagging up that I'd help them through a load of questions that were remarkably similar to the ones on the assessed coursework.
Trying to work stuff out collectively with other people from your course can be good, too - you generally find that someone has a clue, they learn it better because they teach it to someone else, the other people learn it better because they get taught it at all, and it's a bit less depressing than sitting being confused on your own.
> (In reply to steev)
> [...]
>
> Which is why for first year physics students at Bristol, the lectures are backed up by weekly group tutorials (around 10 in a tutor group) where the previous week's marked work is worked through. I always gave a little mini-lecture at the beginning of each tutorial clarifying some common misconceptions, difficulties, or whatever, which came to light while I was marking the group work.
> [...]
>
> Which is why for first year physics students at Bristol, the lectures are backed up by weekly group tutorials (around 10 in a tutor group) where the previous week's marked work is worked through. I always gave a little mini-lecture at the beginning of each tutorial clarifying some common misconceptions, difficulties, or whatever, which came to light while I was marking the group work.
Yeah, using any tutorials or examples classes you get is really important - there was loads of stuff that I missed the point of in lectures and was only found out how to use it properly after being baffled by the examples sheet...
It astonished me when I was lecturing how many people would skive the examples classes, despite the fact that I kept flagging up that I'd help them through a load of questions that were remarkably similar to the ones on the assessed coursework.
Trying to work stuff out collectively with other people from your course can be good, too - you generally find that someone has a clue, they learn it better because they teach it to someone else, the other people learn it better because they get taught it at all, and it's a bit less depressing than sitting being confused on your own.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Oh and to triple post but I'd second all the people saying to look for a textbook, too. There are loads of decent ones, anything that looks comprehensible and matches up with what's on the syllabus (and what's on past exam papers) should do you.
Oh and to triple post but I'd second all the people saying to look for a textbook, too. There are loads of decent ones, anything that looks comprehensible and matches up with what's on the syllabus (and what's on past exam papers) should do you.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yeah, also people ignore the hints that problems set in the exams won't be completely new and alien if the problem sheets are done; you can't examine something which hasn't been taught!
Yes, when I was an undergrad we regularly worked through problems / past exam papers as a small group of friends in the library. Certainly helped all of us!
Slightly harder at post-grad level when it's just you working through a particularly juicy textbook, but at that level self-teaching should be the norm!
> It astonished me when I was lecturing how many people would skive the examples classes, despite the fact that I kept flagging up that I'd help them through a load of questions that were remarkably similar to the ones on the assessed coursework.
Yeah, also people ignore the hints that problems set in the exams won't be completely new and alien if the problem sheets are done; you can't examine something which hasn't been taught!
> Trying to work stuff out collectively with other people from your course can be good, too - you generally find that someone has a clue, they learn it better because they teach it to someone else, the other people learn it better because they get taught it at all, and it's a bit less depressing than sitting being confused on your own.
Yes, when I was an undergrad we regularly worked through problems / past exam papers as a small group of friends in the library. Certainly helped all of us!
Slightly harder at post-grad level when it's just you working through a particularly juicy textbook, but at that level self-teaching should be the norm!
Unless you are studying maths then maths is likely just a tool for you.
The only thing that works is practice. Don't blame the lecturer (although a poor lecture is less likely to encourage you to practice). The value is that, although abstract, the tool kit will come in handy later.
Practice, practice, practice and if after more practice you are still no good then you and (a) blame the lecturer and (b) blame yourself.
The only thing that works is practice. Don't blame the lecturer (although a poor lecture is less likely to encourage you to practice). The value is that, although abstract, the tool kit will come in handy later.
Practice, practice, practice and if after more practice you are still no good then you and (a) blame the lecturer and (b) blame yourself.
In reply to Andrew Lodge:
>It was when I did O level in 1976
Letts Revise Mathematics for O level and CSE 1979, revised 81
Section 49, Gradientof a curve, Differentiation, Derivative of a sum of terms, Equasion of a tangent, Higher derivatives, Stationary points, Linear kinamatics, Indefinite integration, Definite integration, Area under a curve, Volume of revolution.
That was for O level, not A level.
I have test papers for round that era floating around apart from the examples in Letts.
Maybe a trip to a second hand book shop to see if copies can be picked up there may help, they will be cheap.
>It was when I did O level in 1976
Letts Revise Mathematics for O level and CSE 1979, revised 81
Section 49, Gradientof a curve, Differentiation, Derivative of a sum of terms, Equasion of a tangent, Higher derivatives, Stationary points, Linear kinamatics, Indefinite integration, Definite integration, Area under a curve, Volume of revolution.
That was for O level, not A level.
I have test papers for round that era floating around apart from the examples in Letts.
Maybe a trip to a second hand book shop to see if copies can be picked up there may help, they will be cheap.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Schaums used to be everybody's saviour.
Do you have a copy of MathCAD or Mathematica or similar? With these programs you can keep changing things and observe the differences in the outcome. You can also display it in a graph and observe the changes there.
Although there might be a temptation to use these programmes simply to cheat on assignments, if you have any sense you'll use them mainly to learn by experimenting with outcomes. Some universities are teaching almost entirely through the medium of maths progammes.
(Student MathCAD is about £70 but the new ones are much more than you need. If someone you know has a really old copy then I think it's Version 5 that will run off a memory stick and it's totally hassle free and will run on anything but does all the important stuff.)
Schaums used to be everybody's saviour.
Do you have a copy of MathCAD or Mathematica or similar? With these programs you can keep changing things and observe the differences in the outcome. You can also display it in a graph and observe the changes there.
Although there might be a temptation to use these programmes simply to cheat on assignments, if you have any sense you'll use them mainly to learn by experimenting with outcomes. Some universities are teaching almost entirely through the medium of maths progammes.
(Student MathCAD is about £70 but the new ones are much more than you need. If someone you know has a really old copy then I think it's Version 5 that will run off a memory stick and it's totally hassle free and will run on anything but does all the important stuff.)
In reply to Glen:
O Level, when I did it. Or is that the same as gcse level?
Sx
> (In reply to Tom Ripley)
>
> Sorry to sound like an old git, but differentiation was gcse maths when I did it, not university!
>
> Sorry to sound like an old git, but differentiation was gcse maths when I did it, not university!
O Level, when I did it. Or is that the same as gcse level?
Sx
In reply to Tom Ripley: Complain as others have said, or you could try the tactic we choose - the whole class turned up one day with something else do do and ignored the poor lecturer for the entire session. He never came back and we got a competent replacement
In reply to galpinos:
It was 'O' level grade in 1981 when I did it.
> (In reply to Tom Ripley)
>
>> Sorry to sound like an old git, but differentiation was gcse maths when I did it, not university!>
> Really? It wasn't when I did my maths GCSEs in 1995.
It was 'O' level grade in 1981 when I did it.
In reply to Glen:
When I did GCSE 12 years ago, we did numerical differentiation, and used it to guess that d/dx x^2=2x. But we didn't do anything analytical until A-level. Even then it was only basic rules.
As I remember first year university calculus, they will be expecting the student to apply the rules they already know for more complicated situations. My favourite example of this is int_{0}^{10} ceil(ln x) dx. I would be very impressed with any GCSE/A-level student who could do that.
