What is the difference between modularisation and the traditional system

Stabshauptmann

Ive only ever experienced modularisation and I'm just curious how exactly it differs from the old system. Ive asked some of my friends who went through the traditional system but they couldnt really articulate the differences.

My understanding is that Modularisation means, that a course is made up of distinct well defined units: modules. These units are measured in terms of study hours needed to get certain marks and assigned a number of credits proportionately.
The advantage of a modular system is that one can add and remove modules quite easily.
The student is examined, and must pass, each module. (Well there is a pass by compensation, but we'll ignore that for now).

So am I right in my understanding of modularisation?
How did the old system work/differ?

xeroshero

Ok, from what I know... (my first yr was as a "traditional student" and the last two yrs have been modulised as will my final yr be)

What u have said about modulistaion is pretty right really. It also offers more choice in terms of students being able to take a mosule from outside their own partical course, (ie. a medicine module for an arts student etc etc) That's kind of more under the horizons thing but modulisation allows for this. Modulisation also splits in the year into two semesters, you are examined at Christmas and start anew in Jan with complete new subjects/modules (depending on course!) Modulisation also allows for grades to eb spread out more across the yera (through labs, smaller exams, MCQ's etc) again this is dependent on your course and its layout, Im talking from my experience as a food science (Ag) student.

In the tradition days, you have the same subjects running from Sept to May and were only really examined in May. the end of year exams were usually worth a very large amount of your grade (80-90%, possible even 100%) I think this is less commonly the case with modulisation.

There is not a huge difference from what I can see but the aim is to provide more choice/optionos for students as well as trying to relieve end of year pressure from exams some what. For example, I had 6 exmas in May... By hard work through out the year, I was near passing most of those subjects before sitting those exams. (ie. I was on 20 or 30% out of 40 or 50%... Therefore an extra say 20% in my final exam worth say 50% would have been sufficient to pull me trhrough)

Ok, Im kinda going around in circles now but I hoped that helped ya a little!!!??? :rolleyes:

Mutant_Fruit

What modularisation brought to engineering:
1) More exams
2) Less lecturing time
3) More course material
4) More pressure

In other words, not a lot of advantages. Before "modularisation", courses were already distinct units. A fair few of our courses didn't change at all when the got "modularised", and i mean exactly that. There was no change in course content or structure at all except the final exam was 5 months sooner than usual and we covered the material twice as fast.

The only big difference is that we could now take a subject outside of engineering. Of course due to the large number of timetable clashes and prerequisites and whatnot, this was actually a fairly limited number of courses. Factor in the famous UCD administration fudge factor and you suddenly find yourself desperate for courses to take that actually fit into your timetable, never mind whether you like it or not.

After checking about 15 courses i finally gave up searching for one i liked and just choose the same one that my friend did, partially because it sounded easy and mostly because it actually fit.