University courses and contact time. Disappointment so far.

(and don’t mention the psychologists where I did my degree who had 6 hours per week, while we had 30….)

Ah yes, I remember the ‘football studies’ degree at LJMU. 6 hours contact and lots of running around.

Meanwhile we had 30 hours contact in year 1. Mind you, 16 hours of that was climbing mountains, kayaking rivers and seas, climbing, caving, skiing…

Late 80’s; a mate of mine was seething, when he got his timetable for the next term (long before computers and emails and log on to find, this was a piece of paper on the noticeboard of the Department style) – as an English student he had “25% more teaching time next term”

What he meant was he’d gone from 3 to 4 hours; we also gleefully pointed out as numerate science students that that was actually 33% more, which only seemed to make him more annoyed.

I had 28 hours, including a 5 hour practical – you didn’t have to stay 5 hours, just get the work done in that 5 hour slot. If you were a fantastically good practical chemist you might knock the experiment out in a little over 3; I extracted full value from my lab bench fee.

I would rather not have 5+ year old recorded videos which were out of date with the technology of today on a robotics course.

I would rather not have recordings from mid pandemic which also had oddities and bit which have been corrected after the lecture as ‘not right’.

I didn’t state my own preference, and clearly your middle ground is not good – but back in the days when someone stood at the front with some chalk there was nobody else to critique what was said or what the students heard from it.  Would you hope that a university is proud of its teaching and wants its new intake to get the best impression?  Of course.  Do half the lecturers even want to be teaching?  No – probably most accademics go into it to do research not because they are passionate about teaching.  They are managed according to both teaching and research objectives – but if you can bring in grant income, publish papers etc you are the hero.  You need a lot of bums on seats to bring in the money of a research grant!

I agree that there’s a need for a lot more self directed learning, group work, and initiative to solve problems and learn for yourself. Unfortunately my experience is that this is a useful excuse to reduce as much contact time as possible, assume that learners can ‘just do it/mtfu’ from day one rather than coaching them into it, mark group work deeply unfairly, and generally provide a poorly thought out learning experience using the excuse of ‘do it for yourself, it’s a life skill don’t you know?’.

Perhaps universities haven’t adapted well to the floods of students coming from school who have been coached to get brilliant exam results but have minimal enquiry beyond the strict definition of the syllabus. Certainly colleges are struggling having lost a lot of their best students.  Most academics are of an era when going to uni was for the “elite” who did manage to cope against the adversities; all are inevitably the self selecting group that survived uni and did well in that environment.  Group projects are an interesting challenge – in many ways they do reflect the reality of working life: some people put in more effort but see less reward, some do loads of work on the wrong stuff because they refuse to listen to others, some do seemingly trivial work that actually transforms the recipients perception whilst not actually understanding the inner workings.

Without doubt though 17 yr olds spend way too little time considering the style / quality of the teaching in different places.  When I was finishing my PhD the department had just introduced a new course with a sexy title that was oversubscribed for the first time in recent memory.  Was it being led by experts in this special new branch?  was there a particular research pedigree in the area? No!  There was actually nobody in the department with relevant knowledge or expertise.  Didn’t matter though – the course content was the same as the rest of the dept for Y1 and 2 and only specialised in Y3 – we’ll hire someone by then!

us Gen X, the lot in the middle, and is what is our Gen ‘Z’.

Speak for yourself.

As a millennial (“the lot in the middle”) uni was hard and nobody ever explained how it worked, you were just left to get on with it. Engineering was possibly worse as everything was timetabled but nobody ever explained when you were supposed to study, the difference bewteen lecture and tutorial or how you were supposed to manage timetable conflicts and lecturers that thought they could speak to you like a piece of shit they just stood in (the was an easy lesson to learn).

It’s quite disheartening to learn that in almost a quarter of a century nobody has yet taken the initiative of actually explaining to uni entrants how it all works rather than assuming they’re going to transform from school kid to student over 10 weeks with no guidance whatsoever. Who actually thinks that’s an effective way of doing anything?

Without doubt though 17 yr olds spend way too little time considering the style / quality of the teaching in different places.

This too. I was at Glasgow Uni where practical work was almost unheard of, compare and contrast with the likes of Strathy and Heriot Watt. If I’d gone to the latter I think my subsequent learning and career path would have looked rather different.

Apologies if I missed it but I don’t think the OP has told us what subject his offspring is studying (reading). I’m a boomer, and even when I was at uni there was a huge difference in contact time between subjects, ranging from the engineers who had pretty much a full week, to the philosophers who had a two hour tutorial once a week. My physics course was somewhere in the middle.