They would also be teaching things like epsilon-delta proofs for limits, L'Hopital's rule and proving things with IVT/MVT. I certainly didn't do that in GCSE or A-Level.
When I did GCSE 12 years ago, we did numerical differentiation, and used it to guess that d/dx x^2=2x. But we didn't do anything analytical until A-level. Even then it was only basic rules.
As I remember first year university calculus, they will be expecting the student to apply the rules they already know for more complicated situations. My favourite example of this is int_{0}^{10} ceil(ln x) dx. I would be very impressed with any GCSE/A-level student who could do that.
They would also be teaching things like epsilon-delta proofs for limits, L'Hopital's rule and proving things with IVT/MVT. I certainly didn't do that in GCSE or A-Level.
In reply to tlm, sutty, Sarah G and all the rest of the ancients banging on about how hard it was in their day! :
I was surprised as having checked Glen's profile, he would have taken his GCSEs at the around the same time as me. My memory is quite poor though.
The biggest issue I had with learning Maths at uni was, as someone mentioned higher up the thread, the maths was taught independently of the other subjects (I'm a Mechanical Engineer) so you'd end up learning something but wouldn't really understand how it applied till a couple of semesters later when it came up in another module.
Differentiation and Integration is often taught as a “process” but not how it relates to a line/curve, gradient, area under a curve etc. I remember attempting (I’m no teacher) to help a colleague (also an engineer) doing an OU maths module and he had no idea of how differentiation and integration could be related to distance, speed, acceleration and how that could be represented graphically. When relating it to something he understood well, it all clicked instead of just being an “x squared goes to 2x” style formula.
I was surprised as having checked Glen's profile, he would have taken his GCSEs at the around the same time as me. My memory is quite poor though.
The biggest issue I had with learning Maths at uni was, as someone mentioned higher up the thread, the maths was taught independently of the other subjects (I'm a Mechanical Engineer) so you'd end up learning something but wouldn't really understand how it applied till a couple of semesters later when it came up in another module.
Differentiation and Integration is often taught as a “process” but not how it relates to a line/curve, gradient, area under a curve etc. I remember attempting (I’m no teacher) to help a colleague (also an engineer) doing an OU maths module and he had no idea of how differentiation and integration could be related to distance, speed, acceleration and how that could be represented graphically. When relating it to something he understood well, it all clicked instead of just being an “x squared goes to 2x” style formula.
In reply to Milesy:
I think perhaps this may have been the case but universities have changed dramatically recently and the power is very much in your hands since you are effectively paying for a service delivered by the university. If it is not up to scratch, you have the right to demand better.
There was a case a few years ago where a mature student made a stink at Wolverhampton uni due to poor facilities and teaching and ended up getting quite a bit of compensation in return.
> Lecturers? No point in trying to rock the boat on that one as you will probably lose or come off looking bad. I eventually stopped going to lectures and just picked the material up and learned it myself for most of my course. Bit of initiative.
I think perhaps this may have been the case but universities have changed dramatically recently and the power is very much in your hands since you are effectively paying for a service delivered by the university. If it is not up to scratch, you have the right to demand better.
There was a case a few years ago where a mature student made a stink at Wolverhampton uni due to poor facilities and teaching and ended up getting quite a bit of compensation in return.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
If you're not studying maths specifically, it's to prepare you for using it later, like any other technique.
Ask your other lecturers / examine past papers for examples where differentiation is used & give those to your maths lecturer, ask him to work through them.
And practice with textbooks, colleagues, tutorials..like driving, maths only clicked with me after a while. I passed it at uni after only getting a CSE 2 [i.e. not allowed to do 'O' level! ].
It'll click sooner or later!
If you're not studying maths specifically, it's to prepare you for using it later, like any other technique.
Ask your other lecturers / examine past papers for examples where differentiation is used & give those to your maths lecturer, ask him to work through them.
And practice with textbooks, colleagues, tutorials..like driving, maths only clicked with me after a while. I passed it at uni after only getting a CSE 2 [i.e. not allowed to do 'O' level! ].
It'll click sooner or later!
In reply to Tom Ripley:
I guess there are two parts to your question.
1. How can I learn the maths that I want to learn?
2. How can I give feedback to improve lecturing?
In answer to question 1.
Make sure that you know what you what to learn. What will be covered in your exams and assignments? What will be useful to you in your field?
How do you learn best? There are loads of resources around and taking responsibility for your own learning is one of the best lessons that you will ever learn! Don't just use books and the web - also use things like working with mates, trying things out for yourself, asking the lecturer about specific parts that you don't understand etc
In answer to question 2.
Most courses actively seek feedback from their students. They WANT to know what works and what doesn't. You should also have a student rep, who can speak on your behalf. You should be given a questionaire to complete at the end of the module. Suggest things that are postive "I would like to see problems being demonstrated on the interactive whiteboard" and it always sounds better than just a load of negative comments...
I guess there are two parts to your question.
1. How can I learn the maths that I want to learn?
2. How can I give feedback to improve lecturing?
In answer to question 1.
Make sure that you know what you what to learn. What will be covered in your exams and assignments? What will be useful to you in your field?
How do you learn best? There are loads of resources around and taking responsibility for your own learning is one of the best lessons that you will ever learn! Don't just use books and the web - also use things like working with mates, trying things out for yourself, asking the lecturer about specific parts that you don't understand etc
In answer to question 2.
Most courses actively seek feedback from their students. They WANT to know what works and what doesn't. You should also have a student rep, who can speak on your behalf. You should be given a questionaire to complete at the end of the module. Suggest things that are postive "I would like to see problems being demonstrated on the interactive whiteboard" and it always sounds better than just a load of negative comments...
In reply to galpinos:
Who was complaining about it being hard???? I was making the point that it wasn't that hard?
> (In reply to tlm, sutty, Sarah G and all the rest of the ancients banging on about how hard it was in their day! )) :
Who was complaining about it being hard???? I was making the point that it wasn't that hard?
In reply to galpinos:
20 years ago, at 'O' level, we were taught how it related to the gradient and the area under the curve as part of maths? I'm so glad I am an old thing - life was so much simpler in those days!
> Differentiation and Integration is often taught as a “process” but not how it relates to a line/curve, gradient, area under a curve etc.
20 years ago, at 'O' level, we were taught how it related to the gradient and the area under the curve as part of maths? I'm so glad I am an old thing - life was so much simpler in those days!
In reply to tlm:
I got the wrong end of the stick then! Oops. I thought everyone was implying that though it's not on the curriculum now, it was then and everything is easier now - the often trotted out "dumbing down of exams" argument.
> (In reply to galpinos)
> I was making the point that it wasn't that hard?
I got the wrong end of the stick then! Oops. I thought everyone was implying that though it's not on the curriculum now, it was then and everything is easier now - the often trotted out "dumbing down of exams" argument.
