[Poppyxx]

(Original post by kka25)
Of course not; but the idea that you just get a 'guideline' from a lecture is just not worth the amount you're expected to pay them...

But at Oxford you're also paying for the one on one / two on one weekly tutorials, where you get intense feedback and have an intense debate on your essay.

For Arts subjects, lectures really are just a supplement to your own reading (where you've had access to potentially every book published in the UK) and tutorials.

[kka25]

(Original post by Poppyxx)
But at Oxford you're also paying for the one on one / two on one weekly tutorials, where you get intense feedback and have an intense debate on your essay.

For Arts subjects, lectures really are just a supplement to your own reading (where you've had access to potentially every book published in the UK) and tutorials.

Fair point but in (some) universities, they have also what they called consultation hours where you meet the lecturer and discuss/get feedback of your work; but obviously this is not compulsory and it's different than the Oxford system.

But my point is that, it shouldn't stop the lecturer(s) to just give a 'guideline' of what is being taught; it should be as good as possible. Some educators tend to make this as an excuse for themselves such as; "Ah, well, the students can just ask the tutor. I'll just skim through the slides or just read it. If they don't understand, they should read it on their own. Who cares." kind of mentality which I really despise. Then when the student(s) went to the tutor and ask for help, the tutor would say; "didn't you cover this in your lecture?".

[Poppyxx]

(Original post by kka25)
Fair point but in (some) universities, they have also what they called consultation hours where you meet the lecturer and discuss/get feedback of your work; but obviously this is not compulsory and it's different than the Oxford system.

But my point is that, it shouldn't stop the lecturer(s) to just give a 'guideline' of what is being taught; it should be as good as possible. Some educators tend to make this as an excuse for themselves such as; "Ah, well, the students can just ask the tutor. I'll just skim through the slides or just read it. If they don't understand, they should read it on their own. Who cares." kind of mentality which I really despise. Then when the student(s) went to the tutor and ask for help, the tutor would say; "didn't you cover this in your lecture?".

I don't think you can really understand what an Oxford tutorial is like until you've been in one... I didn't really get it until I had my first one. But the amount I learn when I walk out, and the way it's stretched my understanding and perspective on the subject, always surprises me. Obviously this requires a good tutor, but I've never had anything but excellent tutors.

To me the lectures set out the framework of each subject/topic. From there you fill in the frame with reading and tutes, and probably add an extension on as well.

I've been to some really good lectures, I've been to some weaker ones. Most lecturers are also tutors, so few have the sentiments of "who cares". They are all so passionate, have probably written some vital works on the topic, and often are the ones who write the exam papers. But they all recognise the limits of lectures and their role in the life of an Oxford, Arts UG. I've never had a tutor say "didn't you cover this in the lecture", they are more likely to say "how did you miss this in the reading".

At Oxford you 'read' for a degree, and that basically sums the whole process up. It's down to independent study, with the support and debate tutes give, and the lectures are there to supplement. If you go to every lecture, class and tutorial the number of contact hours is considerable. Especially with the low ratio in tutes of students to tutors.

All I say is relevant to the arts subjects, sciences are different I think.

[kka25]

(Original post by Poppyxx)
I don't think you can really understand what an Oxford tutorial is like until you've been in one... I didn't really get it until I had my first one. But the amount I learn when I walk out, and the way it's stretched my understanding and perspective on the subject, always surprises me. Obviously this requires a good tutor, but I've never had anything but excellent tutors.

To me the lectures set out the framework of each subject/topic. From there you fill in the frame with reading and tutes, and probably add an extension on as well.

I've been to some really good lectures, I've been to some weaker ones. Most lecturers are also tutors, so few have the sentiments of "who cares". They are all so passionate, have probably written some vital works on the topic, and often are the ones who write the exam papers. But they all recognise the limits of lectures and their role in the life of an Oxford, Arts UG. I've never had a tutor say "didn't you cover this in the lecture", they are more likely to say "how did you miss this in the reading".

At Oxford you 'read' for a degree, and that basically sums the whole process up. It's down to independent study, with the support and debate tutes give, and the lectures are there to supplement. If you go to every lecture, class and tutorial the number of contact hours is considerable. Especially with the low ratio in tutes of students to tutors.

All I say is relevant to the arts subjects, sciences are different I think.

Yes; the first paragraph would highlight my weakest argument. One needs to experience it then one can say something about it.

I didn't study at Oxford but at my previous UG Uni, it is really up to student(s) if they want to see the lecturer(s); it's all independently decide upon you. I took that opportunity and use it fully throughout my UG experience and frankly, I'm happy with it; when I met the lecturer personally, I have some insight on what they are thinking and how they view the course and the students; that, in my view, accelerate my thinking ability.

My previous UG uni was basically the same as well; some good lectures, and some awful lecturers that you just want to take a shoe, and throw at them (lol). And yes, the lecture is brief as well but they could explain the material within that time frame as comprehensive as possible. After that, if you want to learn more, you can and should do it, since your fundamentals are strong and you can independently search the materials by yourself since the delivery is good. But if the lecture is too brief, and the guidelines are just 'guidelines', with no explanation whatsoever and no Q&A, then I don't see the point. Better off read the slides on your own and study it on your own; but then, it goes back to why pay the fees in the first place?

Well, that's my 0.02.

[qwertyuiop1993]

(Original post by kka25)
Fair point but in (some) universities, they have also what they called consultation hours where you meet the lecturer and discuss/get feedback of your work; but obviously this is not compulsory and it's different than the Oxford system.

But my point is that, it shouldn't stop the lecturer(s) to just give a 'guideline' of what is being taught; it should be as good as possible. Some educators tend to make this as an excuse for themselves such as; "Ah, well, the students can just ask the tutor. I'll just skim through the slides or just read it. If they don't understand, they should read it on their own. Who cares." kind of mentality which I really despise. Then when the student(s) went to the tutor and ask for help, the tutor would say; "didn't you cover this in your lecture?".

I don't think the word 'guideline' is necessarily a negative one.
Some topics just can't be covered in-depth within a feasible about of time. Some lecturers do manage to strike a balance between a wealth of information and remaining engaging/efficient with time, but even then you can only scrape the surface.

Yet lectures raise issues that you yourself will go on to explore in your own time or in classes/tutorials - in this sense, the lecture as a guideline does not necessarily imply being hurried or sloppy, or a lack of actual teaching, but rather they play the role of a stepping stone for further inquiry. The lectures themselves often do have quite a lot of information, it's just that they will never cover more than one's discussions in classes/tutorials/own reading (unless one made the lecture courses infeasiby long) and I don't think think they should aim to do so.

I agree that certain lecturers seem to use this as an excuse not to try, but I think it's asking a lot of a lecturer to cover in-depth material when there are more efficient ways to introduce this depth. The complementary system of lectures/seminars/tutorials works well, in my opinion.