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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alow)
    This bit is particularly annoying. I was given a low practical mark for one of my assigned organic experiments this year because it was "easier" than other experiments. I know it's only a small proportion of the overall grade but it's not like it was my choice to do a practical that was easier to perform. I was quite annoyed at the time.

    Although I did get higher marks for lab reports than some people whose work was just as good so it's swings and roundabouts I suppose.

    I'm fairly lucky as I haven't experienced much else in your list, partly due to my college having (I think) the cheapest accommodation of any college and having relatively good supervisors for the most part.
    Urgh, yeah I had the most evil organic chem demonstrator in second year who gave me 2/10 for my first report - despite my college mum (who's report I'd based mine on, although obviously heavily reworded, properly referenced and improved a lot, I just used it as an idea of how to lay out the report and what kind of stuff to include...) getting 7/10 with it the previous year. Also I had that same issue last term where I had a demonstrator give me a lower practical mark because the experiment was "easier" despite it being a compulsory core experiment I hadn't had the option to pick a harder one for

    Argh, I get so annoyed with things at my college Recently got told that, despite paying £5000 a year for accommodation, we aren't even allowed to use all the kitchen facilities (apparently things like the dishwasher (I have very sensitive skin, doing the dishes is agony) and the only decent sized cupboards are for "staff use only" (i.e. conference guests)) when they were specifically advertised to us when choosing accommodation and we are paying for them! Similarly we can't use the college gym most of the time (even though it's card access, so could easily be 24/7) because it's reserved for fellows, and I get kicked out of accommodation before the start of may week (and therefore also before a potential oral exam) because conference guests are moving in... My supervisions have been mediocre at best, badly organised and several times supervisors have refused to mark extra work or offer revision supervisions because apparently the college refuses to fund it...

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Don't go to Murray Edwards anyone...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonkeeper999)
    Urgh, yeah I had the most evil organic chem demonstrator in second year who gave me 2/10 for my first report - despite my college mum (who's report I'd based mine on, although obviously heavily reworded, properly referenced and improved a lot, I just used it as an idea of how to lay out the report and what kind of stuff to include...) getting 7/10 with it the previous year. Also I had that same issue last term where I had a demonstrator give me a lower practical mark because the experiment was "easier" despite it being a compulsory core experiment I hadn't had the option to pick a harder one for

    Argh, I get so annoyed with things at my college Recently got told that, despite paying £5000 a year for accommodation, we aren't even allowed to use all the kitchen facilities (apparently things like the dishwasher (I have very sensitive skin, doing the dishes is agony) and the only decent sized cupboards are for "staff use only" (i.e. conference guests)) when they were specifically advertised to us when choosing accommodation and we are paying for them! Similarly we can't use the college gym most of the time (even though it's card access, so could easily be 24/7) because it's reserved for fellows, and I get kicked out of accommodation before the start of may week (and therefore also before a potential oral exam) because conference guests are moving in... My supervisions have been mediocre at best, badly organised and several times supervisors have refused to mark extra work or offer revision supervisions because apparently the college refuses to fund it...

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Don't go to Murray Edwards anyone...

    Practical marks seemed to depend a lot more on the demonstrators mood than anything else really. The one I was marked down in was also compulsory and obviously if I could have chosen a harder one for more marks I would so it's really not fair.

    Yeah that sucks. I pay £3.6k per year for ensuite accommodation which includes £600 to spend in hall/buttery and I can stay until the end of June. It's really not fair how different colleges have such drastically different living costs.

    Are the supervisions your DoS organised the bad ones (and shouldn't it be their job to fix that)? The ones I've had organised by the department have been good so far, and they've all said they can do some revision supervisions closer to exams without having to talk to my college to confirm it. Does that mean Murray Edwards contacts supervisors to tell them they won't fund extra supervisions before they have time to offer any?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reality Check)
    Just a little, rather irrelevant point, but one which actually made me physically itch: we don't have "semesters". We have "terms".

