nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should universities be reformed?

paky

After almost 4 years in college I'm beginning to think college is a bit of scam in that college is structured in a way so that it can justify making maximum prophet for minimum work. For example, this semester I have been allocated 13 hours of lectures a week. One semester is 12 weeks in duration and there are two semesters per year. SO a college year works out at 24 weeks of lectures or over 300 hours of lecture time per year.
Summer consists of almost 4 months of holidays a year which works out at over 12 months of summer holidays over a 3 year degree period or 15 months of summer holidays over a 4 year period. In reality, nobody is allocated this duration of holidays.

Looking at these statistics, it seems to be the case that University institutions are structured in a way to drag out the duration of a college degree as long as possible in order to justify the fees it charges students and create maximum prophet.
Of course who could ever be qualified enough to challenge this? Most lecturers would counter this argument by saying that one lecture requires 3 hours of study time but in reality how many people have you met actually do this?

Some online universities can complete degrees in 2 years or under but sometimes these degrees don't receive any recognition from accredited institutions. Why? I don't know but one can't help but wonder why universities are not organised in such ways. Obviously some time should be allocated for students to study and do assignments but this can be easily done where a student has only 13 hours a week. However it may not be so easy if those 13 hours are structured in way that they take up a full working day then studying becomes an extra component in your daily activities and lectures take ultimate priority.

Lets say for instance, a Monday timetable.
Module A 9 o'clock.
Module B 12 o'clock
and back to module A at 3 o'clock.

Now it would seem from any reasonable persons point of view that a timetable like this could be arranged far more covienietly for the student. Module A could be structured as a double class which would be convient for the lecturer and the student but why isn't it?

Normally the bullsh1t excuses you get are that lecturers have other committments or the lecture room is in use by another group. These arguments seise to be valid if a student is studying a singe honours programme like, lets say psychology, where the class would be functioning as a single entity and the lecturer would have no excuse to be somewhere else.
So what kind of impact does this have on students, how exactly do they pass the time? Well thats easy. Drink and drugs, just like the unemployed youth do with some exception.

So what exactly is college? Essentially, college is club set up by academics or PHD certified people or what ever you wanna call them. They hold the power to award degrees to students but first you must jump through hoops and hang around for 3 or 4 years before you get your degree or get admitted to the club. Nobody can question how the degree is awarded since the guys who make the rules run the show. A lot of people will tell you that college is about the 'experience' but there is nothing in college which cannot be experienced on the dole except for clubs and societies in universities.

So my conclusion on the matter is that governments should revise how univeristies are run and introduce some serious regulations to cut out the serious money making bull that goes on in here.

Does anyone else agree?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

paky

Melody Tinkling Prodigy wrote: »

Id say your in a tiny tiny minority of undergrad students who wouldnt like the summer off from college. Its a nonsensical suggestion in almost every way.

The above demonstrates you haven't a clue. Lecturers have far more for doing than teaching undergrads. Its only a small part of what they do. Supervising postgrads, doing their own research, generating funding, writing project proposals etc etc takes up most of their time.

surely they can do that in between classes? undergrads too have 'other' things to do and to be honest its a weak argument to make so you obviously don't have a clue

[Deleted User]

paky wrote: »

surely they can do that in between classes? undergrads too have 'other' things to do and to be honest its a weak argument to make so you obviously don't have a clue

Well yes I do have a clue actually and I know exactly how things work in a university unlike yourself, which you are demonstrating more with every post.

Fit it in between classes? More like fit the classes in around their other work. The non-teaching part of a lecturers job is a full time job itself, not some 10 minute aside that can be fitted into the day.

