University experience is a joke! £7,000 a year for 3 hours tuition a week.

Scroll to see replies

Sorry to hear about it all and I don't wanna patronise you, but I'm afraid university is where you go to independently study with guidance. Especially in third year, you're going to get under 10 hours guidance.

That's what shocks people about uni - it's not like 6th form where you're in 30 hours a week and you're told all the things you need to know with about 10% outside research.

For my third year Psychology project, I was told about one key article relating to my chosen topic then I found the other 30 journal articles myself and formed an argument, collected my own data etc.

Tbh, although I've grown a lot and experienced a lot at uni, I wouldn't do a degree now it costs £9000 unless it directly influenced job choice i.e. medicine, vetinary etc. I did psychology cos I was interested in it, but now I've graduated I dunno what to do for a job so I'm just a waitress!

Reply 61

River85

Original post by punani

Or you could just do Law?

But not everyone is able to study law at undergraduate level? Or perhaps they would just prefer study History (or any other humanities subject) and welcome the broader knowlege and experience that it may provide.

I do agree that we perhaps have a saturation of humanities graduates (relative to the number of graduate jobs). However, this isn't to say that there aren't jobs were certain humanities degrees are either strongly preferred or essential particularly in the heritage sector.

Reply 62

Lazaroo

Wow, my course was 9-5 Monday to Friday with the exception of the odd few half days. I can't imagine only having a few hours lecture time per week.

This was sent from TSR's iPhone app, as I couldn't be arsed to turn on the laptop.

Reply 63

punani

Original post by vaguity

You could, but solicitors I've spoken to have told me that graduates with the GDL actually get an edge because they're more 'rounded', especially if they take a degree in something like History which uses a lot of the required skills for law.

Law firms often recruit 50/50 or 40/60 from non-law and law degrees, so obviously they don't like just recruiting law students, and English Literature and History are highly recommended for law...I imagine they'd have the edge over graduates with something like physics when it comes to applying for a TC.

Coming from someone who's applying for LLB Law but considered a degree in History and English Literature then a GDL...I've done my research lol, trust me.

Sticking to my belief a degree in Physics or Biology isn't better than a degree in History of English Literature.

If you know what you want and your research tells you that the History of English Lit will get you where you want to be then brilliant. I'm not slagging off Humanities/Arts subjects as a degree. I am saying I chose not to do a degree in history despite having an interest in it because I wasn't interested in the types of careers it could lead to.

The Library pass comment I made before was clearly just a flippant bit of banter.

GDL sounds expensive though without a loan to cover it. Who can afford to do that any more?

All things considered a physics degree is better than a History of English Lit degree though.

Reply 64

punani

Original post by River85

For sure. I know someone who did Philosophy at Oxford and went on to a very successful career as a barrister.

How many people do Humanities at relatively obscure universities with mediocre grades and go on to successful careers though?

Reply 65

BuildingACritic

Original post by RowingGoose

I know that I can't expect to be handed things on a plate. It's just a variety of negative experiences have come through university. I think it's just a combination of everything that has prompted this post. What's your long term goal?

Reply 66

Beri

It sounds like you're having a very bad time but why are you complaining after 3 years..? You should have gotten some idea of how your course operates in the first couple of months. Isn't it a little too late for reimbursement of fees?

Reply 67

River85

Original post by punani

I don't know, I've never undertaken a survey! :p:

However, grades during school don't necessarily dictate future career success (only a relative handful of companies have A-level filters in place and they aren't common in the areas I was principally referring to such as the heritage sector).

How are we defining success? Simply earning an above average salary? I don't even think this is as one can perform a valuable job, and do so quite efficiently, but receive a modest salary.

I do recognise that there are many graduates, including graduates of low ranking universities, who do spend their life in non-graduate roles due to choice or necessity. However, I don't feel that people should only study a degree in order to get a graduate job. If they have a genuine interest in the subject they wish to study then I don't mind if they study it, and if they're effectively subsidising science degrees by doing so then great :p:

Education is something to value for its own sake.

BuildingACritic

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree that with increased fees students are going to become even less tolerant of poor teaching standards and limited contact hours. I don't think what you have experienced is necessarily a typical experience but it is still one that some have.

