We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
How much do students learn at different universities?
Voyager2002
Posts: 16,349 Forumite
Ok, you may have seen press reports of the latest survey, claiming to show wide discrepancies in how much work students did, and how much teaching they received, on different courses at different places. Anyway, a Prof. here at Exeter has taken a long hard look at the data, and I am reproducing (below) what he says. In his first paragraph he notes that most of the results are not statistically significant, basically because the researchers did not talk to enough students. They did not talk to ANY final-year student, which is odd because most students work hardest, and probably learn more, in their final years.
In his second paragraph he reports how well Exeter did, and concludes that we were in the middle of the pack, which is what everyone knows anyway.
QUOTE:
Colleagues may have seen in the papers or heard/seen on the news
coverage of the new study of teaching hours and related matters at
universities. Some very odd claims have emerged from this. You can find
the report on which it is based at:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityteachinginspection/
If you don't want to bother, here are some key things to feed into any
conversation on the subject.
The report is based on a survey of 14666 fulltime first and second year
students, and tries to look at both institutiona and 17 subject
groupings (at the level of the higher JACS codes, so the relevant ones
for us are Languages (includes Classics and IAIS), Social Studies
(includes Politics and Sociology) and Historical and Philosophical
Studies (includes History, Philosophy and Theology). If you think how
many institutions there are (100+) and with 17 subject groupings, then
less than 15000 students may well mean any combination of institution
and subject grouping is based on less than 10 students. In fact, the
survey only gives results where more than 10 students (at least 5
first-years and 5 second-years) responded, which means that most subject
groupings only include a small number of institutions - apparently the
mean number of students for a given result is 26, in fact. So when you
read that the average number of hours studied at university x by
language students is 30, while at university y it is 20, that may be
based on comparing the self-reported workloads of 10 students at each
place, who may make up only 1-2% of the cohort at those places. In its
fine print the survey notes that, to get 95% confidence, you would have
to regard a result of 15, say, as meaning somewhere in a range 11-19, so
the vast majority of the reported differences within the report are in
fact variations within the range of possible outcomes. Compared to the
NSS survey, which only records a result when over 50% of the eligible
students made a return, as well as requiring at least 30 students, this
survey therefore has practically no credibility as a report on specific
subjects at institutions. It is also worth noting that it is entirely
about first and second years, unlike the NSS, and so does not capture
the experience of final-year students (very significant given its focus
on how much experience students have of small-group teaching by academic
experts).
That elaborate introduction may lead you to suspect that I am rubbishing
the study because we do badly in it!! Unworthy as such a thought would
be, in fact it is not the case. The Exeter results for our three areas
are in fact about at the norm for the old university sector. Hist/phil
students at Exeter supposedly do 23.3 hours of study per week, compared
to the old university mean of 23.8, social studies 22.6 compared to 23.0
and languages 25.2 compared to 23.8. In all these areas we are in the
middle of a batch of similar universities - slightly higher in the
languages case. Contrary to much of the hype in the news, in our three
areas old university students on average work longer than new university
ones (though only slightly).
None of the other results are reported at the level of specific
institutions, so one cannot compare, say, the number of contact hours in
social studies at Exeter with those at Durham. The basic comparisons are
between old and new universities. I do not regard the satisfaction
results as of any great use, given that sample problems noted above, so
I will not discuss them.
On working hours, the results for old universities only are as follows:
Hist/phil, 8 hours of contact per teaching week, plus 2 hours in
specialist facilities (mostly unsupervised), and 16.4 hours of private
study. Social studiers are 10.7 hours contact, 2.8 in facilities (ditto)
and 13.4 private study. Languages are 9.5, 2.2 and 15 respectively. I
have no idea what students though the time in specialist facilities was:
it can hardly be the library.
The average no of assignments submitted for marking annually was 8.6
(h/p), 9.3 (s/s) and 10.2 (langs).
The % of students reporting substantive discussions with staff outside
scheduled contact hours was 50% (h/p), 43% (s/s) and 49% (Langs).