    (Original post by alow)
    "Semester" sounds far too American to me.
    Heh.

    I haven't been on this forum for years. I forgot how pedantic you lot can be.


    (Original post by Luke7456)
    See these are the sought of things that confuse me could that issue not be resolved by reading ahead? I mean if I was fortunate enough to get an Oxbridge offer and after having sat the exams was under the impression that their was a realistic chance that I had met the offer and was in, I would spend the summer period reading ahead to try and get a small lead or to compensate for that. I don't mean to imply that myself self studying could work at the same pace as oxbridge obviously not but I'd like to think that with a whole 2-3 months I could shave of at least a week or two? And if we have 3 terms that is 24 weeks a year we are at Oxbridge what happens to the other 28 weeks? Can we not utilise that?

    Am I missing something here?
    Well any student can do that but to be honest I don't think it would ever properly prepare someone for the workload.

    This is worsened by the fact that lecture material isn't often readily available. It's good and well saying, "Oh I have a course in fluid mechanics next year, I guess I should buy a book on that." , but in reality the courses tend to cherry pick the most important aspects from these very thick textbooks. How is a student supposed to know which bit is best to read for relevance to the course?

    Also, there's the fact that universities are adult education institutions, not schools. They offer courses for people who are paying good money to be there. If a course is advertised as being from date A to date B, then the course should fit comfortably in those dates without students having study the course material beforehand.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pessimisterious)
    Sounds like A-levels need to be altered and acceptance criteria needs to be looked at.

    My younger brother is at Oxford and hasn't complained once. He's very active in his various social things, too.

    Probably depends on the subject though.

    Also, I would agree that it may be harder at Oxbridge, but not because of tougher content. The stress is likely due to the condensed semester length. What I do at my uni in 10 weeks, Oxford does in 8.

    I've compared course content however and it's all the same, at least for physics it is. Probably changes in higher years but then at that point it's not about the difficulty, it's about what material the university is able to teach. This is often what sets unis apart - the earlier year modules are all the same, it's the 3rd/4th year stuff, taught by professors who are rare specialists in their field, that sets unis apart. For example my uni has an awesome 3rd year course in geophysical fluid dynamics which you can only get at a handful of British unis.

    Not that my uni is super duper - I'm just pointing out how a lot of universities have equally difficult material, and the only difference is the variety of modules available to students in later years.

    Conclusion: Oxbridge stuff is more difficult because of the condensed semester length. Course content isn't much different overall.
    That's contrary to the vast majority of accounts I've read, and to what I've seen for myself. I don't know about physics or what uni you're at, but I've seen content from other courses and there can be vast differences.

    (Original post by Luke7456)
    See these are the sought of things that confuse me could that issue not be resolved by reading ahead? I mean if I was fortunate enough to get an Oxbridge offer and after having sat the exams was under the impression that their was a realistic chance that I had met the offer and was in, I would spend the summer period reading ahead to try and get a small lead or to compensate for that. I don't mean to imply that myself self studying could work at the same pace as oxbridge obviously not but I'd like to think that with a whole 2-3 months I could shave of at least a week or two? And if we have 3 terms that is 24 weeks a year we are at Oxbridge what happens to the other 28 weeks? Can we not utilise that?

    Am I missing something here?
    I think you're missing that that poster is not correct. Oxbridge most definitely has harder content, as per the vast majority of accounts I've read and the fact that students from different unis can have such differing abilities on entry.

    Obviously almost all students continue working in the holidays (although summer can be fairly free), but its still challenging to keep pace.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    That's contrary to the vast majority of accounts I've read, and to what I've seen for myself. I don't know about physics or what uni you're at, but I've seen content from other courses and there can be vast differences.


    .
    Maybe it's a STEM thing.

    Every technical course learns the same basics which were mostly established a century or so ago. This foundation is then applied to more specific modules in later years.

    Like I said, it's the later years that count and set universities apart.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pessimisterious)
    Maybe it's a STEM thing.

    Every technical course learns the same basics which were mostly established a century or so ago. This foundation is then applied to more specific modules in later years.

