Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The difference between a 2:1 and a First with regards to career opportunities? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simplicity)
    I actually agree with Jake22. Was just giving the counterpoint. Note, don't think students are being scammed.
    My point was that Jake proposes students being pro-active, inquisitive, self-learning, etc. Rather than puppets who wrote learn and past-paper whore. I fully agree, but my point was universities can't charge thousands for 'tuition fees' and then force students to teach themselves from books. Students will be very happy to self-learn if the fees were scrapped; clearly they'd benefit from it too, as they'll understand the stuff rather than parrot learn. But the unis want the money.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wanderlust.xx)
    Royal Holloway. Yes, the lecturer does have office hours; but again, if I were to go, I'd have to know what questions to ask. For that, I'd need a basic level of understanding of the content, which I seem to have.

    The questions, however, seem to be drawing from intuition far more than the other courses - ie, there's no "groups" to the questions (where you can understand the proof for one question and then adapt it to other, similar questions), mostly because we haven't seen enough questions to become familiar with them.

    I admit that I don't read around this module in particular, because I've lost all passion for it. I read around Calculus topics or Mechanics modules because they interest me and I genuinely enjoy doing them, but the lecturer hasn't made the topic interesting, and I have another 40 people who would completely agree with me.

    To be fair, I try not to rote learn. I understand what I'm doing so I can at the very least know why I can create a solution in one way, whereas I cannot in another. I know plenty of peers who rote learn and can in no way remember, for example, what a vector space is from last year, which I agree, is pathetic and depressing. There are, however, the individuals with some level of understanding and enjoyment of mathematics who want to enjoy a topic but aren't inspired.

    That, in my opinion, is a real shame. I actually learnt last year's course on Matrix Algebra from videos of a series of MIT lectures, since I had the same problem with a lecturer last year. The MIT lecturer made the subject interesting and taught it well, and I understood the concepts far more clearly than I ever did sitting in the lectures listening to the monotonous voice of my bored teacher. I got my highest mark in that module.

    If my Group/Graph theory lecturer was a little more adept at teaching/inspiring, perhaps I'd be more inclined to learn the subject rather than complain about it.
    That's your problem then. If you can't be bothered to even try and say what you are confused about, then how you meant to correct misunderstanding. A lot of people complained about the linear algebra lecturer last year, however if you talked to her she helped. Again, at least try next time.

    Thats a good thing. Sooner or later you need to get away from the copy and paste crap that you have been doing for years. Again, buy a book on abstract algebra and read it.

    Having 40 people agree with you is the norm. Mostly the people who are going to score low. The people who are going to score high will say the complete opposite. I don't know if inspiration works like that. Still don't know what you want the lecturer to do? some sort of magic.

    The MIT lecturer is the best lecturer in linear algebra, his books are probably the best introduction to it. So don't see your problem. Everyone last year complained about the linear algebra lecturer I had last year, but if you just spend like ten minutes talking to her she would help massively. Alternatively, you could say you got the highest mark in that because you did some independent work.

    I would just say you suck at group theory and are using it as a excuses. You can't be good at every subject. Sooner or later rote learning and depending on the lecturer to make you do work is going to fail. Note, I feel your pain as I hated number theory I had to do last year and never really understood it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    My point was that Jake proposes students being pro-active, inquisitive, self-learning, etc. Rather than puppets who wrote learn and past-paper whore. I fully agree, but my point was universities can't charge thousands for 'tuition fees' and then force students to teach themselves from books. Students will be very happy to self-learn if the fees were scrapped; clearly they'd benefit from it too, as they'll understand the stuff rather than parrot learn. But the unis want the money.
    My point is that just because students now how to pay - why should our culture suffer by changing the nature of our universities just so that people feel that they are getting value for money? Surely the accreditation, guidance and resources are worth the money alone without anything else?

    I actually felt the opposite - seeing as I had to pay for a university education; that was what I wanted, not just another 3-4 years of school which is basically what most maths degrees now are.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    What about those many times you think you're right but there's a flaw in your proof? Or what if you have a solution but there is a much better way to do things?
    And how are you supposed to get to the stage where you can check your own material for errors?

    Isn't this the point of coursework, tutorials, exams and *shock horror* reading a book, looking on the internet etc. to see how they do something differently there?

