Original post by vahik92look, i didnt say i expected uni to be easy, but having a horrible and difficult timetable does not anyhow increase the value of the degree, does it?
and i dont know what they do in other unis, but u see, im international and im paying £12,500 a year and what i get in tutorials for example is a tutor who when coming to the class, for the first couple of minutes tries to remember what he was going to say, then when the students, including myself, ask them a question in which we expect a clear answer - he just says yes, thats your opinion and doesnt even understand that were asking a question and not trying to express our opinions. after which all the students - and this is not me but others - saying oh God this is useless, we better countdown the time remaining to just get out of this lesson.
and the lectures - the professors are good, i know this, but what they teach us seems to be quite difficult and even to some extent impossible to link with the exams, the way we are assessed. they teach us X is this, Y is this and maybe sometimes analysis e.g. the adv/disadvantages of X are this and this. but when we get assignments, it is very different from what we learn.
ive had a feedback on an assignment that i failed saying you did not mention any statute or law. but believe it or not, we never ever had looked at any single statute or law. for contract law we have been taught there are four elements required for contract - offer,acceptance,consideration,intention to create legal relations. great. this is very clear. but then when it comes to the assignment, i analyse a case using these four elements and then they say i failed because i didnt mention any laws. but there are like thousands of issues with this, here are some:
1st - how would i know which statutes to use or based on which laws we are learning what we are, when we never ever looked at statutes?
2nd - how do i know what exactly i am assessed at if never has anybody got a criteria for marking? what are professors looking for? knowledge? logical thinking? analysis? our opinions? our knowledge of laws? history and precedents? and if i dont know these things, how on earth am i going to pass anything?
3rd - there just seems nobody there to help with these questions - ok, uni is different from schools, its more of an independent work. i know this, i accept this. but at least we have to know some criteria for marking, so that we know on what to concentrate our studies on. at the moment, the only thing weve got are a load of books to read, which when compared with the assignments that we are given - seems completely insufficient - yes we gain knowledge from books, yes we are able to analyse our knowledge after having read the book - but look - having done all of these is only 50%. so what is the other 50%? what? what is it that the examiners are looking for?
im only saying this because you seem to be defending KCL, maybe it is good compared to other unis - i dont know,ive never been to other unis - but overall, given the situation ive described, what do you think, is this the standard process of uni?