[kka25]

I just checked this Uni's website and it stated that the Staff: Student ratio is 1:10, but , they stated that the population of the students is 150. One could deduce that they might have different classes for these 150 students in order to get the 1:10 ratio, but there is no such thing as a 'class' in the uni; just lecture theater/halls. How is it possible to get the 1:10 ratio then?

Also, I noticed that they normally lump programme X with programme Y and Z together in one place because they share the same modules, making the population even bigger!

Am I missing something here or is this a misleading advert from the Uni?

[canŵio]

(Original post by kka25)
I just checked this Uni's website and it stated that the Staff: Student ratio is 1:10, but , they stated that the population of the students is 150. One could deduce that they might have different classes for these 150 students in order to get the 1:10 ratio, but there is no such thing as a 'class' in the uni; just lecture theater/halls. How is it possible to get the 1:10 ratio then?

Also, I noticed that they normally lump programme X with programme Y and Z together in one place because they share the same modules, making the population even bigger!

Am I missing something here or is this a misleading advert from the Uni?

the ratio doesn't mean that every class will have 10 students with one lecturer/member of staff!

it just simply means for every 10 students, there is a member of staff. that doesn't necessarily mean teaching staff. it could be support staff, college staff etc. so you'll still be in a lecture with a good couple of hundred people and 1 lecturer.

[TheSownRose]

Not even close to the year Warwick used a picture of Warwick Castle on their prospectus.

[Potally_Tissed]

(Original post by TheSownRose)
Not even close to the year Warwick used a picture of Warwick Castle on their prospectus.

The name in general is misleading, but I suppose it sounds better than the University of Sort of Near Coventry.

(Original post by kka25)
I just checked this Uni's website and it stated that the Staff: Student ratio is 1:10, but , they stated that the population of the students is 150. One could deduce that they might have different classes for these 150 students in order to get the 1:10 ratio, but there is no such thing as a 'class' in the uni; just lecture theater/halls. How is it possible to get the 1:10 ratio then?

Also, I noticed that they normally lump programme X with programme Y and Z together in one place because they share the same modules, making the population even bigger!

Am I missing something here or is this a misleading advert from the Uni?

Link?

[TheSownRose]

(Original post by Potally_Tissed)
The name in general is misleading, but I suppose it sounds better than the University of Sort of Near Coventry.

They almost got my friend to apply because she thought it was an ancient university. (Though that is as much her fault for not researching.)

They could have used Leamington Spa instead? It also pre-dates Coventry University, so they could have used that name.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by kka25)
I just checked this Uni's website and it stated that the Staff: Student ratio is 1:10, but , they stated that the population of the students is 150. One could deduce that they might have different classes for these 150 students in order to get the 1:10 ratio, but there is no such thing as a 'class' in the uni; just lecture theater/halls. How is it possible to get the 1:10 ratio then?

Also, I noticed that they normally lump programme X with programme Y and Z together in one place because they share the same modules, making the population even bigger!

Am I missing something here or is this a misleading advert from the Uni?

Staff student ratio is just a figure, it means that within whatever set they are talking about there are 150 students and 15 staff. It doesn't say, and you shouldn't infer, that class sizes are 10 because they have only 1 member of staff lecturing.

In fact, universities often have to follow strict rules set by HEFCE and similar about how they record staff:student rations and these can often be very misleading, making the numbers more or less meaningless in terms of comparing universities.

For example, the way my university manages certain medical training over the first 3 years means that clinical staff are counted in a non-medical department under HEFCE rules. This means that the staff:student ratio for the non-medical department looks fantastic, because additional staff are counted in it (but not the medical students they teach), whereas the staff:student ratio in the medical department looks dreadful because the students are all counted in it, but only a handful of teaching staff are.

Universities manage their staff numbers, teaching methods and departmental organisation in a variety of ways. HEFCE requires one fixed method of reporting staff:student ratios. This leads to figures that do not necessarily reflect the true state of affairs for students.

It is impractical for every department of every university to explain every statistic it is obliged to report, which is why you shouldn't ever be swayed by a single factor, but should take a much more holistic approach to choosing where to study. That and ask questions of the departments etc if you have them.

[kka25]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
Staff student ratio is just a figure, it means that within whatever set they are talking about there are 150 students and 15 staff. It doesn't say, and you shouldn't infer, that class sizes are 10 because they have only 1 member of staff lecturing.

Alright. Fair enough.

In fact, universities often have to follow strict rules set by HEFCE and similar about how they record staff:student rations and these can often be very misleading, making the numbers more or less meaningless in terms of comparing universities.

For example, the way my university manages certain medical training over the first 3 years means that clinical staff are counted in a non-medical department under HEFCE rules. This means that the staff:student ratio for the non-medical department looks fantastic, because additional staff are counted in it (but not the medical students they teach), whereas the staff:student ratio in the medical department looks dreadful because the students are all counted in it, but only a handful of teaching staff are.

Universities manage their staff numbers, teaching methods and departmental organisation in a variety of ways. HEFCE requires one fixed method of reporting staff:student ratios. This leads to figures that do not necessarily reflect the true state of affairs for students.