    Why can't students chat amongst each other to clarify that they understand things? I just think that there has to be a cut off where you are the parrot who has no confidence in anything he does and need the 'big boys' to check over everything. There comes a stage where one has to be able to understand material sufficiently to be able to judge correctness - that used to be undergrad but now it is being pushed back to PhD level and its pathetic IMO.

    Model solutions are awful - they don't tell you if there is a flaw in your proof, they tell you here is someone else's proof and 99% of the time people just believe it without checking it. They teach you nothing and detract from your mathematical education.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jake22)
    My point is that just because students now how to pay - why should our culture suffer by changing the nature of our universities just so that people feel that they are getting value for money? Surely the accreditation, guidance and resources are worth the money alone without anything else?

    I actually felt the opposite - seeing as I had to pay for a university education; that was what I wanted, not just another 3-4 years of school which is basically what most maths degrees now are.
    If they have to pay, the culture will suffer, because students expect good teaching and spoonfeeding. The students haven't been given a choice; many would love the idea of skipping fees and just self-teaching. Infact, why do universities even exist? Can't people just self-teach and then sit the exams somewhere, when they're ready? There needn't be huge, costly institutions charging a fortune to claim a piece of paper from them.

    You're obviously not too fussed about the cost, and perhaps a potential lack of jobs after a degree, so you're happy. I like the idea in theory, and agree that understanding rather than wrote learning is what it should be about. But given the fees, and given the type of exams set and the 'model answers' handed out for every problem sheet and exam paper, the unis/gov have made it like this.

    I guess this brings the debate of whether there's any point in degrees and going to university, other than jumping the hoop for employer tick-boxes. Obvious reasons for a doctor or engineer; but a maths degree can be learnt via the library/online. True (even moreso perhaps) for arts degrees.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    I guess this brings the debate of whether there's any point in degrees and going to university, other than jumping the hoop for employer tick-boxes. Obvious reasons for a doctor or engineer; but a maths degree can be learnt via the library/online. True (even moreso perhaps) for arts degrees.
    Meh. Engineering could be done through apprenticeships + book learning
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jake22)
    Model solutions are awful - they don't tell you if there is a flaw in your proof, they tell you here is someone else's proof and 99% of the time people just believe it without checking it. They teach you nothing and detract from your mathematical education.
    The puppets at Imperial/other unis just learn them, with little understanding, and get 1sts/2.1's. As long as that is possible, it will continue. Degrees are just a passage people need to go through now, to get a job.

    If you want to be stretched, look at IMO/BMO/STEP III/Hard IQ tests or whatever. Wrote learning model answers and doing familiar exam Qs will not stretch you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simplicity)


    I agree with this. The big problem is that students have paid £3,000 a year to do it. So the idea that you should be paying someone so you can learn for yourself seems like a scam.
    3k? You're telling me that alot, are you?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SimonM)
    Meh. Engineering could be done through apprenticeships + book learning
    Perhaps, but a place still needs to front up the equipment and teach you, since it's practical. The equipment/human involved may as well be from a uni.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lubus)
    3k? You're telling me that alot, are you?
    £3300 per year + big expenses. That's a hell of a lot for a piece of paper really, when you could learn the degree in your own time/pace via the net/library, for little cost. And probably develop far better study habits and level of understanding.

    Of course, unis conveniently don't allow anyone to just sit the exams at their uni and then gain the certificate. They want you to go through the procedure of paying fees and sitting exams year by year. Very slow and very costly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Quite a lot. Any employer I've talked to has said a First is a great way to differentiate job applicants. That said, it'll only get you the interview, not the job!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Physics Enemy)
    The puppets at Imperial/other unis just learn them, with little understanding, and get 1sts/2.1's. As long as that is possible, it will continue. Degrees are just a passage people need to go through now, to get a job.

    If you want to be stretched, look at IMO/BMO/STEP III/Hard IQ tests or whatever. Wrote learning model answers and doing familiar exam Qs will not stretch you.

    I think you mean, rote?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by boromir9111)
    I think you mean, rote?
    weyyyyyyyy
    • Offline

      2
      (Original post by SimonM)
      Meh. Engineering could be done through apprenticeships + book learning

      No, they still need the university laboratories to learn and the more talented ones to invent. Why should we leave the engineering inventions to the hands of corporate sharks that are driven by greed and not vision.
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Physics Enemy)
      You're obviously not too fussed about the cost, and perhaps a potential lack of jobs after a degree, so you're happy. I like the idea in theory, and agree that understanding rather than wrote learning is what it should be about. But given the fees, and given the type of exams set and the 'model answers' handed out for every problem sheet and exam paper, the unis/gov have made it like this.
      No. My point was that I prefer the old system of what universities used to be. I don't agree with tuition fees - I disagree with the whole system. What I am saying is that I am not going to change my mindset just because all of a sudden I have to pay (which is only on paper anyway seeing as it was all loans that I haven't even started to pay back yet) but rather I will approach university and try and get out of it what I want.