On the other hand, I feel that it's the quality of contact time that you have a problem with, as much as the quantity? You say that people are in for a shock when they begin full time employment. I like to think (and it's been my experience that) students with university aren't naive. Those doing courses with only a few contact hours are aware of the fact that they have it easy relative to someone doing a full-time job who is expected to be in for 8 or 9 in the morning, with perhaps a couple of hours of commuting. But this isn't to say that a successful undergraduate student has lived in a complete bubble for three years and is unprepared for full time study.

An undergraduate degree, even one without many contact hours, still requires a time commitment (around 30 to 35 hours, perhaps 40 or so in the final year). This is comparable to a full time job. Yes, the student isn't expected to work solidly between 9-5, and, beyond compulsory teaching sessions, doesn't need to be at a specific place for a certain time, but they still need show a work ethic. They need to put the hours in, prioritise certain tasks over others and meet deadlines. Alongside this students do frequently balance part-time employment and are also involved in extra-curricular activities including volunteering.

You seem to suggest that this limited contact time may harm them when it comes to employment. However, if this "spare" time is used constructively, it can help to prepare them for a world of work. An arts degree requires a lot of independent study so a successful student is still able to show a commitment to independent study, the ability to self-motivate and perhaps using initiative as well as research information retrieval skills.

If you are so deeply unhappy I strongly advise you contact a course rep and perhaps a relevant member of academic staff in your department. If other students have similar concerns then get them involved. Also make sure you reply honestly to the NSS survey.

Do you receive adequate essay/assignment feedback? Or additional feedback sessions offered? Have you ever asked to see a tutor/academic outside of normal contact hours and, if so, did they refuse?

Reply 68

username1024541

Original post by punani

If you get a training contract, your firm is likely to cover it and even provides a maintenance grant (although that may not be true for small firms). So, plenty of people. It's no different from doing a 4 year course money wise...in fact, better, since your firm will pay. Doing a GDL without a TC lined up is very silly though.

Didn't mention a library pass comment? Huh?

well yeah, of course, if you're going into an area that's specifically science related (which obviously will be 'better'). You do earn slightly more money on average and you might be slightly more employable, admittedly, but I suppose it depends on how you're measuring it and what you want to go into afterwards. However, I actually meant specifically for law in my post :P

Although this has led to an interesting search of salaries by subject, and I'm surprised to find Russian so high (above physics) and surprised by how high Philosophy (beats Chemistry, Law, pharmacology) is placed, among others (theology)

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 69

punani

Original post by vaguity

If you get a training contract, your firm is likely to cover it and even provides a maintenance grant (although that may not be true for small firms). So, plenty of people. It's no different from doing a 4 year course money wise...in fact, better, since your firm will pay. Doing a GDL without a TC lined up is very silly though.

Didn't mention a library pass comment? Huh?

Why? Most graduate jobs are open to any degree, so unless you're going into an area that's specifically science related (which obviously will be 'better') then I don't see why it would be better. You might earn slightly more money in your area and you might be slightly more employable, admittedly, but I suppose it depends on how you're measuring it and what you want to go into afterwards. However, I actually meant specifically for law in my post :P

Although this has led to an interesting search of salaries by subject, and I'm surprised to find Russian so high (above physics) and surprised by how high Philosophy and, to a lesser extent, Politics are placed.

Maybe it's just me then. If someone told me they did a degree in English Lit, I would think so what, anyone could do that. If someone told me they did maths or physics or whatever I probably still wouldn't give a s*** but I would class that as a greater achievement.

Just as some A Levels are regarded harder or more worthwhile than others, the same holds for degrees.

But for sure, we all define success differently. As long as you go into your degree with your eyes open and realise what it will and won't do for you, then each to their own.

Reply 70

River85

Original post by punani

Except not every one can do a degree in English Literature. It requires an interest in English Literature for a start, along with a number of important skills. I know my brother wouldn't last five minutes doing my degree (Philosophy and Politics) as he doesn't have the ability to read and digest copious amounts of information, particularly about a topic he has limited interest in. He barely managed a B in GCSE History. Likewise, I probably couldn't do his (date communication systems engineering).

And I didn't understand the library pass comment. For a start what good is a library if it doesn't contain books? Where does the funding for the books come from? What about subscriptions to (very expensive) academic journals? Moreoever, even though contact hours are low it doesn't mean that no benefit is gained from the contact hours that are offered. An outline of topics is still required and peer-to-peer discussion in the form of seminars, directed by an academic, is a valuable opportunity to develop ideas and further understanding. Essay feedback is also required not to mention encouragement from academics. Added to all of this some people so require a degree in a specific humanities subject in order to pursue, or attempt to purse, the career they desire.

Reply 71

punani

Original post by River85

OK. Where to begin.

The library comment was meant to suggest that instead of paying however many thousands a year in fees, you could pay for a pass to a university library instead. It was meant to illustrate that all you're really paying for above that is for someone to mark your essays and have a little chat about what you've been reading 2 or 3 times week. Personally I wouldn't be happy paying much at all for this.

Obviously you can attach similar comments to a lot of courses, not just in the arts and humanities and I think the fact that we are seeing more and more of these discussions is because students are increasingly looking to see what sort of value they will gain from their degrees.

As I see it, the days of doing a subject just because you like it or to prove your academic vigour are coming to an end. Before we had 120 ish Universities churning out graduates in all kinds of things, a graduate in History or English or whatever was respected and the skills they learned valuable. Now they are ten a penny.

Obviously there are careers that require specific degrees and as I mentioned previously, all the best to anyone who thinks a degree in a particular subject will be beneficial to them. But lets not kid ourselves that all these graduates from universities that no one has heard of and that are studying subjects that only really leave them with soft skills are highly sought after. They're not. A quick session on Unistats will show them the reality.

Do you think that someone doing a science or engineering degree doesn't have to learn how to read and digest a lot of information? Although a student in these subjects will actually have to learn how to apply it as well.

I think English Lit is a joke subject, you don't. Lets leave it at that for just now.

Reply 72

Klix88

- Constant tutor availability for queries and any other issues regarding the course.

For you and several hundred other people? When are they supposed to lecture, mark and do their own research? And in most universities these days, if you're not pulling in a decent research grant from outside the organisation each year, you're sacked.

- Quality guest speakers... i.e somebody who has genuine experience in the film or screenwriting industry. Someone who can tell us how they managed to penetrate an industry that is so difficult to get into.

At Stafford? I doubt it's much of an attraction for industry leaders. Should've gone somewhere higher profile, I'm afraid.

- Acknowledgement of exceptional students by lecturers. You have to admit that there are students that desperately want to gain something from the course, and students who are in university to see how much alcohol they can consume in three years. I went through a phase of difficulty regarding the loss of a loved one, but worked my rear end off to do my best and not to let anyone else down.

You get recognition on your individual grades. And sorry to be harsh, but if you'd wanted to be cut some slack for your father passing away, then you should have submitted for Mitigating Circumstances. If you don't do this, then people will assume you wish to play it down and not have it taken into account. Which has happened.

- Individual grading for all academic work. With regard to group work, we're graded as a whole. Despite the effort, or lack of, we all get the same grade. How can that be fair when some students don't pull their weight?

I have to agree that working in a group of no-hopers was a complete pain in the arse. I always seemed to end up doing a lot more work than the average group output and there were a handful in my year who never did anything in group projects. It's a common problem for which there's no easy answer. Employers say they want graduates who are used to working collaboratively, so universities have had to implement collaborative coursework and assignments. Unfortunately the upshot is rather like real life - if you want something doing properly, you have to do it yourself and suck up the fact that some others will benefit unfairly. Just wait until you have a line manager who takes credit for every good bit of work *you* do, and blames you for all the bad work *they* do. Best get used to it now, I suppose... Plus with the coursework, there's no way of the lecturers knowing the group dynamic and unpicking the various threads of work in order to give an individual mark.

As for low contact hours, previous posters were correct. My contact hours reduced in the third year to allow for my own dissertation research. I had most of my dataset by this time in my third year. How's yours coming along?

And the fees aren't there to buy you a degree. They're there to give you access to the opportunities and facilities which allow you to study for a degree. If you live in the library, use the available IT services and turn up to whatever lectures/tutorials you have, then you'll get your money's worth. The universities are getting no more money than before. It's just the the money used to come from the government and the tap's been switched off. The money now comes from the student and is therefore more visible (and painful). Many universities now actually get less money, due to the capping process.

Reply 73

Politics Student

Original post by Klix88

I have to agree that working in a group of no-hopers was a complete pain in the arse. I always seemed to end up doing a lot more work than the average group output and there were a handful in my year who never did anything in group projects. It's a common problem for which there's no easy answer. Employers say they want graduates who are used to working collaboratively, so universities have had to implement collaborative coursework and assignments. Unfortunately the upshot is rather like real life - if you want something doing properly, you have to do it yourself and suck up the fact that some others will benefit unfairly. Just wait until you have a line manager who takes credit for every good bit of work *you* do, and blames you for all the bad work *they* do. Best get used to it now, I suppose... Plus with the coursework, there's no way of the lecturers knowing the group dynamic and unpicking the various threads of work in order to give an individual mark.

I agree that lecturers in many case cannot give fair individual marks for group work.

Throughout my undergraduate group work there was the odd case when it went awfully and 2 out of 5 did not work with the rest of us picking up the pieces. Other times we bounced ideas and arguments off each other with great results.

Trying to give individual marks of course is very difficult as people can be unfairly bullied in a group, or someone does more write up than another while the other spends most of the time finding all the core material for the argument but is then accused of not pulling their weight by the one who spent most of their time writing up in order to get more marks etc... Just proving who did more work than the others is very difficult and part of the point of group work is using the strengths of everyone in the group to produce high quality work.

The worst case was during my MSc when it got so bad that I just went to the lecturer and explained that "I was worried about him, as he was not working or turning up to meetings and I think something serious is going on in his life". The response was the lecturer called him in for a meeting to check up on him and made note that the problem would impact on the group.

I still prefer group based marking as there are a lot of issues with trying to give individual marks unless there is a serious issue in a group then lecturers are good enough to take that into consideration and will give that person a lower mark or at least not drag down the group mark.

As for low contact hours, previous posters were correct. My contact hours reduced in the third year to allow for my own dissertation research. I had most of my dataset by this time in my third year. How's yours coming along?

I had 5 hours contact in my final year with three of those hours being a 3 hour long workshop.

As you say the dissertation needs to have a key focus and juggled with the other assignments. I spent around 12 hours a day in the uni library during the final year due to the work load exploding with a handful of research intensive 3000-5000 word projects while doing the dissertation.

Like you and many others have repeated in this thread uni is independent learning the non contact time is meant to be spent working on assignments and reading around the subjects.

Reply 74

RowingGoose

Original post by BuildingACritic

Yeah it sounds like it's all added up. I had bad experiences at uni too but overall the lasting impression was good. Having said that, I was ready for it to be over/to leave and embrace the world... Now I'm in the world, I wish I was back at uni lol.

I either want to get into counselling or HR. I feel with counselling I need to be more 'life assured' to be able to properly help/guide others and with HR I need admin experience. So it'll be a few years till I get somewhere. Waitressing is ok for now but tiring work! How about u?

Reply 75

Maker

Arts and humanities have always had low contact hours compared to science, engineering and medical/nursing type degrees.

I am surprised people who are on these courses do not know this. Don't they ask questions when they visit?

I expect arts/humanities do subsidise other courses since they are cheaper to run. I can't see any changes to this unless the govt allows unis to charge the real cost for each course but that would make science and engineering courses much more expensive than now and put off people wanting to study useful subjects.

Reply 76

username944192

Original post by Historiana

Quoted for truth.

So true. I study law and everytime someone has complained about the fees going up Ive been left thinking, well even if my course went up to 10k I'd still study it. If people studied degrees that were worth studying then they wouldnt mind so much about the cost.

Reply 77

Historiana

Original post by infairverona

I did Law for a year before switching to History.

Although some say History is 'soft', I kind of need to do a History degree in order to do what I want to do: become an academic. And in comparison the Film Studies... No contest really. I suspect like Law and History, you don't get the vast amounts of reading. Just a lot of 'watching'.

Reply 78

username944192

Original post by Historiana

Ah I don't blame you haha. Yeah, its not soft if its what you want to work it. I know a girl doing film at kent, all she does is get set films to watch. in comparison, I have 10-15 hours of contact time a week, am reading around the clock in order to fit everything in PLUS the necessary volunteering/schemes required to be considered fo training contracts. Just doesn't compare to mickey mouse degrees, really.

Original post by punani

Or you could just do Law?

Such wise words. Huge amounts of hype around the GDL; employers don't like it that much because on an LLB you get the 7 key modules plus extra modules of further study, GDL qualifications only give you the bare minimum. Also, explaining you "wanted to study somethig you enjoyed first" isn't goig to cut it when you're against hundreds of law graduates with 2:1s/firsts who knew all along that they enjoyed law and wanted to work in it. Furthermore it doesn't even matter if you did history or science for the GDL, either way its not a law degree and therefore isn't going to help you in a legal career.