No More Horizons

Arpa

I have been clicking through a couple of the posts in the Tom Garvin article thread and there is a general feeling of dismay with what Horizons has done to UCD. I absolutely abhor the system on a number of levels. I had been in UCD previously under the old system but went abroad for a while. When I came back last September I was new to Horizons but was sure I would get to study only the subjects in which I had an interest. That's the point of University right? You study what you want, or what you think will be beneficial to you in the future. I wanted to concentrate on English Lit and Italian.
You can imagine my disappointment when I found myself studying Thucydides and something about some German wagon who organised a revolutionary dance group theater in the 1980's. What? Where's my Shakespeare and Beckett and che palle!!
The jumbled nature of the modules meant that I never saw any of my classmates on a regular basis. I walked into tutorials in April and saw faces I never had seen before. This while not an impedement to study as such is not beneficial as who do you call when you have a question, "What the hell is on this exam about Cicero and Clodia Metelli? Remember, English!
All I wanted to do was study the subjects in which I was interested, and while many may be interested in Greek and Roman Civilization or the history of "Tanztheater", I am not. Consequently I feel my first year was a dismal waste of time, and I don't want to see this continue in UCD. By the way what is a GPA? I feel it's time to take back UCD, study what "we" want and in doing so have a more enjoyable University experience. I don't want to be a jack of all trades and master of none which is essentially what Horizons intends. Who is with me? I predict a .....

Chet T16

Arpa wrote: »

You can imagine my disappointment when I found myself studying Thucydides and something about some German wagon who organised a revolutionary dance group theater in the 1980's.

You didn't mention who forced you to study these?

Pigwidgeon

Arpa wrote: »

When I came back last September I was new to Horizons but was sure I would get to study only the subjects in which I had an interest. That's the point of University right? You study what you want, or what you think will be beneficial to you in the future. I wanted to concentrate on English Lit and Italian.
You can imagine my disappointment when I found myself studying Thucydides and something about some German wagon who organised a revolutionary dance group theater in the 1980's. What? Where's my Shakespeare and Beckett and che palle!!

Tbh, it just sounds like you didn't completely look into your course, and what modules you were picking. If you'd have done this you wouldn't have been so surprised.
I think the horizons system is great, I'm doing arts but if I want I can do a module in nursing, engineering or science, anything that interests me.

Arpa wrote: »

I walked into tutorials in April and saw faces I never had seen before.

Maybe the fact that you only walked into the tutorial in April is why you'd never seen the face before, tutorials start in January.

Arpa wrote: »

All I wanted to do was study the subjects in which I was interested, and while many may be interested in Greek and Roman Civilization or the history of "Tanztheater", I am not. Consequently I feel my first year was a dismal waste of time, and I don't want to see this continue in UCD. By the way what is a GPA? I feel it's time to take back UCD, study what "we" want and in doing so have a more enjoyable University experience. I don't want to be a jack of all trades and master of none which is essentially what Horizons intends. Who is with me? I predict a .....

Again, you picked the modules, and the course. If you have such issues with them, it's your own fault for not researching it properly, not anyone at UCD's fault.

dyl10

I don't think Horizons is the problem, per se.
Modularisation holds some of the blame for what has happened in recent years, I'd imagine.
I've just finished my third year exams having my full course modularised.
If I was to sit many of the exams I've had over the last year or two, I wouldn't stand a chance of passing. Having subject exams every 3-4 months, encourages intensive power-learning and due to the fact that subject streams hold very little continuity, there isn't a whole lot to bring forward into new classes.

Attendance could be an issue due to the fact that because a course is only 12 weeks long, it is feesable to power study many subjects for a couple of days and do reasonable well in the exam. There is only so much scope an exam can cover in 12 weeks, right?
Especially when in most cases, no previous knowledge is required to sit the module.

To be honest, I enjoyed my degree and found a couple of areas in my course that I really now have an interest in.

One of my lecturers made the point that the elective system could be tweaked to compile 'portfolios' of modules, so you could take several electives in a field you were interested over the course of your degree (e.g. development studies, a language etc.)
The same guy proposed that student reviews be implemented for electives also, so students could get a previous student's view on the course.
Both were pretty good ideas, I felt.

UCDs 'continuous assessment' is a bit of a farce in most cases also, but that's another issue.

dr gonzo

I think the current system is excellent, admittedly its not perfect, ive had the odd problem but i like the idea and overall implementation of it.

Additionally would i be wrong in saying that every major university uses this system? It doesnt really make sense for us to go backwards.

