The holy grail of university education.

The_One_Who

poet123 wrote: »

The average course has roughly 12 hours contact time in the first year,with less in subsequent years. I am not suggesting contact time be tripled or even necessarily doubled,merely increased to bring the overall time spent at university down to perhaps 2 instead of 3 years. This timescale would be easily achievable without compromising either the self study time, which is of course a vital component of any degree course,or the degree classification. It would be beneficial to all concerned,as currently the first year of any degree course is not counted toward the actual qualification.

In some universities the first year does count towards the final degree classification.

If contact time was upped then when would the staff find time to do their research? It's not just giving the lectures and/or labs and/or tutorials, all of those have to be prepared. Then there is marking essays and other coursework as well as marking exams.

In an arts or social science course most of the work is done through extensive reading. This cannot be taught in a lecture. Science courses (especially engineering) are already fairly intensive.

The summer holidays (useful for saving money in order to live through the next year, getting relevant work experience, or even just travelling) are a time when researchers get the chance to focus on their work. They can do field work and do work without many distractions.

poet123

I work in education and am very familiar with the demands made on academic staff outside contact time. However, I am also a realist and have worked in industry,and in many cases academics have it easy compared to those who work in industry where 12 weeks away from the front line(not necessarily holiday per se) is not the norm.

Therefore, throughout the year there is ample extra curriculur time, to catch up on in depth research.

Reading is an integral part of any course,but so is input and evaluation of that reading,and feedback from tutors,all contribute tot he whole academic experience. There is a lot of wasted time in a 3 year course which could be better utilised and in doing so allow the course to be reduced to 2 years. Of course the Unis have a vested financial interest to continue with the current arrangements,but imo it is the one area of university life which has not been changed or closely examined for decades. I believe it is an area which needs looking at for each indivdual course, and an assessment made on the optimum time for course delivery.

The_One_Who

I know the University of Buckingham offer two year degrees but these are expensive. I think it works out at just over £16,000 for the full degree, but it is a private university so that could have something to do with it.

I think whether or not an academic life is more or less strenuous than a non-academic will depend on what subject you are interested in.

All tutors will have office hours, normally posted on their door and given to students at the start of term. These are woefully under-used. If students want more contact time they could utilise these hours.

If there are different times for different courses then there would need to be different costs. A science degree costs much more than £3,000 to deliver but an arts one possibly less. This could lead to people doing the cheaper and quicker to deliver arts degrees over the sciences.

Voyager2002

If contact time were increased, then when would students do their reading and writing (Arts and Social Sciences) and their laboratory practical work (Science and Engineering)? And the idea that three years is too long for a degree is very strange, when in most countries (Germany, USA and so forth) a degree requires more than five years of study.

No, the reason why British students could complete a degree in only three years was that they worked intensively: they received grants and so did not need to spend time doing part-time jobs, like their opposite numbers in the USA. As student finance changed, lecturers found that students simply did not have time to complete their course work adequately and sadly dumbed down their degrees, to levels well below those found in Germany and elsewhere.

And I do not understand the comment made by Poet123 about "12 weeks away from the front line". Remember that research is the main way in which universities earn money, and research achievement is what gets academics promoted. So basically the vacation is when they are at the front line.

poet123

I agree that it is something that needs to be properly investigated, and thoughtful studies done, before any change is made, but I believe it could be achieved in the majority of subjects, if the will was there.

poet123

Voyager2002 wrote: »

If contact time were increased, then when would students do their reading and writing (Arts and Social Sciences) and their laboratory practical work (Science and Engineering)? And the idea that three years is too long for a degree is very strange, when in most countries (Germany, USA and so forth) a degree requires more than five years of study.


As I have said I do not advocate massively increasing contact time,but even if it were increased two fold, there would still be plenty hours left in the day/week for independent study for a committed student. Students may not agree,but it would be preparation for the world of work, and help the realisation that even 25/30 hours of work is far less than most people put in to achieve a good salary.
No, the reason why British students could complete a degree in only three years was that they worked intensively: they received grants and so did not need to spend time doing part-time jobs, like their opposite numbers in the USA. As student finance changed, lecturers found that students simply did not have time to complete their course work adequately and sadly dumbed down their degrees, to levels well below those found in Germany and elsewhere.