The % of seminars taught by 'academics' was 73% (h/p), 53% (s/s) and 78%
(langs)
The % of tutorials taught by 'academics' was 73%, 52% and 80%
respectively.
Practically all lectures (99% or so) are delivered by 'academics'.
I would be particularly suspicious of the headlines about being much
more likely to be taught by 'academics' at new universities than old,
because of course many of those defined as 'academics' at new
universities may not actually be better qualified academically than
those we define as 'non-academic' (ie not permanent staff, it seems) at
old universities.
I hope that is helpful.
ENDQUOTE
Of course, this raises the question why so many people read and apparently believe such stories, when the findings of the 'research' amount to -- well, to nothing at all! Perhaps we need an act of parliament to force us all, or at least all journalists, to learn a little about statistics.
(Incidentally, the Prof. who did the analysis is a historian, not a mathematician.)
In his second paragraph he reports how well Exeter did, and concludes that we were in the middle of the pack, which is what everyone knows anyway.
QUOTE:
Colleagues may have seen in the papers or heard/seen on the news
coverage of the new study of teaching hours and related matters at
universities. Some very odd claims have emerged from this. You can find
the report on which it is based at:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universityteachinginspection/
If you don't want to bother, here are some key things to feed into any
conversation on the subject.
The report is based on a survey of 14666 fulltime first and second year
students, and tries to look at both institutiona and 17 subject
groupings (at the level of the higher JACS codes, so the relevant ones
for us are Languages (includes Classics and IAIS), Social Studies
(includes Politics and Sociology) and Historical and Philosophical
Studies (includes History, Philosophy and Theology). If you think how
many institutions there are (100+) and with 17 subject groupings, then
less than 15000 students may well mean any combination of institution
and subject grouping is based on less than 10 students. In fact, the
survey only gives results where more than 10 students (at least 5
first-years and 5 second-years) responded, which means that most subject
groupings only include a small number of institutions - apparently the
mean number of students for a given result is 26, in fact. So when you
read that the average number of hours studied at university x by
language students is 30, while at university y it is 20, that may be
based on comparing the self-reported workloads of 10 students at each
place, who may make up only 1-2% of the cohort at those places. In its
fine print the survey notes that, to get 95% confidence, you would have
to regard a result of 15, say, as meaning somewhere in a range 11-19, so
the vast majority of the reported differences within the report are in
fact variations within the range of possible outcomes. Compared to the
NSS survey, which only records a result when over 50% of the eligible
students made a return, as well as requiring at least 30 students, this
survey therefore has practically no credibility as a report on specific
subjects at institutions. It is also worth noting that it is entirely
about first and second years, unlike the NSS, and so does not capture
the experience of final-year students (very significant given its focus
on how much experience students have of small-group teaching by academic
experts).
That elaborate introduction may lead you to suspect that I am rubbishing
the study because we do badly in it!! Unworthy as such a thought would
be, in fact it is not the case. The Exeter results for our three areas
are in fact about at the norm for the old university sector. Hist/phil
students at Exeter supposedly do 23.3 hours of study per week, compared
to the old university mean of 23.8, social studies 22.6 compared to 23.0
and languages 25.2 compared to 23.8. In all these areas we are in the
middle of a batch of similar universities - slightly higher in the
languages case. Contrary to much of the hype in the news, in our three
areas old university students on average work longer than new university
ones (though only slightly).
None of the other results are reported at the level of specific
institutions, so one cannot compare, say, the number of contact hours in
social studies at Exeter with those at Durham. The basic comparisons are
between old and new universities. I do not regard the satisfaction
results as of any great use, given that sample problems noted above, so
I will not discuss them.
On working hours, the results for old universities only are as follows:
Hist/phil, 8 hours of contact per teaching week, plus 2 hours in
specialist facilities (mostly unsupervised), and 16.4 hours of private
study. Social studiers are 10.7 hours contact, 2.8 in facilities (ditto)
and 13.4 private study. Languages are 9.5, 2.2 and 15 respectively. I
have no idea what students though the time in specialist facilities was:
it can hardly be the library.
The average no of assignments submitted for marking annually was 8.6
(h/p), 9.3 (s/s) and 10.2 (langs).