OP no offense but it seems like you just screwed up the application a little(Which is understandable), im not really sure how you were roped into doing courses that were nothing like what you wanted.

muboop1

Its all dependent on the choices you make presumabely based on educated information and the course you are in.
I NEEDED my semester 1 classes known properly to have a hope of passing the ones in semester 2 etc...

It all came together for me in the end!

Fantastic system for the most part. Needs some tweeking but thats about it

RandomName2

Arpa wrote: »

I have been clicking through a couple of the posts in the Tom Garvin article thread and there is a general feeling of dismay with what Horizons has done to UCD. I absolutely abhor the system on a number of levels. I had been in UCD previously under the old system but went abroad for a while. When I came back last September I was new to Horizons but was sure I would get to study only the subjects in which I had an interest. That's the point of University right? You study what you want, or what you think will be beneficial to you in the future. I wanted to concentrate on English Lit and Italian.
You can imagine my disappointment when I found myself studying Thucydides and something about some German wagon who organised a revolutionary dance group theater in the 1980's. What? Where's my Shakespeare and Beckett and che palle!!
The jumbled nature of the modules meant that I never saw any of my classmates on a regular basis. I walked into tutorials in April and saw faces I never had seen before. This while not an impedement to study as such is not beneficial as who do you call when you have a question, "What the hell is on this exam about Cicero and Clodia Metelli? Remember, English!
All I wanted to do was study the subjects in which I was interested, and while many may be interested in Greek and Roman Civilization or the history of "Tanztheater", I am not. Consequently I feel my first year was a dismal waste of time, and I don't want to see this continue in UCD. By the way what is a GPA? I feel it's time to take back UCD, study what "we" want and in doing so have a more enjoyable University experience. I don't want to be a jack of all trades and master of none which is essentially what Horizons intends. Who is with me? I predict a .....

Should have picked english modules then :D:D
You can go through the three yeas never doing modules outside your course if you so like - or venture into other courses for risks and possible rewards.

Tutorials don't really properly work in UCD at the moment, but there is no obvious fix to the problem.

GPA is a system inherited from the USA. If you get below 3.0 you probably should be doing better. If you get above 4.0 you're a genius, or way overqualified for the course you are taking.

Arpa

Chet T16 wrote: »

You didn't mention who forced you to study these?

Ok, here we go. The system forced me. It was the best of a bad bunch. Celtic studies? No thanks. My point is that I shouldn't have to venture outside the field of my choice at all if I don't wish. There are not enough modules for me to remain in my two fields of interest, so I have to study something esle, whereas with the older system I could have concentrated on what I liked.

Arpa

kateos2 wrote: »

Tbh, it just sounds like you didn't completely look into your course, and what modules you were picking. If you'd have done this you wouldn't have been so surprised.
I think the horizons system is great, I'm doing arts but if I want I can do a module in nursing, engineering or science, anything that interests me.

Perhaps I didn't fully look into what was entailed in Greek and Roman civilization, fair point. However should I really have had to have bothered looking into that if I don't have an interest in it or any other subject for that matter apart from the areas I wish to study?

Maybe the fact that you only walked into the tutorial in April is why you'd never seen the face before, tutorials start in January.

No need to be a smart arse. I know about tutorials, I was illustrating that it is badly organised.

Again, you picked the modules, and the course. If you have such issues with them, it's your own fault for not researching it properly, not anyone at UCD's fault.

Thank you for clarifying, you should be a counsellor. I know that I picked the modules, and of course I can only blame myself for modules I dislike, but the point I'm making which nobody seems to get, is that I should not have to study something which I don't want to study. Simple. I shouldn't have to fill in points with modules in subjects that don't interest me. Every one of us has spent years in second level having to put up with subjects we didn't like just so we could achieve the necessary points to go to University and study things in which we excel or enjoy.


Oh and please if anyone else is replying. Read my original post clearly and try to see that I'm not retarded, I know how horizons works, I know how UCD works, I don't need advice on what I should have done, I don't in my particular case need to be told I did something wrong in choosing subjects. It is very simple. I know my own case better than all of you and don't want your advice, I was illustrating my case to show how Horizons has failed me and wanted to know if other people felt the same way and have found themselves having to achieve passes in subjects they dislike or don't care for.