Doesn't that make it slightly... well I don't know... fraudulent?

It is impractical for every department of every university to explain every statistic it is obliged to report, which is why you shouldn't ever be swayed by a single factor, but should take a much more holistic approach to choosing where to study. That and ask questions of the departments etc if you have them.

It is impractical, but at the same time, I'm inclined to say it's a bit unethical as well. You would need to appreciate that some folks e.g old parents, A-Level students would be happy to see figures that indicate such good things, but (unfortunately) for them, not knowing what are the real stories behind those numbers. You can't say they are ignorant as well or they are 'responsible' to know the information that you would know e.g. HEFCE requirements. Those are something that ordinary folks wouldn't even have a clue what they represent.

I wouldn't but I know that some young uni students or clueless parents would, and they might be mislead to let their kids entering the Uni, thinking the staff could handle a large number of students.

Holistic itself is subjective really. Some folks and students can't just go to the Uni; location wise it's impractical for them to go e.g. International students? So, they do invest heavily on the Uni's websites I would presume.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by kka25)
Doesn't that make it slightly... well I don't know... fraudulent?



It is impractical, but at the same time, I'm inclined to say it's a bit unethical as well. You would need to appreciate that some folks e.g old parents, A-Level students would be happy to see figures that indicate such good things, but (unfortunately) for them, not knowing what are the real stories behind those numbers. You can't say they are ignorant as well or they are 'responsible' to know the information that you would know e.g. HEFCE requirements. Those are something that ordinary folks wouldn't even have a clue what they represent.

I wouldn't but I know that some young uni students or clueless parents would, and they might be mislead to let their kids entering the Uni, thinking the staff could handle a large number of students.

Holistic itself is subjective really. Some folks and students can't just go to the Uni; location wise it's impractical for them to go e.g. International students? So, they do invest heavily on the Uni's websites I would presume.

It's university, it's for clever people! But beyond being flippant, what are universities supposed to do? They are individual institutions with individual specialisms, priorities and human and physical resources. More and more statistics and numbers are demanded of them, from a range of governmental organisations, HEFCE, NSS,HESA and then all the various applicant populations. The numbers are complicated and contextual, you either have to engage with that and understand the issues - League tables are a classic example of that, or you have to pay the price of choosing not to, and that means either ignoring the numbers, or accepting you might be misunderstanding them.

Uni's make their websites as accurate and informative as they can, but there is a lot of information to get over in relatively short format. It is nigh on impossible to cater for every single possible individual priority with regard to what figures or information is vital to their decision making process. Universities themselves are well aware of the problems with staff:student figures. But in the grand scheme of things, these aren't usually key stats that people make decisions on. Some people might argue that modern technology makes academic staff:student ratios almost meaningless at undergrad. A number of students manage to get through undergrad courses with almost zero attendance at lectures!

[kka25]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
It's university, it's for clever people! But beyond being flippant, what are universities supposed to do? They are individual institutions with individual specialisms, priorities and human and physical resources. More and more statistics and numbers are demanded of them, from a range of governmental organisations, HEFCE, NSS,HESA and then all the various applicant populations. The numbers are complicated and contextual, you either have to engage with that and understand the issues - League tables are a classic example of that, or you have to pay the price of choosing not to, and that means either ignoring the numbers, or accepting you might be misunderstanding them.

Uni's make their websites as accurate and informative as they can, but there is a lot of information to get over in relatively short format. It is nigh on impossible to cater for every single possible individual priority with regard to what figures or information is vital to their decision making process. Universities themselves are well aware of the problems with staff:student figures. But in the grand scheme of things, these aren't usually key stats that people make decisions on. Some people might argue that modern technology makes academic staff:student ratios almost meaningless at undergrad. A number of students manage to get through undergrad courses with almost zero attendance at lectures!

You're making excuses for the Unis the way I see it. But lets just let that one rest, because I'm predicting it is going nowhere and we have to agree to disagree.

Source for this 'some people'? Please give me the citation for this. Also for the modern technology as well. What modern technology? Which one? I'm doing a lot or research at the moment with developments of modern technologies but what happened to them? Buried under the deepest jungles of ACM, IEEE, SciencDirect, Springer and other established online libraries that yet to see the light of the day. Deployed technologies you might argue; which one? when? who operates it? Zero attendance lectures? Who are these students? Sources? Are you talking from experience? What you say contradicts the whole idea of a quality education and quality higher education. There is a published paper on Higher Education, available on ScienceDirect or ACM, that stated that Universities need to attend to their students because it's their basic business model and this will reflect to their quality as a whole.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by kka25)
You're making excuses for the Unis the way I see it. But lets just let that one rest, because I'm predicting it is going nowhere and we have to agree to disagree.