The % of students reporting substantive discussions with staff outside
scheduled contact hours was 50% (h/p), 43% (s/s) and 49% (Langs).
The % of seminars taught by 'academics' was 73% (h/p), 53% (s/s) and 78%
(langs)
The % of tutorials taught by 'academics' was 73%, 52% and 80%
respectively.
Practically all lectures (99% or so) are delivered by 'academics'.
I would be particularly suspicious of the headlines about being much
more likely to be taught by 'academics' at new universities than old,
because of course many of those defined as 'academics' at new
universities may not actually be better qualified academically than
those we define as 'non-academic' (ie not permanent staff, it seems) at
old universities.
I hope that is helpful.
ENDQUOTE
Of course, this raises the question why so many people read and apparently believe such stories, when the findings of the 'research' amount to -- well, to nothing at all! Perhaps we need an act of parliament to force us all, or at least all journalists, to learn a little about statistics.
(Incidentally, the Prof. who did the analysis is a historian, not a mathematician.)
0
Comments
-
regardless of the statistics it is obvious that some students do more work than others. Here at Manchester I'm doing Maths and Computer Science and my girlfriend is doing History.
Her modules are worth twice as much as mine and are easily half the work.
She has to do 6 modules a year, I do 12. Some of her modules are simply one essay. Most of mine are labwork, coursework, exams.
And incidentally, in her degree about 60% of students get a 2:1 or above, compared to about 30% on my degree.
Could someone explain that?!
Ah well, at least I won't end up working in a call centre eh?
0 -
When I did my comp-sci masters, our class was mostly biology graduates. We were all use to revising for biology exams.. when it came to take a 3rd year undergrad IT exam as part of the course, our class averaged 20% marks than the IT students taking it at the same time (i got 92%
).
Of course different degrees are more difficult/more time consuming than others. Its quite annoying though, knowing that if i'd done another subject i might have got a 2:1/1st rather than my mediocre 2:2 in a hard subject (BSc Genetics)0 -
tr3mor wrote:regardless of the statistics it is obvious that some students do more work than others. Here at Manchester I'm doing Maths and Computer Science and my girlfriend is doing History.
Her modules are worth twice as much as mine and are easily half the work.
She has to do 6 modules a year, I do 12. Some of her modules are simply one essay. Most of mine are labwork, coursework, exams.
And incidentally, in her degree about 60% of students get a 2:1 or above, compared to about 30% on my degree.
Could someone explain that?!
Ah well, at least I won't end up working in a call centre eh?
Hope your girlfriend never reads this. Sounds like you don't have a great deal of respect for her subject. Or maybe its just the way I read it.
Yes, subjects have different criteria. I did only 6 modules a year and I don't feel like I did any less work that my BSc friends who did their lab work, coursework, etc. Its whether you do the work and make the effort that counts. In my humble opinion. This is a very topical debate though as the OP noted. :rolleyes:How long til pay day? :eek:
March Grocery Challenge - £69.54 / £3000 -
It is incredible that we allow a system where our brightest Students (at Cambridge) work twice the number of hours for fewer first class degrees than students at universities that used to be Polytechnics where the A-Level entry requirement is more likely to be CCC than AAA.
Employers, of course, have seen through this egalitarian farce for what it is and have naturally made their own adjustments.
But why should the rest of us put up with it
? 0 -
ReportInvestor wrote:It is incredible that we allow a system where our brightest Students (at Cambridge) work twice the number of hours for fewer first class degrees than students at universities that used to be Polytechnics where the A-Level entry requirement is more likely to be CCC than AAA.
Employers, of course, have seen through this egalitarian farce for what it is and have naturally made their own adjustments.
But why should the rest of us put up with it ?
I'm not sure based on the tables I've just looked at I understand your comments. I agree that the spread of degree classifications is often not fair and the differences in the amount of people getting 2:1/firsts in different subject areas is ridiculous.
How can 93.5% of students at warwick studying languages get a 2:1/first yet only 61.8% of people doing engineering at the same uni get these grades?