Anita Blow

paky wrote: »

surely they can do that in between classes? undergrads too have 'other' things to do and to be honest its a weak argument to make so you obviously don't have a clue

It's not a weak argument at all.
If you compress a 4 year degree into 2 years, you effectively double your lecture hours.
So take your course at 13 hours per week. If you double that for your year and the other 3 years currently doing the degree, your lecturers are facing a huge amount of time devoted to lectures each week and a dramatic decrease in the amount of time they can spend on research and their other academic duties.
Reduced research time=reduced research funding=less income for the university which they will have to make up by increasing student fees.
There's many reasons why an Honours degree is 3/4 years. Money-making is definitely one, but it's not the only one and the reasons for it far outweigh the reasons against it

languagenerd

I'm in my 3rd year of a language degree, and this year I only have 12 hours of classes a week. I'd rather more, especially for spoken languages*, as opportunities to practise with and learn from native speakers aren't exactly easy to find in Ireland... It's annoying, because atm we pay the same amount as other students who have full timetables, and I wouldn't mind a few extra hours a week - as it is, we get to exam time and I feel like we haven't had enough time/classes to learn about the topic.

That said, I have loads of work to do outside of the timetabled slots. Last term I had 20 works to read in 12 weeks (and that's just core texts, without any research or secondary reading), as well as 3 assignments a week, 3 major papers a term (usually due the same day too) that count towards the degree, and at least 5 presentations a term. And that doesn't include exam study.

OP, I guess you're supposed to fill the empty hours by studying and researching yourself...

On the other hand, I know that lecturers are busy with other stuff, and I use the summer holidays to do language courses abroad (I have to spend at least two months away for each langauge anyway), so I don't think the holidays are unnecessary.

*This is AH, I know what would happen if I wrote "I want more oral classes" :P

Zen65

paky wrote: »

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah here 13 hours? Are you studying law or something? When I was studying science I was in from 9 until 6 four for lectures and lab work bar friday when I only had lectures and was in from 9 until 3.

yes law but how do you justify such long summer holidays eh?

It's no wonder Tribunals take so long in this country when this is how they train the Legal profession!

Z

HavingCrack

The easiest way to reform universities for the benefit of the country is to push STEM subjects in a way they're pushed in India, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore etc. (All those subjects have long hours OP

). Asian universities have been racing up the league tables as a result. I admit that they have had huge levels of funding in the cases of China but that is only partly the reason.

Now this leads into the whole debate as to whether the function of universities is to provide workers for the workforce or is it to provide an education in of itself. While this is nothing wrong with Humanities and the Social Sciences they don't directly lead to any jobs related to the field of study for the most part. They provide critical thinking, research skills, public speaking yes but we also have a massive overproduction of graduates with the same skill set due to the relentless push for everyone to go to 3rd level. A 3rd level degree in History and Politics say that would have been seen as an achievement and would help you land a job 15 or 20 years ago is now very common.

This isn't to say that all STEM subjects are all golden either-Mechanical and Civil Engineering both have very high levels of graduate unemployment. A lot of Science graduates are also struggling for work.

In summary, while people should study what they like and are interested in we need to push STEM subjects through secondary schools far more-make people realise that their Arts degree is all well and good (and a great achievement-I'm not belittling it) but unlikely to provide employment due to the massive overproduction of universities.

Basically OP, I haven't a clue :pac:.

Sierra Oscar

Jernal wrote: »

How the heck!!? Just 13 hours. That. Does. Not. Compute.

Ha, try ten hours a week! :eek:

languagenerd

HavingCrack wrote: »

The easiest way to reform universities for the benefit of the country is to push STEM subjects in a way they're pushed in India, China, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore etc. (All those subjects have long hours OP ). Asian universities have been racing up the league tables as a result. I admit that they have had huge levels of funding in the cases of China but that is only partly the reason.

Now this leads into the whole debate as to whether the function of universities is to provide workers for the workforce or is it to provide an education in of itself. While this is nothing wrong with Humanities and the Social Sciences they don't directly lead to any jobs related to the field of study for the most part. They provide critical thinking, research skills, public speaking yes but we also have a massive overproduction of graduates with the same skill set due to the relentless push for everyone to go to 3rd level. A 3rd level degree in History and Politics say that would have been seen as an achievement and would help you land a job 15 or 20 years ago is now very common.

This isn't to say that all STEM subjects are all golden either-Mechanical and Civil Engineering both have very high levels of graduate unemployment. A lot of Science graduates are also struggling for work.

In summary, while people should study what they like and are interested in we need to push STEM subjects through secondary schools far more-make people realise that their Arts degree is all well and good (and a great achievement-I'm not belittling it) but unlikely to provide employment due to the massive overproduction of universities.