In reply to galpinos:
Its not always that simple. I'll give an example from my old Engineering department. Maths was a service provided by the maths department. For many years the maths was taught by a pair: an applied mathematician and an ex control engineer. Their lectures were directly applied to the course and were brilliant. With new leadership in the maths department, staffing changed and we ended up with a research Prof on one key module, who was a good guy but very badly briefed and who struggled to cope. As a course team we tried hard to get a change but it took the student complaints to finally lever this. For the next few years we had new problems, although less serious, until we tried to take the year 2 maths module in-house (as comms and control engineers are generally good at the main content: Laplace and Fourier methods!). All went well until the IEE blocked us during an accreditation visit, despite the clear rationalle!
Its not always that simple. I'll give an example from my old Engineering department. Maths was a service provided by the maths department. For many years the maths was taught by a pair: an applied mathematician and an ex control engineer. Their lectures were directly applied to the course and were brilliant. With new leadership in the maths department, staffing changed and we ended up with a research Prof on one key module, who was a good guy but very badly briefed and who struggled to cope. As a course team we tried hard to get a change but it took the student complaints to finally lever this. For the next few years we had new problems, although less serious, until we tried to take the year 2 maths module in-house (as comms and control engineers are generally good at the main content: Laplace and Fourier methods!). All went well until the IEE blocked us during an accreditation visit, despite the clear rationalle!
In reply to tlm:
So was I (as part of my A level) but many weren't and they see it as a thing you just do in maths. They don’t see it’s application which makes it harder to learn and misses out on so much!
> 20 years ago, at 'O' level, we were taught how it related to the gradient and the area under the curve as part of maths? I'm so glad I am an old thing - life was so much simpler in those days!
So was I (as part of my A level) but many weren't and they see it as a thing you just do in maths. They don’t see it’s application which makes it harder to learn and misses out on so much!
In reply to Offwidth:
I can easily see why these problems arise. I’m sure it was the same with the course I did. As an engineer though, it was always the application of the maths that was interesting, not solely the maths in isolation and something was lost in the modules not being integrated enough imho. As a mechanical engineer, the control systems modules with their Laplace and Fourier methods were the bane of my life!
I can easily see why these problems arise. I’m sure it was the same with the course I did. As an engineer though, it was always the application of the maths that was interesting, not solely the maths in isolation and something was lost in the modules not being integrated enough imho. As a mechanical engineer, the control systems modules with their Laplace and Fourier methods were the bane of my life!
In reply to galpinos:
Maybe it is all harder now - after all, it's usually easier to learn when you are younger? Plus, the only distractions I had were books, dolls and tree houses...
> I got the wrong end of the stick then! Oops. I thought everyone was implying that though it's not on the curriculum now, it was then and everything is easier now - the often trotted out "dumbing down of exams" argument.
Maybe it is all harder now - after all, it's usually easier to learn when you are younger? Plus, the only distractions I had were books, dolls and tree houses...
In reply to galpinos:
>- the often trotted out "dumbing down of exams" argument.
Did you see my posting of the syllabus from 20 years ago? It was not possible to do A levels, never mind get into uni without some sort of pass in O levels, so Tom, and thousands more would not be at uni now.
Remember, I left school at 15 so never got chance to take the exams, but studied them later in the forces and at night School for interest. I talked my sister through her O levels, working things out with her for which she has always been thankful.
Remember, the best climber is not often the best teacher of climbing, your friends can often relate bettter and help you sort things out.
Someone said that integration was taught with no relation to how it is used. That shows a poor teacher. Even a primary school teacher knows that showing ten apples and taking away 3 will allow the pupil to see what 10-3 is in real terms. Some people just don't get abstract ideas till they find a use for them.
An example. A lad was mad keen on football and wanted to bend it like Beckam. I pointed him at vectors and trajectories that are used, and he got down to study them. A method of getting someone to study stuff they thought would be no use to them.
>- the often trotted out "dumbing down of exams" argument.
Did you see my posting of the syllabus from 20 years ago? It was not possible to do A levels, never mind get into uni without some sort of pass in O levels, so Tom, and thousands more would not be at uni now.
Remember, I left school at 15 so never got chance to take the exams, but studied them later in the forces and at night School for interest. I talked my sister through her O levels, working things out with her for which she has always been thankful.
Remember, the best climber is not often the best teacher of climbing, your friends can often relate bettter and help you sort things out.
Someone said that integration was taught with no relation to how it is used. That shows a poor teacher. Even a primary school teacher knows that showing ten apples and taking away 3 will allow the pupil to see what 10-3 is in real terms. Some people just don't get abstract ideas till they find a use for them.
An example. A lad was mad keen on football and wanted to bend it like Beckam. I pointed him at vectors and trajectories that are used, and he got down to study them. A method of getting someone to study stuff they thought would be no use to them.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
Get a book and teach yourself.
University is about learning to be self-sufficient, NOT being spoon-fed in lectures, they're only meant to form the base introduction to an area and you are expected to spend time in the library reading books/articles to deepen the knowledge.
Its worth remembering that few lecturers actually have any formal training in how to teach, they have got to that position via Phd -> fellowship -> lecturer, so don't be surprised if you come across others who are crap at leacturing (there are of course many great lecturers). And PowerPoint is the scourge of all presentations (see Tufte http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint and an article on the same subject by him in wired http://is.gd/RmHx9A )
I had a lecturer in my third year who was near completing a book and was just reading out slides to us. I chose to go and buy the recommended course book and teach myself from it. Got my highest mark of all modules taken that year in this particular subject.
Get a book and teach yourself.
University is about learning to be self-sufficient, NOT being spoon-fed in lectures, they're only meant to form the base introduction to an area and you are expected to spend time in the library reading books/articles to deepen the knowledge.
Its worth remembering that few lecturers actually have any formal training in how to teach, they have got to that position via Phd -> fellowship -> lecturer, so don't be surprised if you come across others who are crap at leacturing (there are of course many great lecturers). And PowerPoint is the scourge of all presentations (see Tufte http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint and an article on the same subject by him in wired http://is.gd/RmHx9A )
I had a lecturer in my third year who was near completing a book and was just reading out slides to us. I chose to go and buy the recommended course book and teach myself from it. Got my highest mark of all modules taken that year in this particular subject.
In reply to galpinos:
Thats just so sad. These frequency domain techniques are beautiful and so practical and when linked with Matlab or similar allow amazing engineering work to be done.
Thats just so sad. These frequency domain techniques are beautiful and so practical and when linked with Matlab or similar allow amazing engineering work to be done.
In reply to slacky: ...and others doing what you did can end up underperforming. It's always best to attend maths lectures, the bad ones can be funny and if you are not careful you may miss the focus given to the other students who did attend.
Very basic calculus was in my GCSE's (2001), much more in depth in A-level, but this is kinda irrelevant, especially given that the OP has done A-level anyway, which it's a very big part of!
At uni the subject was just skirted over as it was assumed you should know it. Extra classes were offered by the department if you felt you struggled with any of the maths.
Lecturers generally don't sit there and spend their time going over examples, for every hour of lectures we were expected to do 5 hours of independent study (this of course varies by degree, if you do history it's more like 20 hours per lecture :P). Also had tutorials where the lecturer and phd students helped you with the examples.
The type of teaching at uni is very different to that at school which does take some getting used to but you are expected to get to grips with the matter in your own time, not have the lecturer work through examples for hours.
Stroud is invaluable, explains things really well and full of exercises and plenty of worked examples - I highly recommend it (I did Chem eng, but there seems to be a copy in every house that has anyone doing anything vaguely science related).
