The holy grail of university education.

bestpud

ceewash wrote: »

He has been trying since January. It's not easy with 30,000 students competing and its now getting to the end of the academic year. He actually wants to spend more time studying the subject he went to uni for with the"academics" we thought we were paying for. I would certainly not be so keen for my second son to go.

How about getting some voluntary work?

It will look good on his CV (especially if it is related to his course/future aspirations) and may also help him get a paid job. He can't lose really!

Re studying: students are expected to direct their own study at uni. The idea is he goes to the library and expands on lectures in his own time. If he can start doing this now, it will pay dividends later on.

poet123

It is all about discipline really, and the independent study is an important part of the whole uni experience and is very different to the relatively"spoon fed" sixth form type of study. This suits some students, others take longer to adapt.

Cardelia

ceewash wrote: »

He has been trying since January. It's not easy with 30,000 students competing and its now getting to the end of the academic year. He actually wants to spend more time studying the subject he went to uni for with the"academics" we thought we were paying for. I would certainly not be so keen for my second son to go.

You should be aware that the major role of academics within universities is to do research, not lecture to undergraduates. A lot of students (and parents, it has to be said) are under the impression that lecturers are just there to teach and have no responsibilities outside the lecture theatre. This isn't the case at all, and you'll probably find that most academics would drop lecturing to concentrate more on research if they were given the choice.

Research is what keeps the universities alive. Reputations are build (and lost!) on research, and research brings in most of the money which keeps a university going. If you looked at a breakdown of where your £3000 tuition fees go in a typical university, you'd be surprised how little finds its way to the pockets of academics and therefore how little of a lecturer's time you actually pay for.

scorpio_princess

Cardelia wrote: »

You should be aware that the major role of academics within universities is to do research, not lecture to undergraduates. A lot of students (and parents, it has to be said) are under the impression that lecturers are just there to teach and have no responsibilities outside the lecture theatre. This isn't the case at all, and you'll probably find that most academics would drop lecturing to concentrate more on research if they were given the choice.

Research is what keeps the universities alive. Reputations are build (and lost!) on research, and research brings in most of the money which keeps a university going. If you looked at a breakdown of where your £3000 tuition fees go in a typical university, you'd be surprised how little finds its way to the pockets of academics and therefore how little of a lecturer's time you actually pay for.

Blimey! I always knew the importance of research at universities, but for it to come at the expense of teaching is quite shocking! It kind of sounds like 'being a lecturer would be so great if it wasn't for those pesky students - how dare they want to learn'. Surely if there were no students, there would be no university? They should remember what they're there for! What's the point in a university getting loads of accolades and funding for research if all their students leave feeling disillusioned, demoralised and under-taught? That can't look good for any university, regardless of their research status.

Yes, I know the bulk of uni work is supposed to be self-generated (ie independent study), but if I were paying 3k a year i'd expect a bit more than being given a reading list and told to get on with it.

Thanks for this post, it has made me even more grateful that i'm getting my degree the OU way (where the teaching and student satisfaction has been labelled 'excellent' for a good few years now) :j

ceewash

scorpio_princess wrote: »

Blimey! I always knew the importance of research at universities, but for it to come at the expense of teaching is quite shocking! It kind of sounds like 'being a lecturer would be so great if it wasn't for those pesky students - how dare they want to learn'. Surely if there were no students, there would be no university? They should remember what they're there for! What's the point in a university getting loads of accolades and funding for research if all their students leave feeling disillusioned, demoralised and under-taught? That can't look good for any university, regardless of their research status.

Yes, I know the bulk of uni work is supposed to be self-generated (ie independent study), but if I were paying 3k a year i'd expect a bit more than being given a reading list and told to get on with it.

Thanks for this post, it has made me even more grateful that i'm getting my degree the OU way (where the teaching and student satisfaction has been labelled 'excellent' for a good few years now) :j

I agree ! Just how much "study" time does a student need. My degree in the 1980s was based on almost a full timetable and yes I was expected to do independent study too. My point is that parents and students should be aware when they are deciding about university to have all the facts. For most parents it is a huge financial commiiment and sacrifices have to be made, just make sure you know what you are getting then you won't be disappointed. Find out about how many hours are taught and how much independent study is required. Is the student able to fill about 2/3 of their time with time in the library or workingin their room? Is this what parents and students want from university?
My son is looking for a job not just for the money but to fill the endless hours of boredom. They have just had a "guidance" week, the second week since september- lectures cancelled for a week for a 5 minute appointment. This week has been particularly difficult as many students have gone home.