Basically OP, I haven't a clue :pac:.

But surely, if we push everyone towards Science and Technology, in few years time, they'll become just as common as the degrees you mentioned? There'll be a huge overflow of people with those degrees, and not enough jobs to go around. A few years ago, we had to get a lot of nurses in from the Phillipines to fill jobs because not enough people were picking Nursing - now there are more Nursing graduates than there are jobs. It all goes in cycles, and I don't think getting everyone to go to the same sectors is necessarily a good idea.

Also, that would mean that people who aren't interested in STEM subjects would do them anyway (because that would what they'd be told to do), and as a result, we would end up with some substandard scientists, engineers, doctors etc. who never really wanted that career. My guidance counsellor in school tried to push me towards Medicine because I had high points, but I never wanted to do it and I chose languages instead - no regrets, I'd've been a terrible doctor, because I felt no sense of vocation towards it, and I'd've ended up resenting it.

Arts degrees don't all lead to unemployment. We need teachers and translators and journalists and historians. Some subjects, yes, are highly unlikely to lead to employment, but others not so much.

RubyRoss

Yes Universities need to be reformed but students clearly won't be driving that reform if the best criticism they have is that there is too much of a gap between lectures.

Lecture times are arranged in consideration of the entire teaching load of a department and to allow lecturers time to do their own research as well as administration work.

Some courses are short-changed on teaching hours but that is very much dependent on the nature of the course and what kind of work the student is expected to do. On the main, I have little sympathy for anyone complaining that there is too much free time between lectures. Go to the library and read a book instead of relying on second-hand lecture or Wikipedia notes about it.

Humanities degrees are supposed to involve extensive reading of complicated ideas – ideas that take a while to fully understand. Students don’t do this reading and the universities largely let them get away with it. Material that should have been covered at degree level is now set aside for a taught MA. As a result students are spending more and the value of the MA is lowered.

For this reason, I’m against the idea of a two-year degree as it just means more rote-learning without adequate critical engagement.

Musefan

I have 13 hours a week in psychology lectures. Add on hour for project supervision each week, and then the reading time. Unfortunately to become a clinical psychologist, you need to have buckets of clinical experience before you apply. Most of us undergrads need the extra time during the week to juggle our voluntary and work commitments (Mine take about 10 hours a week, soon to be more). Psychology masters programs will also be structured to allow you to still keep your assistant psychologist post/voluntary work going.

Haelium

While in college you should be learning by yourself, not relying on other people to teach you everything.

College is not school, if your classes start at 2:00, that doesn't mean you can't go in at 9:00 and study in a library or something. Just because you're being taught one thing, doesn't mean you can't educate yourself on something else, but chances are that you will need to spend most of your time studying whatever it is that your degree is going to be in.

HavingCrack

languagenerd wrote: »

But surely, if we push everyone towards Science and Technology, in few years time, they'll become just as common as the degrees you mentioned? There'll be a huge overflow of people with those degrees, and not enough jobs to go around.

Yes and no as I'll explain. Like it or not we're a service based economy these days for the most part. Manufacturing etc. has gone. Primary industries can only support so many.

Now I fully believe in attempting to attract industry and manufacturing to Ireland. We need to 'make stuff' for lack of a better phrase instead of just providing service. However building up an industrial base would take time and to be honest probably will never happen.

Therefore we need something else-I suggest R & D which requires Science and Technology. Countries like Taiwan are not massive population size but have grown their economies on the back of this. STEM is the way forward-look at all the technology companies in Ireland. It's where we have to create jobs.

languagenerd wrote: »

A few years ago, we had to get a lot of nurses in from the Phillipines to fill jobs because not enough people were picking Nursing - now there are more Nursing graduates than there are jobs. It all goes in cycles, and I don't think getting everyone to go to the same sectors is necessarily a good idea.