With regards to complaining it's worth doing if you feel the lecturer isn't up to scratch, just make sure it's on reasonable grounds not because you didn't realise how different uni is to school. Most people who've been to uni will remember having some awful lecturers (they may be great at research but that doesn't mean they can teach) and I imagine that only by raising it as an issue is it going to get looked at (not that I ever did, but the really awful ones always seemed to stick just to research the next year so presumably others did)
At uni the subject was just skirted over as it was assumed you should know it. Extra classes were offered by the department if you felt you struggled with any of the maths.
Lecturers generally don't sit there and spend their time going over examples, for every hour of lectures we were expected to do 5 hours of independent study (this of course varies by degree, if you do history it's more like 20 hours per lecture :P). Also had tutorials where the lecturer and phd students helped you with the examples.
The type of teaching at uni is very different to that at school which does take some getting used to but you are expected to get to grips with the matter in your own time, not have the lecturer work through examples for hours.
Stroud is invaluable, explains things really well and full of exercises and plenty of worked examples - I highly recommend it (I did Chem eng, but there seems to be a copy in every house that has anyone doing anything vaguely science related).
With regards to complaining it's worth doing if you feel the lecturer isn't up to scratch, just make sure it's on reasonable grounds not because you didn't realise how different uni is to school. Most people who've been to uni will remember having some awful lecturers (they may be great at research but that doesn't mean they can teach) and I imagine that only by raising it as an issue is it going to get looked at (not that I ever did, but the really awful ones always seemed to stick just to research the next year so presumably others did)
In reply to Offwidth:
Perhaps, but the course description should have clearly defined objectives of the topic matter that should be covered and learnt, stick to that and you can't go far wrong.
An "underperformer" would (or should) identify this themselves and seek additional help/support, regardless of how they are teaching themselves (and yes if someone is struggling on their own then obviously attending lectures would be the correct thing to try first).
But in this instance its a topic that has already been covered at A-level, so its a case of "re-learning" which with a decent text book (focused on the area of interest with relevant applied examples) it shouldn't be too hard.
The reference I make above of my own experience was the only module I didn't bother attending lectures for the three years of my undergraduate degree, I went to every other lecture and am glad I did, they provided a good base for my additional reading/studying. But when I could see that I was not gaining anything from the lecturer (as sounds like the case here) I opted for an alternative.
Perhaps, but the course description should have clearly defined objectives of the topic matter that should be covered and learnt, stick to that and you can't go far wrong.
An "underperformer" would (or should) identify this themselves and seek additional help/support, regardless of how they are teaching themselves (and yes if someone is struggling on their own then obviously attending lectures would be the correct thing to try first).
But in this instance its a topic that has already been covered at A-level, so its a case of "re-learning" which with a decent text book (focused on the area of interest with relevant applied examples) it shouldn't be too hard.
The reference I make above of my own experience was the only module I didn't bother attending lectures for the three years of my undergraduate degree, I went to every other lecture and am glad I did, they provided a good base for my additional reading/studying. But when I could see that I was not gaining anything from the lecturer (as sounds like the case here) I opted for an alternative.
In reply to tlm:
Nooo!, don't encourage them to put in interactive whiteboards! Normal whiteboards are just way better! One of my pet hates is IT depts who take away the whiteboard, replace it with an interactive whiteboard, and then expect you teach in that room!
> Suggest things that are postive "I would like to see problems being demonstrated on the
> interactive whiteboard" and it always sounds better than just a load of negative comments...
> interactive whiteboard" and it always sounds better than just a load of negative comments...
Nooo!, don't encourage them to put in interactive whiteboards! Normal whiteboards are just way better! One of my pet hates is IT depts who take away the whiteboard, replace it with an interactive whiteboard, and then expect you teach in that room!
In reply to Tom Ripley:
I think shitty lecturing is going to become much more of an issue in the future when the new fees system comes into place.
I think shitty lecturing is going to become much more of an issue in the future when the new fees system comes into place.
In reply to Jaffacake:
Wowsers! I had 20-24 hrs of lectures a week at uni, I certainly didn't do 100+ hrs of study on top of that!
> for every hour of lectures we were expected to do 5 hours of independent study
Wowsers! I had 20-24 hrs of lectures a week at uni, I certainly didn't do 100+ hrs of study on top of that!
In reply to Dauphin:
There shouldn't be. But when an individual is paying for it themselves, rather than it being paid for by a huge, uncaring state machine, I think there's a difference.
The state shouldn't be wasting money on sub-standard education, but the reality is that it does, and it sees only the 'bigger picture', and thus misses (and doesn't care much about) the individual pixels that make up that picture. The reason it doesn't look at the pixels is that it's too expensive to evaluate and monitor at that level.
> Agree with you, but how is it morally different from when 'the taxpayer' was paying all of it?
There shouldn't be. But when an individual is paying for it themselves, rather than it being paid for by a huge, uncaring state machine, I think there's a difference.
The state shouldn't be wasting money on sub-standard education, but the reality is that it does, and it sees only the 'bigger picture', and thus misses (and doesn't care much about) the individual pixels that make up that picture. The reason it doesn't look at the pixels is that it's too expensive to evaluate and monitor at that level.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Couldn't agree more.
> Nooo!, don't encourage them to put in interactive whiteboards! Normal whiteboards are just way better! One of my pet hates is IT depts who take away the whiteboard, replace it with an interactive whiteboard, and then expect you teach in that room!
Couldn't agree more.
In reply to galpinos:
I had a similar amount of 'contact time' but half of it was tutorials and labs, not counting them as lectures that's 50+ hours a week they apparently expected, although that doesn't include the 3rd term or holidays, I guess it averages out
I think the general rule is that you're supposed to do 100 hours for every 10 credits, which is 1200 hours a year, so over the 30 weeks of term time is still 40 hours a week (or 60 hours a week just over the teaching terms, fairly similar to above).
Yes, uni is supposed to be a full time job
I had a similar amount of 'contact time' but half of it was tutorials and labs, not counting them as lectures that's 50+ hours a week they apparently expected, although that doesn't include the 3rd term or holidays, I guess it averages out
I think the general rule is that you're supposed to do 100 hours for every 10 credits, which is 1200 hours a year, so over the 30 weeks of term time is still 40 hours a week (or 60 hours a week just over the teaching terms, fairly similar to above).
Yes, uni is supposed to be a full time job
In reply to Tom Ripley: I would speak to the lecturer in question and just explain what you think/feel but be diplomatic about it, chances are he will understand and try to accomodate you rather than tell you it's tough luck.
In reply to slacky:
Thus embodied is the modern ethos of many universities, and the students swallow this rubbish wholesale... ...its bollocks. As is the myth that being self-sufficient and learning how to learn wasn't a facet of past university environments. The expectations were far higher and the resources required of the student were never less than they are today. Students are being sold down the river and don't even realise it... ...indeed they preach the same mantras.
> University is about learning to be self-sufficient, NOT being spoon-fed in lectures, they're only meant to form the base introduction to an area and you are expected to spend time in the library reading books/articles to deepen the knowledge.