It’s quite disheartening to learn that in almost a quarter of a century nobody has yet taken the initiative of actually explaining to uni entrants how it all works rather than assuming they’re going to transform from school kid to student over 10 weeks with no guidance whatsoever. Who actually thinks that’s an effective way of doing anything?

I’m really sorry but this isn’t true. Yes there are bad experiences, and I accept that, but this week I’ve sat down with my tutees to do exactly what you are saying. They also have numerous orientation sessions, which I’ve run in the past and really focus on that transition. However, the student who then emails me and says ‘I missed the session (with no valid reason, I’m not talking about the student who emailed me to say they were ill), demanding when will they see me’, is not getting a bespoke tutorial.

I am now on a 9 day field trip with 3rd year students and new masters students (whilst also still available online to answer questions from my first year students) where we spent 2 hours on arrival last night on team skills, group work and skill evaluation. After which I sat down with a student with mental health needs to support their stay. On the bus here I spent 7 hours marking Masters work on a totally separate degree, providing detailed feedback.

I have tried to provide constructive guidance on these recent threads, to point towards help at various unis

I do appreciate some people have sadly had negative experiences; but please do not tarnish all University staff with the same brush – we work incredibly hard, with countless external pressures (for example, around teaching I had to lead a £3.7M funding proposal that despite being graded internationally excellent was not funded, wasting the time and energy of 10 academics for 1.5 years; whilst also working to support a high level programme in the University the become NetZero… etc etc etc [it’s a very long list]).

Thanks ahsat.

Thump has started at Strathclyde. Plenty of lectures and contact time. No complaints and enjoying himself :)

A appreciate your view ahsat, thank you.

I’m still however unsure where I am on this. For example, your comment on the funding work and not getting it. We do that every year – about 1 in 5 of our bids is successful. It’s what we do, and it’s something we just accept as a charity. 4 out of 5 bids are unsuccessful for us. It’s not a waste of time – and perhaps an internal grade of excellent is irrelevant as it’s a funders decision? (We’ve had similar every year I’ve been here – amazing projects, huge value on offer, still get a ‘no’ and then watch competitors do less with more money)

On the flip side, I’ve tried to give three Universities funding this year. We need evaluation of our projects and occasionally PhD alongside. One university took 6 months to decide we could give them £97k. The Professor we work with had agreed scope and details, had put pricing and timetables together with business development folk in the uni. But it still took 6 months due to huge internal inertia from a couple of departments.

Another uni was taking so long to agree to a meeting with the professor that he’s taken on the work outside of uni, via a friends private company he works for. So the uni misses out on a Government funded, nationally important piece of research and a paid job for a researcher or masters student. Instead it’s going to a private company, who’ve undercut the uni by 30% and employ a couple of professors….

The third uni took over a year to decide that they could do the work themselves. Now importantly, they don’t have the skills and staff do to that, this is a “we could conceivably do that at some point” ourselves. So have chosen to walk away from £1.2k a day for a researcher to support development of a new product, which when implemented would lead to a PhD.

None of this was the lecturers or professors. This was all internal university inertia, processes, and dare I say arrogance about what a uni should be paid ‘because we are a uni don’t you know’…

For me I think much of my criticism lies not with lecturers and delivery staff but with the leadership and internal staff/systems. It seems there’s an assumption of huge income, spending and jobs to ensure that money is ‘absorbed’. Big infrastructure projects, lots of spending on advertising and encouraging overseas students. Lots of moaning about being skint, when in fact 10 of our 15 Scottish universities are within the 20 richest charities in Scotland….my son’s uni being one of the wealthiest of them.

Are some universities ‘addicted’ to big money, have built business models based on foreign student income and providing a luxurious campus experience?

I don’t get why my son’s uni halls, built in 1980 and so now paid for, which generate £660k+ income a year between 89 residents, feels like there’s no investment or care over those years.

Having spent time in Portuguese, Belgian, Estonian and Italian universities through our Erasmus work I saw much more modest buildings and campuses. They felt like secondary schools in many ways – and the focus was on research and teaching domestic students it felt..I was only there for a week or so at a time however, so this is a quick judgement.

I guess my suggestion is that while frontline teaching and research staff are doing thier best, is the system built on an unsustainable business model, and is this increasingly reflected in student experiences?

In positive news, my son is off on first field trip this weekend. So some lecturer is getting to work hard over a weekend, I suspect without time off in lieu.

I guess my suggestion is that while frontline teaching and research staff are doing thier best, is the system built on an unsustainable business model, and is this increasingly reflected in student experiences?

There may be something to this – when universities chose/had to become businesses to try and survive, bean counting and process becomes the priority over outcome.

I’m pretty sure that unless/until uni funding is handled differently (and I’m not presuming to know the answer to that one!) we are going to see some go bust. That may spark a proper debate and a solution.