    Like I said, it's the later years that count and set universities apart.
    Nope.

    Firstly - your theory that its because of term length at Oxbridge is definitely wrong. Students very much do work in holidays to catch up and consolidate knowledge from the previous term. The idea that they just...stop and chill whilst their peers are still at uni working is nonsense.

    So the main personal experience i have is from chemistry. I can barely even understand the questions for Oxford chem first year papers. The quantum mechanics papers were particularly baffling. I compared that to my friend's experience, who went to Nottingham. They don't even touch on anything quantum in first year - it was a third year module. Similar differences between the level of calculus and matrices/series content.

    I think the differences are more obvious in STEM. Maths content of science courses is probably one of the things that varies the most - just look at course requirements for maths top unis vs those lower down.

    There are more problems with your theory - you perhaps don't go to a uni where the average a-level attainment is a C or below but there are unis like that. Think back to your school days and the difference that existed between those getting Cs and those easily getting A*s (like most Oxbridge students do). You can't be telling me with a straight face that those two groups of people are going to learn the same content just months later in the first year of uni?

    I find this topic kind of boring so won't be posting further but I can assure you - the content of degrees, science or otherwise, varies substantially uni to uni. Those differences will be smaller in some instances bigger in others, but they very much do exist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CatherineE-S)
    Not getting into Oxbridge is not the end of the world; take it from a current student at Oxford. You might love your subject, or you might love the idea of studying at Oxbridge. Whatever your reason for applying, rejection might just be the best thing to happen to you.
    I applied to Cambridge and was rejected. The next year, after achieving 3 A*s in my A levels, I was accepted by Oxford. I thought it was the best thing in the world, and at the time, I could not have been happier.
    But after being here for a term (and a few weeks into my second term), let me tell you, it is not what it seems. Sure, there is the natural small fish in a big pond; all of a sudden you're not the best, you're lucky to be average. But that isn't what makes studying here difficult. What makes it difficult (I would say horrendous), is that no matter what you do, it is never good enough. And when you have to write 4 essays in a week on subjects you don't know much (or for me, anything) about, you find yourself in a very dark place. You fluctuate from having hope and motivation that you will be able to get by. But then you start the reading, and realise that you don't understand it, that you don't like your subject anymore, and there is no hope. You have to accept that what you hand in will be bad, that you will be brutally judged on it; that is hard to accept. It is impossible to deal with. So you comfort yourself by socializing, or watching netflix, or getting involved in too many societies. And that just makes the mess at the end worse. Having realised this, I find it impossible to even start essays. I will often just sit there, miserable, inconsolable, doing nothing. It doesn't make for a good end product.
    It is a dark place from which there is no escape. And almost everyone I have talked to feels the exact same way. By the time you reach the end of term, you are sleep deprived, nutrient deprived, and often delusional. Nothing can be done about that. It is what Oxbridge does to you.
    Not only that, but most of the time (especially in arts subjects) your tutorials/supervisions don't match up with lectures; you have to write essays for subjects you have never even heard about, never mind had lectures on. And if you're unlucky enough to have four essays in a week, due to bad and unorganised scheduling (which can't be avoided when you're dealing with world leading academics), you can't even begin to imagine the emptiness and darkness that brings to your life.
    So please don't see getting rejected as a bad thing. Most other unis are actually better organised, and as a result your work will probably be better. You wont come to hate your subject. You will actually be able to have an enjoyable life. And trust me, I am not saying this to comfort you. I am saying this because I am so dejected and fed up by the whole Oxbridge system, that I feel a genuine need as a human being to warn people. I often wonder what my life would have been like if I had ended up at any other uni. I have forgotten what it feels like to have enough sleep, nutrients, a decent social life. All that is just a distant memory, and I am still only just getting by, by the skin of my teeth.
    Rejection is probably the best thing that could have happened to you. And I am writing this as someone who has no history of depression or mental illness. I don't suffer from them. This is just what Oxbridge does to you.
    I realise that it might be selfish and make me seem self absorbed to be moaning at being at such an institution. And I do appreciate the opportunity. I am grateful to have it. But it really is not all it seems. That I can assure you.
    Thanks for posting this. I suffer through depression but was hoping to apply to oxford to study History or History&Economics. But after reading your post I am not sure if I could handle the pressure of Oxford on top of my depression. You also mentioned specially for the Arts subjects the tutorials and supervision don't match he lectures and you often have to do essays on things you have no idea about - I don't quiet understand that so do you mind explaining that to me? Also I am an international student so kind of scared about everything feeling even worse as a foreigner. Also what subject do you read at oxford?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by transient life)
    Thanks for posting this. I suffer through depression but was hoping to apply to oxford to study History or History&Economics. But after reading your post I am not sure if I could handle the pressure of Oxford on top of my depression. You also mentioned specially for the Arts subjects the tutorials and supervision don't match he lectures and you often have to do essays on things you have no idea about - I don't quiet understand that so do you mind explaining that to me? Also I am an international student so kind of scared about everything feeling even worse as a foreigner. Also what subject do you read at oxford?
    Hey, I posted in this thread earlier (I'm at Cambridge not Oxford). First of all, it is definitely hard. But don't let that put you off applying. There are so many support networks at Cambridge and Oxford (and particularly my college, Newnham).