Thus embodied is the modern ethos of many universities, and the students swallow this rubbish wholesale... ...its bollocks. As is the myth that being self-sufficient and learning how to learn wasn't a facet of past university environments. The expectations were far higher and the resources required of the student were never less than they are today. Students are being sold down the river and don't even realise it... ...indeed they preach the same mantras.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
I'm a lecturer and would say unequivocally that you must complain: discuss it with the lecturer first (because I'd be annoyed if someone hadn't even asked a question before complaining), and then to someone above. The reality is that it is unlikely to help you, but more likely those in following years, but it's right to do it anyway. Don't believe this crap about lectures only being about spoon feeding. They are your opportunity to learn from someone who should be secure in their knowledge. They are your opportunity to learn what hasn't been clear from your reading of the books thus far. You should be able to ask them questions, and they should be able to ask you question too.
I'm a lecturer and would say unequivocally that you must complain: discuss it with the lecturer first (because I'd be annoyed if someone hadn't even asked a question before complaining), and then to someone above. The reality is that it is unlikely to help you, but more likely those in following years, but it's right to do it anyway. Don't believe this crap about lectures only being about spoon feeding. They are your opportunity to learn from someone who should be secure in their knowledge. They are your opportunity to learn what hasn't been clear from your reading of the books thus far. You should be able to ask them questions, and they should be able to ask you question too.
In reply to Jimbo W;
I seem to remember people going to tutorials, do they not happen now?
I seem to remember people going to tutorials, do they not happen now?
In reply to Jimbo W:
I agree, and Universities are going to find themselves in the shit if they persist and perpetuate the notion that lecturers helping students and explaining things to them is "spoon-feeding". If you take their argument to its conclusion all the universities need to is provide a broad syllabus, a reading list, some assignments and maybe a library, then set and mark the odd exam. Hardly £9000 a year worth of value there in my opinion - more like £500.
> (In reply to slacky)
>
> [...]
>
> Thus embodied is the modern ethos of many universities, and the students swallow this rubbish wholesale... ...its bollocks. As is the myth that being self-sufficient and learning how to learn wasn't a facet of past university environments. The expectations were far higher and the resources required of the student were never less than they are today. Students are being sold down the river and don't even realise it... ...indeed they preach the same mantras.
>
> [...]
>
> Thus embodied is the modern ethos of many universities, and the students swallow this rubbish wholesale... ...its bollocks. As is the myth that being self-sufficient and learning how to learn wasn't a facet of past university environments. The expectations were far higher and the resources required of the student were never less than they are today. Students are being sold down the river and don't even realise it... ...indeed they preach the same mantras.
I agree, and Universities are going to find themselves in the shit if they persist and perpetuate the notion that lecturers helping students and explaining things to them is "spoon-feeding". If you take their argument to its conclusion all the universities need to is provide a broad syllabus, a reading list, some assignments and maybe a library, then set and mark the odd exam. Hardly £9000 a year worth of value there in my opinion - more like £500.
In reply to Jimbo W:
They are your opportunity to learn what hasn't been clear from your reading of the books thus far. You should be able to ask them questions, and they should be able to ask you question too.
Up to a point. A typical lecture may have 100+ students in it (300+ on some courses). Taking individual questions won't really work in that environment. Tutorials are the place for one to one discussions. Lectures should of course be useful and comprehensible though.
They are your opportunity to learn what hasn't been clear from your reading of the books thus far. You should be able to ask them questions, and they should be able to ask you question too.
Up to a point. A typical lecture may have 100+ students in it (300+ on some courses). Taking individual questions won't really work in that environment. Tutorials are the place for one to one discussions. Lectures should of course be useful and comprehensible though.
In reply to MG:
Yes I agree. My lectures typically have close to 200 students. However, one student has the ability to clarify something that has bypassed most of the students in the lecture. It can't be a complete rammy, but when a lecture is good a few well placed questions are usually beneficial, enlightening and enhance interest and further development of the subject matter and a bit of to and fro at the end is essential. Regarding tutorials: I inherited responsibility for some tutorials that took a spoon feed students model (many tutorials are like this here and hand outs are obligatory) and left little to interaction, I reversed this situation in my tutorials by designing a picture based tutorial (in which there was a cross section of brain with a lesion to be described and act as a focus for discussion and further questions). The students were surprised but enjoyed the session, and even though they were put on the spot much more, fed back very positively. In contrast, some of the people delivering them were not that happy. They had to do more preparation, they didn't get a hand out telling them what the answers were to the questions, because the questions were expected to emerge didactically from a core lesion the students should already know something about.
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> They are your opportunity to learn what hasn't been clear from your reading of the books thus far. You should be able to ask them questions, and they should be able to ask you question too.
>
> Up to a point. A typical lecture may have 100+ students in it (300+ on some courses). Taking individual questions won't really work in that environment. Tutorials are the place for one to one discussions. Lectures should of course be useful and comprehensible though.
> They are your opportunity to learn what hasn't been clear from your reading of the books thus far. You should be able to ask them questions, and they should be able to ask you question too.
>
> Up to a point. A typical lecture may have 100+ students in it (300+ on some courses). Taking individual questions won't really work in that environment. Tutorials are the place for one to one discussions. Lectures should of course be useful and comprehensible though.
Yes I agree. My lectures typically have close to 200 students. However, one student has the ability to clarify something that has bypassed most of the students in the lecture. It can't be a complete rammy, but when a lecture is good a few well placed questions are usually beneficial, enlightening and enhance interest and further development of the subject matter and a bit of to and fro at the end is essential. Regarding tutorials: I inherited responsibility for some tutorials that took a spoon feed students model (many tutorials are like this here and hand outs are obligatory) and left little to interaction, I reversed this situation in my tutorials by designing a picture based tutorial (in which there was a cross section of brain with a lesion to be described and act as a focus for discussion and further questions). The students were surprised but enjoyed the session, and even though they were put on the spot much more, fed back very positively. In contrast, some of the people delivering them were not that happy. They had to do more preparation, they didn't get a hand out telling them what the answers were to the questions, because the questions were expected to emerge didactically from a core lesion the students should already know something about.
In reply to wayno265:
PBL the freeing up of education from universities - conversely this means any idiot can 'teach' a subject. Run along my pretties and read some books - that we be £9000. Tah very much.
Regards
D
PBL the freeing up of education from universities - conversely this means any idiot can 'teach' a subject. Run along my pretties and read some books - that we be £9000. Tah very much.
Regards
D
In reply to Tom Ripley: instead of expending all that mental energy whining, why not get a textbook and try to get to grips with the subject? As a previous poster said, it isn't school. In my experience lecturers in Statistics or Maths were usually on a hiding to nothing as the subject is "difficult" and therefore the blame is laid at the lecturer's door.
If going through worked examples has worked for you in the past, and for the exact same topic, then do that again. Sorry to sound harsh, but I don't think petitions, disciplinary proceedings, and genral harassing of a lecturer is going to help you.
If going through worked examples has worked for you in the past, and for the exact same topic, then do that again. Sorry to sound harsh, but I don't think petitions, disciplinary proceedings, and genral harassing of a lecturer is going to help you.