In positive news, my son is off on first field trip this weekend. So some lecturer is getting to work hard over a weekend, I suspect without time off in lieu.

Yep I’m sure you’re right.

It’s a funny old business being an academic, I’ve never had set hours, just work to get stuff done, it means work doesn’t really stop, you live and breathe your subject, it’s a double edged sword.

I’m pretty sure that unless/until uni funding is handled differently (and I’m not presuming to know the answer to that one!) we are going to see some go bust. That may spark a proper debate and a solution.

My issue at the moment is the only call from universities in the UK seems to be ‘give us more money’.

A stat in the BBC article from a university head was that ‘40% of UK universities will lose money this year’.

Well forgive me, but 60% still make money, and 100% of councils are skint, charities and businesses are closing daily, there is a massive cost of living crises and government funding crises on, and your only suggestion is ‘more money’?

The leadership of universities need to be more creative than that, and demonstrate VALUE not just COST.

Because my son who is giving £16.5k to Edinburgh Uni this year is not feeling the value, and my other son who gave Heriot Watt £47k over 4 years thinks they are a waste of time (and I agree on his course, it was shit).

Sounds like Leeds Beckett is lagging behind.

The Uni I work for has been very big on getting teaching back to in-person* – admittedly with recordings being made for students that don’t turn up (but that is up to the individuals not the institution).

*Much to the chagrin of some academics who liked pre-recording stuff then buggering off to do their private ‘consultancy’ work on the side.

I’d agree that for many people, uni isn’t good value these days. The answer isn’t to complain about the lack of value, but to not go in the first place.

I’m surprised regarding halls.  On the south coast most  universities  are really pushing ‘student experience’ this means nice halls, shiny buildings and lots of chain outlets (costa/ pret/ starbucks etc.) on campus.  Good or bad, it’s this that drives admission not quality of teaching.

The leadership of universities need to be more creative than that, and demonstrate VALUE not just COST.

Because my son who is giving £16.5k to Edinburgh Uni this year is not feeling the value,

University collegues will know that value is measured through various frameworks – most of which take valuable time away from the work of which they measure!

Universities are stuck in a complex situation. What is their purpose; teaching, research or cost covering/ profit?  Those three things don’t align, so each takes from the other.

The parameters for funding (teaching/ income/ research ) are set by governements and universities are trying to succeed, and compete, within the set rule.  Some by growing, and others by shrinking.  As someone mentioned a big one will go bust soon, UEA was close and others are selling off assets at an alarming rate.

IMO it’s the competition between universites that it most damaging.  Not only must ‘we’ be good at teaching and research, but must be profitable at it. So we make strategic decisions which ultimatley aren’t in the interest of students, staff, other universites or the nation.

I really hope the gov’t can have a proper look at funding, not just a stickign plaster, beasuse at the moment it’s not working.

IMO it’s the competition between universites that it most damaging. Not only must ‘we’ be good at teaching and research, but must be profitable at it. So we make strategic decisions which ultimatley aren’t in the interest of students, staff, other universites or the nation.

Now that makes sense in some of the issues around flashy new buildings, huge marketing efforts, and constant ‘we are the best’ messaging, despite evidence to the contrary.

universities need to be more creative than that, and demonstrate VALUE not just COST.

Value to the individual or to the UK?

This is from https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/higher-education-contribution-to-the-economy-and-levelling-up/

“1.1 Economic impact of higher education institutions
In August 2023 the economics consultancy firm London Economics published analysis of the impact of the higher education sector on the UK economy.[2] The analysis was commissioned by Universities UK (UUK), which represents 142 universities across the UK, and was based on the 2021/22 academic year.

Its analysis estimated that the ‘economic footprint’ of HE providers across the UK resulted in:[3]

768,000 full-time jobs
£71bn in terms of gross value added (GVA)
£116bn in terms of general economic output
It explained that these figures were calculated on the basis of direct impacts from HE providers, for example capital and operational expenditure, but also their ‘indirect and induced’ impact, such as spending flowing from suppliers and employees of the industry.[4] For example, the analysis broke the economic output down as £46bn of direct impact and £70bn of indirect and induced impact.

In addition, it explained that these figures did not account for estimates of spending by international students who started studies in 2021/22. With this included it estimated that the economic output of HE providers was approximately £130.5bn.[5]”

Value to the individual or to the UK?

Both i would suggest.

Both i would suggest.

There are studies that quantify the additional earning power etc that a degree brings.

Personally I think ‘value’ is more than just something that is monetary–the ‘value’ a degree brings to an individual might be a love of a subject that gives them personal satisfaction and fulfilment, learning for the sake of learning.

I get dispondent when University management (and others) monetise everything (ie ‘knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing’ types) and take a narrow instrumental view of what a degree is for.