    The lectures and supervisions don't always match, but sometimes they do. Of course, it is easier to write essays on topics you have had lectures on. But I find that I hardly use my lecture notes, even when I could. Lectures tend to give the basics; it's up to you to do the further research for the essays regardless of whether you have had the lecture. For example, I had to write an essay on structuralism and functionalism without having had the lecture. It just meant I had to do a bit more reading. But when I had the lecture, it made more sense than it might have otherwise.
    Don't worry at all about being an international student; a lot of my friends are, and from what I gather, it doesn't really make a difference. When you're here you form a kind of community of friends; you're all in the same boat and probably all miss home.
    (I study HSPS at Cambridge by the way)
    If you have any questions at all, please feel free to message me. I'm more than happy to help and give advice
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Nope.

    Firstly - your theory that its because of term length at Oxbridge is definitely wrong. Students very much do work in holidays to catch up and consolidate knowledge from the previous term. The idea that they just...stop and chill whilst their peers are still at uni working is nonsense.

    So the main personal experience i have is from chemistry. I can barely even understand the questions for Oxford chem first year papers. The quantum mechanics papers were particularly baffling. I compared that to my friend's experience, who went to Nottingham. They don't even touch on anything quantum in first year - it was a third year module. Similar differences between the level of calculus and matrices/series content.

    I think the differences are more obvious in STEM. Maths content of science courses is probably one of the things that varies the most - just look at course requirements for maths top unis vs those lower down.

    There are more problems with your theory - you perhaps don't go to a uni where the average a-level attainment is a C or below but there are unis like that. Think back to your school days and the difference that existed between those getting Cs and those easily getting A*s (like most Oxbridge students do). You can't be telling me with a straight face that those two groups of people are going to learn the same content just months later in the first year of uni?

    I find this topic kind of boring so won't be posting further but I can assure you - the content of degrees, science or otherwise, varies substantially uni to uni. Those differences will be smaller in some instances bigger in others, but they very much do exist.
    So you think a shorter term length, and therefore a more dense workload, has no effect on the stress levels of a student?

    About course content - ok sure, some unis may have easier material, but only insofar as they don't have much else to teach beyond a certain point, because, as I said, unis only truly differ in what they can offer in later years when students tend to branch out and pick optional modules based on the things that interest them most.

    There are more problems with your theory - you perhaps don't go to a uni where the average a-level attainment is a C or below but there are unis like that.
    If the average attainment is too low, the course wouldn't be on offer because students wouldn't be able to pass.

    An accredited degree is an accredited degree. This means every institution must teach students a specified set of material to for their degree to be worthy of its own title.