In reply to sutty:
Less and less, since tutorials with 1 or 2 students are expensive. Instead you tend to get (in the humanities) "seminars" with groups of 8-10 or (in the sciences) "problem classes" with maybe 15 to 25 students, where you work through examples and there is a staff member and a couple of PhD students to help and explain things to you.
> I seem to remember people going to tutorials, do they not happen now?
Less and less, since tutorials with 1 or 2 students are expensive. Instead you tend to get (in the humanities) "seminars" with groups of 8-10 or (in the sciences) "problem classes" with maybe 15 to 25 students, where you work through examples and there is a staff member and a couple of PhD students to help and explain things to you.
In reply to shropshirelass:
Tosh, he should get good teaching. Students and the taxpayer pay for it. Yes, working through examples and self-learning with textbooks is important, but so is good teaching. And feedback from the students, with two-way communication about expectations and how things are working out, are important parts of that.
> Sorry to sound harsh, but I don't think petitions, disciplinary proceedings, and genral
> harassing of a lecturer is going to help you.
> harassing of a lecturer is going to help you.
Tosh, he should get good teaching. Students and the taxpayer pay for it. Yes, working through examples and self-learning with textbooks is important, but so is good teaching. And feedback from the students, with two-way communication about expectations and how things are working out, are important parts of that.
In reply to Tom Ripley:
I'm starting to like this thread - you managed to get it going without needing to revisit - 8/10
I'm starting to like this thread - you managed to get it going without needing to revisit - 8/10
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Isnt this the problem with the dual purpose of teaching and research.
This lecturer might be more than covering his costs in terms of research.
> Tosh, he should get good teaching. Students and the taxpayer pay for it.
Isnt this the problem with the dual purpose of teaching and research.
This lecturer might be more than covering his costs in terms of research.
In reply to dissonance:
He may be, but that's not an excuse, the department have an obligation to provide good teaching. If they want to give a research star a zero teaching load then that's up to them, but they need to ensure that the actual teaching they provide is to a good standard. If a good researcher is crap at lecturing there are other things they can give him to do, such as supervising laboratory classes or various admin roles (or they can train him to improve).
> Isnt this the problem with the dual purpose of teaching and research.
> This lecturer might be more than covering his costs in terms of research.
> This lecturer might be more than covering his costs in terms of research.
He may be, but that's not an excuse, the department have an obligation to provide good teaching. If they want to give a research star a zero teaching load then that's up to them, but they need to ensure that the actual teaching they provide is to a good standard. If a good researcher is crap at lecturing there are other things they can give him to do, such as supervising laboratory classes or various admin roles (or they can train him to improve).
In reply to dissonance:
Having active research staff lecturing should have a benefit for students in an ideal world, bringing relevant examples from the cutting edge.
Unfortunately lecturers for whom lecturing is a chore and an irrelevance are inevitably the worst.
Having active research staff lecturing should have a benefit for students in an ideal world, bringing relevant examples from the cutting edge.
Unfortunately lecturers for whom lecturing is a chore and an irrelevance are inevitably the worst.
In reply to Removed User:
The worst lectures I've seen (or dealt with complaints from) were mainly all from non-researchers with a chip on their shoulder, with the exception of the head of Cavendish filling in at short notice on a thermo class. I've never seen a clear correlation between research activity and teaching quality. I have noticed a big correlation with quality and wanting to be there (ie staff forced to take classes they dont want to do generally perform worse) a few of these were researchers with declining grants having to pick up more teaching.
The worst lectures I've seen (or dealt with complaints from) were mainly all from non-researchers with a chip on their shoulder, with the exception of the head of Cavendish filling in at short notice on a thermo class. I've never seen a clear correlation between research activity and teaching quality. I have noticed a big correlation with quality and wanting to be there (ie staff forced to take classes they dont want to do generally perform worse) a few of these were researchers with declining grants having to pick up more teaching.
In reply to Removed User:
But the active research staff tends to get annoyed when students don´t listen. Seems to get worse by the year, and really takes the joy out of teaching (I don´t have to teach, but do it because I like it).
I was just grading the semester exams of our glorious new biomedical masters course, and half the questions were not answered by any student. Funnily enough, these were the supposedly easy ones. Makes you wonder why you spend a weekend per lecture preparing (can´t fit it into the normal lab routine during the week).
Bachelor level is even worse. Last year we got emails 10 min after the exam asking for lenient grading because the PP slides of one lecture were not yet posted on the net. We don´t even have to provide the bloody slides, we are just too nice for our own good.
What is wrong with reading a textbook if you didn´t understand what was presented? When I was a student I wouldn´t have dreamt of complaining to the lecturer after failing to answer an exam question.
CB
But the active research staff tends to get annoyed when students don´t listen. Seems to get worse by the year, and really takes the joy out of teaching (I don´t have to teach, but do it because I like it).
I was just grading the semester exams of our glorious new biomedical masters course, and half the questions were not answered by any student. Funnily enough, these were the supposedly easy ones. Makes you wonder why you spend a weekend per lecture preparing (can´t fit it into the normal lab routine during the week).
Bachelor level is even worse. Last year we got emails 10 min after the exam asking for lenient grading because the PP slides of one lecture were not yet posted on the net. We don´t even have to provide the bloody slides, we are just too nice for our own good.
What is wrong with reading a textbook if you didn´t understand what was presented? When I was a student I wouldn´t have dreamt of complaining to the lecturer after failing to answer an exam question.
CB
In reply to dissonance:
Just because he's bad at lecturing to a (presumably huge) class of first years, doesn't mean he's necessarily bad with small groups in their final year. The guy I referred to earlier as 'dire', he was dire for first year analysis, but I gather he was very good at MSc level. The other one who was a problem, with him it was the reverse ... he was fine teaching basic calculus and other ploddy courses, but he'd fancied teaching something from his research area to third years and it was so not good.
So they may well be able to successfully move this guy to another course, if they know there's a problem.
Just because he's bad at lecturing to a (presumably huge) class of first years, doesn't mean he's necessarily bad with small groups in their final year. The guy I referred to earlier as 'dire', he was dire for first year analysis, but I gather he was very good at MSc level. The other one who was a problem, with him it was the reverse ... he was fine teaching basic calculus and other ploddy courses, but he'd fancied teaching something from his research area to third years and it was so not good.
So they may well be able to successfully move this guy to another course, if they know there's a problem.
In reply to Tom Ripley: Man up, get your old maths books. Im on an engineering course and every lecture is like this. If my old maths and physics teachers were teaching it we'd all get firsts its probably really simple. The lecturers are probably really clever but they dont know how to teach and have no common sense which doesnt help any one.
In reply to gingerkate:
I think as a rule that no-one should teach their research area (at least at undergrad level, it's more ok beyond that), since it often leads to stuff being presented at the wrong level in the wrong way.
> he'd fancied teaching something from his research area to third years and it was so not good.
