Perceptions of BA without hons?

Bluebird24

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But I don't see why someone who might be a brilliant historian, for example, should be graded on his/her ability to give a presentation, particularly as someone far less competent academically, but more outgoing and confident, might be able to do it with ease.

I studied History and we had to do presentations. I am really shy and quite crap at them (which is a little unfortunate as I'm starting teacher training in September) and was definitely a reader. Some people managed to do it well, but there's no way I would have had the confidence to get up and basically answer an entire final year degree level essay question off the top of my head in front of a class of very intelligent young students. We had to submit a written summary afterwards and our tutor kindly balanced the two so if the content was good and the presentation was bad, you'd still do alright, if not brilliantly.

I think the assessment methods perhaps were geared to creating all-round fantastic employees of the future but as it was old academics who did the assessing, they were more interested in our skills as historians.

omelette451

Bluebird24 wrote: »

I think the assessment methods perhaps were geared to creating all-round fantastic employees of the future but as it was old academics who did the assessing, they were more interested in our skills as historians.

I'm glad to hear it - that's what they should be testing if you're there to study history! It's nice to know they're not too harsh about not being great speakers too.

Oldernotwiser

Bluebird24 wrote: »

I studied History and we had to do presentations. I am really shy and quite crap at them (which is a little unfortunate as I'm starting teacher training in September) and was definitely a reader. Some people managed to do it well, but there's no way I would have had the confidence to get up and basically answer an entire final year degree level essay question off the top of my head in front of a class of very intelligent young students. We had to submit a written summary afterwards and our tutor kindly balanced the two so if the content was good and the presentation was bad, you'd still do alright, if not brilliantly.

I think the assessment methods perhaps were geared to creating all-round fantastic employees of the future but as it was old academics who did the assessing, they were more interested in our skills as historians.

I'm puzzled by your last paragraph, which seems to be critical of the process, despite the fact that you suffered from it.

I really don't see why someone who's shy and less outgoing should be penalised on an academic course, although I can see that it's going to be a problem for you in your future career. I can see the point in someone doing a presentation for an interview for a PGCE and even failing it if they were poor at it but what relation it has to a history degree totally escapes me.

Swirlywurly

Thanks for this thread, it is giving me the motivation to get on with my MA essay. No doubt i'll be writing a similar thread close to my disseration time, i can't even write a 2,000 essay!

bestpud

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I agree with all that you've said, having seen it myself; sometimes it almost breaks my heart to see what has been done to what was once such a wonderful education system. I feel that you need to go to one of the really good universities nowadays to get anything resembling a university education.


However, I do agree with Errata about the importance of being able to work under pressure that is tested by examinations. It also shows that a graduate can synthesize materials from a variety of sources and produce something new from them in a short time, which is a skill that anyone who has ever had to write a report will be familiar with.

I also believe anyone contemplating uni should seriously knuckle down with their A levels and go for the very best university they can. I also think they have to be careful with the subject, although I do not think people should choose a subject on status alone.

Personally, I went to uni for personal reasons and I can honestly say, despite some big problems along the way, I have gained more than I could ever have hoped from it.

I had a place at Cardiff, which is far more respected than the one I went to, and it was lack of confidence that stopped me going, but I know now that I made absolutely the right decision because, for me, the academic side has been but one part of it iyswim.

Sure, I'd have obtained a better degree but I'd probably have stuck with psychology (even if I didn't really like it) and I may well have missed out on many of the positive experiences I've had.

I'm not sure it would have been the right decision for many but I have developed so much personally that I could never look back and say it was not worth it!

I think my friends' have had a similar experience, on the whole, too, but we have all been frustrated by the lack of substance to the course.

I think exams should form a bigger part of assessments, not least because I have always found them less stressful, but I'm just not sure they should be the be all and end all.

We will have to agree to disagree I think.

Errata

We will have to agree to disagree I think.

I think you're right. People naturally defend something they've invested vast amounts of time, emotion and cash in.

Bluebird24

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I'm puzzled by your last paragraph, which seems to be critical of the process, despite the fact that you suffered from it.

I really don't see why someone who's shy and less outgoing should be penalised on an academic course, although I can see that it's going to be a problem for you in your future career. I can see the point in someone doing a presentation for an interview for a PGCE and even failing it if they were poor at it but what relation it has to a history degree totally escapes me.

I was telling it like it was, not criticising the tutors for judging our qualities as historians. Personally, I appreciated the fact.

Thankfully I have no problem talking to large groups of children as I'm pretty sure they haven't read more about what we can learn from national feeling in 19th C Russian literature than me, but I was pretty nervous at my PGCE interview trying to present a piece telling primary teachers about their own job!

bestpud

Errata wrote: »

I think you're right. People naturally defend something they've invested vast amounts of time, emotion and cash in.

Have I come across as defending the current system???

I can assure you I do not think the changes in HE are for the better! The bit I am questioning is exams being the be all and end all and that is because I am really not sure it is the best way.

What I have gained has NOT been academic - I thought I'd made that clear.

Obviously not...

Errata

oops - nothing in my post was intended for or directed at anyone in particular, just a general comment about the way of the world and human nature.

bestpud

Errata wrote: »

oops - nothing in my post was intended for or directed at anyone in particular, just a general comment about the way of the world and human nature.

Ah right!

I was wondering how on earth you had interpreted my posts as defending the current system!

I've given a lot of thought to my opinion on exams, after reading this thread.

I think my view on exams goes back to my school days and remembering very bright pupils who could not demonstrate their knowledge in an exam situation. I did fine under that system but I always remember feeling sorry for those who didn't.

Plus, I sat my GCEs just before they changed to GCSEs and I have probably taken on board all the arguments for changing the system!