    If I meet someone who's done physics at Nottingham and someone who's done the same at Oxford or wherever, I can at least know that they'll both have reached a certain standard to the point that they're both classed as qualified physicists according to the Institute of Physics. This has to be the case, otherwise their degree wouldn't be called a degree. The only difference is in the specialist stuff, most of which they learn... in later years, and like I keep repeating, this is where the bulk of the variety and 'better vs worse' comes in.

    Your point about "1st year material isn't covered until 3rd year in some of the worse places" is moot, too. Some content doesn't have an order to it. I did quantum physics and vector calculus in 1st year at a decidedly average uni. A lot of 'better' unis do those topics in 2nd year. It's just a different ordering of the content.

    Plus, the fact that a student can do well in their degree at any university then apply to do a postgrad at a better uni, as long as they've done relevant topics to their desired postgrad course, pretty much proves that it's module variety that sets a uni apart, not just 'how difficult it is'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pessimisterious)
    So you think a shorter term length, and therefore a more dense workload, has no effect on the stress levels of a student?

    About course content - ok sure, some unis may have easier material, but only insofar as they don't have much else to teach beyond a certain point, because, as I said, unis only truly differ in what they can offer in later years when students tend to branch out and pick optional modules based on the things that interest them most.



    If the average attainment is too low, the course wouldn't be on offer because students wouldn't be able to pass.

    An accredited degree is an accredited degree. This means every institution must teach students a specified set of material to for their degree to be worthy of its own title.

    If I meet someone who's done physics at Nottingham and someone who's done the same at Oxford or wherever, I can at least know that they'll both have reached a certain standard to the point that they're both classed as qualified physicists according to the Institute of Physics. This has to be the case, otherwise their degree wouldn't be called a degree. The only difference is in the specialist stuff, most of which they learn... in later years, and like I keep repeating, this is where the bulk of the variety and 'better vs worse' comes in.

    Your point about "1st year material isn't covered until 3rd year in some of the worse places" is moot, too. Some content doesn't have an order to it. I did quantum physics and vector calculus in 1st year at a decidedly average uni. A lot of 'better' unis do those topics in 2nd year. It's just a different ordering of the content.

    Plus, the fact that a student can do well in their degree at any university then apply to do a postgrad at a better uni, as long as they've done relevant topics to their desired postgrad course, pretty much proves that it's module variety that sets a uni apart, not just 'how difficult it is'.
    I think an important point here is that at Oxbridge, because of the large amount of contact time (one on one, or one on two) with world leading academics, it allows you to challenge a lot of preconceptions in your field and really think originally. In most cases, that means that even if you've technically got the 'right' answer and understand it, you are still being pushed beyond that on a weekly basis. I do an arts subject, and maybe it's different (I genuinely don't know). But the thing that can be considered most difficult, is that there is never really a right answer on even the most obvious of things. So you're being pushed not only on textual material that other unis do, but also your interpretation and understanding of it. For example, one supervisor I have is always encouraging me to develop mt 'original' ideas with force. So I have to cover/understand the content, but then develop that further by looking at it from an original perspective, which is a very hard thing to do!!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pessimisterious)

    If the average attainment is too low, the course wouldn't be on offer because students wouldn't be able to pass.
    That's just incorrect. You're proving the other posters point about only knowing about unis with high attainment. Many unis have poor average attainment and still offer the related course. Students pass anyway because the content is extremely easy. E.g computer science at middlesex.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pairofjeans)
    That's just incorrect. You're proving the other posters point about only knowing about unis with high attainment. Many unis have poor average attainment and still offer the related course. Students pass anyway because the content is extremely easy. E.g computer science at middlesex.
    Yes and the degree ought to still be accredited by the relevant professional body.

    More info here: http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/hea-gu...sfull-2015.pdf

    Minimum standards are minimum standards. I'm sure a person who went to Middlesex for their computer science degree and passed will still know a hell of a lot more about computer science than me.