I don't suggest everyone goes to the same sectors-not at all but some sectors need to be pushed more than others. As an aside we do have a Nursing shortage in Ireland-we just don't have the moeny to hire more.

languagenerd wrote: »

Also, that would mean that people who aren't interested in STEM subjects would do them anyway (because that would what they'd be told to do), and as a result, we would end up with some substandard scientists, engineers, doctors etc. who never really wanted that career.

I think people need to suck it up a bit. We've become too soft in Ireland. While I don't agree with all aspects of 'Tiger Mom' parenting the push for success and challenging yourself is absent in Ireland. The vast majority of people end up in careers they didn't envisage. We don't all get a dream job. If you're a qualified engineer you're a qualified engineer-just because you aren't overkeen on a job doesn't mean you cannot preform to an adequate standard.

languagenerd wrote: »

My guidance counsellor in school tried to push me towards Medicine because I had high points, but I never wanted to do it and I chose languages instead - no regrets, I'd've been a terrible doctor, because I felt no sense of vocation towards it, and I'd've ended up resenting it.

The points system is a terrible method for selecting students as you point it. It needs to be completely scrapped and replaced with an application proocedure that includes interviews, extra curricular activies etc.

languagenerd wrote: »

Arts degrees don't all lead to unemployment. We need teachers and translators and journalists and historians. Some subjects, yes, are highly unlikely to lead to employment, but others not so much.

We have a ridiculous amount of secondary school teachers and we always did. It's a real standby profession in many cases-I did an Arts degree so I'll become a teacher.

Translators-fine, it's important but it's hardly something that drives the economy of a city.

Journalism-dying profession in the print sector anyway. It's somethign that never needed a degree anyway-newspapers used to always hire cub reporters and train them themselves-you don't need a degree.

Historians-yes but as I said we will always have enough to cover it. Prior to free college fees did we have a massive dearth of historians?

I'm not criticising (did Arts myself), just presenting some arguments.

HavingCrack

Haelium wrote: »

While in college you should be learning by yourself, not relying on other people to teach you everything.

College is not school, if your classes start at 2:00, that doesn't mean you can't go in at 9:00 and study in a library or something. Just because you're being taught one thing, doesn't mean you can't educate yourself on something else, but chances are that you will need to spend most of your time studying whatever it is that your degree is going to be in.

Ah but in the humanities you don't you see. You can easily get away with cramming all your studying into the 2 weeks prior to exams for the most part and everyone does. Nobody is going to do a tonne of reading every day if they realise they can just leave it too the last minute and still get a 2:1.

College isn't hard enough in a lot of Humanities and Social Science and Business subjects by a long way.

starlit

Yes in terms of how modules and semester-ising yes in terms of courses but no in terms of reforming uni's think they are fine as they are but not to introduce any more of them though due to lack of funding they should endorse the amount of funding to put forward the uni's this countries has even closing the odd IT here and there or just amalgamate a few of them.

Though IT's will be popular for certain courses over others and due to the points race, IT's are good to have. Though in a recession, Uni's come first before IT's. While employers favour industry standard teachings from IT's they also prefer graduates coming from a Uni background too due to the skills learnt are more geared towards what employers are looking for these days. Talent, emerging talent is a major thing here and key to restoring this economy in the future!

The standard in the education system should improve and be reformed though for emerging economies in the future.

starlit

Though variations as to how 1st and 2nd class honours are perceived by employers. The whole Bachelors of Arts, Business, Science and Engineering can al l be perceived differently by employers especially in a recession so yes reforming how Arts degree courses or courses that aren't worth much compared to other ones like business, accountancy, nursing or computing. In the boom arts degrees were just as favourable as any other course in third level colleges and uni's.

languagenerd

HavingCrack wrote: »

I think people need to suck it up a bit. We've become too soft in Ireland. While I don't agree with all aspects of 'Tiger Mom' parenting the push for success and challenging yourself is absent in Ireland. The vast majority of people end up in careers they didn't envisage. We don't all get a dream job. If you're a qualified engineer you're a qualified engineer-just because you aren't overkeen on a job doesn't mean you cannot preform to an adequate standard.