Source for this 'some people'? Please give me the citation for this. Also for the modern technology as well. What modern technology? Which one? I'm doing a lot or research at the moment with developments of modern technologies but what happened to them? Buried under the deepest jungles of ACM, IEEE, SciencDirect, Springer and other established online libraries that yet to see the light of the day. Deployed technologies you might argue; which one? when? who operates it? Zero attendance lectures? Who are these students? Sources? Are you talking from experience? What you say contradicts the whole idea of a quality education and quality higher education. There is a published paper on Higher Education, available on ScienceDirect or ACM, that stated that Universities need to attend to their students because it's their basic business model and this will reflect to their quality as a whole.

Modern technologies from recording machines (send a mate and you can listen to the recording in your own time/room), powerpoint slides emailed around, Blackboard and its many uses (and other learning platforms are available!), formal voice recordings, of lectures, videoing, podcasting, itunes university resources, online discussion groups like a university based TSR. There are a myriad of technology based learning methods that mean turning up in a classroom at a set time to listen to a specific academic talk to you is only one, potentially diminishing method of gaining an education at university.

Universities are, right now, working on what this means to their business model, and what the long-term, steady state take-up and preference will be for students. Its fair to say that no-one knows at the moment. But it does seem evident from students, who are driving these changes, that those of us who like to sit in a classroom and have someone talk to us (yes, I am certainly one that prefers this) are likely to be only one of a range of options in the future. And one of the key features of these technological options is that they make staff:student ratio a much less relevant measure. Have you listened to Michael Sandel's philosophy lectures on i-tunes? You and several million others - you can't tell me that the staff:student ratio there is a negative.

Yes, currently having direct classroom access to top flight academics is seen as a sign of quality. But it also plays to only one type of learner. Nowadays with students having been brought up since primary school with technology in learning, universities are working hard at exploring all the possibilities. This is bound to make staff:student ratios less meaningful and relevant to the quality of educational provision.

[kka25]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
Modern technologies from recording machines (send a mate and you can listen to the recording in your own time/room), powerpoint slides emailed around, Blackboard and its many uses (and other learning platforms are available!), formal voice recordings, of lectures, videoing, podcasting, itunes university resources, online discussion groups like a university based TSR. There are a myriad of technology based learning methods that mean turning up in a classroom at a set time to listen to a specific academic talk to you is only one, potentially diminishing method of gaining an education at university.

Universities are, right now, working on what this means to their business model, and what the long-term, steady state take-up and preference will be for students. Its fair to say that no-one knows at the moment. But it does seem evident from students, who are driving these changes, that those of us who like to sit in a classroom and have someone talk to us (yes, I am certainly one that prefers this) are likely to be only one of a range of options in the future. And one of the key features of these technological options is that they make staff:student ratio a much less relevant measure. Have you listened to Michael Sandel's philosophy lectures on i-tunes? You and several million others - you can't tell me that the staff:student ratio there is a negative.

Yes, currently having direct classroom access to top flight academics is seen as a sign of quality. But it also plays to only one type of learner. Nowadays with students having been brought up since primary school with technology in learning, universities are working hard at exploring all the possibilities. This is bound to make staff:student ratios less meaningful and relevant to the quality of educational provision.

Recording Machines? Some lecturers won't allow that. There's an arguement somewhere that that would even have copyright issues with it. Find it. Powerpoint slides? So what? Lecturers can just read those and still wouldn't improve the education would it now? Videoing as above. Podcasting as above. iTunes as above. Online discussions - if they have it of course, but people don't pay fees to discuss online now do they?

By the vagueness and the generalization on the second paragraph, I won't say anything about it because it's more of a claim, and it's not supportted by facts. I think this is just an opinion, therefore I don't have to give any input on the matter. You need to be clear with your statements and arguments.

You're talking about very generic technologies here, to the point that I'm presuming you know nothing about the disadvantages, rather than the advantadges. Powerpoints, voicerecording, multimedia elements, etc, all have thier own disadvantadges. Your arguements revolve around the postives, but failed to even mentioned one of the negatives, therfore I can't accept your arguements to be credible.

The research that I'm embarking has informed me that there are so many complexity on the technologies itself, and by you saying all the 'positiveness' is just a sign a very low depth of perspective.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by kka25)
.............

The job I'm embarking on in a RG university is working on all of the above and considers other universities to be far more advanced in technology enhanced learning. I'm vague because I don't fancy being stalked. If this is a subject of your academic research, feel free to pm me for more specifics

[kka25]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
The job I'm embarking on in a RG university is working on all of the above and considers other universities to be far more advanced in technology enhanced learning. I'm vague because I don't fancy being stalked. If this is a subject of your academic research, feel free to pm me for more specifics

Fancy being stalked? You should have told me! I would have completely understand.

One day, who knows, we would have cited each other and we would argue in our own published papers

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by kka25)
Fancy being stalked? You should have told me! I would have completely understand.

One day, who knows, we would have cited each other and we would argue in our own published papers

Sorry, I wasn't specifically accusing you of stalking potential! I was thinking much more generally about all those possible lurkers out there.

[kka25]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
Sorry, I wasn't specifically accusing you of stalking potential! I was thinking much more generally about all those possible lurkers out there.

Owh, no no no. I know what you mean. So, don't worry about it.

[Meat is Murder]

I'm still waiting for the OP to post which uni it was...