    The thing setting unis apart is what they offer in later years. (Like I keep saying!)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pessimisterious)
    Here's a thought: If I pass my degree from a redbrick with 40% on every subject, am I automatically better than someone who averages 60% or higher from a polytechnic?
    I am so sorry but, what nexttime was alluding to, this discussion has been had on TSR dozens of times.

    The main topic, current and recent Oxbridge students' candid reflections on undergraduate teaching and course organisation, is comparatively novel and shouldn't now be crowded out by this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    I am so sorry but, what nexttime was alluding to, this discussion has been had on TSR dozens of times.

    The main topic, current and recent Oxbridge students' candid reflections on undergraduate teaching and course organisation, is comparatively novel and shouldn't now be crowded out by this.
    Absolutely right - this is a really interesting thread. Anyone who wants to read the never-ending discussion about standards and other unis etc etc etc has got a million-and-one other threads already on TSR.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    I am so sorry but, what nexttime was alluding to, this discussion has been had on TSR dozens of times.

    The main topic, current and recent Oxbridge students' candid reflections on undergraduate teaching and course organisation, is comparatively novel and shouldn't now be crowded out by this.
    Heh, you caught that little snippet before I edited it out. I know it was beside the point.

    Funnily enough I too noticed it creeping towards the 'which uni is better' is better debate. As I said earlier, I haven't used this forum for years. I forgot how much people here seem to enjoy gravitating towards that topic.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by transient life)
    Thanks for posting this. I suffer through depression but was hoping to apply to oxford to study History or History&Economics. But after reading your post I am not sure if I could handle the pressure of Oxford on top of my depression. You also mentioned specially for the Arts subjects the tutorials and supervision don't match he lectures and you often have to do essays on things you have no idea about - I don't quiet understand that so do you mind explaining that to me? Also I am an international student so kind of scared about everything feeling even worse as a foreigner. Also what subject do you read at oxford?
    I am not the OP but I personally (I know many will disagree with me here) would advise against applying to Oxford if you suffer from something that is more than mild depression. Even if yours is mild, actually, I would find out as much information as possible about support provisions, exams concessions, etc. that would be offered/available to you, before taking up any offer from Oxford. It is a very high pressure and can often be an unforgiving environment.

    Do lots of research before taking up any offer, regarding your depression. Others have explained the other things already. I don't think you need to worry about being an international student, though I believe some disability support (i.e. Disabled Students' Allowance) may only be for UK-funded students only :yes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pessimisterious)
    ... I haven't used this forum for years. I forgot how much people here seem to enjoy gravitating towards that topic.


    Original post by Pessimisterious;69864598
    Also, I would agree that it may be harder at Oxbridge, but not because of tougher content... What I do at my uni in 10 weeks, Oxford does in 8.

    I've compared course content however and it's all the same...

    etc etc

    Original post by Pessimisterious;69864598
    I've compared course content however and it's all the same...
    :wtf:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pessimisterious)
    The thing setting unis apart is what they offer in later years. (Like I keep saying!)
    Like you keep saying incorrectly! Look at your posts:

    "I'm just pointing out how a lot of universities have equally difficult material"

    "also, I would agree that it may be harder at Oxbridge, but not because of tougher content. The stress is likely due to the condensed semester length. What I do at my uni in 10 weeks, Oxford does in 8."

    First of all you back your entire argument up with an anecdote about your uni course in physics. First of all I don't know why you're assuming it must be the same with all courses across the uni. Second of all, your statements wrong anyway. What I'm sure you've done is just googled oxfords unit titles, saw they're the same as yours then assumed you did the same thing. You can see why everyone's disagreeing with you right now if you just look at what they actually cover within units.

    Then you keep incorrectly reiterating what sets unis apart is what they offer in later years. Where have you gotten that from? What exactly are you referring to by saying later years? After year 1? Go and google a first year semester 1 exam from Cambridge on something you think you've covered before.

