Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think they are. I think the powers above them both have just advocated a merger.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Span87)
    I recently graduated from the Education Studies degree, and I think amalgamating Education with Social Sciences is a great and much needed idea. I loved aspects of the sociology and psychology, but I was desperate for broader perspectives and deeper challenges.

    Education Studies is best understood and most fascinating when placed in the wider contexts of society and culture, and I think the Faculty itself could really benefit from working alongside sociology and anthropology in particular.

    Furthermore, I always felt the Faculty, when I was there, was quite insular: academic staff - whilst supportive of students and respected in their fields - often seemed not to have much of an awareness of what was happening in social science more generally; both in the university and nationally.
    Education Studies needs to be a subject which has a genuine grasp of its and learning institutions' place in society, culture, and politics on national and international levels; instead of, as I experienced it, focussing intensely on the minutiae of British curriculums and policy. I think making available to its students the real depths of Social Sciences through cooperation with other departments is exactly what the Faculty needs.
    :ditto: This is precisely the issue. And the bit in bold is the bit that has concerned me the most. In supervisions or lectures, when I've tried to raise related issues or studies from Sociology as a whole, this has been met with resistence, which I've found quite disturbing and shocking - really.
    (Original post by smilepea)
    I have to say that I completely love my tripos and the idea of scrapping it is quite horrific to me.
    Yeh but they're not. They're just condensing it and adding it to a broader field. You won't lose any content, but rather gain more content.
    (Original post by smilepea)

    Also this means that there'll not longer be an avenue for students with a broadly (or completely for that matter) scientific background to continue to pursue their scientific interests and their interests in the social sciences.
    Psychology in PPS is half taught by the Natural Sciences department.
    Nevertheless, I think this is a good thing. If Education Studies is not meant to be a course for future teachers, but rather a course about Education as an academic focus, then it ought not to be diluted by being taught alongside unrelated subjects. It should be taught with the social sciences which is the underpinning of Educational research.

    (Original post by smilepea)

    Whilst there would be diversity within the new social sciences tripos, I can't help but think that it would be to the same level that we educationalists love (well certainly my course friends and I do).
    Would or wouldn't? What you said didn't make sense. And PPS currently is pretty damn broad, and will be even more so with the plans proposed.
    (Original post by smilepea)

    Whilst I take Craggy's point on the depth, it is the case that for the 1st 2 years only 1/10th of time is spent on each of the foundation disciplines, where as the pure sociologists have spent 1/4 of first year and then a whole year after that.
    Yes, that's precisely what I was getting at. You definitely need alot more than a 10th of the most relevant social sciences.
    (Original post by smilepea)
    Also I'm concerned as to whether there would be a psychology option in the social sciences. One would expect that there would be but with it looking like they'll be a new department for psychology I wonder if that would be the case. The study of education without being able to study psychology is certainly not an appealing one.
    :eyeball: Of course there will...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Oh yeh, I forgot to mention that I'm not at all impressed at the University Committee in question which thought it was a sensible idea to tell Varsity that part of their reason was inferior 'calibre' of Education applicants. They really could have chosen to simply list all the other reasons, rather than publicly undermining an entire subject's worth of students. How insensitive! Did we really need to know that? I don't think so... :shifty:
    :facepalm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    Oh yeh, I forgot to mention that I'm not at all impressed at the University Committee in question which thought it was a sensible idea to tell Varsity that part of their reason was inferior 'calibre' of Education applicants. They really could have chosen to simply list all the other reasons, rather than publicly undermining an entire subject's worth of students. How insensitive! Did we really need to know that? I don't think so... :shifty:
    :facepalm:
    Yes, but presumably that was a (major) part of the reason. The university aims to admit the brightest students it can, and if a particular subject isn't attracting enough high-calibre applicants then it makes sense to review what's going wrong. Of course not all Education students should be tarred with the same brush, but Education students (on average) have the lowest UCAS points of all the students in the university, by a considerable margin.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcb914)
    Yes, but presumably that was a (major) part of the reason. The university aims to admit the brightest students it can, and if a particular subject isn't attracting enough high-calibre applicants then it makes sense to review what's going wrong. Of course not all Education students should be tarred with the same brush, but Education students (on average) have the lowest UCAS points of all the students in the university, by a considerable margin.
    I don't mind that being their reason. I just don't think there was any need for the entire student body to know that it was. It would have made sense on several other practical grounds without throwing in 'oh and Education students are crap' They could keep it to themselves. Varsity had enough for an article on it without them happily divulging everything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    I don't mind that being their reason. I just don't think there was any need for the entire student body to know that it was. It would have made sense on several other practical grounds without throwing in 'oh and Education students are crap' They could keep it to themselves. Varsity had enough for an article on it without them happily divulging everything.
    If it's a statistical fact, then presumably it's publically available somewhere, so there's no point hiding it. Also, I would think as a matter of principle that revealing the real reason for things happening is generally a good thing...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scipio90)
    If it's a statistical fact, then presumably it's publically available somewhere, so there's no point hiding it. Also, I would think as a matter of principle that revealing the real reason for things happening is generally a good thing...
    Well they needn't hide it. There just wasn't any need to flash it in neon lighting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that it certainly wasn't very diplomatic.