But in science, there is a way way higher percentage of first/2:1s given out to students at oxford and cambridge. The only exception to this i saw was in engineering where more students got a first/2:1 at imperial college. But this is still a great uni and very hard to get into.
Exactly the same was seen for social sciences, law, and in languages only bristol got a higher percentage of 2:1/firsts than oxford and cambridge. In fact you go through the non science subjects and the percentage of students getting the top classifications is always in the 90s. Much higher than other unis.
I may have been looking at a different figure to you but I dont see anywhere where more firsts are given out to people who work much less hours and are at rubbish unis.
But it is true that employers know how easy it is to get what class of degree from what uni. And in almost all circumstances a 2:1/first from an ex polytechnic is not going to be worth all that much to employers.0 -
tr3mor wrote:regardless of the statistics it is obvious that some students do more work than others. Here at Manchester I'm doing Maths and Computer Science and my girlfriend is doing History.
Her modules are worth twice as much as mine and are easily half the work.
She has to do 6 modules a year, I do 12. Some of her modules are simply one essay. Most of mine are labwork, coursework, exams.
And incidentally, in her degree about 60% of students get a 2:1 or above, compared to about 30% on my degree.
Could someone explain that?!
Ah well, at least I won't end up working in a call centre eh?
History essays are not simple to write, much reading, studying and learning - all self directed must take place before even planning the essay. I would not so easily dismiss history as an easy option.0 -
No_Future wrote:History essays are not simple to write, much reading, studying and learning - all self directed must take place before even planning the essay. I would not so easily dismiss history as an easy option.
I'm sorry. I do live with my girlfriend, I know exactly how much work she has do to and it's a damned sight less than me
Trying_really_hard wrote:Hope your girlfriend never reads this. Sounds like you don't have a great deal of respect for her subject.
Don't worry, she mostly agrees with me. I think she wishes she'd done a science based subject but couldn't because she didn't do A level maths, which she really regrets now.
She probably will read this at some point. She posts as much as I do!0 -
yeah would be interesting to see cross-subject stats. A long standing argument between me and my misses was how hard our courses are. She studied language and had about 4 contact hrs a week, I did science and had about 35 contact hrs (it was pretty much 9-5), my course had a high level of direct teaching.
However she had a zillion essays to write each week, but then I had lab reports, old style q&a "homework", and even our lectures set follow up excersises so it was quite possible to spend all your waking hours working - although personally I tried to go for a good balance at possibly the cost of a 1st.
I dont think any course is easy, but some certainly involve more study time than others.Debt: a bloomin big mortgage
all posts are made for entertainment value only, nothing I say should be taken as making any sense and should really be ignored0 -
Like someone above said, it all works out in the end as employers 'see through' the injustice of different course/universities/workloads. The pharmaceutical company where i did my industrial placement would only take students on from a certain set of 'preferred universities'. Indeed, the company only advertises grad/IP jobs in those universities careers centres- they know that the quality of grads varies from uni to uni depending on the expectations set on them from their university and the workload they were given.0
-
tr3mor wrote:regardless of the statistics it is obvious that some students do more work than others. Here at Manchester I'm doing Maths and Computer Science and my girlfriend is doing History.
Her modules are worth twice as much as mine and are easily half the work.
She has to do 6 modules a year, I do 12. Some of her modules are simply one essay. Most of mine are labwork, coursework, exams.
And incidentally, in her degree about 60% of students get a 2:1 or above, compared to about 30% on my degree.
Could someone explain that?!
Ah well, at least I won't end up working in a call centre eh?
Excuse me!
I did a BSc in Mathematics, but switched to essay-based subjects at post-graduate level (and have taught and marked such subjects).
Quite simply, doing a GOOD essay involves at least as much work as an assignment in Maths/computing. However, it is possible to 'waffle' and scrape through with far less work than is required for even a weak pass in a subject like Maths or Computing. The lesson, which is obvious, is that a third or even 2.2 in a subject like History does not reflect a great deal of hard work or learning, while such a degree in a science is an achievement of some kind. However, a First in an Arts/Social Science subject probably represents at least as much hard work as does a First in any other subject.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards