What does the undergraduate gain from attending a 'research-intensive' university?

Not sure about English but History is constantly being challenged and refined and new theories coming forth. So being at a research intensive university pays off in that regard.

Random example: Up until the late 1980s the British view of the Western Front in WW1 was of needless slaughter lead by incompetant upper class generals a la Blackadder. This was largely because of a book called 'The Donkeys' by Alan Clarke and the ones that followed in it's footsteps.

I am going to have to take issue with you about this. This view goes back at least to David Lloyd George's War Memoirs and arguably was the contemporaneous view of junior officers who served in WWI and was then reflected in military doctrine and staff training between the wars.

It is reflected in such things as Montgomery during WWII living in a caravan parked in front of his country house headquarters to avoid giving any impression of being a "chateaux general".

That does not that mean those contemporary views of the high command during WWI was an accurate assessment but nor does it mean that such views are the product of Alan Clarke and Joan Littlewood.

Except it didn't happen that way. Those views were around at the time but they didn't really become the 'defining' view of the war in the 1960s what with Clarke and the general political view of the era. The recent research done into the matter has shown that in the 1920s and 1930s the war was still looked upon in rather positive terms as 'something which had to be done' and there was no widespread resentment about the way it was fought other than the casualty levels, which were soberly accepted if horrifying. Lloyd-George's views are considered very shaky these days because he has a political agenda and furthermore he remembers things like great celebrations on the day when war was declared when historical research has shown there were no great celebrations nor the oft mentioned 'rush to colours' which is central to the old view of the war.

Furthermore detailed analysis of the writings of junior officers in the trenches reveals a rather workmanlike attitude towards the war and even patriotic overtones right the way through to 1918. There is a tendency in the historiography to focus upon upper middle class 'soldier-poets' such as Sassoon and Owen and to take their experience as what was typical for most soldiers on the Western Front when they were really outremers. Sure there was hideous conditions on the Western Front but not every soldier had the anti-war views of those soldiers and there is just as much evidence praising Brigadier-Generals, commanders of Corps and Army Generals (Plumer was especially well liked) as there is of them being criticised.

The Army learned throughout the war, that's the whole thesis of the new historiography. There was a syndrome of 'chateaux generalship' in the early years but by 1917 generals were regularly visiting the frontlines and meeting their troops. So while Monty was keen to avoid being seen as one, that doesn't mean that all generals acted that way in the First World War as the old thesis suggested, it merely reflects the lessons learned by the British Army in WW1.

This is my whole point. The recent research into the war has exploded all these old myths to the point that the 'learning curve' theory is now the accepted explanation of the British Army on the Western Front in nearly all modern historiography. I'm not coming down one side or the other on the argument just arguing what the modern historiography does. Which shows the benefits, even to a History student, of being at a research intensive institution.

Not sure about English but History is constantly being challenged and refined and new theories coming forth. So being at a research intensive university pays off in that regard.

I disagree, I study dance and in regards to the comments about the lecturers not having enough time for the undergrads, I have found my tutors to be very supportive with plenty of time to help us. I have gained just as many, and more skills, than any other person on a history or English degree for example.

presumably this research is published and makes it's way into the undergrad courses of less research oriented unis.


IMO the really diabolical lecturers are ones being kept around for their competence in research

Well obviously I can't speak for all schools and departments at all research intensive universities but I know for a fact that at Nottingham the history lecturers and tutors design and offer modules that are in-line with their own previous work, current interests and research projects. How does it make sense for them not to do that? Every tutor I've ever had the honour of being taught by has been very well read and researched in what they're teaching us and often their passion and knack of understanding for the topic is passed on to us, the students, which most usually makes for a very enriched learning experience.

I have had seminars with only 2 tutors who were not in possession of PhD's at the time but now are. All other lectures and seminars have been given by field experts.

In addition to this, there is quite a good 'open-door' policy at Nottingham. Tutors/professors, whatever you wish to call them, have weekly office hours and are always contactable over email. I've never found myself or my questions ignored. They are in fact welcomed. If pieces of work, especially independent research projects, extend into areas of expertise that aren't your supervisors other tutors are usually more than willing to offer some direction and advice which I think is great.

I find it quite hard to believe that this wouldn't be the case in other good History departments?

Could the reason for a lot of people saying it doesn't make an ounce of difference or in fact impacts negatively on the teaching be the fact that a lot of the time the pioneering research simply might not be of the level of the average undergrad and this is why it doesn't seem to be taught etc?

That's my point. Tutors in arts subjects have time for their students precisely because they're less likely to be doing research. But as a dance student, what have you gained from being at a research-intensive university?

you're better off going to a poly and studying they take more care of you, give you more support and answer your emails e.t.c. my uni however has lecturers that literally run out of the lecture theatre as soon as they've finished the lecture, they don't answer there emails and are not in their offices on their office hours. UGH.

Not sure about English but History is constantly being challenged and refined and new theories coming forth. So being at a research intensive university pays off in that regard.

Random example: Up until the late 1980s the British view of the Western Front in WW1 was of needless slaughter lead by incompetant upper class generals a la Blackadder. This was largely because of a book called 'The Donkeys' by Alan Clarke and the ones that followed in it's footsteps.

Since the 90s this has been challenged and surpassed by a view that the British Army on the Western Front experienced a 'learning curve' which explains the hideous losses of the early part of the war and also explains the victories at the end of the war, without using cliched old ideas like incompetent upper class twits sending brave working class men to their death.

This largely came about as a result of a new generation of historians going back into the archives, looking at the material available and coming to a quite different conclusion to Clarke.

Thus History is always being challenged and if you're at a research intensive uni you'll probably be taught much more up to date theories and research than if you went to the likes of an ex-poly or even established unis who are outside of Russell/1994.

you're better off going to a poly and studying they take more care of you, give you more support and answer your emails e.t.c. my uni however has lecturers that literally run out of the lecture theatre as soon as they've finished the lecture, they don't answer there emails and are not in their offices on their office hours. UGH.

Nothing 90% of research relates to non applicable things.

Therefore very little chance it can relate in any useful way to any taught course.

Think about it: LSE the supposed leader in econ/finance "research".

When was the last time you heard them being hired by a bank/IB/Pension fund/ CF firm to conduct research that would relate diretly to judgment calls on invesment finance/ trading etc ?

Nada, no nothing.

Why cause their research is funded by other public bodies whose topics are equally irrelevant.

Erm, LSE do loads of consultancy work...

Even so, industry doesn't have to directly fund research to find it applicable.

Isn't this the problem with most social sciences?

The view is changing and rightly so but that makes it a very subjective topic and open to personal bias and " one man's meat anothers poison" syndrome.

The result is that your degree grade could based solely on if your examiner likes the look of your script w/o any quantitative reference.

recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Yeah right.

Who for ? " The work foundation " LOL

What does your 2nd statement mean ?

And if you're an undergraduate studying an Arts subject, I imagine you gain even less.

Well no soc science and humanities exams and essays are usually marked on the quality of your argument, your use of sources, your grasp of fundamental aspects of the subject. It doesn't matter if your opinion is different from the exam markers so long as you accurately back it up and don't include anything which is plain wrong.