    On another note, Homerton College - which takes more Education Studies students than other Colleges, though by no means exclusively - had its JCR today voted against reacting to the proposals. There was a motion by some Education Studies students and their supporters to make it JCR policy to oppose it, but the majority of students decided they would prefer the College JCR to have no stance - presumably because the favoured the integration of the course into the SST.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tony_ron)
    I agree that it certainly wasn't very diplomatic.

    On another note, Homerton College - which takes more Education Studies students than other Colleges, though by no means exclusively - had its JCR today voted against reacting to the proposals. There was a motion by some Education Studies students and their supporters to make it JCR policy to oppose it, but the majority of students decided they would prefer the College JCR to have no stance - presumably because the favoured the integration of the course into the SST.
    That's interesting. Although I'm amused that students thought that your JCR having a stance would make any difference.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    That's interesting. Although I'm amused that students thought that your JCR having a stance would make any difference.
    Presumably Board members would be well aware that Education Studies students wouldn't be happy. The fact they they might try to voice that probably wouldn't make much difference, as I think it would be taken as a given from the start.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I would say 'what's it to them' if they can all finish their courses, but I suppose they might fear that it will devalue it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    Well they needn't hide it. There just wasn't any need to flash it in neon lighting.
    right, so you'd be like "we're gettin rid of the education course. no reason mate".

    that's very bad PR.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chewwy)
    right, so you'd be like "we're gettin rid of the education course. no reason mate".

    that's very bad PR.
    There were several other reasons. Didn't you read the article :eyeball:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I was emailing my old DoS about this. He was at the review board meeting when the new Social Sciences tripos was discussed. To his mind, the committee displayed 'many of the old skeletons' of Cambridge Education Studies snobbery, including that the first question asked of the head of the Ed Fac was, 'What, exactly, is the problem with the B.Ed?'.

    That's the B.Ed which was abolished in 2001.

    It's comfroting to know the review board were well-informed about what courses are actually available to Cambridge undergraduates...

    All I'm saying is that if Varsity were being inflamatory by choosing to highlight the - on occassion (although by no means universally) - lower UCAS scores of Education Studies students in comparison to other undergraduates (bearing in mind that since 2006, the standard AAA offer has applied to Education), then they are only reflecting what seems to be a deep-seated academic insecurity across the entire university.

    I could never work out why a university full of (in academic terms) the brightest brains in the UK and the world cared enough to be *****y about a small group of students, who contribute to the university with the same vigour, enthusiasm and talent in all other areas of university life (sport, music, drama, RAG, Cambridge Union etc) as other undergrads, and generally worked as hard and were as committed to their subject, but simply had only 6 A*s, rather than 12.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Span87)
    All I'm saying is that if Varsity were being inflamatory by choosing to highlight the - on occassion (although by no means universally) - lower UCAS scores of Education Studies students in comparison to other undergraduates (bearing in mind that since 2006, the standard AAA offer has applied to Education), then they are only reflecting what seems to be a deep-seated academic insecurity across the entire university.
    Yeh it was the Committee I was blaming for citing that reason and publicising it to Varsity, not Varsity for reporting it.
    (Original post by Span87)
    I could never work out why a university full of (in academic terms) the brightest brains in the UK and the world cared enough to be *****y about a small group of students, who contribute to the university with the same vigour, enthusiasm and talent in all other areas of university life (sport, music, drama, RAG, Cambridge Union etc) as other undergrads, and generally worked as hard and were as committed to their subject, but simply had only 6 A*s, rather than 12.
    Yep its rather pathetic and immature. SPS gets the same sort of stick. As does Land Economy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    Yeh it was the Committee I was blaming for citing that reason and publicising it to Varsity, not Varsity for reporting it.

    Yep its rather pathetic and immature. SPS gets the same sort of stick. As does Land Economy.
    I guess, though, if they'd chosen not to put that out as a reason and then someone decided to read what i presume is an at least somewhat public report, then it might have become a rather divisive question as to why they'd chosen NOT to list it as a reason, when someone decided to read it and noticed... maybe...