      I just don't see the argument that just because people are paying, we have to turn universities into some job factory *** middle class national service.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Jake22)
      No. My point was that I prefer the old system of what universities used to be. I don't agree with tuition fees - I disagree with the whole system. What I am saying is that I am not going to change my mindset just because all of a sudden I have to pay (which is only on paper anyway seeing as it was all loans that I haven't even started to pay back yet) but rather I will approach university and try and get out of it what I want.
      I see your point, but students are entitled to good teaching and so forth if they pay fees. You can perhaps tell them that they should always maximize their efforts outside the lecture theatre and not rely on spoonfeeding, but that's easier said than done. It's their choice how they utilise their time, but they've paid for a service so they expect to get it. If unis don't want to teach, they should stop the fees, or just close down altogether and instead allow provision for exam centres so people can sit degree exams when they are ready, after self teaching the material. The exams can be made harder and more creative/aptitude based too (while they're at it).

      (Original post by Jake22)
      I just don't see the argument that just because people are paying, we have to turn universities into some job factory *** middle class national service.
      It's moreso a natural progression into that path. Once they introduce (big) fees, it becomes a money/job issue, since people could self-teach for free, but need that piece of paper to jump through employer hoops/tick boxing, as opposed to going to uni for education's sake. Once you're cornered to forking out money to jump through hoops, when you know full well you could self learn for little cost, then it becomes a job factory in the eyes of many. I pay the money, I expect the goods; if you don't want to provide, then abolish the fees and/or get rid of employer's banal middle-class requirements.
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by boromir9111)
      I think you mean, rote?
      I do. But rote reminds of writing, so I'm inclined to type 'wrote'. Rote reminds me of rota, which is pretty much unrelated. Sneaky language.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      For maths modules you need past papers. You could learn everything about a topic to a first class level, but find yourself unable to spot what the question is trying to get you to do in the exam or how to apply what you know then you're not going to do very good. Maybe this isn't the case with a pure maths degree but I find this a lot with my degree... And I have to admit doing every past paper I get my hands on has helped me secure a first in every one of my maths/stats modules. But oh well.

      If your lecturer doesn't provide answers to textbook questions, another lecturer from another university may have. Try typing the question word for word into google within quote marks and adding a filetype clause to the search like this:

      "question here" filetypedf
      "question here" filetype:doc

      I've gotten all my textbook answers this way.


      And there's pretty much nothing you can do about **** lecturers. Just try and do as best you can. Complaining gets you nowhere.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Physics Enemy)
      I do. But rote reminds of writing, so I'm inclined to type 'wrote'. Rote reminds me of rota, which is pretty much unrelated. Sneaky language.
      I hear dat! :yes:
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Simplicity)
      That's your problem then. If you can't be bothered to even try and say what you are confused about, then how you meant to correct misunderstanding. A lot of people complained about the linear algebra lecturer last year, however if you talked to her she helped. Again, at least try next time.

      Thats a good thing. Sooner or later you need to get away from the copy and paste crap that you have been doing for years. Again, buy a book on abstract algebra and read it.

      Having 40 people agree with you is the norm. Mostly the people who are going to score low. The people who are going to score high will say the complete opposite. I don't know if inspiration works like that. Still don't know what you want the lecturer to do? some sort of magic.

      The MIT lecturer is the best lecturer in linear algebra, his books are probably the best introduction to it. So don't see your problem. Everyone last year complained about the linear algebra lecturer I had last year, but if you just spend like ten minutes talking to her she would help massively. Alternatively, you could say you got the highest mark in that because you did some independent work.

      I would just say you suck at group theory and are using it as a excuses. You can't be good at every subject. Sooner or later rote learning and depending on the lecturer to make you do work is going to fail. Note, I feel your pain as I hated number theory I had to do last year and never really understood it.

      Lol.....I give you respect mate, you speak the truth and don't care what others think! :yep:
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.