Maybe it is just that my fields of interest are not very large fields. Maybe I don't wish to broaden my "horizons". I want to study my two subjects which I have a flair for and receive a top degree in those subjects. I don't want to achieve a mediocre result because I have to study outside that field. There are not enough modules on offer for me to achieve the necessary points in my areas of interest alone. So the system is failing me, and why should it? I love every aspect of UCD so I want to study here, but is it wrong of me to ask for a system that can accomodate everybody? Maybe Horizons works for some and that's fine. Maybe some people are happy just to blag their way through some subject they don't care for, and that's fine, but think what that time could be used for? Extra, specialist investigation into an unchartered area in your preferred subject field. Now there's something that academics should be striving towards, not a mediocre dalliance with a different subject. I can do that at home. If I want to learn about a subject fleetingly, I can do so in my own time.
I'm just saying that while everybody seems so quick to jump on the American system bandwagon because it seems like the way forward, they are neglecting to realise that UCD under the old system, did not do too bad for itself in producing academics. I'm not going to go into that because it's a mine field but what is wrong with considering alternatives to Horizons. It's not a perfect system, so why settle for it?

Arpa

GPA is a system inherited from the USA. If you get below 3.0 you probably should be doing better. If you get above 4.0 you're a genius, or way overqualified for the course you are taking.

i·ro·ny1   /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ Show Spelled[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]–noun,plural-nies.
1.the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.
2.Literature.
a.a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.(esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3.Socratic irony.
4.dramatic irony.
5.an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6.the incongruity of this.
7.an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8.an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

dyl10

Are you on drugs, man?

Arpa

What's that supposed to mean? It contributes nothing. It's infantile and petty. If you've nothing to say other than to scoff then say nothing.

Fluorescence

Failing to see what your issue is with Horizons, Arpa. If you just finished first year omnibus Arts then you knew before you applied that you'd have to take 3 subjects in first year. So it is your own fault for applying for a course that doesn't suit you, rather than blaming the course for failing you.

RandomName2

Arpa wrote: »

i·ro·ny1   /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ Show Spelled[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]–noun,plural-nies.
1.the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.
2.Literature.
a.a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.(esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3.Socratic irony.
4.dramatic irony.
5.an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6.the incongruity of this.
7.an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8.an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

Makes no sense man! Makes no sense! Make sense man - start making sense! I will not treat with those who make no sense!

Mardy Bum

I'm very confused about the OP. Did you miss out on studying English because you registered late or is it that you had to do Greek and Roman electives?

RandolphEsq

OP I think you will benefit more from a masters where you can then specialise in your narrow subjects. Because I think that you are wishing the course to be suited specifically for your own personal interests as opposed to everyone generally.

As regards those who spring up towards the end of term; fees would fix that

conor.hogan.2

This is what happens when you do not register on time.

Arpa

Okay I appreciate all you comments, I wasn't looking for advice, just trying to get a debate going about an alternative to Horizons. As I said, I know my own situation. I guess this isn't going to be a progressive thread as it will continue to hark back to my situation. How about I rephrase my original post?

Does anybody think Horizons is not a perfect system, in various ways, and would they agree that perhaps a better system could be achieved?

dyl10

Arpa wrote: »

Does anybody think Horizons is not a perfect system, in various ways, and would they agree that perhaps a better system could be achieved?

Yes, for the reasons I put forth in my post earlier.

dan_d

Actually OP, I'm UCD grad of the old system, and have a younger sister just finished final year in UCD, and I think I agree with the gist of what you're saying!
She had trouble with her modules as she had quite a full timetable (science) and as a result was seriously limited in what she could pick as "extra modules". She had to fit the classes into lunch hours, and late evening hours, which isn't that fair - everyone's entitled to eat their lunch, let's face it.I thought the whole thing was pointless...you're studying subjects for the sake of it, and with the course I did (engineering) I just don't see how the time is there for that, timetable-wise. Personally I think it should be totally optional.
From listening to her I think the system is just too much effort now....we did subjects for the year, and were examined 100% in them at the end of the year. Meant we actually had to study for a couple of months if you wanted to do anyway well, and most of us still remember the stuff! And guess what, we all survived and are alive to tell the tale!I was the first in my family to go to college and the next 2 went to Trinity and UCD each...and out of them all the general consensus is that I got the most out of my experience.Now you get out of it what you put into it, but the system I was in seemed to work best. As for GPA's....Hugh Brady spent time in Harvard and brought back all these buzzwords and is now implementing them in UCD because it's a "better" system. We certainly don't need to go backwards, but i'm not sure that his way is forwards either.

Frisbee

dan_d wrote: »

was seriously limited in what she could pick as "extra modules". She had to fit the classes into lunch hours, and late evening hours, which isn't that fair - everyone's entitled to eat their lunch,.