Cardelia

scorpio_princess wrote: »

Blimey! I always knew the importance of research at universities, but for it to come at the expense of teaching is quite shocking! It kind of sounds like 'being a lecturer would be so great if it wasn't for those pesky students - how dare they want to learn'. Surely if there were no students, there would be no university? They should remember what they're there for! What's the point in a university getting loads of accolades and funding for research if all their students leave feeling disillusioned, demoralised and under-taught? That can't look good for any university, regardless of their research status.

Academics are there to carry out research, in most cases they didn't choose to become an academic to teach undergraduates. They accept that if they want the freedom of intellectual expression which is afforded to them as a researcher, they have to do some teaching. But if you look at the top, top academics in any field, you'll notice they have little or no contact time with undergraduates.

Most universities would survive perfectly well as research-only institutions. If you want an example, then the postdoctoral research grant which I will (hopefully!) be working on from next month is in the region of £300,000 for 3 years, all to the university. That one grant for one researcher brings the same amount of money into a university as 8 undergraduate students paying tuition fees of £12,000 a year for a 3 year course. The funding difference between undergraduate and postgraduate (or even postdoctoral) study is vast, which is why academics are there for their research abilities and not their lecturing abilities.

ceewash

Cardelia wrote: »

Academics are there to carry out research, in most cases they didn't choose to become an academic to teach undergraduates. They accept that if they want the freedom of intellectual expression which is afforded to them as a researcher, they have to do some teaching. But if you look at the top, top academics in any field, you'll notice they have little or no contact time with undergraduates.

Most universities would survive perfectly well as research-only institutions. If you want an example, then the postdoctoral research grant which I will (hopefully!) be working on from next month is in the region of £300,000 for 3 years, all to the university. That one grant for one researcher brings the same amount of money into a university as 8 undergraduate students paying tuition fees of £12,000 a year for a 3 year course. The funding difference between undergraduate and postgraduate (or even postdoctoral) study is vast, which is why academics are there for their research abilities and not their lecturing abilities.

This is outrageous! Lecturers are not there to teach students? Parents read this before you invest in the "holy grail"! It is quite obvious when the students are at uni that lecturers are not that interested.

poet123

Then perhaps it is time to detach the research arm from the teaching arm in universities?

This would allow those who have a "vocation" to impart knowledge, to do so, and those who simply want to further their own knowledge,or gain academic status to concentrate on that. It would also then test the theory that the research arm of any given university could survive without financial input from fees.

It would also ensure the quality of teaching was good,as the lecturers would retain their jobs purely on results,rather than on the back of some research which may or may not yield any concrete results.

Cardelia

ceewash wrote: »

This is outrageous! Lecturers are not there to teach students? Parents read this before you invest in the "holy grail"! It is quite obvious when the students are at uni that lecturers are not that interested.

Most aren't there to teach, no. This has always been the case. I can't speak for every lecturer in every subject, but most of those I have worked with (or been lectured by) have made it quite clear that they would drop lecturing if they were given the choice.

However. To say that they are "not that interested" is not the case. Even though they may not like it very much, they do recognise their responsibilities towards undergraduates and will put in the required effort to make sure students get taught properly. For some courses, this means a full timetable of lectures and workshops. For others, it means one or two hours a week of contact time and plenty of self-directed study.

poet123: The system you suggest is already in place in America and it's very successful. There are institutions which specialise in undergraduate teaching and there are institutions which concentrate solely on postgraduate research. However, even those specialist teaching universities have research arms, though they are naturally more limited in scope than the postgraduate institutions.

poet123

It would be a fairer,more upfront system for those of us who are parents, and who pay for the courses our kids undertake without financial assistance.

Indeed,it would be a fairer system all round.