Students have ample time to complete their coursework if they apply themsleves. I did a couple of very academic degrees post grad, whilst working,so it can be done if the committment is there,and it is not diluted by the social aspect.:D The social life is of course an important part of undergrad life,but today it comes at a cost which has to be carried into the future,so needs to be measured carefully.

And I do not understand the comment made by Poet123 about "12 weeks away from the front line". Remember that research is the main way in which universities earn money, and research achievement is what gets academics promoted. So basically the vacation is when they are at the front line.

As a parent I refer to the front line as the teaching of my kids,I am well aware this is not the order of priority,however in view of the new order of the funding, and the fact that students and parents buy a service,we have the right to expect equal consideration to be given to this area,to ensure we are getting what we pay for. If this is the new face of education then we are consumers ,and consumers have rights and expectations which need to be met and managed.

The_One_Who

Higher education has never been free, it has always had to be paid for by someone. A research council will be paying the university a lot more for their research to be done to high standard, within budget and within certain time constraints and so this will probably be getting a higher priority. If a university cannot attract research funding then it might as well not exist. Universities are centres of research and academic excellence, not a degree factory where students are spoon-fed. If students were paying the same as a the budget for a research project then by all means I'd expect equal consideration.

I have always been told that you should be doing four hours of reading for every hour of contact. Now, I know that in reality this rarely gets done. If my contact was to be increased (and I'm not doing a terribly intensive degree) then I would be struggling to fit in my independent work as well as employment and having a social life.

Oldernotwiser

Voyager2002 wrote: »

If contact time were increased, then when would students do their reading and writing (Arts and Social Sciences) and their laboratory practical work (Science and Engineering)? And the idea that three years is too long for a degree is very strange, when in most countries (Germany, USA and so forth) a degree requires more than five years of study.

No, the reason why British students could complete a degree in only three years was that they worked intensively: they received grants and so did not need to spend time doing part-time jobs, like their opposite numbers in the USA. As student finance changed, lecturers found that students simply did not have time to complete their course work adequately and sadly dumbed down their degrees, to levels well below those found in Germany and elsewhere.

And I do not understand the comment made by Poet123 about "12 weeks away from the front line". Remember that research is the main way in which universities earn money, and research achievement is what gets academics promoted. So basically the vacation is when they are at the front line.

As I understand it, the British claim that their 3 year degrees are equivalent to the longer courses in other countries rests on the quality of the work covered. With the dumbing down of courses before and during university, I would think it more likely that course lengths would need to be extended rather than cut back! I agree with your post except that I believe that standards dropped long before fees were introduced, although the need (?) to work part time has certainly increased this downward trend.

Oldernotwiser

poet123 wrote: »

As a parent I refer to the front line as the teaching of my kids,I am well aware this is not the order of priority,however in view of the new order of the funding, and the fact that students and parents buy a service,we have the right to expect equal consideration to be given to this area,to ensure we are getting what we pay for. If this is the new face of education then we are consumers ,and consumers have rights and expectations which need to be met and managed.

Poet, I'm normally in agreement with you but i think that your suggestions would be the final nail in the coffin of HE in the UK. If there's a recipe for turning a once highly valued university system into a series of degree factories then you've just described it.

Lets go all out for improvements and a return to higher standards, not this awful consumerism you seem to want.

The_One_Who

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

As I understand it, the British claim that their 3 year degrees are equivalent to the longer courses in other countries rests on the quality of the work covered. With the dumbing down of courses before and during university, I would think it more likely that course lengths would need to be extended rather than cut back! I agree with your post except that I believe that standards dropped long before fees were introduced, although the need (?) to work part time has certainly increased this downward trend.

Sorry to be pedantic but Scottish courses are four years long. The first two years cover a broad curriculum with specialising in your chosen degree choice in third year. Degrees south of the border specialise sooner and so the time taken to complete the degree is shorter.