I can pretty much guarantee that she wasn't in class 9-5 with only an hour from one until two for her lunch. In college your lunch hour is a nominal time that just happens to be whenever your free.

El Siglo

When I did horizons, I only picked one module out of my school (a first year Environmental Science one), the rest I just stuck with Geography. Just pick the ones in your school(s) and you'll be grand.

queensinead

Arpa wrote: »

Okay I appreciate all you comments, I wasn't looking for advice, just trying to get a debate going about an alternative to Horizons. As I said, I know my own situation. I guess this isn't going to be a progressive thread as it will continue to hark back to my situation. How about I rephrase my original post?

Does anybody think Horizons is not a perfect system, in various ways, and would they agree that perhaps a better system could be achieved?

I know many people who would agree with you. A friend of mine hated the Horizons system---all that scrambling to get into the least worst option, because it was good for you, and you needed to get out of your old fuddy-duddy ways, and broaden your "horizons"
All that dashing around the campus to get your quick Horizon fix, so that the powers that be could feel they were making UCD "innovative" and cutting edge. So much ENERGY. Yeah.

The system inevitably leads to quantity over quality, with a lot of shallow, skimming the surface type learning. Our Leaving Cert is broader than most countries. How late is specialization going to start?. We seem to be leaving it until Masters level.

As for this GPA stuff, don't get me started.....

dan_d

Frisbee wrote: »

I can pretty much guarantee that she wasn't in class 9-5 with only an hour from one until two for her lunch. In college your lunch hour is a nominal time that just happens to be whenever your free.

I'm aware of that - I'm not that long out of college.

Actually she was. As a science student, she had days with possibly 2 labs, that went on for a couple of hours each. Plus lectures. She might have had an hour free from say 2-3 or 12-1. In which "Horizons" had to be fitted in. So when looking at her Horizons subjects, she first had to find subjects she wanted to do, check the times against her timetable and ended up always narrowed down to about 2 subjects that she could do.....assuming there was at least one day a week where she didn't get to eat until late afternoon so she could fit it all in. And she usually did not continue the same subject from term to term because of the timetable problem.

Personally I don't see the value in the whole thing at all. Widening your education is one thing, but if you choose say, engineering as I did, I want to do engineering....I don't want to waste time sitting some extra class I'm barely interested in but have to do to satisfy college authorities and keep their publicity machine happy. There's far better things to be doing with that time!

queensinead says it very well!

El Siglo

It's a big joke the whole system, trying to turn the place into a degree mill with this whole chasing GPA bollocks, it's like something out of some mediocre English University. I don't even tell anyone what my GPA was if they ask, I just say what honours and that's it. The sooner Brady and his ilk are gone and real academics are back running the place the better.

mikhail

Frisbee wrote: »

I can pretty much guarantee that she wasn't in class 9-5 with only an hour from one until two for her lunch. In college your lunch hour is a nominal time that just happens to be whenever your free.

You studied arts or something, right? The hard sciences and engineering have much longer hours - before you take me up wrong, it's not that I'm saying they're inherently better, but they don't have so much independent reading either. So yeah, it's entirely possible to have very little choice on your lunch break.

Arpa

It's a relief to find that there are people who share my views on this. It seems many are all too quick to jump on the 'Horizons' bandwagon because they don't know that there are alternatives. Who says American Universities have it right? GPA my arse. I'm not saying we should be regressive and go back to the old system, but this 'skimming' is ridiculous. I know less than when I began. I honestly believed that University was about getting your teeth sunk in to something for which you have a passion and flair.
There are problems with registration also, whereby people may be forced into sujects they do not care for. Whose fault is that? Many would say the student is at fault for being lazy at registration and missing their preferred courses, but ultimately somebody down the line suffers. I did my work, I got enough points to do what I want, and now you tell me I can't concentrate exclusively on my preferred subjects? I have to choose fields which I estimate may be useful to my final degree? No, it won't do. Horizons comes across as some sort of 'introduction to University' program. An elongated open day. As far as I can see, past alumni under the old system did fairly well for themselves. Streaming, as in subject focus, should happen instantly the moment you walk in the door. I'm not waiting around twiddling my thumbs until something comes along. Again I say, jack of all trades, master of none. Is this the correct attitude a University should be propogating?

Victoria.

Wow this sounds like a load of rubbish
Was looking at science next year in UCD and was hoping to do French in the horizons system. So my chances are pretty slim then?