    Like damn. It's ok to admit you don't know what you're talking about sometimes. I'm doing engineering. My friend at Cambridge occasionally rants about his own engineering work in our group chat. We're both in first year it's on structures. I can assure you that it's significantly harder content. Some of the stuff hes given just looks horrific.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alow)
    Practical marks seemed to depend a lot more on the demonstrators mood than anything else really. The one I was marked down in was also compulsory and obviously if I could have chosen a harder one for more marks I would so it's really not fair.

    Yeah that sucks. I pay £3.6k per year for ensuite accommodation which includes £600 to spend in hall/buttery and I can stay until the end of June. It's really not fair how different colleges have such drastically different living costs.

    Are the supervisions your DoS organised the bad ones (and shouldn't it be their job to fix that)? The ones I've had organised by the department have been good so far, and they've all said they can do some revision supervisions closer to exams without having to talk to my college to confirm it. Does that mean Murray Edwards contacts supervisors to tell them they won't fund extra supervisions before they have time to offer any?
    Urgh, I could moan about practical marking for years...

    What college are you at??? That's such a great deal! I pay £5000 a year (admittedly for very nice, modern ensuite - not that I had much choice, the cheapest rooms in college are just over £3000 (but that's shared) or £3700-ish for a tiny, unrefurbed single room) and that's excluding meals, for something like a 26 week contract (basically, we can move in the Sunday before lectures start, get kicked out the Saturday after lectures end, and have to leave at the very start of May Week :'(

    Yeah, all the bad ones were generally organised by my DoS - but whenever I have asked about switching supervisors/ some advice on what to do to get more out of our supervisions, I've always been told that it was really hard to find supervisors that year, all the good ones were already taken by their own colleges, none of them wanted to cycle up the hill (not that any of us have issues with cycling to another college/ the department anyway!), it was probably just a one-off issue so I should just give the supervisor another chance, etc. etc. It's got a bit better this year, probably because supervisions are now organised by the department/ ourselves and my DoS this year is actually a Chemist.

    Regarding the funding issues - it's always been the supervisors mentioning it to us first, e.g. we'll say "would it be ok to have a revision supervision to go over all of this/ through some past paper questions" and they'll say something like "I'll have to double check with the college if there's funding for that", then come back saying that unfortunately they won't be able to do a revision supervision. I got the impression that they'd had issues in the past with getting college to cough up money...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonkeeper999)
    Urgh, I could moan about practical marking for years...

    What college are you at??? That's such a great deal! I pay £5000 a year (admittedly for very nice, modern ensuite - not that I had much choice, the cheapest rooms in college are just over £3000 (but that's shared) or £3700-ish for a tiny, unrefurbed single room) and that's excluding meals, for something like a 26 week contract (basically, we can move in the Sunday before lectures start, get kicked out the Saturday after lectures end, and have to leave at the very start of May Week :'(

    Yeah, all the bad ones were generally organised by my DoS - but whenever I have asked about switching supervisors/ some advice on what to do to get more out of our supervisions, I've always been told that it was really hard to find supervisors that year, all the good ones were already taken by their own colleges, none of them wanted to cycle up the hill (not that any of us have issues with cycling to another college/ the department anyway!), it was probably just a one-off issue so I should just give the supervisor another chance, etc. etc. It's got a bit better this year, probably because supervisions are now organised by the department/ ourselves and my DoS this year is actually a Chemist.

    Regarding the funding issues - it's always been the supervisors mentioning it to us first, e.g. we'll say "would it be ok to have a revision supervision to go over all of this/ through some past paper questions" and they'll say something like "I'll have to double check with the college if there's funding for that", then come back saying that unfortunately they won't be able to do a revision supervision. I got the impression that they'd had issues in the past with getting college to cough up money...
    so they only do supervisions if their is funding? which means if the university are paying them I assume? as for a lot of subjects the only commitment is peoples time but obviously those taking the supervisions get paid.

    So what is the situation if 3-5 students want to get together and self fund the supervision? eg pay the guy taking the supervision to do extra ones. Is this out of the question or a possibility?

    Just curious.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • 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

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