There are studies that quantify the additional earning power etc that a degree brings.

You mean the ones which show a bunch of graduates did not earn any more than if they had gone to uni, and a bunch did earn more as a result of having a degree? *wink emoji*

I have always wondered if it was nurture or nature? Would people who choose to go to uni have made a success of things anyway? And how much did the teaching nurture them? Clearly some roles (teacher, doctor, engineer etc) HAVE to hold the qualification and that enters them into a higher paid job. But I do wonder for so many other courses..

Personally I think ‘value’ is more than just something that is monetary–the ‘value’ a degree brings to an individual might be a love of a subject that gives them personal satisfaction and fulfilment, learning for the sake of learning.

This rings true. Eldest is basically devastated that robotics, mechatronics and AI is just a really, really shit thing which he hates and feels ill-prepared for any jobs in that industry. Along with 60% of his course they dropped out the Masters they were on, left at Undergrad. So far he thinks about 50% of the course, like him, have taken any job, not a job related to the degree.

Education is a good in itself. This Tory idea that it has to have a monetary return is so damaging. Arts and Humanities are being squeezed out because they aren’t ‘useful’. An educated population builds a better society.

But then they don’t really want an educated population, because on the whole educated people tend towards the left. We would never have had Brexit, and Trump would never have been President if our respective populations had been better educated.

+1 for the post by Ashat. At my university a lot of effort goes into making sure that students know what to expect and what is expected of them, to the extent to employing former secondary school teachers who better understand the viewpoint of new students and can ease the transition from school to university. We also spend a lot of time analysing the national student survey data to work out where we can do better, and have a very active staff-student committee where students can give their opinions on what’s working and what’s not. We’re not that exceptional in doing that.

I had to lead a £3.7M funding proposal that despite being graded internationally excellent was not funded, wasting the time and energy of 10 academics

This is the experience of most academic staff, for whom most of the time spent writing grant applications leads nowhere (i.e. even well reviewed grants are often not funded because the competition is so fierce). But as research for many staff is 40% of the job, you have to write them and play the statistics game, as some will get funded.

Flashy new buildings: depends what they are replacing. I know from my university that refurbishments/new builds can save money in the long run. Science departments come with a lot of inbuilt services (vacuum lines, compressed air, gasses etc) that become very expensive to maintain in an old (1960s) building. Old buildings were also built in a time when security requirements were different – so in an old building you might have a lecture theatre next to a laboratory, which would not have thrown a red flag at the time it was built – but it’s not so good in the 21st century to have a situation where some random can enter a building and potentially access chemicals in a laboratory. In a modern building, laboratory spaces and public spaces are properly segregated and labs will have controlled access. Many old buildings are also riddled with asbestos, which adds time and money to maintenance and any building work that is needed. Buildings with outdated fume hoods are expensive because much of the energy used to heat the room is dissipated through the hood unless there is a decent heat exchanger. Modern hoods will also self-close to reduce air flow and have inbuilt fire suppression measures. The list goes on…

One final point: although many of us enter academia because of research, it doesn’t escape us that the greatest contribution we make to society isn’t our research, but the people we train – both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels – and the careers they subsequently go on to.

Education is a good in itself. This Tory idea that it has to have a monetary return is so damaging. Arts and Humanities are being squeezed out because they aren’t ‘useful’. An educated population builds a better society.

There’s a balance to be struck. Right now we have a lot of graduates who expect to start their career with a ‘graduate role’ and basically end up in unskilled manual labour / admin jobs feeling pretty disilusioned and massively in debt. We also have a massive shortage of skilled tradespeople which is a drag on the economy.

The better our education system matches the needs of the economy, the better the economy will do which means more money for public services and less graduates in dead end jobs with £60k of debt round their necks…

Having half your population take three years out of the labour market and acrrew massive debts isn’t generating tax revenue which is what pays for the NHS, roads, schools, prisons etc. It’s not as if we’re exactly flush with money: crumbling infrastructure and a current account defecit….

Education, education, education……..whilst the mantra was laudable the implementation was lamentable.

The middle classes could only envisage one type of education for their little darlings and it became degree or bust….usually both. There was a reason only 5-8% of the population had a degree in the 70s, it was because only 5-8% of the jobs needed one and I reckon though its increased with the advent of the tech sector the number of jobs needing one now isn’t anywhere near the current 40% of the cohort that attend uni.

Meanwhile all the other routes to a meaningful career were abandoned and sneered at. City and Guild, Apprentices, Night School etc previously all valid routes in to serious jobs became void almost overnight. The career ladder became a career hurdle. You either had a degree or you were worthless.

The current higher education nightmare has been a 28 year timebomb in the making.