Maybe engineering was a bad example, but I firmly believe certain jobs require a genuine interest in what you're doing. Doctors and nurses - it's all well and good knowing everything there is to know about your profession, but you need to be able to relate to your patients and to have the drive and motivation for what is a very challenging career. Same goes for any profession that influences others' lives - and I include teaching in that. It's very, very easy to tell the difference between a teacher who did it as a fallback and a teacher who always wanted to teach and loves their subject.

I know that we can't all do our dream jobs, but I think certain careers need more interest and drive than others.

HavingCrack wrote: »

Ah but in the humanities you don't you see. You can easily get away with cramming all your studying into the 2 weeks prior to exams for the most part and everyone does. Nobody is going to do a tonne of reading every day if they realise they can just leave it too the last minute and still get a 2:1.

I think that depends on your course and where you do it. Only one person got a first in my course last year, the next 10 people or so got a 2:1. Marking is ridiculously hard and there are people who study for the full year and only come out with a 2:2. I know I'm probably biased, being an Arts/Humanities student, but those are honest facts.

hattoncracker

Im a first year BSC degree and I have 22 hours of labs and lectures a week, weekly exams and a pile of revision and write ups.

In no way am I underworked. There are 250 people in my maths lecture and my lecturer has to mark all mid terms and term exams, make notes for us and does her own research. And thats just one class!

scholar007

paky wrote: »

After almost 4 years in college I'm beginning to think college is a bit of scam in that college is structured in a way so that it can justify making maximum prophet for minimum work.

You're absolutely right! - They should provide more lectures and tutorials in, oh I don't know, I'll just pick something random out of the air, I know! What about spelling?

swimming in a sea

pljudge321 wrote: »

Try doing a science or engineering degree if you want proper hours.

well don't know if you include computer science in above, but that course in university of limerick averaged about two lectures a day 1 hour length.

saa

My college is in serious debt and has a cut back of things at the expense of my education.
Has to be done, but somehow the tutors are still on their 60+ plus an hour wages so I see two of them for twenty minutes a week and have no classes and I'm a final year student, if I wanted to do the work all on my own I would have skipped the formality.

Nailz

Hours vary from course to course. For example, I do B.Sc. BIS in NUIG and you could be in early enough that it's still dark outside, and then only come back when the library closes at 10, plus you have an option of staying in until 1:30am in the reading room afterwards — which tends to happen the odd time. Maybe it's just your course, personally I welcome all this work, it keeps me occupied and away from the College Bar.

MickySticks

Prophet lol :pac:

clashburke

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ah here 13 hours? Are you studying law or something? When I was studying science I was in from 9 until 6 four for lectures and lab work bar friday when I only had lectures and was in from 9 until 3.

im doing law and have 24 hours of lectures a week!!:mad: not as much as other but not 13 like:rolleyes:

Brussels Sprout

hattoncracker wrote: »

There are 250 people in my maths lecture and my lecturer has to mark all mid terms and term exams, make notes for us and does her own research.

There's a very good chance that your lecturer gets one their underlings grad students to do the correcting for them.

[Deleted User]

I don't know what course you did, but most days I'm in at 9am and don't get out of college till the place closes. We have about 28 hours of lectures/labs per week. But usually have to stay on extra for project work/use of machines. I would love the extra time!

[Deleted User]

The thing I have always wondered about is ..how come you can do an honors degree in 3 years in the UK, but it take 4 years here?

HavingCrack

mariaalice wrote: »

The thing I have always wondered about is ..how come you can do an honors degree in 3 years in the UK, but it take 4 years here?

I think a lot of the NUI degrees are 3 years actually-Arts and Commerce in UCD and Maynooth definately are.

The UK and to a lesser extent Ireland are the only states in the western world with 3 year degrees as far as I know. The US, Canada, France and Germany are all 4 years.

skinny90

Op would ya do me favour and record urself having a talk with the dean of your school or the president of the university about this issue,maby then you will realise how silly your thread is,if you are attending college for 12-13 hrs a week what do expect to be at?scratching ur hole doing nothing?

Odysseus

Actually maybe the OP has a point, if he can manage to get through first year; maybe we do need a reform.

steddyeddy

Odysseus wrote: »

Actually maybe the OP has a point, if he can manage to get through first year; maybe we do need a reform.

Me-oowww!