I think as a rule that no-one should teach their research area (at least at undergrad level, it's more ok beyond that), since it often leads to stuff being presented at the wrong level in the wrong way.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Maybe it varies between subjects but some of the best lectures I had as an undergrad (biology & environmental sciences) were lecturers talking about their own areas of research - but also some of the worst
> (In reply to gingerkate)
> I think as a rule that no-one should teach their research area (at least at undergrad level, it's more ok beyond that),
Maybe it varies between subjects but some of the best lectures I had as an undergrad (biology & environmental sciences) were lecturers talking about their own areas of research - but also some of the worst
In reply to Doug:
That was my experience with some of my physics lectures. I can still remember a solid-state physics culminating with the lecturer standing back from the board looking at the expressions he'd written with the words "I discovered that when I was at MIT". It made the whole subject very much more real and alive, knowing that it was still in a state where one of my lecturers had been making active contributions.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe it varies between subjects but some of the best lectures I had as an undergrad (biology & environmental sciences) were lecturers talking about their own areas of research
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe it varies between subjects but some of the best lectures I had as an undergrad (biology & environmental sciences) were lecturers talking about their own areas of research
That was my experience with some of my physics lectures. I can still remember a solid-state physics culminating with the lecturer standing back from the board looking at the expressions he'd written with the words "I discovered that when I was at MIT". It made the whole subject very much more real and alive, knowing that it was still in a state where one of my lecturers had been making active contributions.
In reply to Doug:
I don't think it does vary between subjects. Lecturers always seem best to me when they are most interested in the lecture. People do form impressions though when they are students and often unfairly generalise. I've always been involved with dealing with complaints for one reason or another in my 27 years as an academic and have had to sort out many problems ranging from minor complaints to academic dismissals and I'm linked up with similar staff in many other institutions.
I'd say more than half of student complaints are misinformed with the worst percentage being at year 1: where the lecturer is fine but the students are struggling with the system, especially the difference between school and Uni. 'Complaining' is vital whatever though, as by discussing issues the real problem can be quickly tackled, system or staff. Everything works best when staff and students communicate.
I'm not a fan of the student surveys as the information arrives too late to solve most problems, it doesn't allow you to dig at what the issues are behind the complaint and it and allows the minority of malicious comments to appear more serious than they are and go unchallenged.
I don't think it does vary between subjects. Lecturers always seem best to me when they are most interested in the lecture. People do form impressions though when they are students and often unfairly generalise. I've always been involved with dealing with complaints for one reason or another in my 27 years as an academic and have had to sort out many problems ranging from minor complaints to academic dismissals and I'm linked up with similar staff in many other institutions.
I'd say more than half of student complaints are misinformed with the worst percentage being at year 1: where the lecturer is fine but the students are struggling with the system, especially the difference between school and Uni. 'Complaining' is vital whatever though, as by discussing issues the real problem can be quickly tackled, system or staff. Everything works best when staff and students communicate.
I'm not a fan of the student surveys as the information arrives too late to solve most problems, it doesn't allow you to dig at what the issues are behind the complaint and it and allows the minority of malicious comments to appear more serious than they are and go unchallenged.
In reply to tony and Coel and Doug:
Looking back now, it is not entirely clear to me why he made such a bad job of it. It wasn't, as you'd perhaps expect, that the maths was too sophisticated. It was more that there was no sensible structure to the course, it all seemed incredibly fluffy-minded and arm-waving and directionless. I can only think that he didn't have the skills to organise the course effectively, and that this didn't show up when he was teaching routine courses because he was able to lift the structure from texts, or from other's course notes.
Looking back now, it is not entirely clear to me why he made such a bad job of it. It wasn't, as you'd perhaps expect, that the maths was too sophisticated. It was more that there was no sensible structure to the course, it all seemed incredibly fluffy-minded and arm-waving and directionless. I can only think that he didn't have the skills to organise the course effectively, and that this didn't show up when he was teaching routine courses because he was able to lift the structure from texts, or from other's course notes.
In reply to gingerkate:
Or as I hinted, maybe he didn't want to be there. Its really hard these days to get away with that sort of thing, although when I first started it was more common. I've know a few really dedicated staff with real prolems in lecture delivery (dyslexia being one cause) but they were always great in seminars and labs and project work so overall the student's learnt a lot and forgave them the presentation issues.
Or as I hinted, maybe he didn't want to be there. Its really hard these days to get away with that sort of thing, although when I first started it was more common. I've know a few really dedicated staff with real prolems in lecture delivery (dyslexia being one cause) but they were always great in seminars and labs and project work so overall the student's learnt a lot and forgave them the presentation issues.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Its not that simple though. The problem is also the fundamental dichotomy between research and teaching activity. They have become politically insulated from each other and in many cases different sides of management do not see the other's activity as valid. Universities view researchers activity in terms of financial value added more than anything else. Thus research value tends to follow historical fad rather than taking educated risks on future value. In this type of equation, teaching is a major distraction and irrelevant. If you're not competitively bringing money in you'll be losing your tenure soon; and here that is highly competitive. As a result, the numbers of lecturers tend to be alot less (at least in my discipline) and usually have fairly insignificant research portfolios. It’s hardly surprising that some people are now talking about scrapping lectures entirely.
I see these activities as being at least in part a function of universities acting like businesses. For example, in my experience traditional depts like ecology, biology and chemistry get closed down and absorbed into something like "life sciences" (where the research money is). Similarly, physical sciences have been geared towards engineering, and particularly oil relevant engineering. Primary research activity and funding have exploded in these areas while teaching has never been so "hands off". Thus, as is evidenced from the way many students think on this thread, absorbing the mantras of their educationalist masters, students will not have the critical faculties to make a university market work. That fees are going to improve the quality of university teaching seems to me to be highly questionable, because there is no fertile thinking within universities to utilise that money well. I see a generation of students having the worst of both worlds: ridiculous fees and poor value for money.
> He may be, but that's not an excuse, the department have an obligation to provide good teaching. If they want to give a research star a zero teaching load then that's up to them, but they need to ensure that the actual teaching they provide is to a good standard. If a good researcher is crap at lecturing there are other things they can give him to do, such as supervising laboratory classes or various admin roles (or they can train him to improve).
Its not that simple though. The problem is also the fundamental dichotomy between research and teaching activity. They have become politically insulated from each other and in many cases different sides of management do not see the other's activity as valid. Universities view researchers activity in terms of financial value added more than anything else. Thus research value tends to follow historical fad rather than taking educated risks on future value. In this type of equation, teaching is a major distraction and irrelevant. If you're not competitively bringing money in you'll be losing your tenure soon; and here that is highly competitive. As a result, the numbers of lecturers tend to be alot less (at least in my discipline) and usually have fairly insignificant research portfolios. It’s hardly surprising that some people are now talking about scrapping lectures entirely.
I see these activities as being at least in part a function of universities acting like businesses. For example, in my experience traditional depts like ecology, biology and chemistry get closed down and absorbed into something like "life sciences" (where the research money is). Similarly, physical sciences have been geared towards engineering, and particularly oil relevant engineering. Primary research activity and funding have exploded in these areas while teaching has never been so "hands off". Thus, as is evidenced from the way many students think on this thread, absorbing the mantras of their educationalist masters, students will not have the critical faculties to make a university market work. That fees are going to improve the quality of university teaching seems to me to be highly questionable, because there is no fertile thinking within universities to utilise that money well. I see a generation of students having the worst of both worlds: ridiculous fees and poor value for money.
In reply to Offwidth:
Well he _seemed_ to want to be there. The course was his idea. And his status in the dept was such that it would be surprising if he were teaching a course he didn't want to teach. Who knows.