    As for the more general proposal, i think it's an excellent idea - i would love to have had the option to apply for a social sciences tripos, and i think that it's a shame that the big head line has been 'education faculty to be annihilated!?!11' rather than anything more productive about the seemingly constructive suggestions that have been made..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by groovy_moose)
    I guess, though, if they'd chosen not to put that out as a reason and then someone decided to read what i presume is an at least somewhat public report, then it might have become a rather divisive question as to why they'd chosen NOT to list it as a reason, when someone decided to read it and noticed... maybe...
    Once again, you're focusing on Varsity's choice to report it. I was targetting the decision of the Council to publicise their reasons for the changes. The scenario you're describing might cause people to complain at Varsity not reporting the full picture (very unlikely) And no I can't imagine a situation in which people complain at the University for only listing some of several good reasons, especially when they could easily justify it by saying 'we thought this was a sensitive matter and did not need to frame the decision in these terms to the public.' But obviously this would never happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    Yeh it was the Committee I was blaming for citing that reason and publicising it to Varsity, not Varsity for reporting it.

    Yep its rather pathetic and immature. SPS gets the same sort of stick. As does Land Economy.
    How can you criticise the Committee for citing the reason, when it was a major part of the reasoning? If anything, trying to conceal it could have been worse as it could have prompted much speculation and exaggeration. The committee was simply stating the facts.

    (Original post by Span87)
    I could never work out why a university full of (in academic terms) the brightest brains in the UK and the world cared enough to be *****y about a small group of students, who contribute to the university with the same vigour, enthusiasm and talent in all other areas of university life (sport, music, drama, RAG, Cambridge Union etc) as other undergrads, and generally worked as hard and were as committed to their subject, but simply had only 6 A*s, rather than 12.
    The university is an academic institution and work is the primary focus - not "all the other areas of university life". Since Cambridge has a limited number of spaces to offer, it makes sense to give those places to those who have achieved, or showed potential to achieve, the very best grades. Whilst I agree that ****ging off subjects is immature and unnecessary, in the case of Education it is factually accurate to say that the academic standards of its students are well below the university average. Education students have an average UCAS point score of 438, which compares with 494 in SPS and 511 in Land Economy. It's clear that the latter two subjects don't deserve any "stick" for attracting inferior applicants, but as for Education it either needed to improve its entry standards or get scrapped......
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcb914)
    How can you criticise the Committee for citing the reason, when it was a major part of the reasoning? If anything, trying to conceal it could have been worse as it could have prompted much speculation and exaggeration. The committee was simply stating the facts.
    Option 1: Communicate all the reasons except the one that is sensitive and offensive to a large portion of the student body, with no negative downsides (I have not been convinced by anybody's arguments that they would ever be called up on it, that the other reasons would not be accepted as reason enough, that anybody would have any issues with that at all except the 'idea' of not being told all the information (which of course they wouldn't have a chance to feel affronted about because they wouldn't know)
    Option 2: Communicate all the reasons, including the sensitive area with the result of confirming and enhancing any negative stereotypes people already have, demotivating and humiliating all the Education students for no reason (its not their fault they were accepted when they applied), and more generally reinforcing the notion that its perfectly ok for the student body to perceive and judge subjects according to notions about the quality of course and intake. Nice one.

    Seems pretty straightforward to me.

    (Original post by jcb914)
    The university is an academic institution and work is the primary focus - not "all the other areas of university life". Since Cambridge has a limited number of spaces to offer, it makes sense to give those places to those who have achieved, or showed potential to achieve, the very best grades. Whilst I agree that ****ging off subjects is immature and unnecessary, in the case of Education it is factually accurate to say that the academic standards of its students are well below the university average. Education students have an average UCAS point score of 438, which compares with 494 in SPS and 511 in Land Economy. It's clear that the latter two subjects don't deserve any "stick" for attracting inferior applicants, but as for Education it either needed to improve its entry standards or get scrapped......
    Well I agree with the first bit. And I don't have any problem with the University for taking the action that they have for this reason. (I hold that it isn't the only reason though!) I just think it would have been very easy for them to communicate it differently. Also I don't think Education 'deserves' stick in that sense. If the University chose to accept students with those grades, then its their own failings they need to face up to, even in terms of the nature and quality of the course they offered. And of its admissions. I believe they are, but it generally did not sound good or sensitive to those students.

    Edit: I'm willing to concede it might be reasonable to release that information. However I think they could have made some sort of conciliatory statement in order to make it come across as less damning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What I'm wondering is what will happen to those students who would have liked to study Education with another (non-social science) subject? For example, I know people who are taking Education and Physics and Education and Spanish. Surely it would be a shame to discontinue that route.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • 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.

  • 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

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