Well he _seemed_ to want to be there. The course was his idea. And his status in the dept was such that it would be surprising if he were teaching a course he didn't want to teach. Who knows.
In reply to Offwidth:
Student feedback and surveys are disastrous. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and students do vote for less subject matter, less exams, less coursework etc. Students are rightly focussed on the big tick box at the end of the day, which is their degree certificate, but not on the burden of learning during the process to get there and the feedback and surveys provide ample evidence of this.
> I'm not a fan of the student surveys as the information arrives too late to solve most problems
Student feedback and surveys are disastrous. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and students do vote for less subject matter, less exams, less coursework etc. Students are rightly focussed on the big tick box at the end of the day, which is their degree certificate, but not on the burden of learning during the process to get there and the feedback and surveys provide ample evidence of this.
In reply to Jimbo W:
Yeah. I see the rise and rise of examples classes in maths as part of a downward trend. The universities like them, as they appear more time-efficient than tutorials. The students often like them, because like with most of us, there's a natural tendency towards laziness, and an examples class, where (in maths at anyrate), you're essentially told how to do the problems, is undemanding intellectually. But they are really really really crap for developing young mathematicians. With maths it is the struggle to do the problem that effects the development process. Not the 'getting the answer right'. Examples classes are all about getting the answers right, and zilch about growing student's maths brains.
Yeah. I see the rise and rise of examples classes in maths as part of a downward trend. The universities like them, as they appear more time-efficient than tutorials. The students often like them, because like with most of us, there's a natural tendency towards laziness, and an examples class, where (in maths at anyrate), you're essentially told how to do the problems, is undemanding intellectually. But they are really really really crap for developing young mathematicians. With maths it is the struggle to do the problem that effects the development process. Not the 'getting the answer right'. Examples classes are all about getting the answers right, and zilch about growing student's maths brains.
In reply to Jimbo W:
"The problem is also the fundamental dichotomy between research and teaching activity." I really don't believe this: the best lectures I've had have all been from researchers and the best lecturers in my team are highly research active and the interaction into courses is good. What there often is though is a tension for time and a lack of 'horses for courses' in researcher's teaching allocation.
I also don't think its isolated mangement of the two camps that's to blame, its a lack of leadership from above. UK University senior management has never been worse in my view... where they should be fighting together to defend academia they just apply stupid policy like sheep and work to beggar their neighbour. The closures and mergers occur because there is no protected space for key subjects that a uniform defense from the sector would have produced. In a market environment you can't run courses with no students paying the bills, so mergers and closures are inevitable.
As for the future I remain an optimist. Silly ideas and piss poor planning get 'outed' eventually. We have got a difficult few years ahead though.
"The problem is also the fundamental dichotomy between research and teaching activity." I really don't believe this: the best lectures I've had have all been from researchers and the best lecturers in my team are highly research active and the interaction into courses is good. What there often is though is a tension for time and a lack of 'horses for courses' in researcher's teaching allocation.
I also don't think its isolated mangement of the two camps that's to blame, its a lack of leadership from above. UK University senior management has never been worse in my view... where they should be fighting together to defend academia they just apply stupid policy like sheep and work to beggar their neighbour. The closures and mergers occur because there is no protected space for key subjects that a uniform defense from the sector would have produced. In a market environment you can't run courses with no students paying the bills, so mergers and closures are inevitable.
As for the future I remain an optimist. Silly ideas and piss poor planning get 'outed' eventually. We have got a difficult few years ahead though.
In reply to Offwidth:
Sorry. I wasn't that clear, but I actually agree with you. It was more the provision of teaching and lecturing that I was criticising, i.e. that it is very difficult to actually do both in the current climate of management.
> "The problem is also the fundamental dichotomy between research and teaching activity." I really don't believe this: the best lectures I've had have all been from researchers and the best lecturers in my team are highly research active and the interaction into courses is good.
Sorry. I wasn't that clear, but I actually agree with you. It was more the provision of teaching and lecturing that I was criticising, i.e. that it is very difficult to actually do both in the current climate of management.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think that's true - I've usually got better evaluations when talking outside my area about something I know little but which I have a lot of opinions about!
When I talk about my area of expertise, the students hate it and can't answer my very easy (IMHO) questions that I have pointedly emphasized in the lecture...
> (In reply to gingerkate)
>
> [...]
>
> I think as a rule that no-one should teach their research area (at least at undergrad level, it's more ok beyond that), since it often leads to stuff being presented at the wrong level in the wrong way.
>
> [...]
>
> I think as a rule that no-one should teach their research area (at least at undergrad level, it's more ok beyond that), since it often leads to stuff being presented at the wrong level in the wrong way.
I think that's true - I've usually got better evaluations when talking outside my area about something I know little but which I have a lot of opinions about!
When I talk about my area of expertise, the students hate it and can't answer my very easy (IMHO) questions that I have pointedly emphasized in the lecture...
In reply to Offwidth: Sort of agree, research informs teaching...the problem is the dross in the system...
'You can't polish a turd' is a phrase which springs to mind..
'You can't polish a turd' is a phrase which springs to mind..
In reply to pneame:
My best ever evaluation results were for a subject I knew nothing at all about before being assigned the course. I got all these nice comments about how my 'enthusiasm for my subject really shone through', hee hee.
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> I think that's true - I've usually got better evaluations when talking outside my area
> [...]
>
> I think that's true - I've usually got better evaluations when talking outside my area
My best ever evaluation results were for a subject I knew nothing at all about before being assigned the course. I got all these nice comments about how my 'enthusiasm for my subject really shone through', hee hee.
In reply to IainRUK:
Not so many of the students we see (science at a top end new uni) are genuinely incapable: many are poorly prepared, many need to work a little more than we'd like to afford their studies, quite a few get carried away with living after being away from the parents for the first time, others get ill or have serious personnal problems. A good bit less than 3/4 graduate with honours, those all seem to get good jobs.
Not so many of the students we see (science at a top end new uni) are genuinely incapable: many are poorly prepared, many need to work a little more than we'd like to afford their studies, quite a few get carried away with living after being away from the parents for the first time, others get ill or have serious personnal problems. A good bit less than 3/4 graduate with honours, those all seem to get good jobs.
In reply to Offwidth: We had almost no entry criteria for a while but the recent recruits seem far stronger. My new 2nd year lot seem very good so fingers crossed...
In reply to IainRUK:
Sad to here the former point. We were always allowed to maintain some decent entry standards in my old enginering area despite being a new Uni (one reason maybe we closed) and now in the shiny technology team (undergrad numbers much more healthy and more MSc students than we can deal with). Our students have also improved recently but that's more because we can avoid clearing (unless management changes its mind on targets and uses us to make up numbers). Next year of course is the real test, I can see carnage in some institutions.
Sad to here the former point. We were always allowed to maintain some decent entry standards in my old enginering area despite being a new Uni (one reason maybe we closed) and now in the shiny technology team (undergrad numbers much more healthy and more MSc students than we can deal with). Our students have also improved recently but that's more because we can avoid clearing (unless management changes its mind on targets and uses us to make up numbers). Next year of course is the real test, I can see carnage in some institutions.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...